Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everybody.

So we have 530 and we're all here. So I will call to order this Monday, June 29th, 2026 virtual meeting of the Madison Plan Commission. And we'll start Director Tuttle with the roll call.

Good evening. Alderfield.

Here.

Alder Figueroa-Cole. Here. Alder Ugar.

Here.

Commissioner Bozzine? Here. Commissioner Heck?

Here.

Commissioner McHale?

Here.

Commissioner Sanders? Here. Commissioner Solheim?

Here.

Alternate Wisniewski?

Here.

School District Rep Chiak?

Here.

And Chair Gnab?

Here. Thank you. We will start our meeting with technical information from our technical facilitator, Jesse Poole.

All right, welcome to our virtual plan commission meeting. If you lose connection at any point during the meeting, you can reconnect by clicking the link or calling the number in your original email. Members, if you are able, please activate your video and keep it on for the duration of the meeting. Staff, if you're able, please activate your video when you are speaking. Panelists, use the raise hand feature when you'd like to be recognized. Speak or ask questions. Lowering your hand will take you out of the queue. Members of the public who have registered to speak, the name you entered in Zoom must match the name you entered in registration. You will remain muted until called upon. The clerk will tell you 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 listed on today's agenda. Chair, the floor is yours.

Thanks, Jesse. Our first agenda item is time for public comment regarding items not on the formal plan commission agenda. Director Tuttle, do we have any registrants for public comments tonight?

No, we do not.

Great. Next is disclosures and recusals. Members of the plan commission should make any required disclosures or recusals under the city's ethics code. Do any commissioners have disclosures or recusals related to tonight's agenda? Seeing none, we'll take up the minutes of our last meeting on June 15th. Are there any additions or corrections to the draft minutes that have been shared? Seeing no raised hands, is there a motion and a second to approve the June 15th minutes? Alderfield? Thank you. Oh, I lost track of who was second. Commissioner Heck, we'll get you in there. Thank you. All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the last meeting's minutes. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for our June 15th minutes? All right, seeing none, those minutes are approved. We will review our schedule of meetings. This is our last June meeting. We have meetings in July, on July 13th and July 27th. And then we have meetings in August on Monday, August 10th and Monday, August 31st. Those will all be virtual meetings at 530 p.m. Our next special in-person meeting is at the end of September to get it on. It's not on your calendar. It's Tuesday, September 29th at 5 p.m. And that will be in the Madison Municipal Building in room 215. So we do have a proposed consent agenda for tonight's meeting. It's been the custom of the plan commission to handle on 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 registered to speak in opposition to the item. The items proposed for tonight's consent agenda for approval are before you on the screen. Those are items two, three, and five on tonight's agenda. Are there any requests for separation of any of the three items before you? All right, seeing none, I will read into the record the three consent agenda items. Item two is Legistar 93600, authorizing the execution of a partial release of a platted building construction envelope on lot 29 of the Stonefield Ridge subdivision located at 5 Hodgson Court in Alder District 19. Then item three is zoning text amendment. That is Legistar 93403, amending sections 28.032, 28.091 and 28.151 of the Madison General Ordinances to remove the requirement of vehicular access to a collector street for 10 use types. Finally, item five is Legistar 93272, relating to 3715 West Beltline Highway in Alder District 10. And this is a consideration of a conditional use in a suburban employment district for warehousing and storage.

And Chair, I just want to make a quick note and say it's 3517 West Beltline.

Oh, sorry. Just a little mix up on the numbers. Okay. I meant to say 3517. Thank you. Sorry. All right, for those three items, I will open the public hearing and close the public hearing and we'll move to a vote. Is there a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda? Alder Ugar, thank you. And Alder Figueroa-Cole, thank you. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for our consent agenda items tonight? And seeing none, the consent agenda is passed. And so that will take us to our regular agenda items. We have a couple. The first one is item four on our agenda. That's Legistar 93404. And that is amending, that's also a zoning text amendment, amending sections of chapter 28 of the Madison General Ordinances to increase the maximum height allowed for non-residential buildings in certain districts through conditional use approval. And I think we have a short presentation from Jacob Matskiewicz from our zoning group.

And Jacob, welcome. Thank you, Chair. So yeah, not really a presentation, but just to introduce it. This proposed code change would allow for heights exceeding the 35-foot limit that is currently the hard stop limit in residential zoning districts for non-residential buildings. So there are several non-residential use types that are allowed. There are limited ones, but there are ones that you probably know are located in residential areas like places of worship, schools, community centers, basically things that are compatible with residential uses but are non-residential. And currently there is not the flexibility to exceed that 35 foot height limit by conditional use the way there is in other zoning districts. So this would sort of make that consistent across the zoning code to allow for some flexibility on height. And so that is the amendment.

All right. Thanks, Jacob. I think we have registrants for this item, so we'll open the public hearing. Megan, do we have registrants who wish to speak?

We don't have any that are wishing to speak tonight, so I'll just read the other record. We have Nicholas Davies of District 15 registered in support, not wishing to speak, and Alex Saludos of District 5 registered in opposition and not wishing to speak.

Let me just refresh this and make sure that's all.

Yeah, that's all. All right, do we have questions from the Commission for either of our registrants on this item? Alder Ugar, thank you.

Sorry, not for the registrants.

Oh, okay. Okay. Absent questions for the registrants, which I think there are no questions for the registrants, so I will close the public hearing and then we'll pivot to time for questions for staff.

Alder Ugar.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair. The one that the example that sort of immediately flashed into my mind would be that someone building a church or altering a church might have be well within 35 feet, except that they want a steeple or a bell tower or something like that. Do you have any other examples of that sort of motivated this proposal?

For sure. So church steeples are a little bit of an exception. I don't necessarily think they would count towards the high limit. But yes, that is sort of the idea of these sort of more institutional uses like churches, community centers. One other major example that I feel like we run into a lot is schools or community centers that would like to have a basketball court.

Are others able to hear Jacob or is it just on my end?

No, I think we're losing audio.

Okay, so until we get Jacob back, I think I might just...

Sorry, can you hear me now?

We can hear you, Jacob, barely. But maybe if you want to try to turn off your video to see if it helps with your bandwidth.

Okay, sorry about that. Is that a little bit better?

Yes, but you're a little quiet. I don't know if you speak up.

So I'm sorry, I'll be here. I don't know how far I got that you heard.

We just heard you talk about a school gym as an example.

Yes. So, yes, we see it pretty often. You know, schools would want a taller floor-to-ceiling height to allow for things like basketball in the gym. And so, you know, when you get a two-story school with a gym that has that taller footprint, sometimes you could bump up against that 35-foot height limit. So that's an example. But certainly, yes, a church that has, you know, maybe a steeper pitch to its roof or something like that could also be another example. And this would allow... additional height to be approved by conditional use. So it's not it's not a change by right. It's just basically allowing that flexibility for design for various purposes.

Thanks, Jacob. Thanks.

Thanks. Other questions for Jacob or Megan? I think this is helpful absent other questions. I think we'd be looking for a motion. And this would be, Megan, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this would be recommendation to council to approve an ordinance change. That's correct.

Alder Ugar. I will move that we recommend to council to approve this measure.

Alder Field, thank you. Any further discussion on this item? Any objection to unanimous approval for item four? Thank you. That item is approved. That will take us to item six on our agenda. This is Legistar 93273 relating to 1336 Drake Street in Alder District 13. And that's consideration of a conditional use in the neighborhood mixed use NMX district for amplified sound in an outdoor eating area of a restaurant. I think we would like to start with a brief staff presentation.

Planner Ernest, welcome. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just going to go over the staff report that was written by Colin Punt. So the applicant proposes to host outdoor amplified music at the restaurant's existing patio on Thursday evenings from 5.30 p.m. to 8 p.m., and Sunday afternoons from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. And in the application, the applicant also requested to host music on occasional weekend evenings once or twice per month and always ending by 9 p.m. or earlier. The request is subject to the standards for conditional uses, as well as the supplemental regulations for outdoor eating areas. And while the comprehensive plan recommends low residential for the site, the Greenbush Neighborhood Plan recommends continued commercial use of the site. So the site is currently developed with the restaurant building, which occupies the northern half of the site. And the patio is approximately 50 by 50 feet and occupies the southern half of the site, which is adjacent to the street intersection. And a temporary stage will be located in the northeast corner. For the application materials, the sound system setup will be minimal. and that speakers would generally be oriented in a southwesterly direction towards the Henry Vilas parking lot across South Randall Avenue and Drake Street. The staff report focuses on Conditionally Used Standard 3, which states that 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. And the concern regarding standard three relates to the proximity of that outdoor eating area to surrounding residential uses and whether allowing outdoor amplified sound can be found to meet that standard. The proposed outdoor eating area is next to a property that is zoned NMX, but is developed with a single family house that's about five feet from the outdoor eating area and about 10 to 15 feet from the stage. And then there are also residential units across both streets and then to the north of the building that's already on the property. There are 120 dwelling units in 88 buildings that are within 500 feet of the center point of the outdoor eating area. Staff do believe that there are challenges to mitigating the sound impacts. The amplified sound impacts will vary based on factors such as volume levels, location setup of the stage and speakers, size of performing ensembles, types of application, and the effectiveness of on-site management and mitigation efforts, as well as the frequency of events. Due to the proximity issues, staff cannot definitively conclude that Standard 3 is met at this time. As such, staff have not recommended outright approval and recommend that the Planning Commission give careful consideration to this request. While staff do not believe the requested use of amplified sound is not approvable as requested, the Planning Commission may be able to find that the applicable standards can be met with additional restrictions. And those are outlined in the recommended conditions of approval, which I'll just briefly here, but the full text can be found in the staff report. So those recommendations include that the conditional use be valid through December 31st, 2026, at which time you could submit a new application to extend that time. Any amplified sound in the outdoor area should be limited to 5.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Thursdays from May through August and 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Sundays from May through October. Documentation should be provided of the seating plan, stage and speaker locations, and any sound mitigation or attenuation efforts. And that if amplified sound is played indoors, that no exterior doors may be propped open or otherwise left open. And that's all I have. Thanks. Thanks, Lisa.

