Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

I think we were at 530 and everyone's here. So we will get started for tonight's Monday, July 13th meeting of the Madison Plan Commission. And we will start with we'll start with roll call. Tonight we have planner Berko. Welcome, everybody.

Thank you. Good evening. Okay. So, Alder Ugar. Here. Alder Figueroa-Cole.

Here.

Alder Field. Here. Commissioner Bessine.

Here.

Commissioner Heck. Here. Commissioner Sanders.

Here.

Commissioner Wisniewski. Here. Commissioner Solheim.

Here.

School District Reps, Chihak? Here. Chair Gannon?

Here, thank you. We will start our meeting with some information from our technical facilitator, Jesse Poole. Jesse, you have the floor.

All right, welcome to our virtual plan commission meeting. If you lose connection at any point during the meeting, you can reconnect by clicking the link or calling the number in your original email. Members, if you are able, please activate your video and keep it on for the duration of the meeting. Staff, if you are able, please activate your video when you are speaking. Panelists, use the raise hand feature when you'd like to be recognized to speak 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, Jessie. Our first agenda item is time for public comment regarding items not on our formal plan commission agenda. Kevin, did we have any registrants for public comment tonight?

We have no registrants under general public comment.

Okay, thank you. Then we'll next go to disclosures and recusals. Members of the 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? Alright, thanks. Seeing none, we'll move to the minutes of our June 29th, 2026 regular meeting. The draft minutes have been provided and posted. Does anybody have any additions or corrections to the draft minutes? Seeing none, I would be looking for a motion in a second to approve the June 29th minutes. Alder Yeager, thank you. Alder Field, thank you. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, is there any objection to unanimous approval for last meeting's minutes? All right, those minutes are approved. We'll quickly review our schedule of upcoming meetings. Our next meeting will be in two weeks, Monday, July 27th. And then in August, we have meetings on August 10th and 31st. Those will all be virtual meetings at 5.30 p.m. And just to keep it on your radar, we'll have our next in-person special meeting on Tuesday, September 29th at 5 p.m. in the Madison Municipal Building, room 215. All right, we will move into our agenda. I think, Kevin, we will do the election before the consent agenda. Yes, I think so. Okay. All right. We need to regularly. update our election of plan commission chair and vice chair. And so I think I'm willing to continue as chair. I know that commissioner Solheim is willing to continue as vice chair, although obviously we are open for any nominations from the commission. So let's start with the chair. I will not vote, but I would accept nominations. Alderfield.

Thank you, chair. I'd like to nominate you chair for chair. Thank you.

Alder Figueroa-Cole?

If you need a second for that, I second that. I'm not sure. Thank you, Alder. Thank you. I will ask if there are any other nominations. And then I will ask if there are any other nominations. One more time, just to make sure that any version of the Robert's Rules of Order are well covered. All right, seeing no hands, we will call the vote. And I think we'll just do it with our normal practices, their objection to unanimous approval, understanding, Kevin, that I would obviously abstain. All right, thank you. That will take the chair nomination out of the way. Are there nominations for vice chair?

Alder Uguirre. I nominate Commissioner Solheim for another term. I'd like to second that.

Thanks, Holderfield. I will just ask if there are other nominations for vice chair. And then again, I'll ask one more time if there are any additional nominations for vice chair other than Commissioner Solheim. And seeing none, we'll call the vote. We'll... Thank you, Commissioner Solheim. Is there any objection to unanimous approval subject to her own abstention for Commissioner Solheim remaining on as vice chair? All right, excellent. That is also approved. So we get that off of our list for the calendar year. So thanks, everybody. Item three on our special items of business is election or a planned commission appointment to the Joint Campus Area Committee. I believe, Commissioner Heck, that you've been serving in that role ably and that you're willing to continue in that role. I didn't get a chance to touch base with you, but I thought maybe Megan and talk to you about it. So great. With that background, I guess I would ask for nominations for the Joint Campus Area Sorry, Joint Campus Area Committee, Alder Ugier.

I nominate Commissioner Hecht for that role.

Thank you. And I second if he's needed. Thank you, Alder Figaro-Cole. So we have a nomination and a second. Are there any other nominations for the Joint Campus Area Committee? And then just to confirm, no additional nominations for the Joint Campus Area Committee liaison role or appointment from Planning Commission. All right, is there subject to, well, I think it's time to call a vote unless Patrick wants to make a campaign speech, which I would be surprised to hear. All right, so I think it's time to call a vote. Is there any objection subject to Commissioner Heck's abstention? Is there any objection to unanimous approval for him to continue as the appointment to the Joint Campus Area Committee? Alright, seeing none, that item is also approved. Thanks everybody. All right, we have just a couple, we have a very short consent agenda tonight. And so we will move to that. It's the custom of the plan commission to handle on a consent agenda items on which staff members believe an application has been sufficiently reviewed to find the relevant standards met to support approval with all the listed conditions placed upon it by the various city departments. and where the applicant accepts all those conditions and where there are no individuals who have registered to speak in opposition to the item. Separately, we use a separate consent agenda for items requested by an applicant or staff to be referred to a future meeting. Referral doesn't require a public hearing, so we will do the referral consent agenda separately from the approval. For tonight, we have one item recommended for approval on consent and one item represented, or I'm sorry, yeah, one item for referral on the consent agenda tonight. Are there any requests for separation or to hear either of these items in full? All right, seeing none, we'll start with the consent agenda item for approval. That's item nine on our agenda, Legistar 93510, related to 4908 Feland Road in the town of Burke. And this is consideration of a certified survey map within the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction to create two lots. I will open the public hearing and close the public hearing on this item and move to a vote. Is there a motion and a second to approve this consent item? Alder Ugar, thank you. Alder Heck, thank you. Is there any objection to unanimous approval of consent item nine? Thank you. We'll mark that item as approved. Now we'll do our consent item for referral. This is item 10 on tonight's agenda. It's Legistar 93275 relating to 110 Rusk Avenue, and 1919 Alliant Energy Center Way in Alder District 14. This is consideration of a conditional use in the Parks and Recreation District for an auditorium to allow construction of additions to the exhibition hall at Alliant Energy Center. And this item would be referred to our next meeting on July 27. Could I seek a motion and a second to refer item 10? Alderfield, thank you. Commissioner Solheim, thank you. Any objection to unanimous approval for referral of item 10? All right, seeing none, that item is referred. So to July 27th. All right, this will take us to our remaining agenda items. Kevin, so we talked about taking item eight, out of order because a couple of the items have a lot of registrants and item eight did not have a lot of registrants. Kevin, is that still, or is everyone here for item eight that would need to be here?

Let's see. We've got one speaker and the applicant available to answer questions, and so maybe Jesse can help me check. I believe Casey McConnell is here to speak on the item, and the applicant, Roger Lippitt, is he available to answer questions at this time? Correct, yes, for both of them. So, Chair, I believe they're all here.

Okay. Commission, is there any objection to taking Item 8 out of order before we get back into the rest of the agenda? All right, thank you. So we will take up item eight. This is Legistar 93509 relating to 3602 Atwood Avenue in Alder District 15. And this is consideration of a conditional use in the neighborhood mixed use district for a two family dwelling, two units to allow an office building to be converted into a two unit residence. And we have planner Tim Parks here. Tim, if you could just give us a quick overview of what this item pertains, or of this item.

Yes, just briefly. 3602 Atwood Avenue is a request to convert an existing two-story office building into a two-unit, two-family dwelling, which is a conditional use in the neighborhood mixed-use zoning district. Staff believes that the conditional use standards that apply, which are one through six, as well as standard eight can be met. Noting that the site is recommended for medium residential on the comprehensive plans generalized future land use map. And while not a building form that is directly correlated to medium residential building forms in the comprehensive plan, staff feels that the pivot to residential is acceptable given the medium residential recommendation. and is recommending approval of the conditional use to convert the office building into a two-family dwelling, subject to the comments and conditions in the staff report. And I'd be happy to answer any questions after the public hearing. Thank you.

Thanks, Tim. So we'll open the public hearing on this item. And again, to be fair to everyone, registrants will have three minutes to speak. I will try to interrupt briefly to give everybody a warning when you're kind of a minute, when you're getting close to the time limit, either a minute or half a minute or 30 seconds out. So Kevin, if you would take us through or.

Our only speaker is Casey McConnell. And then Roger Lippitt is the applicant available to answer questions. But Casey is our registered speaker on this item.

Great. Welcome, Casey.

Hello.

Yep, we can hear you. Okay, cool. So I registered as neither in my position or whatever. I think that this could be well executed or it could be poorly executed. So I'm hoping to hear a little bit about the plan on it, a little bit about what their ideas are. Parking for this building is always an issue, but that's probably why it's sitting there being a little bit of a blight. For a commercial building right now, two units versus four might help solve that. Now, one of the main questions is, are they planning upstairs, downstairs, or are they planning... Let's see. East and West doesn't really work in this neighborhood. Are they planning two two-story units? How would they... I guess. What would the construction timeline be, et cetera? I think that's probably, I had a couple other things, but they're dropping from my mind right now. So I think we can move on.

Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Casey. Casey, thanks for coming off.

Yeah.

All right. So yeah, our second registrant is the applicant available to answer questions. So I would ask if the commission have questions for either of the registrants. Alder Figaro, Cole.

With the time constraint of three minutes, can the applicant do a quick overview of his project as requested by the speaker?

Yeah, I think so. Roger, if you're, yep, if you're available to unmute yourself, thank you. Did you understand the question?

Yes. I'll try to be as brief as possible. Basically, it's a beautiful building that's kind of been let go. It needs a new roof, which would be the first thing we'd need to do. I'd like to convert it into kind of a side-by-side townhome. So instead of an upstairs and a downstairs, each unit, each half would have a stairwell with a main open level on the upstairs and then bedrooms in the basement. I'm going to plan to do nice finishes and just make two really nice residences there. Obviously, being across from Lake Monona, I think it'd be pretty desirable for the property, as is the four office spaces have been let go. The roof is in need of repair. There's not enough parking for four units, so I thought two would be more appropriate. and new windows and doors. Otherwise, the brick is in outstanding condition. So it's going to look fairly the same other than potentially a new roof.

