Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Um I think uh we are all assembled and it's 5:30. So we will call to order um this Monday, May 11th, 2026 meeting of the city of Madison Plan Commission. Um and we will start with the roll call. Director Tuttle, if you would call the role. All right. Good evening everyone. Start with Alder Figuro. House here. Alder Yugare here. Alder Field is excused. Commissioner Bazine here. Commissioner Hec is excused. Commissioner McCill here. Commissioner Sanders here. Commissioner Solheim

here. Alternate Wiznooki. Or I should say this evening uh Commissioner Wnooki. Um, school district rep is excused and chair ganam uh here. Thanks. Um, uh, we'd like to start with information from our technical facilitator, Jesse Pool.

All right. Welcome to our virtual plan commission meeting. If you lose connection at any point during the meeting, you can reconnect by clicking the link or calling the number in your original email. Members, if you are able, please activate your video and get it keep it on for the duration of the meeting. Staff, if you are able, please activate your video when you are speaking. Panelists, use the raise hand feature when you'd like to be recognized to speak, ask questions, or request a roll call vote. Lowering your hand will take you out of the queue. Members of the public who have registered to speak. The name you entered in Zoom must match the name you entered in registration. You will you will remain muted until called upon. The clerk will tell you when your time is up. After speaking, a member of the body may ask you a question. If you need to share documentation with the commission, please send it to the email list in today's agenda. Chair, the floor is yours.

Thanks, Jesse. Um, our first agenda item is item number one, which is time for public comment regarding uh issues not on the formal plan commission agenda. Uh, director Tuttle, do we have any registrants for public comment? Uh, no, we do not.

Okay, great. Thank you. Um, now we'll have disclosures and recusals. Do any members of the plan commission um have any disclosures or recusals related to tonight's agenda that need to be made under the city's ethics code? Seeing none, we will move on to the minutes of our April 27th, 2026 regular meeting. Um does anyone have any corrections or notes on the draft minutes that have been shared? Right. Seeing none, uh, could I ask for a motion and a second to approve the April 27th minutes? Alder Yugare, thank you. And Commissioner Solheim, you got in there first, so thank you. Um, any discussion on the motion to approve minutes? And if not, any objection to unanimous approval uh for last month's meeting or sorry, LA, our last meeting minutes for April 27th. Thank you. Those minutes are approved. Um we will uh just to review our schedule of meetings. This is our only um scheduled meeting for the month of May, but we'll make up for that in June. We have meetings on June 1st, 15th, and 29th um at virtual meetings at 5:30. And then we have regular meetings in July on July 13th, and July 27th, which will also be regular virtual meetings at 5:30. And then we have our special in-person meeting coming up on Thursday, June 11th, and that will start at 5:00 PM in room 2:15 of the Madison Municipal Building at at 2:15 Martin Luther King Boulevard. So, that's our kind of business out of the way. We will

now kind of go to our consent agenda uh for tonight's meeting. Um, it has been the custom of the plan commission to handle on a consent agenda items on which staff members believe an application has been sufficiently reviewed to find the relevant standards met to support approval with all the listed conditions placed upon it by the various city departments and where the applicant accepts all those conditions and there are no individuals who have regular registered to speak in opposition to the item. Um separately we will use a separate consent agenda for items requested by an applicant or city staff to be referred to a future meeting. Um referral does not require a public hearing. So instead the public hearing will be held at the future date um when the item is referred. So we will start with the approval consent agenda and the items on the screen before you are items 2, four, five and six. um as being proposed uh to be put on the approval consent agenda. Um seeing those items, does anyone have any requests for separation? Right. Seeing none, um I'm we'll start with reading into the record the consent items for approval and we'll um go for a motion on that and then we'll do a separate motion for the referral items. Um so item two uh is legisar 92588 relating to 406 North Francis Street in Alder District 2. And this is consideration of a conditional use in the urban mixeduse UMX district for an outdoor eating area open after 900 p.m. and consideration of a conditional use in the UMX district for an outdoor eating area with amplified sound. All to allow for an outdoor eating area for a

