Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

So I'm going to call to order this Monday, August 31st, 2026 meeting of the Madison Plan Commission.

Planner Furco, would you call the roll for the commission?

Yeah, sorry, I was looking for the unmute button. Yes. Alder Field? Here. Alder Figaro-Cole?

Oh, she was. Yep. She's still here. Oh, okay.

It's Alder Figaro-Cole. Alder Yeager? Here. Commissioner Bessine?

Here.

Commissioner Sanders?

Here.

Commissioner Heck? Here. Commissioner Solheim? Oh, I didn't hear Commissioner Solheim, but I see she's present.

Okay.

And School District Representative Chihak? Here. And Chair Ginnom?

Here. Thanks. We will start the meeting with 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're 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, ask questions, or request a roll call vote. Lowering your hand will take you out of the queue. Members of the public who have registered to speak, To be allowed 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 list in today's agenda. Chair, the floor is yours.

Thanks, Jesse. Our first agenda item is time for public comment for topics not on the Planning Commission agenda tonight. Planner Furco, do you have... Do we have registrants for Agenda Item 1?

Sure. We do have one registrant for general public comment, Peter O. Johnson Sr. at 1001 Wisconsin Place. First, I don't see him in the list, but I'll first check with Jesse Poole to see if he is in the queue. Yeah, there's no person in attendance by that name. And I believe he may be registered to speak on the last item on our agenda here this evening for the Edgewater. So we will call his name when we get to that item, Chair, if that's okay.

Yeah, that sounds good. Maybe he'll be available if that's what he wanted to talk about. So we'll move on to disclosures and recusals. Members of the Plan Commission should make any required disclosures or recusals under the city's ethics code. Do any commissioners have disclosures or recusals related to tonight's meeting? School District Representative Chiak.

I recuse myself from item number three and number four.

Both of them are MSD projects. I'm willing to answer questions as need be.

Great. Thank you. Noted. Any other disclosures or recusals? All right, seeing none, we'll go to the minutes. We've been provided draft minutes of our August 10th, 2026 regular meeting. Does anyone have corrections or additions to the draft minutes? Seeing none, can I ask for a motion and a second to approve the August 10th minutes? Aldo Ugar, thank you. And Commissioner Solheim, thank you. Any discussion on the motion to approve August 10 minutes? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Is there objection to unanimous approval for our last meeting minutes? All right. Thank you. We'll record those as passed unanimously. We always review our schedule of upcoming meetings. We are here on the cusp of September and we will reconvene October 5th for our next regular meeting. And then we'll have a second meeting in October on October 19th. And then we'll meet on November 16th and 30th. Those are all virtual meetings at 5.30 p.m. We will get one shot at September, and that will be Tuesday, September 29th. And that's for our in-person special meeting in room 215 of the Madison Municipal Building. So we'll look forward to seeing everybody in four weeks from tomorrow. All right, we'll start with our business and public hearings. Starting with our consent agenda, it has been the custom of the plan commission to handle on consent agenda those items on which staff members believe an application has been sufficiently reviewed to find the relevant standards met to support approval with all of 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. You have on the screen before us the consent agenda for approval for tonight's meeting. We don't have any referrals on tonight's consent agenda, so we will only deal with approval items as one consent motion. And those are items two, five, and seven. So my question for the commission is, are there any requests for separation for those three items as opposed to handling them together on consent? All right, seeing none, I will read the consent items into the record before we consider them for approval. Item two on our agenda is Legistar 94182, amending sections of Chapter 28 of the Madison General Ordinances to remove maximum height limits and landscape requirements in the airport district. Next is item 5, Legislature 9-4-1-3-5. This relates to 1050 Sherman Avenue in Alder District 6, and that's consideration of a conditional use to construct in addition to a single family residence on the lakefront parcel. Finally, item seven is Legistar 94158. This relates to 1409 Teresa Terrace in Alder District 20, and it's for consideration of a conditional use in the suburban residential consistent SRC3 district for a daycare center to allow a child care use to be added to the Teresa Terrace Neighborhood Center. So we will open the public hearing on these items and close the public hearing and call a vote. Could I ask for a motion and a second to approve our consent agenda? Alderfield, thank you. And Alder Ugar, thank you. Any objection to unanimous approval for the consent agenda? Seeing none, the consent agenda is passed for tonight. So we will turn to the remaining items on our agenda, and we'll start with item three. This is Legistar. 9-3-2-7-6 related to 502 Floun Road in Alder District 15. Consideration of a conditional use for the construction of a new building in a campus institutional 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. And we will have Senator Furco lead us, start with a short staff presentation on this item.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. So the Chair mentioned we have three conditional uses before you tonight. Again, the first is construction of a new building in the CI Zoning District because there's not a master plan. The second one is an increase of more than 20 parking stalls that is in excess of 10% of the maximum parking requirement. And the third conditional use is for non-residential development adjacent to a park. So thus, this request before you tonight is subject to the approval standards for conditional uses. As for a bit of site background, Senate Middle School shares a nearly 57-acre parcel with La Follette High School. As part of this proposal, the existing middle school would remain while the new school is being constructed. The applicant anticipates construction would be complete in mid-2028. Once the new school is completed, the applicant would then demolish the existing Senate middle school. Note that the existing school was previously found to have no known historic value by the Landmarks Commission, and thus there is no further action on the demolition that will be required of the Planning Commission for that aspect of this request. Now, when noted in the staff report, the site is technically adjacent to the Dean House, which is a historic landmark, which is part of the City of Madison's Monona Golf Course property. Due to the distance, which is over 2,000 feet away, and the lack of visibility between the Senate School and the Dean House, the Landmarks Commission advised that this proposed school is not so large or visually intrusive to adversely affect the historic character of the nearby landmark. As for the new school itself, it's proposed as a two-story L-shaped structure. It has a ground floor footprint of approximately 83,000 square feet and an upper level of 50,000 square feet. This construction would allow the capacity to increase from about 600 students today to up to 800 students. In regards to faculty today, there's about 85 faculty members of the staff, and the school district says that with completion, up to 100 employees could be employed as part of the new Senate Middle School. From a plan consistency standpoint, staff notes that the comprehensive plan and the recently adopted southeast area plan recommend special institutional uses, and staff believes that the proposal and proposed land use is consistent with that recommendation. As noted in the staff report, staff believes the applicable conditional use standards can be found met and recommends approval, subject to the comments and conditions noted in the staff report. Staff will be available to answer questions after the public hearing. Thank you, Chair.

