Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

I'll 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.

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

We do not.

Then we will proceed to disclosures and recusals. Members of the plan commission should make any required disclosures or recusals under the city's ethics code. Did any commissioners have disclosures or recusals related to tonight's agenda? Seeing none, thanks. We'll now move to the minutes of our last meeting from July 27th. The draft minutes have been made available. Are there any additions or corrections to the draft minutes? Seeing none, is there a motion and a second to approve last meeting's minutes? Alder Ugar, thank you. Alder Field, thank you. Any discussion? All right. Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for the July 27th minutes? All right, seeing none, the minutes are passed unanimously. We'll review our schedule of upcoming meetings. After tonight, our next meeting will be in three weeks on Monday, the 31st of August. And then our next regular virtual 530 meeting after August 31st will be Monday, October 5th. And then we'll meet again on Monday, October 19th. We'll have a special in-person meeting on Tuesday, September 29th at 5 p.m. in the Madison Municipal Building, room 215. So keep those in mind. We'll go to our new business. We will normally start with the consent agenda agenda. but it sounds like maybe we, well, we had proposed items for consent and it's our custom as a plan commission to handle on the consent agenda items on which staff members believe an application has been sufficiently reviewed to find the relevant standards met to support approval with all the listed conditions placed upon it by the various city departments and where the applicant accepts all those conditions and there are no individuals who have registered to speak in opposition to the item. On the screen before you are the items proposed for consent. We also 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 because the public hearing will be held on the future meeting date. So on the screen are the items proposed for consent for tonight. We had an item proposed for approval, but we will now pull that back from consent so that we can hear from registrants. But we do continue to have item four proposed to be referred to the August 31st meeting. So unless there's any objection, I will read into the record the consent item for referral and we'll handle that on a streamlined vote and then go back into our regular agenda. Any objection to that? So item four for referral is Legistar 93276, and this relates to 502 Flaum Road in Alder District 15. Consideration of a conditional use for the construction of a new building in a campus institutional CI district without a campus master plan. Consideration of a conditional use for an increase of more than 20 parking spaces that is also more than 10% of the maximum parking requirement. and consideration of a conditional use for non-residential development immediately adjacent to the boundary of a city-owned public park, all to allow construction of a new Senate middle school building at 502 Flom Road. Alderfield, did you have comments or questions about the referral?

I was going to move referral and approve the consent agenda.

Okay, great. Well, so now would be the time to move referral of item four to our next meeting. Thanks. Thank you, Alderfield. Is there a second? Thank you, Commissioner Heck. Any objection to unanimous approval for referring item four? Seeing none, that item is referred. And we will jump back into our Agenda for tonight. Right. First regular item is agenda item number two. This is Legistar 94181, authorizing the city's transfer and conveyance of a certain portion of a 50-foot-wide strip of remnant lands to Dane County. This is in Alder District 18. We have Claire Parks here. Welcome. If you would kind of introduce us to this item, then we'll open the public hearing. Thanks.

Members of the Planning Commission, Tim Parks with Planning staff. Just briefly, item number two on your agenda is a request to complete a conveyance of a 50-foot wide strip that runs north-south. Along the westerly side of the Dane County Regional Airport property that, frankly, we thought had been conveyed to Dane County in 1974 when the city conveyed the airport to Dane County, who has owned and operated it since. this is being referred to by or as a title omission, that somehow the description of what we conveyed to the county in 1974 did not adequately include all of the land that we thought it did. And so the resolution that's on your agenda, 94181, is a request to convey that remaining 50-foot strip to Dane County, at least the portion of it closest to the airport. There's another section that extends further north all the way up to County Trunk Highway CV that is not proposed for conveyance at this time. The airport is has improvements in the strip already. They're seeking to construct additional improvements and are looking for clean title in order to do so. And so that is the request that's before you. The city has reviewed the requested conveyance and found that there is no city need for the land nor frankly has there been for most of the 52 years that we thought it was already in the county's control and further that we find that the proposed conveyance would be consistent with the adopted airport land use recommendation in the northeast area plan and i'd be happy to answer questions after the public hearing thank you

Thanks, Tim. We'll open the public hearing and hear from registrants. We'll stick to our three-minute rule for public comment.

All right, Chair. Our speaker for this evening is Christopher Young from District 14, registered neither support nor oppose, but wishing to speak. Thanks.