restaurant to operate after 900 pm with amplified outdoor sound. Item four is legisar 92756. This would uh recommend creating section 28.022-0000751 022-0000751 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 7901 through 7913 East Buckeye Road and 7102 through 7270 M I think it's my I forgot to ask how to pronounce that my way from a PD plan development district a CCT commercial corridor transitional district and CN conservancy district to amended PD per G or otherwise known as GDP plan development general development plan district and creating uh Madison general ordinance section 28.022-0000752 022-0000752 to approve a specific implementation plan for these properties and this is an alder district 16. Um items item five and six are related. Item five is legisar 92755. This would create section 28.022-0000750 022-0000750 of the Madison general ordinances to approve an amended specific implementation plan of a plan development district for property located at 5817way in Alder district 3. And then item six is uh legisar 92396 uh relating to 5817 Halley way in Alder district 3 and this is consideration of a conditional use in the PD plan development district for outdoor recreation um being a pickle ball court to serve a five-story 97 unit multif

family dwelling. So, I will um for these consent items, I will open the public hearing and close the public hearing and we'll move to a vote. If I could ask for a motion and a second to approve the consent and agenda, Alder, thank you. Um Alder Figuro Cole, thank you. Um so, we have a motion and a second on the consent items. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for these items? And seeing no raised hands, the consent agenda is a is passed. The approval consent agenda is passed. Um, now we have one item on consent for referral. That's item seven on our agenda, which is legisar 91511 relating to 2010 through 2030 Pennsylvania Avenue and 1902 East Johnson Street in urban design district 4, alder district 12, consideration of a conditional use in the regional mixeduse RMX district and transit oriented development to Overlay district for outdoor recreation, that being a pool to serve a sevenstory 493 3 unit multif family dwelling and the um requested action on this item is referral to our June 15, 2026 meeting. Um is there a motion and a second to refer this item? Thanks Alder Gare. Thanks Commissioner Wnduski. Um is there any objection to unanimous approval for referral of item seven? And seeing none um that item is referred. So that leaves us um just one more um public hearing item to for our agenda tonight. So we will go to um item three on our agenda. That's legisar 92589.

Um and the requested item would be um approving uh or recommending approval of a certified survey map of property owned by Michael J. and Lisa Ko Schustster and with the property being located at 7021 Cottage Grove Road in Alder District 16. Um so we'll hear a brief presentation from Planner Parks. Welcome Tim and uh then we'll get to the public hearing.

Thank you chair, members of the plan commission. Uh briefly, uh item uh the item on your agenda 7021 Cottage Grove Road is a request to divide a roughly 20 acre parcel uh into two residential lots. The property in question is zoned agricultural uh which has a 10 acre minimum lot area required for uh non-aggricultural uses um or basically any other use in the agricultural district except agriculture. Uh agricultural uses are only required to have a minimum of 5 acres of lot area. But because it's a fairly restrictive district, uh the minimum for everything else including uh residential uh uses is 10 acres. Uh some of the members of the plan commission may recall that a similar request was before the body in 2023 to divide the same 20 acres uh into three lots. uh that was placed on file without prejudice because the lots did not meet the 10acre lot area requirement of the agricultural zoning district. Uh the applicant uh Michael Schuster and Lisa Ko Schustster have since changed the request to create two 10acre lots from the site. Uh the site is unique in that it is uh completely landlocked. Uh it has no road frontage of its own. Uh it is located approximately a quarter mile south of Cottage Grove Road, a quarter mile east of existing Spreer Road and about a/4 mile north of County Trunk Highway AB. Uh it is currently connected to Cottage Grove Road by uh an easement that was created at the time the parcel was created in 1996.

Uh the applicant is proposing uh two lots uh which I will attempt to share on my screen if my computer will cooperate. Uh here we are I hope uh showing uh the relationship between the subject site and the proposed lots uh with uh Cottage Grove Road which is also County Trunk Highway B. Uh the two 10acre lots uh will have no road frontage. Uh staff has discussed this extensively and believe using a zoning construct uh that you occasionally see known as a planned multiuse site uh that uh the two proposed lots uh could be created uh which would be unique. Uh planned multi-use sites are most commonly used uh for parcels at large uh multiuse and commercial sites. Uh Westtown Mall uh would be a great example of a largecale plan multi-use site where you have uh streets that are uh framing part of the site, but a lot of parcels within that uh complex that are landlocked and rely on easements and cross access agreements and things of that nature uh to take access. Such would be the case here. uh planning and zoning staff believe that if uh the Shuster property at 7021, which is uh shown here towards the bottom of the uh screen image, uh creates a planned multi-use site with the adjacent undeveloped agriculturally zoned parcel uh at 7049 Cottage Grove Road uh which the existing parcel currently has access over. um that uh