We do have registrants for this item, so we'll open the public hearing on this item. And Megan, would you lead us through the list? Just a reminder, we'll stick to our three minutes of time limit per speaker. And our first two speakers represent the applicant team and they have asked to pool their time. So they'll have six minutes, Megan, is that right?

Yes, that's correct. So we'll hear from Robert Shapiro and Kate Zirbel. both representing Zuzu Cafe. And yes, they will pool for a total of six minutes.

Before we start, Lisa, did you have additional comments? Oh, all right. It was a residual...

Is that me? Does that sound weird?

Hello, can you hear us? Oh, boy.

We can. I think maybe it sounds... Actually, maybe you've done it, but one of you has to mute everything. We just turned it off. All right, good. All right.

I can't. Can you hear us?

We can, and it's not... The feedback loop went away, so I think... Oh, it's pretty bad here.

Oh, man. I don't see you anymore, but... One more time, do you hear us?

We can hear you well, yes.

Okay, here it goes. Hey, can you see me? I don't even know.

It doesn't matter, sweetie.

Anyway.

Generally, for speakers, we don't have the screens on, so you're set up as you should be.

Here it goes. Hello. Okay. I'm Robert Shapiro, co-owner and co-founder of Zuzu Cafe. My wife Kate and I opened Zuzu over 21 years ago because as residents of the neighborhood, we saw need and desire for a cafe meeting spot in our area where there was a void. we've always run the cafe with our neighbors being of utmost importance. During COVID, the city encouraged businesses to stay open and have outdoor activities. At that time, we started our outdoor patio musical events. Everyone loved them, and post-COVID, we continued them. They have become a well-loved neighborhood tradition, and they are always free. We didn't know that we needed a permit. After meeting with Colin Punt and Jenny in zoning, we were informed that we need to pay $600 to apply, but we were told, but not to worry, that's a one-time payment. Because of our misunderstanding, we now have a multi-year positive track record. We've always considered our neighbors and neighborhood with the utmost consideration and respect. My wife and I live a few blocks from the cafe, and we raised our kids here. I read the plan commission recommendations and I'd like to address first condition one concerning our need to reapply in 2027. It seems to create an undue burden considering time and fees. I believe our many years of doing this shows a proven track record. On Condition 2, we are fine with the hours of 5.30 to 8 on Thursdays and 3 to 5 on Sunday, but we would like to ask for May 1st through September 30th, with an earlier time ending at 7.30 in September. Also, we would like to add one event on the first and third weekend. In the summertime, that might go until 8.30 or 9.00. The 64 positive support letters suggest that we are doing it right, along with the over 180 signatures of support on a petition. The two or three or four letters, now it's four, but still, all of the letters against against actually have the information wrong. They're all assuming that we want to increase the amplification, which is incorrect. The amplification we need is only for the singer and instruments that have no noise without amplification, like electric piano and guitars. Considering we have letters of support from both of our adjacent neighbors suggests we are not too loud, and that includes the house right next door to the patio with a toddler in it. Please approve our requests for us to continue this tradition and help us with this free, wonderful community get-together. Thank you.

Oh, hey, everybody, I'm just gonna pop in a couple of things. I just want to also note that we have, this is Kate Zirbel, that we have the support of the Greenbush Neighborhood Association. And second, I just want to reiterate that the few individuals who opposed our application were under the impression that we were adding amplification. And one even said they thought the current music was acoustic, which they approved of. So people didn't necessarily have the idea of what was actually going on. Anyhow, the cafe has no amplification system itself, and we have no plans to invest in one. But the instruments that have no projection without amplification have their own very tiny little speakers. The whole reason for the cafe in the first place was to create community. And, you know, there's this joke about, you know, like how do you make a small fortune in the cafe business? Well, you start with a large fortune. We don't have either, but we now have a real community in spades and we want to continue to serve and cultivate that community. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you both.

All right. Move through the rest of the speakers then here. The next speaker is Janet Kelly of District 13, registered in support.

Janet, you're unmuted, so we should be able to hear you.

Okay. Hello. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Janet Kelly and I've lived for 33 years in the Vilas and Greenbush neighborhoods. I lived from 1993 to 2009 in Vilas and then in 2009 I moved about six blocks away into the Greenbush neighborhood. So I've got a lot of track record with both of these neighborhoods. I want to tell you a little story. Last Thursday night, I walked with my 90-year-old neighbor and friend the three blocks down to Sousa's to listen to the Thursday evening jazz. We walked very early because the seating inside is quite limited. Her 60-year-old son plays the bass in the group. There are lots and lots of connections. Zuzu has also been an incredibly responsive neighbor, employing one of our, I live in Arboretum co-housing and one of our residents is cognitively disabled and Zuzu employs her in their kitchen. The evening music, I've read all the comments that have been submitted, and most of what I'm saying is a reiteration of what those people have said very eloquently. The evening music is an important gathering place. It's an important third place, as architects and planners talk about, not home, not work. It's someplace else where people gather. I've reconnected with friends from the Vilas neighborhood at these gatherings, friends that I haven't seen or talked to for 20 years and met up with them at Zuzu's. And I've also made many, many new friends from the Greenbush neighborhood. The gatherings draw people from the community and it draws people into the community. I've often seen international students walking by and they first look a little perplexed and then a little interested and more often than not, they cross the line and come in and join the fun. Finally, I don't want to minimize the concerns about the noise. People have different levels of sensitivity, but this is an urban neighborhood. The buses, the Lions, the stadium, the helicopters for St. Mary's. These are all sounds that are either wonderful or annoying, depending on your state of mind at the moment or your... You have just about 30 seconds left to help you plan your time. Okay. These sounds are the kinds of sounds that are part of a vibrant urban community, and Zuzu's makes good noise, and I would urge you to grant the conditional use permit so that they can continue to do so. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, next speaker is Lisette Fonder. District is listed as unknown but registered in support.

Hello? Hello. We can hear you. Is that welcome?

Thank you. I'm not going to reiterate all the advantages that have been spoken about, but I just want to talk about what a wonderful community affair that Zuzu is. I live two blocks from it, and it unites the neighborhood and the community. And it's so joyful that many university students come to play and sit in on the jam, which adds pizzazz to the music. And again, what Bob said about COVID, They stayed open during COVID and they were the uniting force of the neighborhood where people could go and eat outside and still listen to the music and be united. Thank you, Zuzu.

Thanks, Lizette.

All right, our next speaker will be Vanessa and Dan Norica of District 13, registered in support.

You guys are unmuted, so we should be able to hear you. Welcome.

Vanessa and Dan, you are unmuted in Zoom. You may have a headset or a microphone that you're using that has a mute button or a mute function somewhere that's active, but we cannot hear you, but you are unmuted in Zoom.

I can hear you now. Yep, you can hear us?

Yes, we can hear you now.

All right, sounds good. Sorry about that. No worries. We are the direct next door neighbors of Zuzu Cafe. We share a fence with them. Robert spoke about us being in support of them and that is absolutely true. We have a toddler who is three years old and we can say nothing but good things about the event. We've been here for three years. We attend it regularly and sometimes just sit in our own backyard, listen to it and enjoy it every week of the summer. That's something we plan around and look forward to for sure.

And this is Vanessa and kind of reiterating what Dan and the rest of the supporters said. It really adds community to the neighborhood. And when the fall comes and the weather cools down, we're sad to see the music go and go inside, I suppose. So, yeah, we we are in full support of of the music continuing.

Thank you. Yep.

Thanks for coming out. Okay. Next, we will hear from Eric Matthews of District 10, registered in support.

Yes, can you hear me? We can. Welcome. Oh, hi. Yeah, my name is Eric Matthews. A little bit about myself. In the early 80s, I was a professional classical guitarist here in Madison. I loved music, but found that I did not like the music business. 30 years. During this period, I had neither the time nor the energy for music. Now that I've retired, health conditions prevent me from playing the classical guitar at a high level, but I can still sing, darn it. Kate Zirbel invited me to sing with the board. with the band about eight years ago, and I've been doing it ever since. Our jazz is not of the discordant variety you sometimes hear on the radio. Rather, it is made up mostly of classic songs from great composers you might find in the great American songbook, such as Duke Ellington, the Gershwin Brothers, and Jerome Kern, to name but a few. It has brought new meaning to my life. I know this is the case for several other people in the band as well. Sousa Cafe has developed into a community of like-minded musicians with whom all can grow, learn, and polish our skills by performing. I can truly sing from the heart and hopefully touch people emotionally at a very deep level. This is sacred to me. In the summertime when the weather is nice, everyone wants to be outside because it's fun and pleasurable for everybody. However, if the performers can only play inside, it interferes with what we're trying to do. The emotional bonds between performers and the audience are severed, so it isn't nearly as much fun. Since we can't see the audience, we can't really reach them. Outside, we can touch people's hearts through song. And if we play well, both groups experience intense pleasure and smile from the inside out. This is an amazing and wonderful bonding that all should experience. Please don't prevent this musical miracle from happening by making us play inside during the precious few beautiful Wisconsin summer months. Entire extended families and large cohorts of friends will be very disappointed. In summary, thanks to Kate and Bobby's good works, a cohesive community has developed that is supportive, fun, and inclusive. Anyone can play and anyone can listen. Please let us continue to perform outside when the weather is warm and people want us to be with them. Thank you for your time.