Thanks, Kevin. We will now open the public hearing for this item, and we do have a few registrants, and so we will go through our list. We will stick to our three-minute rule for public registrants at the meeting, and I'll try to interrupt briefly when there's around a minute left just to help you manage your time.

um and player for co would you walk us through the list yes uh we have one registered speaker um registered neither in support nor opposition and that's uh susan bauer socks who is with the the the school district's development teams so that's our one speaker um and we also have kevin yeska of the team in support but not wishing to speak thanks um susan i think you're unmuted um so we uh you're we're ready for you whenever you're ready

Okay, will you be sharing the presentation? Nope, Tim is getting it up just as we speak.

Okay, perfect. All right, you can go to the next slide, Tim. So the site location, as Mr. Fergio shared, it's adjacent to La Follette High School. Flom Road is along the south edge of the property. The park in Monona Golf Course is along the west side and then to the north there are some more district property with some green space. The primary plan for the Senate replacement is the existing building will stay in operation while the new one is being built adjacent to it. And so as you think about site circulation, Plum Road was to the south. So the site entrance is remaining in that southwest corner as it was existing. As you enter along that west side, there's a drop off area for students to enter in the building along the west side. You can continue around the circulation to the northeast corner, and there's a loop there with a main entry visitor parking circulation as well as parking along that area. And then you loop back out that southwest corner. The space between La Follette High School and the proposed new school, once the existing building is demolished, will be converted into green space, connector sidewalks, trees, playground areas between the two buildings. Next slide. Just to give you an idea of the floor plans, there's multiple entrances into this building on first floor. There you can enter along the west side if you're going through that sort of drop-off lane area. You can enter along the east side if you're parking as a visitor or coming into the main office entry. The large yellow buses will queue along the curb on Flom Road, and so you can enter from the south across the sidewalks to get into the building there right sort of in the that sort of center connector of that corridor. Next slide. So if you look at the elevations in terms of the presence of the building on the site, looking at that east side and those west sides, the second level is primarily education spaces, trying to maximize the amount of natural light access to the classrooms on that second level. You see a little bit on that east side elevation in terms of where that main entry is and those glassy sections that sort of divide the different components of the building. Next slide. The north elevation faces the green space or the soccer fields. And so primarily the gym is on the left. We have two stories of education spaces on the right. And then the south elevation, which faces Flom Road, you can see there's some signage being proposed. I know we're not reviewing that tonight, but just sort of recognition as you would go down Flom Road in terms of that this is Senate Middle School. But there are music spaces, library is over the top of the center with the commons, and then that main entry on the east. And then you can just kind of click through the next few slides.

I was going to say, Susan, you are at time if there are any quick wrap-up you want to do, but there are also maybe questions for you from the commissioners.

So we included in the presentation visuals of each of the different perspectives as you go around the building. So if you have any questions, we can help explain the different elements between the building and the site. Thanks.

Kevin, was Susan our only registrar there?

Yes, I just refreshed the list, and Susan was the only registered speaker for this item.