these two lots could be created because the three parcels together, the two proposed lots with the CSM as well as the parcel at 7049 would be the planned multi-use site and planned multi-use sites as noted in the staff report uh are governed by a plan and reciprocal land use agreement. Uh the goal here is to create perpetual access for proposed lots one and two to Cottage Grove Road. Uh and so there are numerous conditions of approval by planning, zoning, city engineering, and the mapping section uh to formalize the arrangement between the subject parcel and 7049 Cottage Grove so that these lots will be accessible. Uh one other uh topic to to raise for the uh commission which is somewhat unique about this request is the conditions that have been submitted by the fire department. As noted previously, the site is located a/4 mile off of Cottage Grove Road. Uh that would typically uh make creating another lot and building another residence very difficult. Uh however uh two options have been offered uh by the fire department to comply with the fire code. Uh they the applicants can extend uh public water and install a hydrant uh or they can uh install a fire sprinkler for uh any new residence that would be constructed in this case on lot one. Uh and so there are robust conditions related to the need to either provide water uh or likelier uh to sprinkle uh the future residents uh and there are conditions from both planning and the fire department to that effect. Last and not least, because there's not

enough to talk about on this site already, uh there are some significant topographical features present. Uh there is uh waterway present on a portion of the site. Uh regulatory floodway and flood plane uh including 100-year flood plane. Uh as well as attendant wetlands uh all of which will need to be shown on the certified survey map if it's approved. Uh and once we have uh those natural features identified, uh we will work with the applicant to identify where on lot one new buildings can be constructed and where on lot two uh any additional structures or additions to the existing residents uh can be located. So that uh it's clear that those buildings will not be uh impacted by the natural features that are present and vice versa that those structures will not impact the natural features. So uh a fairly unique somewhat complicated land division for the body tonight. Uh so uh we are recommending approval again uh subject to the comments and conditions in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer questions following the hearing. Thank you. Thanks Tim. Um we have uh one registrant for that well we have a registrant for this item perhaps more than one but um I will open the public hearing on the item. Um and Megan if you would lead us through the registrance.

All right. So as the chair noted we do just have one registrant on this item. It is Michael Schuster who is the property owner uh registered in support and available to answer any questions.

Right. Um, so while the public hearing is open, do any commissioners have questions for our registered the property owner? All right. Um, last call and seeing no questions, we'll close the public hearing on this item and I will offer are there questions from the commission for staff? Um, all of you. Thanks.

I think that Planner Parks could almost anticipate my question. If there were a change at some point in the future after the CSM uh properly reflects the building envelopes that are necessary to avoid uh uh impacting the topographical features that you mentioned there was some reason why it should change. How would how would an owner go about changing the building envelope? I um sorry I have to chuckle for a moment because Alder Yugare is expertly bringing this topic up uh because of something com very similar but completely unrelated on the other side of town. Uh, and these building setback lines that would form the building envelope on the Shuster property would be restrictions for public benefit which are governed by uh section 236.293 of Wisconsin statutes which is the subdivision regulations. And we also have language to that effect in our own subdivision ordinance uh that in order to modify the building envelopes that would be created for whatever reason they need to get bigger, they need to get smaller. uh some other uh issue has come about uh that uh requires someone to want to build beyond those lines uh that that would require a resolution of the common council following a review by the plan commission uh to modify or release uh that restriction for public benefit. Uh in this case, we would be uh

with this certified survey map approval trying to uh specify who would have enforcement power over that language. Uh typically it would be a combination of planning building inspection/zoning. Uh sometimes the city engineer depending on what the restriction for public benefit is for. Uh but that would be placed on the certified survey map, become part of the title for these two lots. Uh and if there were need for change for those in the future, uh it would take a resolution of the common council as well as a real estate project administered by the office of real estate services to modify those building setback lines.