Chair Christopher Young was in attendance, but is no longer in attendance at this moment.

Yeah, that's interesting. I just saw them in the attendees list a moment ago myself. I will note that there is one other registrant on this item. Nicholas Davies of District 15 registered in opposition and not wishing to speak. You did have written comments from Nicholas Davies that were included in your agenda packet for this evening. Chair, if you want to... If the commission has any questions for staff, we could pause the public hearing and see if Christopher Young rejoins momentarily.

That sounds like a great idea. So, yeah, we'll pause the public hearing for the moment and ask if there are questions for staff from anyone on the commission. I'll leave it here.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Leonard Parks, I'm on the Board of Public Works, and this was discussed at that time. There was a suggestion, I believe, by one of the registrants that we could use this Defeat strip is some sort of leverage to obtain something else the city might desire from the airport authority. But as I recall, you can refresh my memory that in fact, if for some reason we did not approve this, it really isn't a stop dead impediment for the county to go ahead with their plans for the parking area. I got that recollection correct?

You know, that may be. I don't actually know that that's really the question. That's before the plan commission. This is, I mean, an omission of title seems like inappropriate to use as quote-unquote leverage. What the county may do with the 50-foot strip is... Not really the question that's before the plan commission right now. It's whether we should agree to finish selling to the county what the county thought we had sold them 52 years ago when we conveyed the airport to them. And so I think while I can certainly appreciate the comments that were raised, because I believe they were also raised in the written that were attached today that were directed to the plan commission, that the focus should be not what the county is going to do with the land, but whether they should have full ownership of the thing that they thought they had full ownership of in the first place. Thank you. Thank you.

The one thing I would add, Walter Ugar, is without the strip of land in the county's ownership, it could impact maybe the extent to which the parking area is redesigned, expanded, etc. But probably is not a significant strip of enough strip of land that would preclude the project altogether.

Thank you.

Thanks, Megan. Any other questions for staff? Still don't see Christopher Young. No, they have not rejoined, Chair. All right. Seeing none, we'll do that. And we'll move to item three on our agenda for public hearings.

Item three is Legistar 939. 756301 Mineral Point Road and 510 Genomic Drive. The main purpose of the proposed amended GDP and SIP is to allow construction of a five-story, 92-unit independent living facility. the location of the current Hebron and Chapel buildings located near the center of the 35 acre campus. As part of the amended general development plan, the applicant is also accounting for three additional demolitions of the 147 unit tower. 56-minute gallery residential buildings as well as a recreational building located in the northeastern corner of the campus. The demolitions are actually following the still somewhat recent process for demolitions where there is a formal review of historic value at the Landmarks Commission. And if the Landmarks Commission finds that the proposed building or buildings do not have historic value, then they may proceed past the Plan Commission and straight to administrative review before raising permits are issued by the Building Inspection Division. And that is the case here. All of the buildings that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish were found to have no historic value on July 20th and are therefore bypassing the plan commission with the exception that there are modifications in the proposed general development plan and specific implementation plan that speak to the spaces where those buildings currently are. Again, Hebron and the chapel will be redeveloped into the five-story, 92-unit independent living multifamily dwelling that is before the body tonight. And the recreation building along the eastern property line will be repurposed as part of the stormwater management for the campus that will be implemented with the independent living building. And then the tower and gallery site will because they're conjoined sort of in the westerly central portion of the campus. When those buildings come down, they'll be graded and seeded pending future applications for redevelopment of that part of the campus in the future. Staff has reviewed the request and find that it is generally consistent with the high residential, uh, land use recommended for the site in the West area plan, noting that the proposed building, uh, is substantially, uh, shorter than the up to 16 story, uh, height that is allowed in the West area plan for, uh, the Oakwood village campus, as well as many of the other built, uh, sites along the South side of mineral point road between Yellowstone drive and South Rosa or Rose road, depending on who you ask. Um, So we do believe that the plan commission can find that the plan development standards are met. I will note two areas that have been identified that require specific attention by the plan commission tonight. First and foremost, the. Oakwood Village University Woods Campus is located in the transit-oriented development zone overlay, which prescribes how close buildings have to be to, in this case, Mineral Point Road, which has the BRT Route A on it. The proposed building, which is located quite a ways away from the Mineral Point Road frontage, in the center of the campus does not meet that. Staff believes based on that waiver exception or variance part of its motion of approval. Secondly, the zoning administrator has determined that the proposed building needs to provide significantly more space bike parking than is currently proposed. In general, the zoning code requires one bike parking stall to be provided for every dwelling unit in a multifamily dwelling. That would apply here as well. In this case, that would be a total of 107 bike parking stalls based on the number of dwelling units as well as 10 visitor stalls that would be required one per dwelling unit generally rounded up. So $107,000. based on the requirements in Section 28.141, Paragraph 4 of the Zoning Code. The applicant is proposing a total of 30 stalls to serve the proposed building, 20 inside the under-building parking, and then 10 at the surface. That requires an exception to be provided to the general requirements, which is allowed with a plan development. Both the requirements of the transit-oriented development zoning overlay and any general or supplemental regulation in the zoning code can be waived, reduced, or otherwise modified by the plan commission as part of its review of a general development plan or specific implementation plan. The applicant speaks to the campus-wide approach to bike parking in their letter of intent, and staff has identified the number of stalls that are required should the plan commission decide to grant an exception. In this case, the number of bike parking stalls are spoken to in condition 46. on page 14 of the staff report and there's also a synopsis in the zoning summary that is located on pages two and three of the staff report bottom of two top of three that provides the plan commission the required number as well as the number that are being provided so if there are questions about that i'd be happy to answer them after the public hearing thank you thanks tim