Thanks, Eric. Next, we'll hear from Michael Kass of District 13, registered in support.

Well, there's no person by that name in attendance.

Okay, we will see if they come on before we're done.

If Michael is registered under a different name, can they raise their hand, Jessie? I'm sorry, Megan, go ahead.

Okay, we'll go next then to Nathaniel Hale of District 13, registered in support. I actually am also not seeing Nathaniel.

Yeah, there's no person by the name in attendance.

Okay. We'll come back and check before we wrap up for both of those. Next will be John Lombardo of District 13, registered in support.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can. Welcome, John.

Okay, thanks. My name is John Lombardo. And I've been running a professional jazz band that plays at corporate events, weddings, things like that for the last 20 years. And in my band, we always make sure that we are playing at a volume level that is comfortable for people, especially comfortable for people who wish to converse with one another. In other words, we're not loud. I'm the usual drummer at Zuzu's when they have their jam sessions on Thursday nights. And being the drummer, I kind of set the volume for pretty much the whole band. And that is to say that I set the volume at a low enough level so that people in the audience, people at tables can converse easily. And we're always watching to see if they're straining in any way to communicate with each other. And we keep the volume down so that communication, again, is very easy for them. If there's a concern about the sound level at this event, I think it would be pretty much unfounded. Even the traffic going by and stopping for the four-way stop signs at the corner is very often louder than the music. And Being jazz musicians, we don't like to play loud anyway. Once in a while, there's a couple of peaks, maybe join an exciting part of a tune near the end. But generally, if volume or amplification volume is a issue for the people in power who could grant us permission to play, I would say that it is not an issue at all. And that's all I have to say. Thanks.

Thanks for coming out, Sam.

All right. Next, we have Madeline Imhoff is registered in support and available to answer questions. We also have Stephen Reed registered in support, available to answer questions. And then we have about 31 others who are registered in support but not wishing to speak. I'm not going to read all of those names, but we will have those names attached to the record after this meeting. And I do not see, I'm just going back to, we had Michael Koss and Nathaniel Hale, who I'm still not seeing here on the meeting chair.

Yeah, I didn't, I didn't see them either. So yes. Thank you. I will. ask if there are questions from the commissioners for any of our registrants. Alder Figaro-Cole.

I don't know exactly who's this question for, but someone mentioned, maybe the first person, I think, mentioned something about adding additional additional performances to the conditions that staff recommended. So my question is, since this is something that, you know, this is something that has been happening, where Are the additional events something that you guys already doing? Yes. Yes.

We just had a, we got a special permit on Saturday to have Mark Rosenthal's band play from 530 to 8. And they're the band that actually plays. We don't have a lot of other bands that play, just a few friends.

So for the past year or whatever, that has been irregular for your program? Yes, for the last several years. Okay, perfect. That's all I have for now. Thank you. Okay.

Commissioner Heck.

Thanks. I have questions for the applicants also. I'll preface my remarks with... For me, what you're asking versus what I think staff is proposing is a little confusing for me. So I want you to just very carefully just run down the days and times you currently have amplified music available. And that will help us. And then run down when you want in best case scenario in your view. I'm a little bit confused by the combination of information from public comment and from you and people's opinions about it. And I just want to hear the facts.

Okay, I can tell you. So not knowing that we were probably out of compliance, I'm sorry. We have since the pandemic until this spring, because then we found out that we were out of compliance and so we've only been playing inside. But up until then, when it was nice, we would play in the spring. If it was nice, we'd play until 7, and then we'd move it to 7.30. 5.30 to 7.30. Yes, yes. So 5.30 to 7.30. And then usually we would move to 6 to 8, kind of with the sun in June. and then move back in August to 530 to 730. And then if we could still play in September, we would do usually 5 to 7.

And that was on... And I just add, because that's confusing, the bottom line is we try our darndest to keep it reasonable and compatible with the sun. But if it would be easier to say 530 till 8... with an understanding that we would probably do it 5.30 to 7.30 and change it to 6 to 8. Anyway, if it's easier to pick one time, we could do that.

The Latin jazz that we do on Sundays is only in the summer. Sometimes it goes a little into September because it's run by a grad student in the jazz program. But we haven't been doing it because we couldn't be outside. And that is usually Sunday 3 to 5, just like what you guys were saying. But it goes into September, just a couple weeks in, until students get too busy. And... And then what we have had is we've had a couple of bands or trios or quartets play on usually Saturday nights, and it's usually once or twice a month in the summertime. And that has never gone beyond eight. TAG had suggested it could go till nine on summer weekend nights, but eight or 8.30 would be the latest we would go because I think staff wouldn't stay any longer. I think that, you know, we're a cafe, we're not a nightclub.

Okay.

Does that help? More questions?

I think so. There was still a little bit of extraneous information in there. Sorry. But I think I've got it. And just to be clear, until you went inside, you were amplifying the music because you didn't understand that you needed a permit. That's correct?

Yeah, it's correct. But we don't have any amplification ourselves. Zuzer doesn't own any amp system. It was only the upright bass had a little amp. The electric piano had, because it doesn't make any noise without, and then electric guitar has an amp. Oh, yeah. I understand.

And a microphone, yeah. Okay. I understand now. I think that was my question.

Okay. Thanks.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

I'm plugging into two different devices, internet problems here. So to summarize what just happened, you're looking for a kind of a sunset timing. That sounds to be the premises of what it says, except on Sunday, which is 3 to 5, and then occasionally Saturday nights until 8.30. What other than Sunday and Saturday, what other days of the week? I missed that part.

The jam, the regular jam is actually Thursdays.

Thursdays, okay. So the Thursday is like the sunset, then no Fridays? No. Okay, so Thursday. Okay, Thursday and then the Saturday and the Sunday special events. Got it. Thank you. That's all I got for now.

Okay. Other questions for registrants?

For registrants or from registrants?

For registrants, sorry.

Okay, that's fine.

Commissioner Heck.

Thanks. Just one more clarifying question. You keep giving us choices. Sorry. I want to know if we were to put a hard stop on whatever day that it might be of 8 p.m., would that be problematic for what you're trying to do in your mind?

A hard stop?

That means... So for Thursdays, to say 5.30 till 8 p.m. would be totally great. Some days we would possibly start a little later, but to say on Thursdays 5.30 to 8 p.m. would cover...

Yeah.

Everything.

We would never go later.

And what about the Saturday? Can I just say, we have the... Saturday, maybe till 8.30. So it could be 5.30 till 8.30 on Saturdays.

And the Sunday is during the day, so that's irrelevant. Correct. Okay. Thank you. That was my question.

Okay. Thank you.

All right, any other last call for questions for registrants? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and we'll move to time for questions for staff. Kusher Hecht.

Thanks. This might actually be for Jacob or Lisa. I'm not sure which. I'm thinking about what happens in the future. Let's say we come up with some version of this and approve it that has the music ending at 8 or 8.30 or whatever. I mean, we really do have to not really take into consideration what instruments are being amplified or to what level. And strangely enough, they could start having thrash metal bands the weekend after they get this approval if they do. I realize there are noise limitations, but we kind of need to think about the long term. Wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, so the code doesn't differentiate between like what kind of amplified sound or what, you know, type of music. So it's the amplification of the sound and whether or not that's permitted and then, you know, days of the week hours and things like that.

Okay, so it's it behooves us to design our conditions of approval based on, you know, of course, we have in the back of our mind, the current uses and users, but we have to be cognizant of the fact that could change and then we might have a new situation.

Yeah, I think that's correct.

Okay, thanks, Lisa.

Alter Evers.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Lisa, have you been to any of the performances or any of the jazz events at Zuzu?

No, I have not. But also Planner Colin Punt was the staff assigned to the staff report. So I was also reading his staff report on his behalf. But I have not.

Director Tuttle, do you know if Colin attended any?

I'm not aware, Alder.

I only bring this up because while I appreciate Commissioner Heck's stipulation, but it's possible, you know, I have to preclude the possibility and forswear the terrible case of which a thrash metal band might be seizing the mic. It seems to me the past record, the track record, and the overwhelming support of the neighborhood and the neighborhood association should bear witness to what we and what this commission might reasonably expect. And with your notion of continuing jurisdiction, if in fact this is a devious attempt to be able to get something that would be awful in the neighborhood approved, You could slam that down pretty quickly. Is that not correct?

Sure, Alder. I think you raise a good point with the continuing jurisdiction. And that is certainly a topic that has come up in the last several of these outdoor amplified sound requests that the commission has seen just this season alone, actually. And I think Lisa's right that the primary thing that we look for is one, to make sure that the applicants have a solid operating plan for how they're going to conduct the amplified sound, which includes their hours of operation and days of operation, but also things like where they plan to set up the stage and things like directionality of any of the amplification devices. And then we look to things like information about what's been operating to help us understand impact. So you're right that it's both setting the parameters for that amplified sound to happen, regardless of what the sound is, paired with the testimony that we've heard about performance.

Thank you.

Other figure I'll call. I got lost. Where are we? Are we asking staff questions or? Yes. Okay. So for this item, well, not this item, the entertainment license was at the ARC recently and we had one single condition to be, for entertainment to cease at nine o'clock indoors. Okay. So was that considered when the report was put together from staff?

The ALRC's actions were not referenced in the staff report. Do you know when that meeting was, Alder?

I think it was the last meeting.

Yeah, so probably not.

I think the council just approved it probably on... Hold on, let me look. I have it open here. People moving things around. Lord, help me. April 15th, they came to the ARC, and then May 5th, went to France with a condition.