So could that be that sounds like an arduous process, Tim? Uh could it be done with a submission uh in conjunction with a submission for a change in the CSM, a new CSM? Uh that could be uh part of the resolution that would approve uh that subsequent land division. Uh that there would be a resolved clause added to that uh resolution to approve the CSM that allowed for changes. uh but actually those restrictions for public benefit are on the property in the form that they were created until there's a subsequent instrument recorded uh that modifies or releases those and because it's a restriction that was required by the public in this case the city of Madison it would require a resolution of the governing body to approve that modification or release. Thank you, Tim.

Alder Figuro call.

Thank you. I I don't know when you were talking about envelopes what you meant, but um I'm a little bit rusty here. So that that line there label as L19, L1 18, L17 in the picture that you were showing earlier, is that the actual road? Uh that to my understanding is the uh road uh the language that was uh put in place when the the subject parcel was created uh which is ex uh there's an excerpt in the staff report talks about um the road as it existed at the time. Uh so uh it's a little fuzzy but the surveyor uh that prepared the certified survey map located the road and sort of extrapolated that that is where the easement that was created in 1996 exists.

So what happens with that little piece of land that is that is cutting through what appears to be the road um on the lot one. You had that little chunk of land to the corner there. Is that a develop? Is that enough um land to develop anything in it? Referring to the portion of lot one. Yes, that

that's one of the things that we'll have to confirm once we have uh the information on wetlands, flood planes, and floodway uh that we can overlay onto the existing parcel boundary and proposed lots uh to determine where uh taking all of that information uh into consideration where on lot one uh there would be buildable space And go ahead.

I was just going to address an earlier part of your question, Alder, about the building envelope essentially means that there would be a mapped area where buildings could be located on the property when taking into account all of the other wetlands, topography, wooded areas, etc. So, yeah, it might look something like what Tim is doing with this cursor right now. Yeah. So, does it necessarily mean that the entire lots are buildable at this point? We don't know.

Correct. Um, and let's say let's just best case scenario, the entire both lots are fully buildable. Then um the the a plan will exist to develop then the road access to to connect to this main road within that redevelopment. I think one of the things you can fit multiple lot you know multiple houses here I suppose or whatever structures

that is what we will need the applicant working with the adjacent property owner to firm up. Uh right now there's a somewhat nebulous uh easement that extends over a driveway that comes off of Cottage Grove Road and leads back to the existing 20 acre parcel. Uh but that, you know, isn't created. So there's there's different degrees of agreements and easements that you can put in place to govern. In this case, shared access to multiple properties, including parcels that, you know, don't have their own access uh to roads. And uh one is a separate easement document that, you know, pretty specifically spells out uh the duties and responsibilities of the grtor and the grantee of the easement. uh might have very good detailed information about the width and uh the varying various bearings and distances. Uh you have uh at the other end of the spectrum almost like the equivalent of a handshake agreement uh that of course you can use the driveway to get to your property and there's no governance over it beyond just that sort of uh quote unquote handshake agreement. What we have with the deed that created the Schustster parcel about 30 years ago is something that's a little more in the middle uh that says you can have access to 7021 over 7049 following the the road that's there. Uh and not really taking into account what the width is. Uh who's responsible for maintaining it. uh the fact that uh roads can can move with time. Uh not

like you know significant distances but you know the land on which a gravel road for example uh can you know uh a road away. Uh sometimes you know there's a a hump that gets filled with some you know a couple of yards of of gravel. uh but it's it's not super well defined, but there's clearly something in a recorded document that says 7021 has access over 7049. What we need in this case in order to formalize the access for the two proposed lots over this neighboring property is to make it more that first example where there is a recorded document that's been approved by the city that says how wide the easement will be, what it will be constructed of, who will maintain it, uh, you know, in terms of responsibilities, you know, do parties need to carry insurance, things like that. It's it's going to be a uh a much more defined document because what we are trying to avoid and and and the one thing with a planned multi-use site that we have to be you know particularly uh in tuned to is you know that those landlocked parcels that are requiring other properties for access or for utility connections whatever sometimes storm water management whatever the circumstances are that they're not being quite literally cut off. Uh because the agreement that allows for that land blocking in this case to be expanded by the creation of a second lot, a second dwelling, uh that they will have access to Cottage Grove Road, that uh public service providers, in particular public safety providers will have access uh to the property uh for whatever need in the future. So that's why we're we're

proposing to firm things up.