We'll open the public hearing on this item. And Megan, would you please walk us through the registration list?

All right. First, we'll hear from Jennifer Soto of Chicago. I'm sorry, of Milwaukee, registered in support and wishing to speak. I believe Jennifer may be with the applicant team. Yes, that's correct. Great. Welcome, Jennifer.

Thank you. Timothy walked through our plan quite succinctly. We did just include what we shared with UDC. Yep, thank you so much for popping that up. If you go to the next slide, I'll just put some visuals to what Tim was speaking to. As you can see, the site here is on Mineral Point Road on the west side of Madison. If you go to the next slide, This shows the campus on an aerial perspective. The five buildings that Tim highlighted to be demolished are indicated in red. The independent living building as described will be at the center of campus where Hebron and Chapel. Yes, thank you. Next. This plan simply shows the existing conditions of the campus, which is comprised of four different lots. Next slide. The new independent living building footprint is shown here on plan and yellow it's five stories overall with a one story connector in the middle. So the line of between lots two and three is being redrawn as part of this work campus and say connectivity have been big considerations for this whole project next. You can see here the first floor plan, which is rotated with north to the right. The first floor plan includes a handful of apartments, support spaces, and shared amenities that are accessible to all residents. The new building does connect internally to the campus via a corridor on the top right of this plan, which tunnels down across to Tabor Oaks and over to the dining room on the adjacent Village Inn. On the site then, a ramp crosses up and over this tunnel, providing for pedestrian maintenance and fire access to the courtyard from the motor court. Next. And then as you can see, the lower level parking garage provides one parking space per resident apartment. On the north page right, the parking level connects to the adjacent Heritage Oaks upper parking level to take advantage of excess supply for second car and visitor parking. And I won't go through the whole exterior design, which is the last four sides in this deck. But essentially, we are attempting to provide a transitional aesthetic that continues to move the overall campus from an institutional character to modern and residential. We've been using some natural stone, large windows, and metal panel to that effect. Yep, you can see a handful of the views here. As mentioned, there is some pretty significant topography on the site. So you can see that while this is five stories from some portions of the campus, it just simply peaks above the buildings. And with that, I think that's all I really have to say. And if Samantha Farber should be online to speak to the landscape. Thanks, Jennifer.

Okay. Next, I have Samantha Bolger, who represents the applicant team.

There we go. All right. Yep.

That's correct.

All right.