Thank you. Thanks, Roger. Other questions for registrants? All right. Seeing no raised hands, would there be any questions for staff or Planner Parks? Oh, I'm sorry. Since we are done with our questions for our registrants, I will close the public hearing and then we can move to questions for staff if there are any. If not, if we're ready for a motion on this item, I would entertain that. This one is a conditional use. Commissioner Solheim, thank you.

I'll move that the Planning Commission find the standards are met and approve the conditional use for Legislature Item 93509. It's subject to the conditions and the staff report.

Thanks. Alder Ugeir. Well, you got three seconds, Nicole, but we'll take Alder Ugeir's second on that one. You got in first. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? All right. Seeing none, we'll move to a vote and I'll ask if there's any objection to unanimous approval for item eight on tonight's agenda. Commissioner Solheim, I see your hand, but I think that it's just leftover. So I think, all right, great. So I think we do have unanimous approval for that item and will record that as done thanks for the flexibility on the schedule and now we'll um move to our we have uh two more public hearings the next one is um related to items four through six we'll have one um we'll have one public hearing for those three items and um Now, Kevin, should I read the three items before we do the staff presentation or as we take? I think I will do that.

I would say yes. I'd recommend we do the overview or your overview first.

Yes, that sounds great. So we'll do the overview first.

You could introduce the items.

Okay, we'll introduce all three items and then hear from staff and then open the public hearing. Thanks. All right, item four is Legistar 92877, and that would create section 28.022-00753 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of the property located at 1201 Huxley Street from TRU1, Traditional Residential Urban 1 District, to TRU2, Traditional Residential Urban 2 District. This is in Alder District 12. The next item five is Legislature 92590 relating to 1910 Roth Street and 1201 Huxley Street in Alder District 12. This is consideration of a conditional use in the proposed traditional residential urban TRU2 district for a residential building complex. Consideration of a conditional use in the TRU2 district for multifamily dwellings with more than 60 units. all to allow construction of a residential building complex containing two four-story multifamily dwellings containing a total of 163 units of housing. Item 6 is Legislature 9-2-602, and this would be for approving a certified survey map of the property owned by OM Land LLC located at 1910 Roth Street and 1201 Huxley Street in Alder District. All right, we'll start with a presentation from planning staff. And I think, Kevin, that one's... I think we have you tonight.

I'll do the overview on this one. Now, thank you, Chair. As the Chair had mentioned, the applicant is seeking multiple approvals in order to construct a two-building, 163-unit residential building complex. The Chair mentioned three requests. First is a zoning map amendment changing the zoning of 1910 Roth Street from the TRU-1, the traditional residential urban one district, to the TRU2 district. Right now the property is under two zones and the rezone would put this both properties under the TRU2 traditional residential urban two district zone. Then we have two conditional uses where the plan commission will be the approving body. Here it's a conditional use for a dwelling unit with more than 60 units and a second conditional use for a residential building complex. As noted in the staff report and the materials online, as part of this request, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission approve setback reductions as allowed in the zoning code supplemental regulations for residential building complexes. And the third request is a certified survey map to combine the underlying properties into one lot. So a little background on the site. Subject height is just over four acres. The city's comprehensive plan recommends accommodation of high residential and medium residential for the site with a height between three and six stories. And staff believes that the proposal on balance is consistent with the adopted plan recommendations. Now as a residential building complex and advisory recommendation is required before the plan Commission takes action from the urban design Commission and after July 1 meeting. They did recommend approval, subject to the comments in conditions noted in the staff report under the urban design Commission heading. Also, as a residential building complex, as noted in the beginning, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission allow for setback adjustments, specifically front yard setback adjustments, where the proposed setback goes down to 5 feet. Among the recommended conditions from the Planning Division is that we are in support of setback reduction, but staff is recommending that the setback be no less than 10 feet, as noted in the staff report. Staff believes that the standards for zoning map amendments, conditional uses, and certified survey maps can be met, subject to the conditions and comments recommended in the staff report. So staff is available to answer questions after the public hearing. Thank you.

Thanks, Kevin. We have registrants for these items, so we'll open the public hearing. Again, each registrant will have three minutes to speak. Do we have folks with pool time?

Yes, we do. We have three speakers wishing to pool their time, all with the development team. That would be Trevor Martinez, Robert Binder, and Nicholas Conniff are the three speakers that will be pooling nine minutes total time. Great. All right. Can you state the names? Sure. The three speakers, Trevor Martinez, Robert Bender, and Nicholas Conniff.

Thanks. Thanks. So Trevor and Robert, you guys are unmuted and welcome whenever you're ready to go.

Okay. Hello, everyone, chair and planning commission members. My name is Trevor Martinez. I manage the development efforts for Devco in the Midwest. Devco is a affordable housing developer based out of the state of Washington. We are the largest affordable housing developer in the state of Washington. We have about 15,000 units across the seven states, and this would be our first project in the city of Madison. This would be our second development in Wisconsin overall, so we are familiar with the affordable housing process generally. We're excited to put this project in front of you. One of the things that is unique about this site and this project is that it's in an area that the federal government provided extra resources for affordable housing development through the use or through the designation previously of a qualified census tract. This designation has gone away or will go away at the end of this year if this application is not approved, which functionally means that in this area, the federal government will no longer be providing any incentives for affordable housing development to occur in this area, the impact of which means that you'll likely see significantly fewer affordable housing projects presented in this area into the future. And so we are hoping for consideration and for approval. We're happy to meet the staff recommendations as it relates to alterations to the fight plan on the separate black front and are hoping that in order to unify the zoning across the entirety of the parcels, combine those parcels and then approve The density of housing that would be required by the comprehensive plan is found to be consistent and that we hope to be able to do that today. So I'll hand it off to Rob Binder, who I think is going to talk a little bit more about the site plan, potentially the evolution thereof, and we'll go into the specifics. Rob, over to you.

Sure. Next slide, please. So the site located at 1201 Huxley Street and 1910 Roth Street. This is the site he was just talking about. If you could switch to the next slide. A little bit about Devco, which Trevor's already went into. So let's just to switch to the next slide. Again, Trevor touched on the affordable housing. This is what their intent is at this point. Next slide, please. Yeah, there we go. So the site plan, 4.2 acres, 163 units. You can see the bed count there, 204 stalls, and also bike parking, including the interior space and the exterior parking that we're showing at 201. To the left is north. Okay. Roth is to the south. It's two buildings nearly identical. Entrances are kind of on the inside. On the east is the railroad tracks, as you know, and Huxley, of course, is on the west side. That sort of summarizes the space. We also have a dog park. We also have two dog parks, actually, and two playgrounds or tot lots, however you want to call them. Next slide, please. And then if Nick is available, you want to talk about the buildings a little bit?

Yeah, definitely. Thanks, Rob. I'm Nick Conniff. I'll be the architect on the project. So as mentioned, we've gone through two Urban Design Committee review meetings. So this is actually a rendering from our second time there. We got some really good feedback. You can see the unit walk upstairs on kind of the right side of the image shown in black. We're anticipating those to be metal of some kind. um you'll also note the stone continuous stone base which was a big topic we talked about of maintaining that top middle base at urban design committee um we are we had some mixed feedback so this color scheme is not the color scheme that's going to get built we'll flip back to the original um but yeah i think we can uh skip to the next slide please Thank you, so this is obviously the two building complex building a and B, this is just that same. This is just the view of the other building building be again this color scheme will not be the one we build. But we are keeping that stone wrapping the corner and keeping that consistent base data and then we're keeping those walk up steps along to activate our street frontage on Huxley next slide please. Again here's kind of that comparison image of on the left is the color scheme, the UDC wants us to go back to, and I agree, I like it, I think it's stronger and on the right. We got some feedback that we do appreciate on the second UDC committee meeting on the right those walk up units and that consistent stone base around the corner there. Next slide please. Similar comments here. I don't know how much we're supposed to go into design after we've gone through the UDC, but kind of our concept here is that on the human scale, walking on the sidewalk, the massing is broken down, you know, bays going in and out where we kind of fit those unit balconies in those recesses. I think that was only made stronger in the right image from our second UDC meeting where we connected those balconies to the sidewalk, activated that street even more. But again, we're going back to the original color scheme shown on the left. So next slide, please. We had some feedback from the UDC to take our northernmost building, which is the one shown on the right here, move it south. So move it to the left in this image. and to provide more buffer along our Northern property line. So we took that feedback. We thought that was very helpful. And then in the foreground here, you can see our playground area and our dog run. Those were greatly improved by that feedback. We got more space for those. Again, this is not the color scheme we're going to build, but I like this image because it shows how much our two L-shaped buildings screen the parking from the main street frontage, which is on Huxley, on the other side of these buildings. So I think it's effective that way. Next slide, please. Again, this is just looking at that other building, same type of image. We made some more room for our playground for dog run so left image was our first UDC presentation, the right images are second one, so I think we made some some big improvements their next image, please. All right, now we're back to landscaping, and I'm going to take that back to Rob.

I'm going to jump back in for a minute. As Nick said, we went to two different UDC meetings. The first one elicited these first set of comments, which did help us. We shifted this building. It gave us a chance to do some screening on the north side. it gave us a chance to do some screening along the, um, or some overhead over story screening, uh, along the railroad. Um, and, and we switched out a few species. Um, and yeah, next slide, please. And finally, finally, we had to, uh, dig into a few details here and we provided this detail, which shows some colors of the wall that we expect. There is a wall along the the railroad that we're going to have, it's not going to be this tall, like this detail. It'll be probably three, uh, uh, three units high is all, um, and some fencing details. Um, they want, they wanted to dig into the, dig into those things. And, and we were happy to do that and to, and to look at that stuff early. Last slide and Trevor.