Okay. Yeah, the terms of the ALRC's approval are not referenced in the staff report in part because we don't actually regulate sound indoors through the plan commission. We only look at the amplified sound outdoors. And in fact, it's just the amplified part of the sound that we look at as a plan commission. And we have had examples where we know that the approvals that ALRC has issued might have slightly different conditions than what the plan commission approved just because of the differences in what their jurisdiction covers.

Yeah, I totally understand that. I was just like, since the timing, you know, the hour seems to be a little bit all over the place. And that's the part that I'm just considering.

Yeah, great question. And I think for some of these times, I think, and I... we'll pull up the letter of intent to make sure that this is correct. Oftentimes when we set hours of operation and the conditions, staff is basing that off of the letter of intent from the applicant and not necessarily coming up with those operating plans on our own.

Okay. Yeah, he's fine. Thank you. Commissioner Heck.

Thanks. This is for Lisa or Megan, probably. If we were to do a one-year approval only, as the applicant said, they'd need to come back with a brand new conditional use application and fee. It just expires and they have to start from scratch in one year and pay the full fee. Is that correct?

That's correct. Their approval would only be issued for one year, so they would have to submit a new application.

Okay, thank you.

Megan, is that, just to clarify, is that how we've treated similar new requests for outdoor amplification?

Yes. So that condition... was placed on the recent approval for outdoor amplification at Friends Applaud. And I believe it's at least been part of the approvals for the Essendon House for their outdoor sound plans.

Other questions? Commissioner McHale.

Thanks. I had a clarifying question because there was talk of Saturday performances, and I wanted to make sure I'm not misreading that Saturday is not included in the current conditions. So for someone else. Okay. Thanks.

It's not currently included mostly because when we provide conditions based on applicants' letters of intent, we try to be as specific as possible about days and hours that both the applicants can expect, the neighbors surrounding, folks who may be aware of the sound can expect, but also for our own purposes for enforcement. And without a really specific time window, like what was articulated tonight for you, we would not typically include approval for just kind of an open-ended day that may or may not happen. So if you want to add any other days or hours of operation or modify any of the hours that are approved here and can find the standards met, we can articulate those as part of your approval.

Thanks. I'll just figure I'll call your hand. I didn't know if it was a new question. Go ahead. Oh. Oh.

All right. Can you hear me?

We can. I'm sorry. So I understand for the extra fee for, I understand that the extra fee that we charge or the fee that we charge them to reapply, that's a condition, not an actual policy. So can you please run me through again why they need for this condition?

This is a condition that we have used with some other recent outdoor amplified sound approvals that essentially allows this to operate as a test for a year. We allow the approval of the operations plan and use that first year to ensure that the plan as it has been established is workable. In the commission's case, I think that the Essen House is the only one that we've seen come back for reapproval a couple of years in a row. And we have used that as an opportunity to make some modifications to their plan based on how they have performed in the past year. We have not yet seen Friends Applied come back for a new approval, but it's certainly possible that in that renewal period, we could remove that condition altogether if things operate well.

Okay, thank you. So again, just to, we get to, we can decide since this is a little bit different. They've been operating several years already that they don't need that condition because it's not a policy. It's just a condition, correct?

That's correct. It's not a policy. And so if you can find the standards for approval met without that condition, you can remove it. Thank you. Go ahead.

Sorry for so many questions. I want to make sure I understood that last discussion. We can't remove, if we were to apply that as we did with Friends Applaud for the first year, we can't remove it just on the fly. It doesn't get removed until they come back once, and then we decide we don't want to do that.

That's correct, Alton. Commissioner, that's correct.

And then one other question. As I recall with the Essen House, when they came back the second time, they either requested our, and maybe we regranted a two-year period the second time rather than one year, as I recall. So that.

That's correct. Yep.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Alder, if you're on call. Patrick and I just, you know, playing games here today. So just to be very clear, what I'm asking is we don't put the condition period. I'm not saying that we put it and then we take it out whenever we want. We're just saying that we, as a commission, can decide not to add that condition if we feel the standards is met on the premises that they already, they're not new to this business. They're already a record established. That's what I was asking earlier, right?

Yes, I understood that, Alder, and I think my answer is still true, that if you can find the standards met without any condition about the one-year period, you can approve it without a limit or without an expiration date. So it would be an approval in perpetuity, except for, as Alder Evers mentioned before, that the commission does still retain continuing jurisdiction.

But they want to come back and pay the fee again and all that stuff. if we don't put the condition now.

They wouldn't have to come back and apply again next year, if that's correct.

Thank you.

If there are not additional staff questions, we might be ready to consider a motion. Alder Evers, yeah. Sorry, Alder Evers.

Thank you, Chair. While you're waiting for a motion to be made, allow me just to make a few short comments. It really needs to be understood that the amount of amplification here is really minimal. You can't hear someone sing outdoors, generally speaking, unless there's a microphone. Similarly, an electric piano cannot be heard unless it is lightly amplified, minimally amplified. It has to still have some amplification. There are other instruments that have no amplification. I think sometimes there's a saxophone that plays. This is by and large, I think the sound amplification is what trips people up on this, but it's hardly a matter of, I think one of the public commenters says that outside the actual property line, it's difficult to hear what's going on. And then another public comment referenced this notion of third place. And we do often talk about the importance of placemaking and creating spaces in our city where residents could come together. We encourage the formation of community. We encourage people to get outside of their houses and get to know one another and have positive experiences. There's a business that's been doing in the Greenbush neighborhood. They have the unanimous support of the Greenbush Neighborhood Association. And I imagine if you would ask the Vilas Neighborhood Association and residents in Vilas, they would say the same thing. So it seems to me that applying a broad standard of extra caution due to sound amplification is somewhat counter to the reality of what's taken place. I encourage you to support this with the time and date restrictions as you see fit. I don't think it's necessary to make them come back next year, given that the difference between Friends Applaud and Zuzu Cafe is that Friends Applaud is a new business doing something that had in the past been attempted by a previous business, but to some consternation. This has not created consternation. By and large, it's created overwhelming support. And for that reason, I ask you to have a light touch with this one and vote to approve it. Thank you.

Thanks, Halder. Commissioner Heck.

I was ready to make a motion, but if Alder Figaro-Cole has another question or such, I would defer to her.

She took her hand down. Go ahead.

Okay. All right. I will... I have to get to my agenda. Sorry. So I have the words right. I will recommend that... that we approved the conditional use application at 1336 Drake Street in the NMX District for amplified sound in the outdoor eating area of a restaurant with some conditions of approval. And those would be somewhat similar to what staff was proposing. was recommending, but I would retain the three to five on Sunday, amplified music allowed from May to October. I would have amplified music allowed May through August, 5.30 to 8 p.m. on Thursdays. I think I have that correct. I think that's the way it currently was listed. And then I would add that on Saturdays, Twice per month, there would be allowed to have amplified music from 530 to 830 and twice per month would be their choosing. And I can I can speak to that. And I would also eliminate the requirement for them to come back for in one year.

Thanks. Commissioner Heck, I think the one, I think you didn't say that we find the standards met. Did you also? Oh, sorry. Yeah. That we find the standards met.

And that we find the standards are met. Yes.

All right. Very good. Alderfield is ready to second that motion. And Alder Heck, I'll give you a further opportunity to speak to your motion.

Okay. I think just our most recent discussion that Alder Evers backed up is they are an established business with a track record and a lot of support in the neighborhood. And I think it's okay to allow continuing jurisdiction to be the mechanism for addressing any problems. And it does differ from those other establishments that have either had some controversy or new businesses in the neighborhood. So I think that that helps to justify why Conditional Use Standard 3 is met. And similarly, the hours of operation. I think given that they're effectively mimicking what they do now, I think that we can conclude that the standard number three is also met due to the lack of complaints and the enthusiasm for the application.

Thanks. Thanks, Commissioner Heck. Alder Figaro-Cole?

I wonder if Alder Heck is amicable to addressing the third recommendation from staff on having the applicants work with them to put in writing in more detail and clear understanding of the operation plan and mitigation efforts. So it's on file.

Absolutely. I was implying, I think maybe not very coherently, that I wanted to keep everything that I didn't change in my hours discussion. So I would keep that, certainly.

Okay. Thank you. Good. Thanks. Alderfield?

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to comment a little bit on one of the standards staff identified. So I appreciated the staff report's helpful comparison to other requests as usual. But I similarly feel that the narrower hours of operation here and the abundance of support by nearby neighboring properties who would be the most affected help me feel very comfortable that standard three is met with the conditions as described in the motion. I think that's what especially differentiates this one from a previous request at East Washington Avenue. So I wanted to highlight that difference and then also share that I agree that on the basis that this pattern of outdoor sound amplification activity has been happening for a long time and we still see this level of support. That's why I'm comfortable with the absence of the condition that the approval expires after a year. Thank you.

Megan, thanks.

Okay, I think I just want to ask a couple clarifying questions to make sure we have the modifications to the conditions correct. First, I'm hearing that the motion would strike proposed condition number one, which is on page seven of the staff report. And then we're going to retain conditions three and four. and then modify condition two. And I just want to repeat back what I heard for condition two. So that condition two would allow the applicants to continue to do Thursdays from 5.30 to 8. And that would extend between um may 1 and august 31 is that correct commissioner okay um for saturdays i heard 5 30 to 8 two times per month um i don't know that i heard an end date for the time of year is that august or october

I did. You're correct. I did not indicate. So I think I would leave that the narrower window since it's kind of a new thing in some ways. Yeah.