And to just to be clear, I think the the proposal here is to create one additional lot for one additional single family residents. This is property that's zoned agricultural and as noted in the staff report does not have access to city services. So we are not at this time envisioning that this would open up the opportunity for further land division to create smaller lots. um the zoning requires 10 acre minimum lot sizes and I believe within the agricultural district only single family residences are permitted. So maybe you know an ADU if that's permissible. But um so what we're talking about here is really creating one additional lot that needs that uh consideration for access as well as the existing lot that has that sort of mid-tier um clarity about how access is granted today. Thank you. So I mean like I you know I I view CSM as a imaginary line that doesn't create much harm especially in dense areas but here like I'm still unclear on maybe I missed something on the report or on the resolution itself. um how do we go from this imaginary line to actually have the conditions um to ensure that the lot farther from access to the road has access you know in the future does that is that part of the CSM process itself is that what you guys are trying to translate here like it's not just the CSM the CSM with the conditions of this ISMAS and things like that is that what we are proving today

yes and is the only is the owner like um they already agree to this um type of conditions or how does that I mean I didn't ask any questions of the owner because honestly I needed to speak with you guys first so I didn't know what to ask so is there any conflict on that regard from the owner to make the divi the division with those conditions

not that uh we're aware uh I have had some email exchanges with the owner uh and they're registered available to answer questions. Uh so I certainly would encourage the plan commission if they're so inclined to reopen the hearing to ask Mr. Schustster if he has questions or concerns about the conditions. But I think if he did, I certainly would hope he would have registered to speak so that we could have addressed those or you know certainly raised those before the meeting. Uh the the report was provided Thursday evening. So uh we've had a couple business days since.

Yeah. I mean it's a it's a very particular lot. So it doesn't it doesn't look common whatsoever. So you guys um thank you for for answering my questions. Any other questions for staff? Uh, Commissioner Bazine, I just want to clarify. Um, what I think I heard is that there won't be there will be a map that will help identify where buildings can go and there won't be any adverse environmental impacts from an additional building being on the land.

That's the that's the goal. Uh we have uh I if you want I can you know dig up a few map layers and show you uh where those natural features are. Uh it's my expectation that there is land within the you know northeastern quadrant of the 20 acres uh that uh because the existing residence on the property is sitting on high ground. There's uh also some steep land. So this is the the existing house is sitting quite a bit above um the the wetlands floodway and flood plane. Uh and so we would expect that there would be space, you know, kind of similarly on that ridge, maybe a little bit northwest of the house on proposed lot one uh where the home would be built. Uh there certainly would be no permits allowed uh for home or accessory structures uh closer to the natural features.

Thank you.

Any more questions? Um if not um we closed the public hearing. So um I think we would be ready to consider a motion um if commission is so inclined. Um Commissioner Soulheim.

Thank you. Um, I'll move that the plan commission find the approval criteria met for the proposed land division division and recommend approval of the two lot CSM at 7021Q Road subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.

Thanks. Is there a second? Um, Commissioner Sanders. Thank you. Um, any discussion on the motion? So yeah, I think we I appreciate Tim and the detailed record for us to consider that there is a lot of nuance in this in this area. Um without any further discussion, we'll call the vote. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for this item? Seeing no hands, the item is approved. So thank you. Um, that concludes our numbered agenda items. We do have time for member announcements, communications, and business items. Um, does anyone have anything they'd like to share?

Seeing none, we'll uh take time for our secretaries report. Megan, you have the floor.

All right. Thank you, chair. A couple items here on recent council actions and upcoming matters that I just wanted to note for you. Um the first is under recent actions the um appeal that we informed you about uh for the conditional use approval for 555 Odana Road and 5534 Medical Circle. Uh this was scheduled to be heard by the common council at their meeting last Tuesday and was ultimately withdrawn by the appellants. Uh and therefore uh the council did not discuss this appeal. Um the appel the appellants did submit a letter as part of their withdrawal outlining their concerns um about the project in general and ultimately asking for a broader conversation about some of those issues. Um so if you're interested you can read that um on legisar and please feel free to reach out if you have any questions about that. As far as upcoming meetings um we continue to hold space for the pending uh annual meeting to elect a chair and vice chair and appoint a member to the joint campus area committee. We will do that when we have received uh any of the um resident member appointments from the common council and the mayor's office. Uh we're still waiting for that. So, thank you to the existing members who continue to serve in their capacity until we know more about those appointments or reappoints. We'll keep you posted when we know more about when that will occur. And then looking ahead to your June 15th meeting, just wanted to flag that we will see the southeast and southwest area plans come back before the plan commission as part of the referral process for their consideration of adoption by the common