The intention behind the site on those last diagrams is that, or sorry, as a clarification, that wall faces towards the rail track, not inwards towards the development. But we do respectfully want to request the Planning Commission approve the contemplated site plan zoning map amendment along with the conditional uses and the certified survey map so that we can move forward with this important 163-unit affordable housing development here in Madison. We think it's going to be an asset to the community. We want to show that we will be good neighbors, and we want to leverage and show that we are improving the streetscape by meeting the different and various UDC commissions with the iterations of the plan and work towards approval here at Planning Commission, just like we received at UDC. Thank you.

Thanks, guys.

And, Chair, I believe those are the only registrants we have wishing to speak. We have Melanie Davies from DEVCO available to answer questions, and along with David Knable available to answer questions, also representing DEVCO.

All right, thanks. Are there questions from the commissioners for any of the registrants? I think it's Representative Chihak. Thanks.

Yeah, good afternoon. Obviously, we have some schools in the area, and playgrounds and parks are some challenges in this particular area with the high density and growth. I noticed you have two separate sites or parts of the playgrounds. Are you intending to have... A smaller side playground for smaller students or smaller families and then a larger appropriate size for some larger larger stir children in the area or you haven't kind of parody between the two. So you have two separate dog parks. It's one or two dog parks are actually needed versus can you make one potentially a larger playground for some of the larger children so they can interact and have more space to kind of alleviate points of conflict.

The intention with the playgrounds is to have one be a smaller tot lot child, you know, younger child oriented playground. And then one that's for older children, you know, probably those that are below teenage years, but larger than what you would want playing around with different equipment than a tot lot. And so that's what the designation is for. It could be the case that a tot lot could potentially be expanded and take some of the square footage and the dog run on what is the plan north side or what's the true north side of the property. And however, the tot lot expansion probably doesn't provide that much additional value because usually you have pretty close and tight supervision on that. On the other end, the playground property, has already been pretty significantly expanded since the submission at UDC. It's a pretty healthily sized playground. I think we took away at least two, if not three additional parking spots, as well as filled up the entirety of the space around it. We could contemplate expanding it more if we think that the amount of represented equipment on the concept photo is wholly insufficient for that area, but that's the intention. With dog runs, the reason why we have two of them is because we find that residents frequently in the winter here do not have a desire to go super, super long distances, and we would rather discourage them from damaging other landscaping that's around the site. And so the preference is to have dog runs that are adjacent and close to the building, exits from each building, but we're willing to have a discussion there as well.

Okay, thank you. I just have one last question. For the playgrounds, are the ADA accessible or what's the base substructure for those?

If you're asking, I'm not sure, Rob, do you know what we've called out for fill on those? Do you know what the fill material is there?

Yeah, I think they're a vegetative mulch that is made for playgrounds, so it kind of knits together. And we would design it originally, yeah, we would design it to be accessible. And if we had to have a transfer station or something, obviously we could do that. The design of the actual equipment has not been... you know, tackled yet. So. Okay. Thank you very much.

Yeah. Thanks. Other figure. Oh, cool.

Thank you, Scott, for putting my words into my thoughts into words. I second that every word of that comment. I mean, I see all that parking and I get it. It's a, it's a complex for families and we may need that much parking, but wow. I mean, the playground looks so small compared to that space and, versus giving the kids places to be, I would love for you guys to be more intentional about that. The color, I don't care. I can care less about what the color is or whatever. But like really having the functionality for families to have spaces. And I don't know how much land does the property have for maybe a community garden or something like that. Because again, it looks like a lot of families can benefit from those services. That wasn't a question, but I'm just seconding it.

Thanks. Alder Matthews, welcome.

Thank you. I also appreciate the conversation on parks and I think the landscape plan or playground, sorry. I think the landscape plan really helps to kind of clarify what some of the higher level plans, you know, work having people still be a little concerned. Um, my, I have one question. Um, I just want to make sure I know, um, there's different amenities, um, in like the two different, um, buildings. Are folks allowed to, like, are those to be shared across the entire site or? Yes.

Yeah. Every residence will have fobs to be able to enter the common areas in both buildings so that all residents can enter the common areas for all buildings.

Great, thank you so much. Commissioner Wozniewski.

Thank you, Chair. There's a question for the development team. I don't know that it's been mentioned and just out of curiosity because there's nothing we can do to require it, but are any of the units, particularly on the first floor, accessibly designed or designed with universal design or accessibility in mind? Nick Conniff, do you want to take that one?

Yeah, they most certainly will be. By code, we're required to have a certain amount of accessible units. And oftentimes, when you get above a certain amount, certain units are required to have fully accessible roll-in showers. And on a project like this, that's a concrete slab on level one. we would try to intentionally locate those roll-in shower units on that level one, just due to, you know, showers have a tendency to have a little bit more water spilling out. So it benefits both residents, accessible residents, and just durability of the project to put those units in particular on level one. So we'll definitely have some accessible units on level one. Thank you.

Commissioner Solheim. Thank you. Just to get a sense of timing, you mentioned the sunset of the QCT, which impacts your tax credits. Does that mean, are you currently working with WIDA on a 4%? Can you give me a sense of your timeline of completing that and starting construction?

Yep. So the QCT sunset at the end of last year. So we submitted and was deemed complete a 4% bond application before the end of last year. I can't remember if it was late November, early December that that occurred. And so we intend on submitting for along with this. That's actually the reason for the timeline coming in now is because of one of the requirements is a zoning letter that we're hoping to receive after this rezoning that the zoning is consistent with our intended project. That will likely be submitted sometime around the end of this month or in the first half of August. We are then hoping that we would be able to close sometime either in late Q4 or early Q1 of 2027. And that's when we would begin construction.

Thank you. Alderman Aguirre.

Thank you, Chair, for the development team. Two questions. One, the staff report notes that this is a property with a known flood risk. Could you just speak briefly about how you're dealing with that situation?

Yep. Yeah. So in this area, I should say rather this area experienced a fair amount of flooding a handful of years ago. And we obtained from the Public Works Department a flood map that marked the depths for the 10 and 100 year flood plains for the property. That was one of the reasons why we have the retaining wall around the edge of the site was in order to raise the buildings and the parking lot above that 100-year floodplain piece and why we have the retaining wall that faces the railroad tracks so that we don't have damage either to the building or to resident vehicles.

Thank you. And my other question is, could you just speak briefly about how you're going to be managing deliveries and trash pickup and similar street use?

Yep. All of those are internal to the project. So if you'll notice on our site plan, there aren't any external dumpsters. There is trash chutes in the building that collect on the first floor and trash will be pulled out from the first floor for trash pickup and staff will coordinate with the waste removal companies on the schedule for which that gets brought out and then picked up. picked up by that provider. As it relates to deliveries, there will be mail rooms and package rooms in the site. We currently are predominantly using Amazon package lockers at the majority of our sites and would intend to do so here so that large packages can be picked up through that locker system.

Thank you.

Representative Chiak.

Yeah, thanks for that. When I was looking at your site to get back to the playground and the dog run, are you intending a single line fence between the tot area and the animals or dog run or is there a double break where I think of students, right, where students can reach through the fence and potentially have an interaction with an animal they're not familiar with and vice versa. And maybe you can change the configuration. So there is a buffer where students may not get their hands through that fence or children, I should say, but children can get their hands through a fence of an animal that is maybe not quite paid attention to in that area. And we have a potential injury. Sure.

Yeah, I think we are showing it that way on the south side. But yes, we could certainly make that change. I mean, the playground area is now much larger anyway, so we probably would want to do that. I just want to minimize impact. Yeah, we were trying to save a buck. Come on.

Our nurses are good, but they can't prevent things, right?

Good. Thank you.

Commissioner Heck.

Just a question for the team. Is there a reason that you didn't consider adding another floor to this, given the zoning that you're asking for?

Predominantly, the answer to that question comes with cost. A four-story building is a different building type than a five-story building and requires different structural breaks and fireproofing that are both significantly more expensive and as it relates to the parking and density piece on On this site, the site not only has a high water table, but also has some environmental characteristics that are associated with the previous Oscar Meyer plant. And so we're working with the WDNR to create a hard cap and not undergo underground on this property. With the way that the site is parked right now, with the... This building, the average unit size is a little over right around 1,000 square feet. A typical market rate project, your average unit size is probably around 700 square feet, and that's because the majority of the units in this are two bedrooms and larger. And those two-bedroom and larger units for this type of a unit mix, we would typically see a parking ratio that was close-ish to 1.65 or greater per unit across the site, and I think we're around 1.2 here today. And so adding those additional densities sort of has a trade-off with both leaseability and with cost and could potentially interfere with the WDNR hard cap piece. And so that's why we chose to go with the four stories as opposed to going higher.

Okay, thanks. So is the first floor not a podium? Correct. All four stories are wood. I understand. Okay, thanks for the answers.

All right, other last call for questions for our registrants? All right, thanks for the good discussion. We'll close the public hearing on this item and ask if there are questions for staff.

Thanks. Thank you for staff. I just want to be sure that I understand the sequence here. We've got one pass through UDC and then a second, there's a second set of plans, there's comments on both. And I noticed in the staff report, there was considerable attention to condition number eight for the conditional use permit to less extent conditions four and five. But the staff was comfortable that we would satisfy those conditions with the adjustment to the setbacks and with the conditions presented by UDC. And I assume that the ones that are in the staff report are relevant to the second round of plans and the second round of UDC comments. Simple question, actually.

I confirm that is the case. They did get referred at their first UDC meeting to make some changes. They made some changes, came back to UDC on July 1st, and then UDC recommended approval of those plans with, I believe, the three conditions that are noted in the staff report. And so much of the discussion, Alder, that you had mentioned has to do with that setback question about Standard 8 and some of the other ones. But yes, I believe that we've I think it's at least clear to staff of what plans are, where we are in terms of what version of the plans.