Okay. And then on this one, I think that I heard the applicants in their testimony say that they would be requesting the first and third weekends of the month for that Saturday music. From a staff perspective, if you'd be comfortable with that kind of specificity, it would be easier for us to administer than leaving it open to just say they can pick any two days. The other way that we could approach that if you didn't want to be that specific is to ask for them to essentially give us a schedule that we would pre-approve and that we would require some notice on so that everyone's clear on what those other two days are.

I am comfortable with saying the first and third weekend on Saturday. I can imagine there being problems with holidays and things, but it sounds to me like their schedule is quite flexible and a little bit, you know, a little bit on the fly at times. So I think it would be better to just go ahead and say the first and the third and they can, you know, try to change that in the future if it becomes a problem.

And if needed, we may also be able to adjust the, you know, to the second and fourth or something like that through a minor alteration if needed.

Oh, great. Okay. Okay.

And so then confirming the last point, which is that on Sundays, it would be from three to five from May to October.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Wojnicki.

Just a quick question for Megan. I thought on the Saturday one, I thought I would just say 530 to 8 and I think it's 530 to 830. I'm sorry.

Yes, 530 to 830 is what I have written here. Thank you.

All right. Is everybody clear on the parameters of the motion and I think Commissioner Heck, you confirmed that that was consistent with your motion. Alderfield, just to confirm that's consistent with your second of the motion. All right, I will call for a vote and we'll start with, is there any objection to unanimous consent for the motion on the table? All right, seeing none, the motion is approved. So thanks everybody for the good discussion and thanks for everybody who came out to speak to it. We now will go to item seven on our agenda, which is a special item of business. And this was rescheduled from our meeting that got canceled because of the weather. And this is an opportunity for us to learn and maybe have an informational discussion and ask some questions regarding the data center moratorium update. The legislature number for this item is 93441. which is where there's a presentation is stored in the Legistar system. So our presenter is Planner Ernest. Welcome again, Lisa. Thanks.

Yeah, thank you. And I am in the office where the lights automatically turn off. And since the presentation is a little long, I'm going to turn my camera off, but I will turn back on after. Okay. Let me just get my screen shared. Okay. Can you all see the presentation?

Yes.

Okay. All right. So this presentation is to kind of provide us time to discuss how data centers could be regulated in the city. And the first part of this presentation is largely from a public information meeting that was held on June 3rd, which was led by Christy Baumel in the mayor's office. And then we've added some slides that will go over kind of zoning and land use in a little bit more detail than we did at that presentation. So I'll be going over the moratorium and next steps, the different types of data centers that we have identified, the regulatory tools that we have and the ones that we don't have, and then the different ways data centers can be regulated through zoning. And we'll also look at some maps to help us understand where data centers could be located in terms of zoning districts based on what we're seeing in other communities. And then we'll leave time for discussion. And we do have some questions for you to consider. So why are we talking about this now? As you all are aware, the city passed a 12-month moratorium in January 2026, and this was not to give the city time to develop rules for data centers to ensure that the city's code is addressing the various types of data centers that do exist. So right now we are in the research and planning stage of the process. And we have met with staff from other city agencies and held that first public information meeting. And we accept to have a draft code ready in September for reviews by any relevant boards, commissions, and committees. And then we expect to introduce that new code in November with a final decision by council by December. And that follows that 12-month moratorium deadline. So what do we mean by data centers? There's a kind of simple definition for data centers, that it's a building with computers that process or store digital data. I think they can vary a lot by size and function. So like some are used by businesses to kind of support their regular work. Some support remote data storage, which is also known as like the cloud. And then there are AI data centers that... support and also train AI. And we'll get into kind of the different scales and types in the next few slides. We do have some data centers that currently exist at the city, kind of at the smaller scale that are maybe supporting businesses and things like that. So here's just kind of a map to show you where some of those are already located. And And most of them are located kind of in a portion of a standalone building and are likely rented by businesses to store or process their data, like I mentioned. Okay, so now, sorry, skipped a slide. Now we're going to go over the different types of data centers that we have identified. I'll say there's no like real kind of industry standard for types of data centers or metrics that are used to define them. And we've kind of established these to help us understand the scale and impact of different types of data centers. And the first one we have here is what we're referring to as an integrated data center. And some of the characteristics are listed on the slide. So for land area, they tend to be in existing buildings and the overall square footage can vary quite a bit. And we could generally compare this in terms of land use to like an office tenant. where estimates for energy demand are maybe 40 kilowatts to three megawatts. And that's comparable to the daily energy use of 40 to 3,000 homes in Wisconsin. And then there are medium data centers. So these tend to be in kind of standalone buildings and provide data storage and processing services to businesses. You could think of this use as being more similar to like an office or a light industrial building. And the energy demand might be a bit conservative here, but I think you could probably see maybe even up to six megawatts in a medium-sized building. I think there are some local examples in Wisconsin of that kind of energy use. And then we have large data centers. So these tend to be in markets with higher land values. Like you might be hearing about places like Northern Virginia, which is like a data center hub. And you might start to see kind of large multi-story data centers. They can be on sites that are 30 acres or so. Buildings are about 100,000 square feet and multiple stories. The energy demand can increase quite a bit to like up to 50 megawatts, which is equivalent to the daily energy use of about 50,000 homes. And we can think of these as being kind of like general or heavy industrial users. And I think one thing to keep in mind, you know, these tend to be, you're getting more into like maybe the AI or the kind of heavy cloud computing services. And I think the technology is changing very quickly. And I think the energy use tends to go up as that technology kind of improves. So then this last one is the hyperscale technology. They can be on sites that are 1,000 or more acres. It kind of varies. You can see anything from 2,000 to 1,000 or more. Buildings can be up to 2 million square feet. Sometimes these are multi-story buildings, like maybe they might have two stories. Energy demand can start to get into the gigawatts. And to kind of put this in perspective, for energy use, 100 megawatts can power up to 100,000 homes. And this is where you start to find it harder to maybe find a direct land use comparable. But from like a building size and land area perspective, the closest would probably be like a very large automotive plant. Some of like the largest in the country probably. But that energy demand question gets a little bit tougher to compare. Then we're going to go over just some more details for hyperscale data centers. So like I said, you know, they can be about 24 to 30 feet per story. They can be two to three stories, although that's not always common. There tend to be kind of multiple buildings on one site and they operate as a campus. Often these larger hyperscale campus projects will have on-site substations that can be five to 30 acres. They have land area for backup generators, which can be diesel or natural gas. And then there's also rooftop or ground-mounted mechanical equipment with that ground-mounted mechanical equipment can be up to like 60 feet tall. And that equipment is really what's being used to cool the building. So to help us kind of understand what some of these numbers mean, we do have some local comparisons. So there is a FedEx distribution center near Hepgar Road, which is about 305,000 square feet. For land area, the Mendota Mental Health Institute campus on the north side is about 350 acres. And then the former Oscar Mayer site is about 60. So again, just try to put some of those numbers in perspective. And now we're going to cover, I think, probably what we hear a lot about, right, is kind of concerns about the water-related impacts of data centers. And this is primarily focused on kind of, let's say, like high water users or kind of larger water users. But some of these things can be true for any new customer who needs water in the city. But so the water use... that you hear about is often associated with the cooling needs of the data center. And that's really because the servers and the chips that are processing that data generate a lot of heat. And so it requires these cooling systems to pull all of that hot air out of the room so that the servers can continue to run. We are seeing a trend towards what we call a closed-loop system, which minimizes kind of direct on-site water draw. And basically what that means is that they're kind of using a coolant liquid in a continuous loop through the building that helps pull out heat instead of, let's say, like using water that heats up that then has to be expelled and treated off-site. And so what we're finding, and there are data centers in Wisconsin that use this system, that they often require about like 100,000 gallons of water to initially fill that system, but that it shouldn't need continuous refilling. And that the daily water consumption for the Wisconsin data centers, based on the information that they shared publicly, would require maybe 3,000 to 20,000 gallons per day of on-site water usage. And it's really also like the offsite water use for the electricity generation that can have a larger impact on water use overall at those power plants that are generating the water. And another thing to keep in mind is that the Madison Water Utility must connect a new user and that we cannot regulate the amount of water that users are consuming as long as we are able to provide that water. Okay, so I think there's kind of a lot of information, but we're about halfway through the presentation, and we're going to shift a little bit to cover the zoning aspect of it. So I know we're all a bit familiar with zoning, but basically we're hoping to define data centers, determine which zoning districts they can and cannot be in, whether they can be permitted or conditional, and if we need to create specific rules for Dana centers, which we refer to as supplemental regulations in the city zoning code. And we currently use those for like a lot of different uses in the city. So here we'll go over the different elements that we currently regulate through the zoning code. I think you will often have heard these referred to in our meetings about building size, building height, lot coverage, setbacks, and things like landscaping and screening and parking. And those are things that we could potentially use to regulate data centers because we're already doing it now. It's kind of easy to fit that within the code. There are also things that we could regulate outside of the zoning code. So this includes like our noise ordinance, lighting ordinance. We do use a state building code and maintain compliance for that with our building inspection department. We have tax assessments. We manage construction traffic management. We enforce stormwater management. And then the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District manages the quality of water discharge but does not set limits on the quantity of water that they treat. And then there are also some things that the city cannot regulate. So you've heard me refer to this a few times, but the city cannot limit the amount of water a business uses and that the water utility would work with the customer to understand if new infrastructure is needed to serve them. The city also cannot require projects to use a certain energy source like solar. The city cannot require a business to provide community benefits as a condition of approval and And the city cannot require that a project generate a certain amount of jobs unless it's possible through some kind of incentive program. And then there are also just kind of other regulations at the state level that could impact data centers. So there's currently the tax exemptions for data centers. I know that the state legislature, there have been news stories about discussions about the state interest in regulating data centers, although that has not come forward yet. There have been decisions by the PSC on the utility costs related to the data centers. We also just wanted to note that Dade County has passed a temporary moratorium as well. So we do want to just kind of keep this in mind as there are discussions happening outside of the city that may impact data centers going forward. Okay, so now we're going to go over the different ways that data centers are regulated by zoning. And this is based on research on about 20 other communities kind of across the country who have been amending their codes, particularly to address this kind of new type of data center that we're seeing. So the most common approach is to create a data center use in a conventional zoning district. So that would be like our industrial limited, our industrial general districts. A kind of non-conventional zoning district would maybe be something like a mission camp or a planned development district. There kind of is a wide range in terms of whether or not they are permitted, not permitted or conditional throughout the communities. And we do see them regulated based on size. It's more common to see maybe like two to three uses. So something more like defining them as an integrated medium and hyperscale use. But again, there's kind of a wide range of different ways that they're defined and broken up into different categories. And then there are also communities that create use specific regulations. Like one example would be requiring larger setbacks for many residentially zoned properties. And then I just want to go over some of the other things we're seeing. So there are a lot of communities that rely on planned development district zoning when they were considering and approving data centers. And I'll just note that, you know, the city is kind of shifting away from using this type of zoning approach. Um, and then another thing that we're seeing is that some are, some communities are creating specific data center districts. Um, you know, the city has done this in the past. Like one example would be the mission camp district. Another one that's kind of very use specific would be non-metallic mineral extraction district. Um, so that's one way that you see that in our own code. So now we're going to kind of, I guess, start thinking about where these different data centers are located. And this is really based on what we are seeing in other communities. So, you know, obviously every community is unique, but just to kind of illustrate where we're seeing these. So integrated data centers are really found in all land uses from like mixed use to industrial. That medium data center we tend to see in maybe business parks and light industrial areas. Large data centers, again, are maybe more in the business park and like heavy industrial areas. And then the hyperscale data centers are found in industrial areas, although often these tend to be kind of like still on the outskirts of communities where they're expanding industrial areas in places that were formerly, you know, greenfield farmlands. We have seen hyperscale projects located near residential areas. And we will talk about this more in a later slide. But hyperscale data centers tend to be located near higher capacity transmission lines that can support their energy demand needs. So that's another thing to think about, like what these data centers need and where they locate. A lot of time has to do with just that existing infrastructure or infrastructure that's nearby. Okay. Okay, so how does this kind of relate to the city zoning districts? The next few slides show the location of our commercial center district, our industrial limited district, and our industrial general district. And that kind of translates to maybe where we're seeing that like medium to hyperscale location. data center uses. So this first one is kind of pink color is the commercial center district. And we do have the boundary of the TOD overlay outlined as well. So you can see that they're really kind of centered or you can see the CC district more on like, let's say the periphery of the TOD boundary. And then this map shows the industrial limited district. You can see it's primarily concentrated kind of on the east side of the city with a large area in that southeast part of the city. Then this map, apologies, it's a little hard to tell, but you can see the industrial general district. You can see overall like there's not a lot of areas that are currently zoned IG, but again, maybe spread out a little bit more towards the east side. and a little bit here on the south side of the city as well. And then we wanted to just kind of highlight the future land use map. I think, you know, the future land use map would become more relevant for conditional use requests and zoning map amendments. So here, general commercial is shown in red and industrial is in gray. And you kind of see that general commercial tends to be found along major roads on the east and west sides of the city with industrial areas located in the east side of the city. And I do just want to note that most of these areas are already developed. There are some undeveloped areas on the periphery of the city with the larger areas on the east side. However, these areas are currently recommended for residential development. So any commercial or industrial development would require a plan amendment. And these areas would also need other approvals like urban service area amendments before they could be developed. And then finally, this is a map that shows electric transmission lines. So what we see is that data centers tend to locate near transmission lines. So we did want to show this and how it relates to our land use recommendations. The kind of dark gray line is 345 kilovolts, and the medium gray line is 139 kilovolts. And where it is dotted, it is underground. And for anyone who's not familiar, a kilovolt is a unit of measurement for electrical potential or voltage. And I think as a general rule of thumb around that, like, you know, 35 to 138 kilovolt is like a transmission line where they may be supplying enough power for a data center. So that kind of covers the information part of the presentation. And then we did just want to set up some questions and discussion topics for you all, but we're happy to answer any other questions you might have. So we're interested to know what questions you have about data centers, what type of data centers should Madison allow, what data centers are most important for the city to manage. and what land use considerations are important to focus on. And then in terms of, you know, more specifically the zoning code and regulations, I'm interested to hear your thoughts as to whether the city established data center types based on size. Should data center types be permitted or conditional? And then should the city establish supplemental regulations for data centers? And do you have any thoughts on what those could look like? And that is the end of my presentation.