Welcome. Welcome, Samantha. Thank you. So looking at the landscape, we have the front door at the north side of the site. Landing in this space, we have a port co-share, which creates a covered entry sequence for both pedestrian and vehicular access. We also have our 10 bike spaces right where the mouse is to allow for a drop off before the front door and then heading in. Our site materials, as Jennifer mentioned, are very naturalistic, connecting to the local aesthetic with limestone and gabion walls on the eastern side of the site. Especially important to the site sequencing is the stormwater and how we've started to celebrate it and connect it on the campus. On the east side are a series of stormwater ponds that the gabion walls will frame. And there will be three tiers headed down to the local low point on site, which will be the stormwater basin. With that, we'll have a series of native materials supporting that. And then the stormwater basin is at the lowest point on site. Specific of note, if we flip to the planting plans... We're adding more trees than we're removing on site. We're especially adding oaks to the site to pull into that character and using a mostly native palette. If we flip to the next slide, the stormwater basin at the local low point of the site, again, has a naturalized aesthetic, and we're making sure to regrade it to honor the existing oaks that are on display. Mineral Point that are a significant part of what the community sees as they pass along and is what is known as Oakwood off of Mineral Point. The walkway that extends along that stormwater on the east side of the site and then crosses over to the west, just north of Heritage Oaks. We'll then continue on to the BRT station, which is especially important for the connectivity of campus to the TOD, Transit Oriented District, and to have an accessible path for their walking culture and connecting to nature. With that, I will cede the rest of my time to the next applicant that is on our team. Thanks, Samantha. Thank you.

All right, next we have Keith Van Landet, I believe also representing the applicant team.

Yes. Good evening, everyone. Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Thanks. Great. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. And on behalf of our design partners, EUA, Damon Farber, Vogel Brothers Building Company, thanks for the opportunity to be here. I am representing our leadership and management team. We're joined by our board chair, Kevin Hayden, other members of our management team, and no doubt a number of residents as well at this meeting. Just to kind of close things off, many of you are familiar with Oakwood, but our organization has been around nearly 80 years. We were established in 1948 on this Mineral Point Road location. We're faith-based, not-for-profit, locally operated, and we have two campuses in Madison. We are blessed to have a very active and engaged resident population on both of our campuses and just want to acknowledge how sensitive this project is to our resident population. Residents are a big part of our governance. We have residents who serve on our board of directors. We have a resident senate on our University Woods campus and we've worked with them in terms of communication regarding this work. Also met with a number of committees with EUA to try to design this project in a way that both meets current resident needs but also positions Oakwood for the future. So just want to emphasize the fact that we are working really hard to keep our stakeholders at Oakwood Village and throughout informed and engaged in this project while doing the right thing for our organization long term. Also, I want to just quickly address the bike issue that Tim had brought up this way as at our request. As you imagine, we have a limited number of older adults who do bike. We have about five to seven percent of our resident population uses bikes. So that was the request for the waiver. We do have sufficient bike racks throughout campus for both staff and residents. We also have a volunteer program where we have rickshaws. or power driven that volunteers can help give people rides who may not be physically able to, whether because of balance or cognition. So we do have a very strong commitment to biking on campus. And that's just a little additional background why we requested that change.

Thanks, Keith. Okay, I will note here then that we also have Chris Leans and Kevin Hayden. I believe both are also representing the applicant team if they're both registered in support and available to answer questions if there are any. And then we have 11 registrants who are registered in support but not wishing to speak. And that is the end of our registrant list for this item, Chair.

Thanks, Megan. Are there questions from the commissioners for any of our registrants? I'll do you dare.

Thank you, Chair. I think this would probably be a question for Jennifer Soto. Well, it might be for Keith and Landit. And these come from some communications directly to me as older from residents or other interested parties. And I think they were answered during public information meetings. But for the record, I just wanted to ask them here. Number one, we'll be replacing the chapel with this plan. Do I recall correctly that there is going to be some reserved space in the new building that could be used for communal worship?

Yes.

I'm sorry. Go ahead, Jennifer. I'm sorry.

Jennifer, why don't you go? Keith, why don't you go?

I'm sorry. I can go. You are correct, Alder. We do have a spiritual life space designed in the new building. We have a spiritual life committee we're going to work with to make sure it accommodates all of our programming needs and worship needs. It's not the same as the old chapel, but we will certainly have dedicated space for programming and worship.

Thank you. Are there plans for a space that can be used for worship during the construction period?

So our spiritual life committee has a task force that's working on that. The short answer is yes, we have common areas throughout campus. They're evaluating and putting a plan together for worship during this construction period.

Okay, and then one related question. Is there any intent to repurpose the stained glass window in the chapel, which I believe originally came from a different structure and

So there's a number of items that we believe have historical value. Again, that's being dictated by our Spiritual Life Committee and our residents, but there is a stone arch you may be referring to, which is outside of the building. There are some stained glass windows. All those items we were evaluating, and if they're deemed necessary to preserve, we'll either incorporate them into the new design or place them elsewhere on campus. But yes, the intent is to preserve anything of value.