Commissioner Solheim. Thank you. Kevin, in the staff report in the section about private, individual private entrances, it notes the revised plan set has Seven units in A and six in B that have private entrances on Huxley. And then the condition in the staff report notes, let's see, that private entrances be added seven locations in A and five in B where balconies are shown. I just wanted to know if that condition is drafted addresses the additional entrances on Ross Street or if we should be looking at that further because I think... There was a desire to have private entrances on both. And I just wanted to confirm if that condition in the staff report gets us there or

Yes, I believe the standard or the condition number three in the Planning Commission staff report was drafted after the Urban Design Commission. So I believe that would be the, yes, I believe that was the recommendation The first standard reads that the private first floor entrances be added to street-facing facades of both buildings at the seven locations in Building A and five locations in Building B where the first floor private balconies are shown. And then the details can be approved by planning staff as the end of that condition. So I believe that that would be the expectation, that it would at least be at that level. I don't think there would be a concern if there happened to be more than that, but I believe that would be the minimum set by the condition.

Okay, and that would include both Huxley and Roth Street facing private entrances?

I believe so, yes, where there's the double frontage, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions for staff? Go ahead, Representative Chiek.

Similar to high density housing like this, there's a lot of students that are already walking through this area and family members and community. And I see a lot. So the two main entrances coming through the parking areas. Is there going to be any type of requirement for setback for distance 65 feet or something like that where visible line of sight for kids coming out or in and out of that place? Especially as the new development comes.

There's an underlying requirement that's in Madison ordinance that talks about vision triangles and having setbacks in meeting that. So that's a standard that's on the books that they would have to comply with. I'm just seeing if that was something that was noted. Traffic engineering would be the agency that would... would note that requirement, but that's, that wouldn't need to be a plan commission condition unless something above and beyond the standard was found necessary. But vision triangles at intersections and at driveways are viewed by traffic engineering. Great. Thank you.

Kevin, I was wondering if you could talk just a little bit about the setbacks. And it seems like the plans had setbacks that were smaller than required and that staff are recommending larger setbacks, but maybe still some relief from the written requirements. I just wanted to understand if we're still allowing smaller setbacks than the standard, if we understand all the reasons for that and if you could just talk about that a little bit.

Sure. And the underlying zoning that they have on part of the site and requesting for the other part of the site is a 15-foot front yard setback. And as you can see in the plans, they go down to, I think, as close as five feet in some areas. There's a little bit of a bend in the road, so the setback varies a little bit with the building. Is it 15 feet for the whole perimeter or just? 15 feet is the front yard setback. So from the front street, that would be measured from the face of the building to the edge of the property line, which would be right behind the sidewalk. Okay. And that's the Huxley Street as the front? And so what they proposed in one case got down to about five feet. The condition that staff recommended, there's a variety of reasons why staff sees the additional setback to be beneficial, both to deal with existing easements to have street trees, And from staff's initial review, obviously, their engineer would have to look at it. And by moving the building back, you might lose, I think, up to three parking stalls, which was what staff estimated. But by pushing that, it would better meet some easements. Potentially, and again, to be determined by the engineer, but you might need less retaining wall that you can grate it out a little bit more gently if you've got another five feet. And so staff had said, as opposed to 10, based on the conditions and the easements, we thought up to 10 feet would still be an appropriate setback in this setting. And that's what we had recommended in, I believe it's condition number one.

Thanks. And then is it on the side? It's a smaller setback, is that right?

Yes, the side yard's got a separate setback, and they were complying with that setback. Okay. That didn't require any changes on the narrow parts? Correct. I think we encouraged them to have as much breathing room as you can, but from a zoning standpoint, I believe they were compliant. Okay.

Yeah, thank you. Any other questions for staff?

I'll just figure it out, Cole. Thank you. The applicant mentioned that they were asking for a specific option. Is the one described the one that they are in agreement with? What is the difference?

Was that for the facade color or for a different option? Not the color. Okay. That's what I wanted to verify.

I'm trying to get on my nerves. No, not the color.

Okay.

No, they mentioned something that they were asking for a specific, I don't remember. Because I know that Section 8 has that language for Condition 8 has so much information there. And I don't know if it was in contradiction to if they're going to do everything that you guys are suggesting or if there were any conflicts between that and you guys.

No, I believe, sorry, I didn't mean to make the comment. There was a variety of things that changed from the first version at Urban Design Commission to the second one at Urban Design Commission. And among the more notable changes, they changed the base of the building. They added the... the additional street-facing entries. But I think the comment that was made there was that they were going to go back to the original color scheme. But I don't believe there's any conflicts with the conditions or the Urban Design Commission. You know, they would have to meet the three comments recommended by Urban Design Commission, unless the Planning Commission were to change any of those. But I don't believe that there is a conflict that I'm aware of.

Thank you.

We don't have more questions. We might be, it might be time to entertain a motion on, we would start, I think, with the zoning change item four. Alder Ugier.

Thank you, Chair. I'll move that plan commission finds that the standards for zoning map amendments are met and forward the zoning map amendment from TRU1 and TRU2 to TRU2 at 1910 Ross Street and 1201 Huxley Street to the Common Council with a recommendation to approve.

Thanks. Alderfield, second. Thank you. Any other, Newgear, do you have any additional comments on your motion?

No, no further comments. I think the staff report was complete with regard to the coordination with the comprehensive plan. Other discussion from the group?

If not, we'll call the vote and start with, is there any objection to unanimous approval for legislature 92877, which is the zoning change? Seeing none, that item is approved. I take up item five, which is the conditional use application.

Alder, are you here? Thanks. Thank you, Chair. I'll move that the plan commission finds that the standards for conditional uses are met and approve the conditional use requests at 1910 Ross Street and 1201 Huxley Street subject to all of the conditions laid out in the staff report. Thanks, Alder.

Alder Field, thank you. Further discussion on the motion? All right, seeing none, we'll call the vote. Any objection to unanimous approval for item five? Seeing none, that item is approved and we'll go to item six, which is the CSM.

Alder Yeager. Thank you, Chair. A move that the plan commission finds that the standards for land divisions are met and forward the certified survey map at 1910 Ross Street and 1201 Huxley Street to the Common Council with a recommendation to approve. Thanks, Halder.

We need a second. Thanks, Halderfield. Any additional discussion on item six? Seeing none, is there any objection to unanimous approval for the motion on the table? All right, thank you. That motion is approved. And now we will move to item seven on our agenda, which is Legistar 93508. and this is relating to 2219 Monroe Street in Alder District 13, consideration of a conditional use in a campus institutional CI district without a campus master plan to modify existing athletic fields to construct a stadium with a 1,200-person capacity, concession stand and restroom building, and two storage buildings at the Goodman Athletic Complex on the Edgewood campus. So we will start with an overview from planning staff, player parks.