Thanks, Lisa. Alderfield.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Lisa and others for putting this very helpful framework together for kind of approaching the topic. I'm wondering about the difference between this notion of a data center built for the primary purpose of being a data center. versus data centers that are... A building that has a data center as one of its uses, perhaps not the primary use, but maybe an accessory use. I think I'm extrapolating from our current framework on regulating other things to... data centers and considering data centers, would the integrated data center kind of model be the one that best represents a combination of data center plus laboratory or plus higher ed institution, whatever else it might be?

Yeah. Yeah. I think it's a way to think of it as like it's an accessory use, but one of... It's a term we use in our code differently. So that's part of the reason that it has this like integrated definition, but it would tend to be like there are... office users in the city now where they are dedicating, you know, 10,000, 20,000 square feet to a data center to support their business needs. I think there is, you know, you could find potentially somebody also renting out a portion of a building as a data center where they are providing a data center service to other businesses as well. And I think it really gets more to how much square footage they're taking up.

Thank you. I have other comments, but I'll save those for after questions.

Thanks. Alderge Geer. Thank you, Chair. Lisa, two questions. First one, I suppose it's possible that a large data center might consider drilling their own If so, what kind of regulatory oversight would exist in that case, if you know?

I know this question did come up at the public information meeting, and I don't want to speak out of turn, so we might have to look into that more, but we can take note and get any questions answered as a follow-up.

Yeah, I mean, I understand. that our own water utility has to accept new users within some kind of infrastructure constraint. But obviously, we could imagine some wells being built that might impact our water utilities. It's just interesting to know what that would be. The second part is have we got input yet from kind of our, let's call it our bedrock technology companies here, as we have this rapid transition to a little hard to predict on how our existing major employers and startups might use AI, but do we have some input on the kind of data center support they would need as opposed to the hyperscale ones that are in support of the big technology companies.

Megan, I might ask you to, I know there's a larger group, like kind of interagency staff team that is, and I've been more focused on the planning and zoning aspects, but you know, Megan might be involved in some of that.

Yeah, thank you, Alder, for the question. We have across PCED been sharing this work with a couple agencies and also have been working in coordination with the mayor's office. So I know that Deputy Mayor Baumel has been meeting with several stakeholders in our region to talk more specifically about some of the perspectives they have about how we would approach this data center regulation. And I think has certainly heard about some of the benefits and opportunities from our broader kind of technology ecosystem growth that a framework that allows data centers to operate would have for our community. I don't have specific tangible comments from them available at the moment. But I will say that I think in most of what we're hearing, in most of the comments and questions that we have heard on this topic too, we're really starting to see this bright line emerging between hyperscale users and all of the other types of data centers. That they're very different type of data centers and they have very different type of opportunities for local integration within the broader economy. They obviously have very different land use implications, as well as different implications for other kind of utility services that are sort of outside of our control. So I think that is becoming clearer. We have heard broadly from the Chamber and some other users that they are in support of us passing a regulation that allows data centers to operate in our community in a sensible way. without necessarily detailed specifics of what that means. But I do think that that line is going to be the crux of this policy development for us.

that were raised here about how we might organize this or establish our zoning regulations. It says that's good information. It means that there's some sense to separating the hyperscale approach to all of the other uses that we might need in support of our local industry and technology companies. Thanks. Commissioner Heckman.

Thanks. I have two questions. The first one is, can you remind us how our land use and zoning ordinances apply to UW? And let's say UW wants to have a data center on their land, do they have to follow our zoning code and such?

Yeah, so the UW operates under the campus institutional zoning. So they have a master plan, which is something that we approve.

So after we approve that plan, if a data center, a standalone data center in particular, was a facility and a type of use that was explicitly called out in their plans, in that approved master plan, they would be able to proceed with obtaining building permits to construct that kind of facility. If they were to, say, consider adding a standalone data center that was not part of that approved plan, they would need to come back to us to seek an amendment to that plan. And we would need to consider approving an amendment to the plan to enable that to move forward. That's the main mechanism that we have for regulating land uses on the campus. And then beyond that, I think just applying the standards of that approved plan. We do know that there are some data centers associated with specific, you know, activities on the campus and in the context of the broader campus plan. We would also look at them through that framework that You asked about earlier, just in terms of like what is integrated and serving another use versus what is a standalone kind of data center operation.

Okay. Thanks. I guess that amendment to the master plan process is where the city could exert some influence over or fold in some aspects of whatever the city comes up with in its own way. standalone things. My second question is about a point in one of the slides. It's the one that said, what can't the city regulate? Water usage, energy use or sources, jobs and less via incentives. And I'm a little bit confused about community benefits as a condition of approval. That sounds like conditional use standard three in many ways. And And why can't we use that to regulate a data center? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Yeah. So I think what you'll see often with like these larger hyperscale projects that are being approved is that like they will have agreed to like restore wetlands adjacent to the data center or they'll donate money for like a workforce development for, you know, certain jobs that might be employed at the data center. So it's more like economic development community development initiatives that like we can't require as a form of approval and that you'll typically see a data center company working directly with a community organization to develop that and ultimately it's a it's an agreement between those parties that those things will ultimately come to fruition as a part of that work but it's not something that the city would be negotiating

And some states do have a legal framework that allow for cities to create mechanisms to require community benefit agreements as part of land development approvals. In Wisconsin, we cannot condition land approvals based on those kinds of community benefit agreements. But you're correct that if we did decide to treat a data center as a conditional use, we could apply our standards in the way that we have them in our ordinance.