Okay, and then one totally different question. There are some concerns about the dwindling number, but some remaining residents in the tower. But as I recall, there are plans that demolition will occur until all of those persons are resituated in some way.

Certainly, certainly. So we've engaged with the city of Madison and we'll be meeting with folks that are currently living in that building. There are 10 residents remaining. If they're appropriate to receive services and a higher level of care, we'll help with that transition. And if not, we'll be working with the city to review relocation plans, both in a group with residents as well as then create individual plans for the remaining individuals. Thank you, Keith.

No further questions.

Thanks. Commissioner Heck.

Thank you. This is probably for Keith also, because Keith, you addressed the bike parking waiver that you're requesting, and I appreciated your remarks. But I'm wondering if, I don't know, maybe a missed opportunity about... because of the fact that e-bikes have provided accessibility for a lot of seniors that in the past haven't been particularly comfortable with biking. And I'm wondering if there's any way you can squeeze some more interior spots for folks that might have e-bikes or

Yeah, certainly. I'm not sure the best way to directly answer that. I mean, again, we want to support biking. We want to support our residents remaining active and independent. We do have a number of people both on recumbent bikes and e-bikes. We just felt the requirements were far beyond what we would realistically need. So we want to absolutely make it a priority to make sure there's convenient space for bikes. We just felt like it really wasn't necessary to have as much as what was requested.

Maybe you can very briefly just give us an idea of where additional bike parking is on campus. I think it was mentioned that you do have some parking in other buildings.

We do.

Yep.

So below two of our independent living buildings, we have underground parking levels. We have bike racks located in those levels for residents. And then a couple of locations outside of our buildings, outside our skilled nursing building, outside one of our independent living buildings, we have additional racks.

And do you feel those are even not fully utilized now? Correct, correct. Okay. Okay, I guess I would just express the hope that you can continue to encourage use of e-bikes by your residents because I think there's some potential there. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks. Alderfield? Thank you, Chair. I'll ask Keith, but perhaps Keith can let us know if Jennifer is a better person for the question. Also parking. You mentioned that the 92 to 92 units to cars is a one to one ratio with some overflow parking. I'm wondering how that car per household ratio compares to the existing residents in other parts of the campus now.

Certainly, I can answer that. So right now, we have two existing independent living buildings. Both of those buildings have two underground parking levels below them. One level under each building is one-to-one parking, as we're proposing for this new project, and then the second level is essentially potentially staff parking. So we do luckily thought ahead and had ample parking. And so the idea would be underneath Heritage Oaks, our existing building, to connect that P1, we call it parking level, to the parking level here because we do have additional parking. So this would allow for second vehicles for the new building, for guest parking, staff parking as well without needing to construct another level of parking.

So are you saying that the number of cars that your residents and households have is greater than one car per unit and then that excess would be absorbed elsewhere on the campus?

That's correct. So of 92 apartments, we may have 20 or so, potentially 30, where there are more than one driver in the household. And so we do have enough sufficient underground parking for second vehicles. Do you have a guess of what the average cars-to-household ratio is? I don't have a guess. I know our parking is one-to-one, and oftentimes if residents no longer drive, they will allow an adult child or a caregiver to use that spot. I couldn't tell you offhand the number of residents still driving. Okay.

Yeah, I'm interested in the parking in this area of the city, of course, but thank you for answering. Certainly, certainly.

Thanks. I maybe just have one question, Keith, a follow-up on the bike, and that is, is there significant biking by staff who come to Oakwood throughout the week? And is that something that could increase or decrease over time, in your opinion?

I would say not currently significant biking. We do have a handful of staff that certainly do bike to work, obviously, when the weather accommodates. Because this building will be independent living, and we already have skilled nursing, assisted living, memory care on campus, there will not be a large additional number of staff members. So we don't anticipate a lot of increased demand from employees for bike spaces either.

That makes sense. Thank you.

You bet.

Maybe one more call for questions for our registrants on this item. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing at this time and we'll open time for questions for staff from the commission. Well, maybe I'll ask one question and see if that provokes other thoughts or discussion. Tim, if we were to approve the kind of waiver from the TOD requirements as far as the frontage goes, is there any... Obviously, we'd make specific fact findings about why the waiver would be granted, but is there any risk for creating precedent that would make it harder to implement the TOD overlay kind of philosophically that we should be thoughtful about? Thanks.