Thank you, Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Item number seven is a request by Edgewood High School, the Sacred Heart, for conditional use approval to construct four buildings adjacent to the Irwin A. and Robert D. Goodman Athletic Complex located in the northwestern corner of the approximately 56.3-acre Edgewood campus, which is comprised of the Edgewood Grade School. Edgewood High School, and Edgewood University. And the athletic complex is located at the corner of Monroe and Woodrow streets on a parcel generally addressed as 2219 Monroe. The athletic facility includes an artificial turf field surface designed for regulation, competition, soccer, football, and lacrosse. And it's encircled by a running track and There is currently a 400 to 550 seat metal bleacher located along the east side of the complex adjacent to Edgewood College Drive. which is the private drive that enters the campus at a signalized intersection with Monroe Street. The athletic complex is currently not lighted for competition, and there is no permanent or fixed public address system, although a portable PA is used, and there are currently portable restrooms provided for use adjacent to the bleachers. The four buildings proposed with the conditional use request before the plan commission tonight include a stadium to replace the metal bleachers. That will include locker rooms, offices, a ticketing office, and storage on the ground level and seating for approximately 1,200 persons on metal benches located above. There will also be a press box located at the top of the stadium. South of the stadium structure, the applicant is proposing a standalone approximately 1,350 square foot building that will include concession stand and restrooms to serve the adjacent stadium. Additionally, two storage buildings are proposed, a 515 square foot metal storage building located at the southeastern corner of of the athletic complex and a one-story 2,425 square foot metal storage building proposed at the southwestern corner of the complex adjacent to the existing scoreboard. As part of the construction of the stadium, Edgewood is proposing to add a permanent public address system to replace the portable speakers that are currently used. The plans for the public address system call for five speakers to be installed in the stadium, which will be directed from the rear of the seating area towards the front and the field, or generally from east to west. And the applicants indicate that the sound level in the bleachers is expected to be operated at between 80 and 90 decibels. No other improvements to the athletic complex or Edgewood campus are proposed with this conditional use request. Parking for the athletic complex will continue to be provided by existing parking lots located on the campus, including across the Edgewood College Drive from the athletic complex as well as to the south in a parking lot that is adjacent to Woodrow Street. Further, no lighting of the track and field is proposed at this time. Conditional use standards one through six and standard eight are applicable to the request. Staff does not believe nor has it received comments or proposed conditions from city agencies that the city's ability to provide services to the property where the conditional use is requested will be negatively impacted by the construction of the four buildings consistent with standard two. The proposed buildings have adequate access and utilities consistent with Standard 5, and staff believes that the Plant Commission can find that the proposed buildings create an environment of sustained aesthetic desirability consistent with Standard 8. Further, the zoning administrator has determined that the proposed buildings can comply with the applicable requirements in the zoning code. Of particular note, staff also believes that the Plant Commission may find that Standards 1, 3, and 4 are met to approve the proposed buildings at the Goodman Athletic Complex. As noted in the staff report, Standards 1, 3, and 4 are often the ones that are often cited by folks who are concerned with a conditional use request. However, staff also notes that they can be the most difficult standards and impacts for the Plant Commission to quantify. We do believe that those standards can be met in this case to basically replace the portable Johns portable sound system and metal bleachers with the 1,200-seat stadium, concessions and restroom building, and two storage buildings. We cannot conclude that the impact from these facilities will be significantly different than the existing conditions that exist on site now. Staff will note that the track and field are an existing secondary use allowed in the CI zoning of the Edgewood campus, and staff feels that their use appears to be complementary to the high school's mission and facilities, consistent with the requirement in the CI district that secondary uses such as stadiums and indoor and outdoor recreation facilities be complementary to to the primary educational use, in this case, at Edgewood. In approving the proposed conditional use, however, staff believes that it will be appropriate for the Planning Commission to impose conditions on the proposed buildings to limit their impact on nearby residents. including limits on the proposed permanent PA system to be installed as part of the 1,200-seat stadium. Staff recommends a series of conditions in the staff report that include that the use of the sound system only be limited to games, competitions, and other functions, and that use of the system for practices and non-competitive events be prohibited, at least initially. Staff is also recommending that it would be appropriate for the EA system to only be used for one hour before the scheduled start time of a game or competition through 30 minutes following its completion to reduce the duration of any impact on surrounding properties. Staff feels that requiring use of the public address system to end at sunset is also reasonable given that the proposed track and field are unlighted. And there is not currently a proposal to light those fields so that therefore the use of the athletic complex will otherwise end around sunset. So, so too shall the PA system. Staff also believes that it would be appropriate for the plan commission to set the maximum output of the PA at 80 decibels. At least initially the applicant has proposed the system to be operated at an output between 80 and 90 decibels. However, staff feels it would be appropriate at the outset to set the system at the low end of that spectrum and for the point of measurement for where the 80 decibels are measured to be the front or western edge of the seating area of the stadium closest to the field. As part of the condition requiring the decibel level be set at 80 staffs requesting a sound management plan that will include the building inspection division. working with the applicant to test the sound levels of the installed system prior to its first use to confirm that the output of the system is consistent with the 80 decibel maximum being initially proposed with a maximum permissible deviation of up to three decibels. Matt Tucker, who is the director of the Building Inspection Division, is here tonight and can answer questions about the sound management for the proposed stadium. Also, there is a proposed condition that would limit use of the sound system to Edgewood High School, the Edgewood Grade School, and affiliated events. And then finally, because there is no ambient or safety lighting of the stadium proposed currently, that's similar to the PA system, that use of the seating area would also end at sunset. Staff proposes that the conditions represent a compromise between Edgewood's interest in improving its athletic facility with minimizing the impacts on the residential neighborhoods that border the institution to the extent possible, which staff believes would be consistent with the statement of purpose for the CI zoning district. In addition to the conditions recommended by staff, Alder Tag Evers, who will be here this evening, has requested that the Building Inspection Division provide the plan commission with a report summarizing any issues that may arise with Edgewood's proposed additions to the athletic complex approximately one year following the opening of the proposed stadium. Building Inspection staff has been consulted on this request and is amenable. In closing, staff is recommending that the Plant Commission can find that the standards for conditional use approval are met to allow construction of the 1,200-seat stadium, concessions and restroom building, and two storage buildings at the Goodman Athletic Complex. Staff will note, in addition to the conditions below, As noted, that the alder is requesting that the plan commission ask the building inspection division to provide the report that I mentioned briefly. And finally, I will note that there is a bolded comment in the planning division recommended conditions of approval related to the potential for for a minor alteration to conditions two through five to be considered. However, staff will note that this is proposed language and that we're aware of concerns by Alder Evers, as well as a number of the folks who have sent written comments and registered to speak tonight about that, and staff would be happy to explain its reasoning for that proposed language. later on in the hearing. And I will conclude and note that I will be happy to answer any questions following the public hearing. Thank you.

Thanks, Tim. So we have registrants for this item. So we'll now open our public hearing. We do have quite a few registrants on this item. And so as a reminder, we'll stick to our three minute limit for registrants to speak. Except for Kevin, do we have any pool pool time tonight? No, we do not. Okay, so we'll have our three-minute time limit for each registrant, and I will try to give you, if it's not clear that you're winding down, I'll give you a heads up that you have a minute or 30 seconds left to go to help you manage your time. And then maybe, Kevin, as you call the registrants, if you could let the person who's on deck, to use a baseball term, know that you're going to be up next, then people can be ready to go.

Great. Well, then our first speaker will be the applicant, Kevin Rea with Edgewood, to be followed by Sue Stotz, and then to be followed by Tanya Cunningham.

Great. Welcome, Kevin.

Thank you. Hello. Can you hear me?

We can.

Okay, great. Well, hello, everyone, and plan commission members. At Edgewood, we're really excited about this project to support and elevate the entire community, both Edgewood and the neighborhood. I'd just like to start by expressing my gratitude and thanks to Alder Evers and both neighborhood associations. We've had great dialogue. It's been a really collaborative process, and that's the dialogue. We've worked through it and worked through many issues we've had, and this is also reflected, I think, in the letters from Alder Evers and both from Dodge Monroe and Vilas Neighborhood Associations. We feel we are where we need to be. I'm also proud that we built a platform for sustained and ongoing dialogue through the Neighborhood Liaison Committee as the vehicle to resolve future concerns. We've really approached this project at Edgewood in a really positive way through our Dominican values of truth, justice, compassion, community, and partnership. And I'll just end with a spirit of cooperation, you know, based upon the conversations we've had with Alder Evers and Dodger Monroe, and to say that we'd be comfortable with, you know, the minor alteration clause for conditions two to five being removed. as we're committed to partnership on what we've agreed in recent weeks and really to the work of the neighborhood liaison committee, that's going to be the vehicle that we're excited to continue to work through. So I humbly ask the plan commission for approval. We're really excited. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Our next speaker will be Sue Stotts to be followed by Tanya Cunningham and Sean Shea next after that.

Hi, can you hear me? We can. Welcome, Sue. Thank you. My name is Sue Statz, and my husband and I have lived directly across from Edgewood Field for over 30 years. Before I begin, I want to make one thing very clear. We are not opposed to Edgewood High School. In fact, we have three generations of Edgewood alumni in our family, including our son who proudly attended Edgewood from third grade through high school, and we are grateful for the education he received. This is not about being against Edgewood or its students. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Edgewood, our neighborhood associations and our alder for addressing the new stadium concerns. I appreciate the conversations that have taken place, especially the proposed limits on the use of the amplified sound system. I understand that many people believe they have found a reasonable compromise, but even with those changes, I still have concerns. For more than 30 years, we have lived across from the field. We've accepted the practices, the games, and all the activities that come with living next to a school. What concerns me is that this proposal is much bigger than replacing the existing bleachers. I understand Edgewood wants to improve its athletic facilities and I could support improvements that are more compatible with the neighborhood. If this proposal were for a more modest stadium, something closer to 600 seats, I would likely feel very differently. What concerns me is the scale of what's being proposed. A 1,200 seat stadium with locker rooms, concessions, stands, Storage, restrooms and a press box is a significant increase in the scale and intensity of what is currently there today. My husband and I, as well as many of our neighbors work remotely from our homes. Our home is not only where we live, but also where we work every day. While I appreciate the proposed limits on the sound system, they do not address the full range of impacts associated with a much larger stadium, including larger crowds, increased activity, more traffic, and the permanent change to the character of our neighborhood. I know Edgewood has said they don't intend to increase the use of the field, and I believe that's their intention today. But this stadium isn't being built for today, it is being built for the next 50 years. Future administrators will decide how it's used, and once it's built, its impact on nearby residents cannot easily be undone. I keep coming back to two questions. Is a 1200 seat stadium really compatible with the residential neighborhood that surrounds it? And has Edgewood demonstrated that neighboring properties will not be substantially impaired? I feel the answer to both of those questions is no. I understand that reasonable people can disagree and I respect that. I'm simply asking you to think about the families who live right next to this project and the long-term impact this decision will have. Once the stadium is built, it will become a permanent part of our neighborhood and we will live with that decision for decades. For those reasons, I respectfully ask you to deny this proposal as currently designed. Thank you.

And our next speaker, Tanya Cunningham, to be followed by Sean Shai, followed by Laura O'Flanagan.

Hi. Hi. Hi, we can hear you. Welcome. Thank you. I did submit written comments, but I would like to add a few additional thoughts. While I appreciate those who have worked together on this compromise, I simply can't escape the feeling that we're basically seeing a shifting of the Overton window on this issue. I'm not specifically opposing the request, but I do have significant reservations. I thought that the outcome of the previous stadium issue was that the field was only going to be used for practices and that additional changes such as stadium lighting and sound were not in the end acceptable. But because the neighbors and further range of community members are individuals who are up against an institution which has endless historic patients and resources to continue to revive this battle, here we are again. with the quote compromise being to start adding in things that were previously unacceptable. To my thinking, they remain unacceptable. These intrusive additions were not okay then, and there will never be a point in the future in which they become more okay. If my neighbor decided that they wanted to play amplified music several nights a week, I feel pretty safe in saying that they would be shut down in very short order. I know that there are many commercial eating and drinking establishments in the city that have been denied permits for amplified music on grounds of disturbing neighbors. How can it be possible to be acceptable for Edward High School to notch up that to an even higher degree in a very dense residential neighborhood? I know that many residents of Madison and those in our local government like to think of our city as being forward thinking on issues of quality of life, often modeling policies on European cities of similar size. This has mostly shown up in traffic engineering, working toward making our city more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. But another type of policy that you will find prevalent in many of those European cities that are held up as progressive models to emulate have to do with noise and continually working toward reducing noise. As population increases and needs and wants inevitably begin to conflict, I think we must place a high priority on protecting the health and safety and well being of our residents in many ways. Reducing the stress and long term harmful effects of increased light and noise pollution are important aspects of that goal. I know that the proponents of the stadium on the current Edgewood High School campus feel that it is something that they quote need. I would argue that the people who live closest to the facility need to be able to live in their homes without the stress inducing and health damaging effects of intrusive loudspeaker noise. To me, it remains patently obvious that what Edgewood High School needs is a remote stadium location where they can build the facility they want and use it to whatever degree they wish. I urge the commission to resist the incremental degradation of quality of life for this neighborhood and also the precedent that this would set for future institutional requests to increase noise and light pollution, especially in residential neighborhoods. Thank you. Thanks, Tanya.