Okay, thanks. I kind of misunderstood, but I learned something. Thank you.

Commissioner Solheim. Thank you. Two things related to what Commissioner Heck was just talking about. I've really been grappling with how we would navigate this if it was a conditional use and the standards related to is there sufficient infrastructure to support the development and how that balances with what we can and cannot regulate. So I realize this is, I'm not framing it well as a question, but I think that has to play a lot into how we think about this, if it's a conditional use or it's its own zoning district, because I don't know if you have any thoughts about how we could particularly navigate some of those standards and what we have jurisdiction over and what we don't.

Yeah, I think that, you know, we have seen that come up with other conditional use requests recently as well of, you know, how the standards can apply. And I think that would continue to be the case with data centers. You know, I do think, and as we haven't looked into this as much so far and to like how it would fit into our zoning code, but you do see a lot of codes as a part of their like application requirements also require data centers to provide information. in order for an application to be complete. So it's like, how much water are you using? What are your energy needs? Do you have agreements with your utility provider that they're able to provide that? So I think maybe that's one way too of like having the information to know is the infrastructure there to support the use and maybe something we could look into more to see if that's something that we would be able to require if if we were to have an application come in for a data center. But ultimately, you know, that substantial evidence requirement from the conditional use standards, is it going to continue to come into play?

Yeah, I think it's a really good question and one that we've sort of flagged as well, that could be, you could imagine yourselves you know, your future selves looking at an application and trying to be responsive to community feedback about what is considered to be adequate in these cases. And really grappling with an area of, you know, utility service that's completely outside of our jurisdiction. And so, you know, I appreciate Lisa mentioning from research about other communities approaches, how some of it may be about, you know, supplying information from those others to show that some of those boxes have been checked outside of our authority. She also mentioned supplemental regulations. And I think this is where the question about how to approach this within our zoning code is going to be one for us to really grapple with as we get further into this conversation with you. Those supplemental regulations allow us to create use specific rules for things. And so may give us an opportunity to specify exactly what Within our purview, we want to see happen, but then we let go of the conditional use aspect of things beyond that. So it's not uncommon for us to have supplemental regulations for things that are permitted uses too. That way we're very clear about this is what's in our lane and this is what you must do in order to get approval. And then we're not kind of asking those discretionary questions that invite us to potentially get out of our purview. Not saying that's the right way, but it is a way you could go.

Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you. One more question, Lisa. You mentioned, and this isn't planned commission purview, but I'm curious kind of what the water utility can and can't do. You know, they have to connect customers. Can they, however, require that the user pays for infrastructure upgrades? I think of it very similar to a developer building a new subdivision and they have to build the roads and the sidewalks and things like that. Can that be required of a user?

Yeah, so I think generally my understanding is that they work with that customer to kind of pay for their share of those improvements. So if there are other properties that then benefit from that, then that cost would potentially be shared amongst other customers. Okay. But it generally works in a similar way, yeah, like as other public improvements. There may be other circumstances, but that's my understanding.

Thank you. Elder Figueroa, call. Thank you. And I think that last question, that would be like a one-time charge. So it doesn't really take into consideration, you know, the operations of the monthly bills and how that impacts everybody else in the city. But on regards to... The conditions that you guys were talking about, would it be possible to have a condition that requires certain technology use, like you mentioned in your presentation, how we do that recycling of the water versus continuously using fresh water?

Yeah, so this is something that in that slide where we talk about... kind of what else does the city regulate? So we have the state building code, which is actually an international building code that the entire state adopts. And the city is preempted from kind of requiring anything outside of what the building code requires. So like we can't, in most cases, require somebody to use a sustainable measure like out to put solar on your roof because like the building code doesn't require them to do so. I think maybe that's kind of one example we talk about a lot. But, you know, I've consulted a little bit with the city attorney's office on this and And they do tend to caution us from using that kind of broadly as a statement because there's always individual use cases like that. Like if the commission is familiar with the discussions that happen around the bird safe glass requirements in our code, which ultimately was found to be permitted even with that preemption from the building code. So that's one thing that we're kind of always working around. And then, you know, that kind of gets into this, what can't the city regulate about energy use or sources? It's like we can't require them to use a kind of cooling system, like that closed loop cooling system, because of the state building code compliance that we have to enforce. So I think our general impression is that we are just kind of limited in requiring those things. But if there was a specific, thing to look into like we could consult with the attorney's office and talk about that more with them

Thank you. And then the other question is on regards to the original ask as to, you know, create new zoning districts or use the existing ones and whatever. Thank you for the presentation, and I appreciate this slide that had the overlay from the BRT. But thinking from the perspective of the new BRT route that will be coming from north, north to south, like is there a way that we can maybe build some kind of metrics that incorporates not so much, you know, like what are the benefits of doing A versus B and making sure that one prioritize is transportation. Like, I understand that we tend to put these places outside on the periphery of the city, but if this is something that is going to generate a lot of jobs, it would be nice to also have them near transit. So how does that look like?

Yeah, I think we can definitely take note of that as we continue these discussions.

Yeah, I think we should definitely, I would like to see a matrix and I would like the discussion to include the route, the future route of the south to north. Thank you. Or north to south, whatever.

Yeah, I think that that's where size of data center type will also be a really relevant factor as well. We, again, while it's not a primary aspect of a data center that the city will be able to regulate through zoning, we do know from some of the research that Lisa and others have been doing that some types of data centers require more I guess, staffing support to manage them in terms of people actually kind of monitoring the performance of the computers themselves, sometimes security, building operations, you know, the sort of spinoff jobs to help support that. And that sometimes with clustering of more data centers in a certain location, you can start to see some of the spinoff benefits from a jobs perspective. On the other end of the spectrum, we've seen some research that have suggested that kind of large, very large, like the hyperscaler type facilities, they actually have very, very low job ratios for the size of the facilities themselves. And obviously, as those start to approach you know, hundreds of acres, even thousands of acres over a sprawling campus with very low job ratios, the prospect of serving them with transit becomes very low unless it's some kind of a dedicated, probably, you know, funded resource. So that's where those size thresholds also impact, you know, where in the city they can be located and how well they could be served by those kinds of infrastructure as well, Alder. Thank you. And then...

Go ahead. Oh, so just brought up another point of the, like the TDM and the different requirements that we have for, you know, to build up versus going wide again. I would be nice to see that on the metrics of, you know, so far out there, do we still want to enforce some kind of higher levels versus taking so much space on a farmland or whatever.

And so that actually relates to the other comment that I was just going to add related to your first question. This question came up in a couple different kinds of ways in our public meeting about whether we could regulate the specific technology that the data center is offering. Like, are they... offering cloud storage or are they an AI data center? The answer there is really no. We can't really get into the operations of what their computers are doing directly. We may not have the tools to regulate directly the systems of infrastructure that these data centers use, but there are tools within our zoning toolbox that could inform those things indirectly, like having size limits on a building, As you know, within our TOD, we have places where we require buildings to be multiple stories. If you want to do a drive-thru, it has to be on a certain part of a building or a building of a certain size in order to have a drive-thru. So when we think about some of these things that are generally related to a building's form or a site's layout, if we create certain standards for how these data centers could develop, it might have the effect of informing some of those pieces of how they operate. We should just be mindful of, yes. Thank you.

All the heck.

And just to follow up to my previous understanding of the answer to my question about what I learned were community benefit agreements, why is it that those don't happen? I'm thinking about the wealth of some of the players involved here. And what is it that would prevent us from considering that? Is it state statute, do you think?

Yeah, based on our discussion with the city attorney's office, this is not a kind of like negotiation within the context of land development that we're able to utilize. It's not a tool we're able to utilize. Some communities in Wisconsin are approaching agreements with these kind of developers through other incentives or other mechanisms. So, for example, we understand that there had been some discussion about some community investments that were being contemplated when QTS was talking with DeForest, and that was attached to the annexation agreement. And so it was part of bringing that land into the city service. We also know that some communities have created specific kind of agreements through TIF investments. That's something that we do a lot. We ask people to provide LURAs for affordable housing in exchange for our TIF loans. So we're not saying that there's no way for us to have conversations with data center developers about those kinds of things, but they would need to be attached to other, probably in our case, most likely some kind of an incentive program if we were to decide that we wanted to have one. and they are not directly a condition of approval of a land use permit.

Interesting. Okay, thanks. I think I understand.

Alder, you can.

So thank you, Chair. This would probably be building on the answer, Megan, that you just had for Commissioner Hecht. So I guess it would be similar to the discussion we had on the approval of the TID amendment for TIF incentives for Rialto. We could not, we have no control and we have no regulatory authority over their energy use, but as a due diligence aspect of the quality of that loan that might be involved We, I believe we insisted on having some information that, verification that MG&E actually was able to provide the power.

Yeah. And that was as part of a condition of your investment in that TIP loan. Yep.

Okay. So things like that are possible. Okay. Thank you.

And that's where we are working too with other parts of the the city to talk through these questions. I think some of our early questions across agencies were really about utility services, you know, from building fire, water, you know, those types of services. Is there a way that data centers can be considered separately from other types of uses? And the answer was generally like, no, we need to apply all of these codes and policies the same way we do for any user. So now then we started talking about land use and I think a separate piece of it will be about economic development and what tools we have there.