council later in June. And then the one meeting that is not on here that the chair mentioned at the top is your special meeting on June 11th. So, the chair and I will be working to finalize the agenda for that meeting, drawing from topics that we talked about at your last special meeting and include it on the work plan. Um, but we'll likely include some updates on research we've been doing around data centers. Um, and a few other uh policy topics that we've been working on as well. Um, we'll be sharing soon an update for you. Also, if you are interested in joining for a public meeting we will be hosting or the um a data center discussion as well in early June, please look out for that on your email. I think that's all I have for tonight. Chair,

great. Thanks. Thanks, Megan. Any questions for uh the director? Um Alder Figuro. Hey, Megan. as part of the data center discussion. Um, do we have any rules that you can point me to for rules regarding facilities like the one potentially proposed um I think it's the Oscar area. I'm not sure for the nuclear um fusion facility.

We have on that or is that associated? You know, are those things closer related? Yeah, great question. Uh, I'm going to look to Tim if he's still listening in to see if he has thoughts about general um, we have specific regulations that you know of in our code related to nuclear fusion or if we would likely treat that under our general industrial a and in general industrial use. I can look. Uh it's not something that comes up very often. Uh but we know that there is a reactor down on campus uh kind of small scale. Uh but I don't recall specifically how that's regulated under zoning.

Yeah. So we can also um get back to you on that older after this meeting um if Tim can't find it right off the bat here.

Yeah. I mean I just I don't know. almost feels like you're already doing research on the data centers trying to group some of that in. I know that that we gave you a specific task, but but that's also playing around and the more information we have the better. Anyhow, and I'm sorry, I know this is not a question. I shouldn't make that on the comments, but I couldn't get raising my hand. So, I do have one announcement. Just want to say thank you so very much to all the staff that participated on the housing week this year um and especially to commissioner um Derek I'm not Derek I'm not going to say your last name W um because I know he was kind of as part of his role on from the ARP he was one of the top leaders um pushing those efforts um so I'm looking forward for next year again and if you guys commissioners haven't participated on these things you missed out. Please keep an eye for the next year event. So, thank you guys. Appreciate the collaboration.

Thanks, Holler for Cole. Thanks. And thanks, Darren. Um, all right. Uh, uh, Planner Parks.

I didn't want to fail at the the quiz. Uh, so a quick spin through the zoning code online. uh didn't turn up nuclear right away. Uh but we do have uh regulations in section 28.133 of the zoning code entitled environmental protection standards uh parent 2 parc uh regarding fisionable non-fistle material uh which is allowed in zoning districts other than the industrial general district when such use is accessory to a principal use allowed within the zoning district and when licensed or registered as required by state or federal law. And then we have language immediately following regarding fistal material uh being limited uh to 1 g uh only in the industrial general district and only when not less than 300 ft of a boundary of any other zoning district. Um, so we don't have a a lot about where precisely it would be allowed, but we do have some information in the zoning code uh regarding uh fistal material uh and non-fistle material uh and the non-fistle material being fisionable. Uh but uh that's right in there with uh explosives and productive processes and things like that under a section referred to as activities which may be potential hazards or nuisances.

So we'll work with zoning to get a more um a less on the-fly response for you, Alder. That's very generous. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. Thank you guys. didn't mean to put you on the spot. It's something that has been in my mind for a while, so I just I run with it. Thank you. Thanks.

Not a bad time for it. Um unless folks have questions, I think we can move uh I can ask for a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. Um Alder Focal. Um thank you. Is there a second? Uh Commissioner Sohan, thank you. Any objection to unanimous approval? Seeing none, we will stand adjourned and we'll see everybody on June 1st. Thanks. Thank you. Have a good night.