Okay, great. Are there questions from the Commission for Susan on her presentation or any other aspects of the project? All right. Last call, and then I will close the public hearing and ask if there are questions from the Commission for staff. All right. If there are no questions for staff, we may be ready for a motion on this item. Alder Yeager, thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I will move that the plan commission finds that the standard for conditional uses are met and approve the three requests that we have before us. Number one, for the construction of a new building in a campus institutional district without a campus master plan. Second, for an increase of more than 20 parking spaces that is also more than 10% of the maximum parking requirement. and three 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 Floam Road, subject to the conditions laid out in the staff report. Thank you, Chair.

Thanks, Alder Ugar. Alder Figaro-Cole, second on that. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? And seeing none, we'll start. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for this item? Great. We will record that as approved. Thank you. Thanks for the good presentation, Kevin and Susan, both. That will take us to item four on our agenda. which is Legislature 93829, relating to 5606 Russet Road in Alder District 10, consideration of a conditional use in a suburban residential consistent 1, SRC 1 district, for school, public, or private, consideration of a conditional use in the SRC 1 district for a building or structure exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area, Consideration of a conditional use in the SRC-1 district for a non-residential building exceeding 35 feet in height. And consideration for conditional use for an increase of more than 20 parking spaces that is also more than 10% of the maximum parking requirement. All to allow construction of a new public school building to replace the existing Akira Toki Middle School and Orchard Ridge Elementary School buildings. So we will start with the staff presentation that we have in our parks on deck. Ready to go.