Sorry, Alderfield with my microphone on.

Thank you. I'll just share that I'm not wild about the idea of a hyperscale data center, given the value and importance of the remaining land in and around the city. So I just want to put that out there. I'm pretty interested in any models that would allow... stacking of floors of data centers so that they consume less space, since that is kind of my primary concern about data centers and future decisions we'll have to make about granting approvals for data centers. And I think that the integrated model is probably the one that makes the most sense in Madison, where there would be accessory uses or something that complements other uses like a laboratory or institutional uses. But I just wanted to put that out there as a piece of input.

Yeah, we can definitely provide you more information about the rare examples of multi-story kind of larger data centers. The complexity, there's a lot of complexity as we learn with just the weight of the computer equipment and the cooling needs that can make them somewhat unusual as multi-story facilities. But we can provide more information about what we've seen.

Megan or Lisa, are there any other sort of questions or topics that you wanted to make sure we had some deep dive on while we kind of have this open-ended opportunity?

Yeah, I appreciate Alderfield's perspective about the types of data centers that I think as some of these questions kind of alluded to, I think we think where we may be going is to create a definition of a data center that has some specificity towards size. And that we would then be making some decisions about what's allowable based on some size ranges. And when I say that, I mean, are certain data centers allowed pretty much anywhere? Are certain data centers allowed in limited circumstances with special rules? And are there some that are not allowed anywhere? And so I think like Alderfield did, if you have any thoughts about that, would definitely welcome them at this early point so that we can use that to inform our thinking further.

Alder, are you here? Yes, thank you, Chair. sort of endorse where I think Commissioner Alderfield was going with that. And what you were just suggesting, Megan, I think that makes tremendous sense that to make all of our lives easier, there's going to be some way to look at this by size that allows some of it just perhaps to make it a permitted use. And then in another category, perhaps a conditional use. If we start pulling together something, because the clock is ticking on putting something forward with the length of the moratorium, I think that would give interested parties, as we were discussing earlier, something to actually chew on and consider their reaction to that. So I hope we continue along that line. I think it makes sense.

Other figure of call? Yeah, I mean, I'm okay with that. But again, like messaging, I would love to see this in some sort of matrix showing me the pros and cons of whatever choices are presented. So it's easier for me to digest and to be able to explain to other people. So thank you. Thanks.

Commissioner Heck.

Thanks. I was just thinking about... This is a very... complex issue for staff because i'm imagining technology evolving so quickly and approaches to what you even call a data center right now could change so quickly somebody could submit an application based on some new definitions that we come up with and regulations and all of a sudden they can you know get away with something that we're not we weren't really envisioning so it's going to take uh being nimble i guess and changing potentially changing uh definitions or whatever almost on the fly quicker than than we usually do if if it sounds like a real challenge in the even in the short term so good luck commissioner solheim

Thank you. I know I touched on this earlier, but just to reiterate for feedback, I think that the conditional use idea is something that just the idea of it kind of overwhelms me, to be honest with you, particularly knowing, you know, these big players that would be associated with the large data centers and lowering up, so to speak. So I'd be interested in some of the, you know, supplemental regulations or other ideas as well.

Lisa? Just a clarifying question for Alder, Figaro, Cole. With the feedback of seeing like pros and cons, is there interested in seeing like a pros and cons of, let's say, using conventional districts for zoning districts or pros and cons of like a permitted versus conditional framework approach?

I think both. I think, like, the conditional versus the supplemental thing was mentioned. And then, again, what are, you know, what are the benefits of controlling the size of the building and the location of the building? Like, I don't know. Just, like, by the time we're done with this, the state may have passed a law that everything will be, you know... may not apply to what we're discussing, but I think it's an important, it's such an important issue that I would like to understand, to put on paper our thoughts, you know, our thinking process how we got there. And make sure that we take it into consideration, not just the zoning impact, but the other things that we have control over, such as transit, I guess. Okay, thanks. Yeah. There was something else I was thinking, but it already scared me. Whatever. Anyhow, thank you.

I think maybe we can, Beggin, are we ready to wrap up?

Yeah, I was just going to say, I appreciate that this is helpful, some helpful insights that we'll use to guide our next conversation with you about how we could start to develop these regulations. And, you know, just wanted to note, also agree with you that It's really easy to maybe think about how we could approach this directionally, but then especially as we start thinking about definitions, for example, of like, what is the largest end before we consider something hyperscale, I think is where we'll probably really hear a lot of feedback and, you know, kind of get into some of that debate about how the policies will develop. And just also wanted to acknowledge what Commissioner Heck said about how this is rapidly changing. I think, you know, Lisa and some others are in the... Every planner has this experience of diving deep on this topic you never thought you'd know so much about. And I think they're definitely learning about how even the technology of actually supplying the service that data centers are supplying is changing so rapidly that it's hard to even understand that. what the order of magnitude of a building or a use might be from our end of this conversation. So I think like many things that are novel, data centers have kind of been operating under the radar in our community for a while because of their scale and how they performed. And that technology is accelerating rapidly. And I would guess that this is probably not a thing that we will just do once and then never have to touch again. Kind of like other policies that we've tweaked and retweaked in recent years. So thank you for the feedback tonight.

Thanks. I think we can call this agenda item done for the night, although obviously for the discussion, people have email and Megan and Lisa are available.

Yeah, feel free to reach out if you have questions.

Yep. But let's move to member announcements, communications, and business items. I think if anyone has anything they want to share, Alderfield. Okay.

thank you chair i just wanted to share with the group um i had the privilege recently of joining a sister city delegation trip to freiburg germany um which is has been one of madison's sister cities for 38 years with occasional delegations going back and forth to learn from each other but i wanted to share with the plan commission a little bit of the experience because freiburg is a bit smaller than madison but facing some remarkably similar challenges in the demand for housing and the net in migration for high paying jobs and what that does to willingness to pay rent prices. So they're seeing a lot of development pressure and pressure to figure out how to help people get around and use public right of way to move themselves through the city. One really interesting difference that we have parallels, but they are placing a lot of their emphasis on greenfield development by the city and developing by the city large neighborhoods where they may then allow developers to come in and purchase plots or make offers on individual parcels to do a sustainable concept or an affordable concept. But the city as the owner is running the entire development. And so we spent a lot of time talking about the complexity of utility phasing build outs and how they make that happen. And it turns out that And at the state level in Germany, all the utilities are owned and governed by the cities in the state. So there are just a lot of really interesting things that they can do that I think are pretty inspiring and that a lot of us in the group are bringing back with us and thinking more about how to talk about these. I wanted to share with this group and then also with Transportation Commission too, just because of the remarkable parallels. Happy to chat about this more, but I think the Deputy Mayor for the planning and planning

dp cd christy baumel was there too so she may also be thinking about policy proposals and future discussions that could involve the plan commission that's it thanks sir and welcome home i hope you're over done with your jet lag yeah um any other uh items if not we'll um move to our secretary's report megan

Thank you, Chair. Well, Alder Field mentioned that he is serving now on both the Planning Commission and the Transportation Commission, which is a great segue to thanking Chris McHale for his service on the Planning Commission. Tonight is his last meeting, and he has been in the role of serving on both the Planning Commission and Transportation Commission for some time now and is stepping away from Planning Commission, but will stay engaged in transportation. So thank you, Chris, for all your work on the Planning Commission and serving in that dual role. I know it's a lot of work for the city. Thanks, Chris. So... Couple of other items that I'll mention here. You'll see on the list of actions on your agenda that at the last plan commission meeting, the council adopted both the Southeast and Southwest area plans. Both of those plans were adopted unanimously and accepted the recommendations that you offered them at your meeting. last meeting on this topic. So thanks again to the plan commission for all of your engagement with this. Your feedback and direction was very helpful to the teams throughout this process. And particularly as we talked about at the last discussion, working through this topic of how to deal with phasing out the escalator clause kind of over time through this planning effort was particularly helpful and I think is setting us on a really good path. So Thank you for all your work on those plans. As we look ahead to the next few meetings, we have two meetings in July. We have been holding this tentative item for electing chair and vice chair and appointing our rep to the joint campus area committee. We were sort of moving that pending appointment for replacing the commissioner in Chris's seat and our other alternate position. We don't have an update on timing on that yet. So we talked with the chair this afternoon about going ahead and doing that at your next meeting. So just wanted to give everyone a heads up that we do anticipate that you will take votes on your chair and vice chair. and to appoint someone to represent you on the JCAC, who I think has been Commissioner Heck for the last year. So be thinking about that for your next meeting. You have a couple items under upcoming matters for development for that meeting that I just, again, wanted to call your attention to because these items have been bigger discussion topics in prior reviews. We do have a conditional use application for 2219 Monroe Street. So this is for an addition of a stadium and some related amenities that for Edgewood on their existing athletic campus. We also are expecting to see an addition to the Alliant Energy Center to the existing exhibition hall. So we'll be having that discussion and a residential project on the north side that was referred from one of your past meetings. So as always, feel free to reach out to the staff if you have questions. And also wanted to flag that I will actually not be at that meeting on July 13th. So Kevin Burkow will be attending in my place along with one or more of the planners that are working on those projects that are on that agenda. I will be back for the July 27th meeting. I think I'll end there. Chair, thank you very much.

Yeah, thanks, Megan. Any questions from the commission? Seeing none, I'd look for a motion and a second to adjourn. Thanks, Commissioner Solheim. Thanks, Commissioner Heck. Any objections to unanimous approval? And seeing none, we'll stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody, for the good discussion. Appreciate the time.

Good night, everyone.

Thank you. Have a good night.