All right, and our next speaker is Shawn Shai, to be followed by Laura O'Flanagan, and then to be followed by Mark Gartler.

Welcome, Shawn. Hi, I'm assuming you can hear me? We can hear you, yeah. Okay, I am writing to encourage you to support the conditions proposed by city staff for this application. And also urging you not to allow those amendments of the conditions by minor alteration. The DMNA and the VNA both negotiated with the high school for months in good faith to agree on aspects of their joint statement supporting this project and do not want to see the conditions changed in the future without their input. So thanks for your consideration and for letting me speak. Thanks, Sean.

Next will be Laura O'Flanagan to be followed by Mark Gartler to be followed by Marie Trest.

Laura, you may have a prompt to unmute yourself.

There you go.

There we go. Welcome. I think you're unmuted, so I think we'll be able to hear you.

I use an app for speech because I have Parkinson's and it affects my ability to speak. I live nearby, 862 Woodrow Street, and I have been affected by noise from the stadium. Occasionally, while outside BBQing or hanging out in the backyard, I have suddenly heard and not been able to hear anything else. Noise from the stadium. So it is critically important to the neighborhood that the limitations on the manner of use are written as conditions of approval for the conditional use permit. These conditions are important in that they are the only way to be certain that a limitation is enforceable by the city under the city's continuing jurisdiction over developments under a conditional use permit. I'm for the proposal with conditions. Laura O'Flanagan, thank you.

Thank you, Laura.

Our next speaker is Mark Gartler, to be followed by Marie Tress, to be followed by Catherine Jago.

Hello. My name is Mark Gartler. Hello. Welcome, Mark. Thank you. My name is Mark Gartler, and I'm the president of the Dutch and Monroe Neighborhood Association, which I will refer to as DMNA. Thanks to each of you for your service to the city. Since 2010, my family and I have lived at 820 Woodrow Street across the street from the 20-yard line on Edgewood's athletic field. And I've been one of DM&A's liaisons to the three Edgewood schools since 2017. I'm told that since the 1990s, no matter has generated more concern for our neighborhood than the stadium proposals put forth by Edgewood High School. Although neighborhood opposition has been consistent in the past, today we at DM&A find ourselves on the cusp of supporting a stadium proposal. We would support the proposal with adequate conditions of approval from the Plan Commission, which my colleague Marie will describe in her comments. We believe that there is a way to address the most important concerns of both Edgewood and our neighborhood, and I'm gonna convey some history. In 2020, when Edgewood proposed a stadium, DM&A comments and opposition detailed not only concerns about noise and lights, but also the unfortunate deterioration of the relationship between our neighborhood and the school. Here's an excerpt from DM&A's message to the plan commission in 2020. Edgewood High School has repeatedly stated that they have been a good neighbor or were continuing to work with neighbors or have sought compromise. From our perspective, Edgewood's assertions are not only false, but deliberately so. For many in our neighborhood, the mistrust only grew as that proposal wound its way through the Zoning Board of Appeals, Common Council, and federal court. It's worth detailing how things have been different this time. I recently wrote the following to DM&A's governing counsel. My experience of Edgewood leadership this time was markedly different, and I'm appreciative of President Kevin Ray's role in particular. Edgewood's process and communications throughout seemed to reflect a sincere attempt to take neighborhood concerns seriously while also advocating for the school's needs. What prevailed was an environment of mutual respect and an assumption of goodwill that allowed us to find common ground, work through communication challenges, and develop a joint statement that we think can serve all parties well. The joint statement, which is attachment seven in the legislature file does not assert dmna is unconditional support for the project rather it was developed as a reflection of our discussions agreements in mutual hope that edwards application could eventually meet with the approval of the neighborhood. And here's how we got to the joint statement in November 2025 edgewood presented a concept for a stadium without lights to the neighborhood. A series of meetings between edgewood and the two neighborhood associations that occurred eventually we found a productive path forward by orienting around the idea. That neighbors could accept the larger capacity crowds we expect to be infrequent in exchange for fewer uses of amplified sound overall. Much credit should go to all or Evers who did not contribute to the statement itself, but help facilitate the process and kept moving us forward. And Yemeni's vice president Marie trust will now continue our association's comments and I will remain available to answer any questions the Commission may have.

And our next speaker is Marie Trust, to be followed by Catherine Jugo and then Peter Tan.

Hello, my name is Marie Trust, and I'm the vice president of DM&A. My family and I live at 2310 Monroe Street, which overlooks the athletic field from the north. In May, DM&A began working on a joint statement with Edgewood and Vilas Neighborhood Association. The statement was based on Edgewood's presentations about the project. DM&A did not see the actual project plans until their submission to city staff on June 2nd. Everyone knew that details would be important to neighbors and when the plans appeared in legislature neighbors notified the M&A leadership that there was insufficient information about the sound system and lighting. We also heard concerns that the storage building would not fit the character of Woodrow Street and the Edgewood campus. We conveyed these concerns to Edgewood and reiterated our priorities about sound and lights. The sound system information from July 8th and lighting plan from July 7th included in the register file demonstrate the mutual ongoing communication and attempts by Edgewood to address concerns, and we are appreciative of that. What was provided was imperfect. For example, the heat maps for 80 dBA and 90 dBA maximum are identical in coloration rather than showing a larger impact of 90 decibels of sound. But our trust of the current Edgewood administration has grown to the point where we suspect no ill intent from this oversight. Throughout our negotiations, DM&A representatives have reiterated to Edgewood and Alder Evers that the only way the Neighborhood Association can support this proposal is if there is some way to provide reasonable assurance that future Edgewood administrations will honor any agreement. This isn't simply a question of trust, though there have been examples of Edgewood breaking past agreements with the neighborhood. Rather, just as Edgewood is looking to the stadium as a way to positively impact their athletics program and spectator experience for years to come, as a neighborhood association, we must think about the long term future of our neighborhood. Since neighbors cannot deconstruct a stadium once built, we need to ensure that the most critical concerns of neighbors about noise or lighting are not subject solely to the goodwill of a given Edgewood administration or board. Conditions of approval provide an opportunity to create that assurance. The conditions recommended in the staff comments will help considerably and reflect elements that appear in the joint statement. However, we do not agree with the staff suggestion that some conditions should be amendable by approval of minor alteration. It was critical for neighbors that the joint statement includes substantive limits on when amplified sound may be used. Any addition of lighting or use of stadium after dark would be a major neighborhood concern. The reason there has not been broad neighborhood outcry about the proposal is that use after dark has not been suggested and that Edgewood was willing to concede certain uses of amplified sound. Accordingly, conditions should not be revisable without a public process that involves neighbors directly. If the proposal is modified by the conditions of approval recommended by staff without the allowance for minor alterations, then DM&A's position will be one of support. We look forward to continuing a positive and neighborly working relationship with Edgewood. Thank you for your consideration and for your service to the city and its residents. Both Mark and I are available to answer any questions. Thank you.

All right, our next speaker is Catherine Jago, to be followed by Peter Tan, to be followed by Ethan Brodsky.

Hey, good evening. I'm Catherine Jago. I'm the secretary of the Dodge and Monroe Neighborhood Association, and also I've been a resident on West Lawn for almost 40 years since 1987. I'm going to be really brief because my colleagues at DM&A have already made our points, but just to reiterate that Edgewood and the neighbourhood associations worked really hard to find consensus over the past year, and both sides have made really painful major concessions to arrive at our joint statement. The neighbours have resisted plans for a stadium since the 1990s fearing the noise and light impacts. And just a reminder that some of those properties are merely 100 feet away from the field. That's just 30 yards. So I just add to my colleagues' request that I respectfully urge the Plan Commission to uphold all seven of the excellent conditions recommended in the staff report. but to strike the paragraph allowing the most important conditions, the ones it was hardest to agree on because they relate to sound and lighting conditions two to four, not allow those to be amended merely at the Alders initiative. They are the polar opposite of minor alterations and they matter intensely to the neighbourhood. Thank you very much for listening.

Okay, thank you. Next speaker is Peter Tan to be followed by Ethan Brodsky. And the last speaker then that we have in the queue would be Brian Munson. But next would be Peter Tan. Confirming you can hear me?

Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you. My name is Peter Tan, and my wife and I are neighbors on 848 Woodrow Street. We appreciate all the conversations that have taken place. We share the concerns for the use of this facility, as well as the acoustic and lighting considerations that have been addressed by the neighborhood representatives in addition we would like to express our opposition to the proposed exterior material palette of the large 72 foot long 30 foot wide and 17 foot high storage building at the southwest corner of the site right next to woodrow street what is proposed is a pre-engineered metal building that is clad with corrugated metal and exposed fasteners, which is typically used in industrial settings. The use of corrugated metal and exposed fasteners on a building of this scale is unprecedented on the Edgewood campus and is not aesthetically compatible with the existing campus and the neighborhood. Hence, the industrial-looking exterior material of this building will be detrimental to the users' values and enjoyment of the neighboring properties adjacent to the Edgewood campus. A comment regarding the existing landscape screening. Landscaping that screens this building from Woodrow Street consists of white pines and deciduous vegetation. As these white pines mature, they get increasingly open at the base, and during the winter months, the deciduous vegetation sheds its leaves, further exposing the view of this large industrial-looking metal building. A note about the process. Edgewood had only one neighborhood open house on November 10th last year when the grandstand and restrooms were presented with no indication of the storage buildings. There were no other neighborhood open houses presenting the additional industrial-looking metal storage buildings before the conditional use application was submitted recently. So I respectfully request that the plan commission requires the following as conditions of approval. One, the exterior material of the storage building be brick to match the material palette of the rest of the campus. Two, the landscape screening south and west of the building be protected and preserved during the construction of the building and in the future. If the proposal is modified by the conditions of approval we list above regarding the brick exterior of the building, storage building and the preservation of existing landscaping and modified by the conditions recommended by staff permitting the allowance for all the minor alterations, then we will support file 93508. Thank you for your kind consideration and your service to the city. Thanks, Peter.