That's a great question, Chair. I think that if you're contemplating or one of the members is contemplating a motion more particularly, I think it would be appropriate to cite the placement of the building in the center of campus replacing an existing building. I think the circumstances would be very different if we were talking about Oakwood Village being developed from scratch any time in the last 25 years as opposed to over 50 years ago because some of the site dates back before the planned unit development that was approved in 1973. that given the topography, yes, I believe that's also a factor, but I think that there's an existing development pattern that they're following suit on with this that was intended to conform to the rolling heavily wooded terrain, kind of conjuring thoughts from the statement of purpose from 1973. So I think that if we were doing it new today, I think the circumstances would be very different The plant commission just needs to be mindful of why they would be granting a waiver exception or variance in this case, because those are the things that would set this request apart from a future request in terms of questions of precedence. So I think someone has to come back to the body, and chances are probably fair that it'll be Oakwood Village, but that someone would have to come back with a site that has 60 feet of grade change, established oak trees and a nine-acre conservation area on the site. I mean, you'd have to make a lot of things equal in order to point to this approval and say, but you did it for them. And so I think that any motions to approve the project with the waiver exception or variance would want to point to the specific circumstances in place as to why that's being considered here and why, therefore, it may not also be appropriate somewhere else.

One thing that I would add to what Tim said, which is spot on, is maybe to summarize is the uniqueness of the factors that you're considering at the site level. You have previously approved a waiver from the TOD standards for another planned development project, again, given the site circumstances and the arrangement of another large institutional user. I think for both of these, there were unique factors at play that led to your decision about approving those exceptions. The other thing about both of these circumstances is that they're both planned developments. And we generally try to guide applicants into conventional zoning districts unless the circumstances really, really truly warrant a planned development. So variations or exceptions from the TOD standards are only considered in a plan development and not in a conventional district. And so I think it's just relevant to understand that this kind of question really only comes before the commission in these circumstances that we've deemed to be unique from the outset. Thank you both.

Absent questions, we could consider a motion if folks are ready for that. I'll do your gear.

Thank you. I will do my best here and I will certainly be amenable to friendly adjustments to my motion. I'm going to move that the plan commission find that the standards are met and forward zoning map amendment ID 28.022-00755, approving an amended plan development, general development plan for Oakwood Village University Woods at 6145 to 6301 Mineral Point Road and 510 Genomic Drive, and ID 28.022-00756, approving a specific implementation plan to construct a five-story, 92-unit multifamily dwelling on the campus to the Common Council with a recommendation of approval subject to the recommendations of the Urban Design Commission and the conditions of reviewing agencies and the staff report, including specifically a waiver of TOD frontage requirements as a result of the well-established historical development plan at the center of the building, noting that The new building is replacing existing buildings and taking due note of our unique topography of the area, as well as a waiver of the total number of otherwise required biking stalls given the unique characteristic of the population here and the availability of overflow biking should that become necessary.

Thanks, Elder Ugar. Just one quick clarification. I think you said the center of the building, and I think you meant the center of the site as the location for the new building. So just with that tiny tweak, I think that we have a motion on the table. Is there a second? Commissioner Solheim, thank you. Discussion on the motion or any additional thoughts that we should add? Commissioner Heck?

Thank you. I'm going to support the motion as is, but I just want to reiterate kind of my line of questioning about bike parking combined with Alder Field's questions about the parking ratios. I feel like they're a little bit on the edge of being over-parked. and that they could easily convert some number, a small number of spaces to indoor bike parking. Perhaps I'll just say I hope they remain flexible and that if there's the possibility of including some conduits and things for future use or whatever they might need, it would be helpful. But I'll support the motion as it is.

Thanks, Commissioner Head. Commissioner Wozniewski.

I struggle with this one, again, with the deviations from the TOD plan. I understand the site, and so that helps me there. The bike parking, I think it discounts any potential future residents. Current residents might not bike that much right now. But I know research from my employer shows people at this stage, you know, at 55 and under aren't necessarily looking for a place like this and still want to live in a detached home. So that is, you know, a little bit kind of helping my decision there. But I am struggling with that deviation from the Viking. I think it discounts any potential future residents that might live there.