All right. Next speaker is Ethan Brodsky to be followed by Brian Munson.

My name is Ian Brodsky, and I live at 866 Woodrow Street. My home is less than 600 feet from the playing field. It would be less than 900 feet from the 42 feet above ground level loudspeakers. Other homes are closer. I'm a professional engineer with a PhD in electrical engineering who has worked in the field of signal processing and acoustical analysis for many years. I've been involved in the Edgewood Stadium debate since 2017, and I've spent literally hundreds of hours analyzing data on usage, noise, lighting, and the impact of this and other athletic field developments. This is the first time in all of those years that I am going to say that I am in support of approving a proposed development for the Edgewood Athletic Facility. To be precise, I want to say that I am in support of approving it with conditions. My support is contingent on all of the conditions recommended in the city staff report being included as formal conditions of approval. And on the paragraph beginning, conditions two through five may be amended by approval of a minor alteration being omitted from the approval. This is a quintessential trust but verify situation. Edgewood's current administration has been better to work with and seems more trustworthy than the previous one. The physical facilities once built are forever. Neighborhood support for that construction was predicated on formal conditions being associated with their use. These conditions are essential to protect the use value and enjoyment of neighboring properties. City staff has indicated uncertainty as to why their continuous jurisdiction can be used to enforce anything that isn't written as a formal condition. From MGO 28183-6B, with some omissions, before granting conditional use, the plan commission may stipulate conditions and restrictions on the establishment, location, construction, maintenance, and operation of the conditional use. In doing so, the plan condition may consider the applicant's history of compliance with relevant ordinances and approvals, including but not limited to, et cetera, et cetera. The conditions recommended in the city staff report are good conditions. While we all understand that anything in a CUP is subject to the minor alteration process and that that has the potential to substantially increase the impact of this development at any time in the future based on a subjective decision by two individuals with no process for neighbors or anyone to appeal, explicitly calling out the specific conditions most important to obtaining neighborhood support as being candidates for minor alteration to be potentially offered with minimal process or oversight is harmful and counterproductive. Neighborhood concerns are not just about the impact over the next one to two years, but about the impact over the next one to two Edgwood administrations and one to two district alders. Looking through our history of recent CUPs, it has not been common to specifically pre-identify anything but very limited and logically obvious conditions as candidates for minor alteration. Please approve this with the conditions recommended by staff and with the standard any alteration language that is used in typical disposition letters instead of the minor alteration paragraph. I'll invite questions on my 15 pages of written comments or any other topic. And thank you for listening.

Thanks, Ethan. And the last registered speaker at this point is Brian Munson.

Good evening. Welcome, Brian. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about the project tonight. Tonight I'm here with a lot of different hats. So as an urban designer here in Madison working on behalf of Edgewood High School, I would also note I'm a board member of Edgewood High School and have kids and have had kids at Edgewood High School. So I spent a lot of time as a resident of the neighborhood on site and around it. and very excited to be here tonight. And just to really thank everybody for the effort that got us to tonight. This has been the subject of a lot of conversations over the years, but more importantly, recently, very intense conversations between Dungeon Monroe, Vilas Neighborhood, and Alder Evers, along with the Edgewood High School contingency to really sit down and talk about the issues. And I think what you see here tonight is a result of those conversations and those efforts. We would not have been able to reach consensus without thorough discussion of all the issues facing the project from both the neighborhood lens and the high school lens. And again, tonight we're here talking about a facility improvement that will both address some of the concerns of the ongoing operation and existing use of the facility, but create an environment where guests and athletes and students have kind of the environment most have come to expect of high school stadium facilities and athletic complexes. So the improvements here are not being done to expand the use of the site, but rather give a more comfortable environment. I can tell you from being here many times for track meets and other events, it's not just our students that utilize this facility, it's the guests from the visiting teams as well. And oftentimes they're surprised when they would get here and see things such as porta potties or stands that did not have enough capacity for the size of the crowd that was there. And while Edgewood's parents may know to bring lawn chairs or find a spot on the lawn, you can imagine that many of the visiting guests did not. And so this is really bringing this facility up to the needs of the students and the guests and the use of this site. But at the same time, really appreciate the conditions that have been talked about tonight by staff and by the neighborhood that really help address some of the major issues, including a compromise on dropping the sound decibels down to 80 decibels as measured at the stands. along with, I think as Kevin Ray mentioned, our support for removal of the minor alteration clause language that was added by staff. So while we appreciate and understand the issues that staff raised here, in light of the dialogue and in spirit of cooperation, we really appreciate everybody's efforts and would ask for your approval tonight so that this can move forward towards implementation. Thank you. Thanks, Brian.

All right, I want to check, we had one speaker that is registered wishing to speak, but I believe he's not on the call and he had contacted staff to indicate he didn't want to speak, but I'm going to do one final check and that would be Eric Curlow. Jesse, do we have an Eric Curlow? No, there's no person by that name in attendance. Okay, well, then with that, I will refresh the list one more time. But Chair, I believe those are all the speakers. I am going to note we've got a few people registered to answer questions. We have Thomas Richardson, Joshua Carson, Freddie Adelson, Carl Brett Rottinghaus, Michael Sinsakalshi, and Courtney Cox available to answer questions. And then there are other speakers. registrants registered not wishing to speak, and that will be shown in the registration report that's posted. So I apologize if I mispronounced any of those names, but, Chair, that is where we are with the conclusion of the speakers.

All right. Thanks. Thanks, Kevin. And thanks, everybody, for your preparation and sticking to your time limits. I didn't have to remind anybody, so that's very helpful. We have time now for questions from commissioners for our registered speakers. I guess I have one question that I'm curious about, and maybe it's... maybe it's for, um, Kevin Ray, but, or someone from Edgewood, uh, and that is, can, is there an estimate, not, I'm not asking for exact numbers, but sort of how many home football games, home track meets, lacrosse games, and, um, soccer games would you host in kind of a given school year?

Yeah. Um, so actually we did forward those to the neighborhood associations previously. Um, So they definitely have those. And we've also communicated the number of events from outside and also stated that those will not increase.

Yeah, but what's the number? I mean, and I'm not trying to like, if you're within an order of, you know, plus or minus 10, that's fine.

When you add them all up, it's probably around 35, maybe, all sports across the entire year.

Okay. And is it boys and girls soccer and boys and girls lacrosse?

Boys and girls soccer, yes, and boys and girls lacrosse, correct.

Okay, thanks. Any other questions for registrants? All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing on this matter, and now we have time for questions for staff from the commission.

Alder Evers.

Yes, chair. I wonder if I might be granted permission to speak. I don't have questions for staff, but as the owner for the district, I'd like to weigh in if I may.

Yes, please. Thanks.

Thank you. Um, I, uh, I submitted comments and I'm not going to read them verbatim. Um, I'm going to kind of go over them quickly and highlight the key points. Um, Mr. Hack was on council when we went through this the last time commissioner Solheim had just been appointed to plan commission, as I recall. But apart from the two of those two, I think this is maybe in your memory as something that you recall a controversy that was written about and covered, but you might not know all the details. And there are two that I think are worth underscoring. One plan commission was vindicated. and his decision to deny approval of lights. Standard three could not be met if lights enabling night games were granted. Secondly, through the process of exiting their master plan, it was established beyond doubt that the high school has a legal right to hold day games on its field. Through the process that we had this time when President Ray contacted me, when Edgewood High School President Ray contacted me last August, it seemed to me that we had a chance to move forward in a positive direction. But it was not an easy process. The neighbors were understandably suspicious. President Ray assured me and the neighbors that lights were not on the table, that they had conceded that point. So in some ways, we were back to a point where, in the previous controversy, where the neighborhood was saying to Edgewood, why not just hold day games? Why can't you hold day games? And at the time, the administration responded and said that their governing body, the WIAA, would not allow them to do so. That turned out not to be true. Edgewood also at the time said that they had, that they could not, could no longer hold their games, their home games over at Middleton High School's Brighton Back Stadium. But it turned out that Middleton would welcome them back and the contract that had expired at any time, Edgewood could re-up, but they had chosen not to. So this lack of transparency created this profound sense of mistrust that carries on to this day among many, as you have heard. As I concluded my comments, though, while mistrust is challenging and difficult to overcome, it's not impossible. and through a lengthy process of talking things through for Edgewood's representative, board members, and representatives of the neighborhood sitting at the table and listening carefully to one another. A memorandum of understanding was signed and agreed to. And furthermore, in working with city staff, elements of that MOU entered into conditions that now are before you today. I don't need to say again, but those conditions should not be softened or made somehow or another relegated to a lower status by suggesting they could be modified by a minor alteration. So at least conditions two through four. Regarding landscaping and the landscaping plan, I'm less worried and I'm not sure that reaches the level of requiring a public hearing and a meeting before a planned commission. I do think that Peter Tan and his wife who live there on Woodrow Street make a good point about the aesthetics of the storage facility. Peter is an architect by the way, so he knows these things. I would think that Edgewood might want to reconsider that and try to come up with some other building palette, but this is not the UDC. You are not the Urban Design Commission. But I wonder if Edgewood wouldn't consider this prior to the time that they actually build those buildings to just reconsider that point. And certainly there should be adequate screenage screening from a landscaping standpoint, comprehensive so as to, and it may require new landscaping to limit the view, whether those are those special types of shrubs that grow up, you know, 20 feet tall or whatever that hold their needles all year round, arborvitae or whatever they're called, but A real consideration that rather than having some Cleary-style building just sitting right there on the edge of Woodrow Street, something, some other aesthetic, or at least adequate landscaping, perhaps that should be considered part of Edgewood's landscaping plan. So in short, I'm really impressed with the process here. But as you've heard, not everybody has bought into it. And that's because the mistrust from the last round was really profound. It's important to note that there was a time where Edgewood and the neighbors got along quite well. And a period prior to the controversy that started roughly in 2017, 2018, and actually entered some kind of legal disputes in 2019, 2020, the neighbors were quite quick to support Edgewood and many of its projects and enjoy a quality relationship. The neighbors are understandably concerned that when given that it changed, that status changed with a new administration, that even though the current administration and the current board has proven to be solicitous of neighborhood concerns, really engaging, that somehow or another it could change again. Therefore, it's incumbent upon you representing the city's vested interest in seeing that this complicated issue come to a fair and lasting resolution that we put forth conditions that set a marker in the ground, so to speak, that we can move forward, but we're not abandoning the neighborhood and their concerns. so that Edgewood's legitimate and reasonable expectation that they could have an athletic facility that serves the needs of their athletes and the parents and supporters who show up to watch those games and watch those athletes compete, that they can continue to move forward. But we don't do this at the expense of the concerns that have been expressed by the neighbors. So I ask you to be thoughtful on this. I want to commend staff. for listening, for responding to concerns. Matt Tucker and Tim Parks met with the neighbors on a couple of occasions at times that were really critical. The process has been very important. It's been somewhat monumental, in fact. It's a vast change from what we went through in the past. But please do your job to ensure that these changes are sustainable and lasting over time so that we don't have to come back some years hence and have a controversy that has been reignited. I'm available if you have any questions. And thanks for listening.