All right. Any further discussion? I think we're ready to call a vote on this. So I'll start by asking if there's objection to unanimous approval for the motion on the table. All right. Seeing none, the motion is passed. And this recommendation will go to council for this is a zoning change, right, Megan? So the recommendation will go to council. Thank you. Let's go back to Alder Ugar.

Yes, I was just going to move that we take item two off the table.

Is there a second for that motion? Thanks, Commissioner Wisniewski. Any objection to picking up item two? All right, seeing none, we'll go back to item two, which is Legislature 9-4181. We had opened the public hearing and one of the registrants, we had a late registrant who seemed to have joined the meeting and then seemed to have left the meeting. But I don't see him in the attendee list.

No, Chair, we've kept an eye out. There is someone online whose name appears as iPhone 33. If you are Christopher Young joining on iPhone 33, please raise your hand and we'll acknowledge you. Okay, not seeing a reaction there, Chair. I believe that Christopher has probably left the meeting.

Okay, so I think then what we can do is, well, I'll just ask. We did have one registrant not wishing to speak, so I think we don't need to.

And I will note, too, I'm sorry to interrupt. We did have one other late registrant after we put this item on the table, Charles Napier of District 13, registered neither in opposition nor support and not wishing to speak.

Okay.

They also did not appear in the registrant list tonight.

All right. I think what I would like to do then is close the public hearing absent objection to that. So the public hearing will be closed and we'll have time for commissioners to ask questions of staff if they have them. And otherwise we could move to a motion on this item, which is related to the conveyance of a 50 foot wide strip of land to the county for airport use. If there are no questions, we could look for a motion on this item. Commissioner Solheim, thank you.

Thank you. I will move approval of Legislature Item 94181, authorizing the city's transfer and conveyance of a certain portion of a 50-foot-wide strip of remnant lands to Dane County.

Thanks, Mr. Solheim. Alderfield, thanks for the second. Any discussion? Seeing none, is there any objection to unanimous approval for item two? Great, seeing none. Great. That is, I had a short agenda tonight, so that's the end of our formal items. We now have time for member announcements, communications, or business items. If anyone has any, does anyone have anything they wanted to share or discuss? All right. Seeing none, we'll go to our time for the Secretary's report. Megan, I'll give you the floor.

All right. Thank you, Chair. As you look ahead, the Chair mentioned at the top of the agenda that we have just one more regular meeting in August, and then we have a pause on regular meetings until early October. You can see the list of items that we are anticipating for your next meeting in a couple of weeks. I've mentioned before that that agenda does include some updates to some of the outdoor amenities associated with the Edgewater Hotel. That's the 1001 Wisconsin Place item. We will also see projects related to Toki and Orchard Ridge schools, as well as Senate that was referred tonight. There are a few other items that are listed under the upcoming matters for August 31st. And as always, please reach out to us if you have any questions that you'd like to discuss in advance. I would expect that as we get closer to that October 5th meeting, we will probably have some other items that will appear on that list. And we'll keep you updated. We'll also be working on finalizing our plan for your special meeting in late September. I would expect that you will get an agenda from us sometime the week prior to that meeting. We have currently talked about some of the items that we reviewed at your work planning session this spring. including an opportunity to give you an overview of the neighborhood indicators project, which was something that was requested for us to do a little bit of a demo. And we also had some questions from Alder Field to brief you on what we know currently about the implications for Madison from Act 173 that was adopted by the legislature earlier this year. which includes new requirements for comprehensive plans, content and projections around housing needs. That has some implications for how zoning requests need to be treated and potentially approved if they're consistent with the comprehensive plan. So we're working on some analysis of our current policies and our current comp plan and anticipate that we should be able to give you a bit of an overview of what we think that that act will mean for us at that meeting. We have a couple other topics that we've talked about in recent meetings that will probably also make their way onto that agenda. But those are some of the items that we're tracking for now. I also finally just want to mention that the August 31st meeting is another meeting that I will not be in attendance for. That will be one that Kevin's handling. So if you have any questions for me ahead of that meeting, please feel free to reach out. Otherwise, you'll be in good hands with Kevin and any of the planners that will be there that night.

Thanks, Megan. Any questions for Megan? All right. If not, I'm looking for a motion to adjourn in a second. Alderfield, thank you. Kosciuszewski, thank you. Any objection to unanimous approval? Seeing none, we will stand adjourned and we'll see you in three weeks. Have a good night, everybody. Thanks, everyone.