Thanks, Alder Evers. Questions for staff from the commission or Alder has offered as well. Alder Ugar.

Thank you. I have a question for staff and then as a follow-up for that, a question for Alder Evers. As mentioned in the preamble here, the description of the project, there was a point that I think Planner Parks made that were available to explain the reasoning for the inclusion of that description of conditions that might be subject to the minor alteration process and the reasoning that staff had for including that. I wonder if you could just go over the reasoning for putting that in there.

Yeah, just briefly on that. That's actually a carry forward from the conditions that were in the staff's report from May 2020 when we were recommending conditions for the lighting of the stadium, which was proposed at that time. And the thinking then and my thinking now was that with very detailed conditional use requests like the one that's before you tonight and like the one that preceded it for the lights, there are a lot of little details and things that maybe come up during the implementation or operation of a conditional use after it leaves the plan commission, assuming it's approved. that might need adjusting through a process that would invariably involve the alder and staff. And so that was carried forward here as effectively, if you'll, you know, borrow the phrase, adjusting the knobs on the conditional use. However, clearly it's created quite a bit of unrest with folks who are otherwise seemingly supportive of the request that's before you. And staff certainly would understand if the plant commission was chose to eliminate that wording, which does make those conditions more rigid, maybe possibly does not make us as nimble going forward with some of the things that might not have been foreseen getting to this point. But it's certainly understandable that folks want more, not less certainty coming out of the meeting tonight.

Oh, you're muted still. Thank you, Tim. And as a follow-up to that, actually a question for Alder Evers. Alder Evers, would it be accurate to say that eliminating those comments, despite what Planner Parks has pointed out here with some logic, is fairly crucial to the maintenance of the trust that has been reestablished between Edgewood and the neighborhood?

Yes, Alder David, thank you for the question. Yeah, in a sense, it's even a bit triggering. And I understand Mr. Park's reasoning behind it, but I think under the circumstances, it's not helpful, nor is it really necessary, especially with conditions two through four. And, you know, I, I, even with condition five and the landscaping sense, the landscaping plan also offers elements of sound mitigation that moving forward to language of minor alteration just feels somewhat unstable. It's, it's like the ground is not quite as secure under the feet of the neighborhood who came and secured this kind of, or offered their approval. Um, first time, you know, that they've, as it was indicated, approved a project like this of this magnitude, uh, having to do with the proposed dating. So anything that would make the neighborhood feel less secure, I'm not in favor of. And since, uh, Edgewood has been gracious in saying we can live without that. We'll go if necessary, we're willing to show up and hash it out and have that conversation and have a public hearing. And if I may, as perhaps anticipate in a follow up question, my request that there be a review after one year is actually not a condition on Edgewood, it's a condition on the city. It says this is so important, we need to have a verification process that things are going as intended. You know, mechanical equipment, sound equipment included, may not work as designed. It may be tested, but somehow in real life, it may, again, need to be tweaked and adjusted, I believe. And I trust that Edgewood will respond to those concerns if they arise and make the necessary tweaks. That's the promise that has been made. But let's verify that. Let's substantiate that. And let that be an exercise in your continuing jurisdiction that's kind of built in Edgewood. may not be necessary in succeeding years, but it does provide some parameters and a useful reference point one year after this has been implemented and used in operation. So I don't know if you were planning on asking that, but I took advantage of the opportunity to go ahead and speak.

Actually, Alder Evers, you anticipated my further question, but just for further clarification on that point, I believe you suggested that beyond the comment that is made in the staff report and commentary on that point made by Planner Parks, you have proposed, I believe, in your letter that we actually add a condition formally to require that report in one year after the commissioning of the project. Do I understand that properly?

Yes, I don't know if it... If it's actually a legal matter that you can include that as a condition since conditions typically are on the applicant. But if you can add, however you can put it in writing, that your approval is contingent upon the city agreeing, the building inspection division agreeing to this report, which they've agreed to, by the way. And that, of course, implied in that is that Edgewood would cooperate to the extent that is required. Yes, please put that as a condition of however you may find possible.

Clarity on that point, let me just raise a point of order right at this point as to whether It is proper to add a condition requiring a report from staff as described in the staff report just reviewed by Alder Evers here.

Alder, Kevin, do you want to respond to that?

I'll let Matt Tucker speak to that first.

Okay, yeah, we do have Matt Tucker here as well. Yeah, go ahead, Matt.

Hi, good evening. I don't think it's appropriate to apply this as a condition because it is not something that Edgewood has control over compliance. It's basically... We were asked if we could bring back a year after the facility's open and operational some form of how's it working, how's it going, what have we learned, what have we heard about the facility, how did the calibration go, those types of things. And we've offered to do that. So I would not apply it as a condition because it's not something that they're responsible for. And simply indicate that your understanding is that the city staff will bring a report back a year after the facility is open for the Planning Commission to review.

Thank you, Matt. That makes sense to me.

Alder figure, O'Call. No, sure. O'Reilly. Can you hear me? We can hear you now. All right. Yeah. My Internet is not, you know, going in and out. So I'm not sure who this question is for, but for the ARC, we put conditions on things. And when people have to get the conditions removed or changed, they have to come back to the ARC. to the committee, causing agenda for that to happen. How does that work in plan commission when we put conditions of this kind on nature?

Sorry, I was waiting for Tim to jump in. The practice of planning staff is when the conditions are approved, they become the plan commission's conditions and staff does not remove conditions of approval that the plan commission would attach to a project. That's been our longstanding practice with, yeah.

So they're like that forever? The applicant doesn't get a chance to come back to us and ask for the commissions?

No. I should say a minor alteration is defined and somebody, if it's not a minor alteration, an applicant could apply for a major alteration and that would require a public hearing and a full application and back to the planning commission. So the minor alteration, which is an administrative process with an alder recommendation from the alder, we don't use that process as a practice for conditions of approval that I can recall.

Thank you.

Tim, did you have anything else? Sorry, we unmuted at the same time. No. No.

So we still have time for questions for staff. And if the people's questions have been addressed, it might be time to consider a motion.

Alder, you're here. Thank you, Chair. I move that the plan commission finds that the standards for conditional use approval are met to approve construction of a 1,200-seat stadium, concessions and restroom buildings, and two storage buildings adjacent to Goodman Athletic Complex at Edgewood High School of the Sacred Heart at 2219 Monroe Street. subject to the conditions that are included in the staff report, except that the double asterisk point on conditions two to five being amended by approval by minor alteration be struck in its entirety. And I might add that I make this motion with the understanding that there will be a report approximately one year after the commissioning of the facilities, reviewing potential problems in a report from building inspection. Thank you.

Thanks. Commissioner Solheim second that motion. Any additional discussion or explication on the motion? All right, hearing none, we'll call a vote. We'll start with, is there objection to unanimous approval for the motion? And seeing none, we'll report the motion as passed, thanks. Thanks, everybody, and thanks for all of the registrants and Alder Evers. This process reflects a lot of work in the front end to make the presentations that we've had. Easy to understand and succinct and respectful. So thanks to everybody who participated in that.

If I may, Chair. You bet. Thank you. Thank you to Plant Commission. Thank you to staff. Thank you to Edgewood and the neighbors. I think this is an important moment. It was a lot achieved here. Again, thank you very much.

Thanks. All right, that concludes our formal agenda. We have time for member announcements, communications, and business items, if anybody has items like that to share. Seeing nobody jumping in, we'll move to our secretary's report. And Kevin, you have the floor.

Thanks, Chair. Just really quickly, just note some of the highlights from the secretary's report on the agenda. First, starting with recent council actions, At your previous meeting, you recommended approval of two zoning text amendments, including one for vehicular access restrictions and other related to height in residential districts. Both were approved by the Common Council at their previous meeting. And then looking ahead to our next two regularly scheduled meetings, just note that on July 27th, among the projects you'll be seeing, there are two redevelopments at schools. We've got Senate Middle School and Cherokee Heights Middle School. will be on your July 27th agenda. And then looking ahead to August 10th, there's a redevelopment of a building as part of the Oak Park campus for, and that will be a PD GDP amendment currently scheduled for August 10th. So those are the highlights. Please let me know if there's any questions on the secretary's report.

Just, yeah, Oakwood Village. Oh, Oakwood, yep. Yep, yep.

Oh, I'm sorry if I misspoke. Yes, Oakwood Village.

Yeah, no worries, no worries. Any questions for Kevin on the Secretary's report? All right, I am looking for a motion to adjourn. And a second. Commissioner Solheim, thank you. Alderfield, thank you. Any objection to unanimous approval? And we will stand adjourned and we'll see everybody in a couple weeks. Thank you.