Thank you, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Item number four is a request by Madison Metropolitan School District to replace the existing Toki Middle School and Orchard Ridge Elementary School on an approximately 18-acre parcel located on the north side of Russet Road between South Whitney Way and Gilbert Road in SRC-1 zoning. The requests before the body tonight include a conditional use for a school, public or private, an SRC1, a building larger than 10,000 square feet in floor area, a new conditional use for the plan commission to consider. And that is consideration of a conditional use for a non-residential building in SRC1 zoning that exceeds 35 feet in height. The Planning Commission can now, as of late July, consider conditional uses for buildings not exceeding 50 feet, non-residential buildings exceeding 35 feet but not exceeding 50 feet is now a conditional use in SRC 1. So that is a new request before the body tonight. And then like Senate just a few moments ago, there's also a conditional use to exceed the maximum parking limit. For a school building. This is all for the construction of a two to three story 204,000 square foot combined school that will replace the existing school that currently fronts on to Russet Road. The new school will be located to the northwest along the Whitney Way frontage. Like with the other MMSD schools that you've seen over the last couple of years, the intent of this is to allow the new school to be constructed while the existing school continues to operate. And then once the new school is completed, the existing school will be demolished. So new school building along Whitney Way, one of the highlights of the project will be a large central parking area located north of the existing school or predominantly located north of the existing school building, southeast of the proposed school building, kind of in the center of the 18 acre site, which will provide the primary pickup and drop off function for both schools. which will have staggered start times so that the drop-off loop can be used first, I believe, by the elementary school and then followed after that by the middle school with 106 parking stalls in the center of that loop. which will be primarily for staff parking for the two schools. There is a second drop-off loop closer to the entrance of the elementary school, which will be at the northern edge of the proposed building. The primary entrance to the middle school will be on the south facade. And school bus pickup and drop off will continue to be along Russet Road. A couple of things to note with the proposal to continue. Using Russet Road, the north curb of Russet Road, to be specific, for school bus pickup and drop off, which is for the middle school. The school district is requesting and the city is requesting. willing, I would say at this point. I think we've gone from reacting to considering to now being generally supportive of making the end of the 5600 block of Russet Road at Whitney Way a one-way westbound so that cars cannot turn into Russet Road from Whitney Way going either direction. The thinking there is that it will preserve a two-way operation for the eight single-family homes located south of the school on the 5600 block of Russett. So they'll be able to come and go from Gilbert Road. The street will remain two-way. But by taking predominantly school traffic... off of Russet Road so that folks that are coming to and from the school cannot use that block to come from Whitney Way towards where the parking will be accessed, which is off of Gilbert Road. The hope is that Russet Road will be a safer environment for all parties, in particular kids going to and from the school. So in reviewing the request, the site is zoned SRC1, but it's recommended for special institutional in the recently adapted Southwest Area Plan. We feel that the continued use of the site for school use is consistent with special institutional, and we believe that the plan commission. You can find that the conditional use standards for everything that is before tonight are met, including the height of the proposed school, which we think based on its placement on the site and the distance of the school to the nearest structures to the north and west, that there should not be. Impact from the mass of the school, we're not anticipating shadow impacts. We feel that with the conditions of approval proposed that the school and building over 10,000 square feet, that the conditional uses, those conditional uses can be met. And then lastly, we are not opposed to the amount of parking proposed for the school. There will be 113 total parking stalls on the site, most of those, again, in the 106-stall lot located in the middle of the central drop-off loop accessed from Gilbert Road. The school district has indicated that there could be as many as 185 staff persons there. between the elementary and middle school. So we are not one-to-one on that. Historically, there's been quite a bit of parking that has occurred in the neighborhood because currently there's not enough parking on the site to support the school's needs. We feel that that will be less a concern with the proposed site layout and feel that that conditional use can also be granted. One thing I will share with the plan commission, which was Somewhat breaking news this afternoon, the project team reached out to the Traffic Engineering Division and had some questions about the conditions of approval that were in the report that was published the morning after the Transportation Commission meeting last Wednesday night. Traffic engineering entered their comments like the good folks that they are in a timely manner on around August 21st, and they were not updated to reflect some of the discussion at the Transportation Commission last Wednesday. Until this afternoon. So at about five o'clock tonight, they landed on and I was able to pull in revised comments. So conditions 28, 29 and 30 of the staff report that you received or was available late Thursday. Three changes for the plan commission to consider making part of any conditions of approval for the project. First of all, condition number 28. The deposit that the school district is being asked to provide for rectangular rapid flashing beacons and driver feedback, a.k.a. speed boards or your speed boards, has been increased from $50,000 to $60,000. And those appliances will be installed along both Whitney Way and now Gilbert Road. Because a lot of the conversation at the Transportation Commission last Wednesday night, I would say it was equally balanced between the proposed solutions for Whitney Way and then also the... the increase in traffic that may occur along Gilbert Road by virtue of the drop-off loop and the predominant or primary parking area being accessed from Gilbert Road. So that amount has gone up $10,000, now proposed at $60,000. Based on a discussion between traffic engineering staff and the project team from the school district, condition number 29 has been changed from a minimum 12-foot wide sidewalk to a 10-foot wide sidewalk. My understanding there is one of the things that was discussed at the Transportation Commission last week was Whitney Way being designed to include a buffered bike lane next to the school, consistent with the recommendation that was included in the Southwest Area Plan. There were sort of competing visions. There was a school district plan. proposed solution. There was a traffic engineering response. The Transportation Commission went with the traffic engineering proposal. So because there's now going to be a buffered bike lane along Whitney Way adjacent to the school, there's no longer a need for the over-wide sidewalk that was previously proposed. It's now being shrunk two feet to 10 from 12. So that's condition number 29. And then condition number 30 is going to be struck altogether. The thinking is that there will be bike lanes added along Gilbert Road at some time, timed with the construction of the school and consistent with the conversation at the Transportation Commission where there was kind of a feeling that nothing should happen right away because I think there was a sense among members of the Transportation Commission that that they needed to see how things would work on Gilbert Road before they could prescribe solutions. So the feedback boards and the RFBs will help with the deposit that will be provided with the change in 28 pavement marking. There was talk about installation of stop signs along Gilbert Road in the future. All of that the Transportation Commission generally thought. So the stop signs, the pavement marking, maybe that holds off. There is also a condition that's standard in the proposed conditions that pavement marking signage related to the project. That's a standard condition that you see from traffic engineering on most of the things that come before you. There is a condition here. Nothing is changing with that. Whether or not that would include the pavement marking here, I think will depend on that sort of wait and see that we heard about at the Transportation Commission last week. uh changing again 50 to 60 in condition 28 uh 12 to 10 in 29 and we're getting rid of number 30 altogether so those are late breaking and if the members of the plan commission need that should we get to that part of the program here coming up i'm happy to pull those back up when we get to the discussion and motions thank you thanks tim um

We will now open the public hearing for this item. And again, we'll try to stick to three minutes for our registrants with hopefully a little warning.

Yes, we have one speaker for this one. It's Susan Bowersox, again, representing the district. Kevin Yeska is available to answer questions. And the other registrant is Janet M. Powell, who's registered neither support nor opposition, but not wishing to speak. So Susan would be up first, and she's our only speaker for this one right now.

All right. Welcome back, Susan. Thanks.

I think we'll... All right. While Tim's pulling up the presentation... So for the Toki Orchard Ridge School, as noted, the new building is to be built adjacent to the existing building while the existing building remains operational. The constraints on this site involve also the natural element of the Toki Forest. So given the size of the school in terms of what's needed here to maintain existing operations as well as respect the Toki Forest, The building is going to three stories on part of it. You can keep clicking on Tim or whoever's controlling the screen. So as we looked at the site plan, you have the north education wing on the north there. That's the Orchard Ridge Elementary component. And that is a two-story structure. You have... The education wing to the south, which is the Toki Middle School component, and that is three stories. Then in the center, you have the gym spaces and the commons areas that sort of can be shared between them if needed, if there is a large gathering or after school event. But that's what sort of is located in the middle. So as we talk about the site, Tim explained very clearly, there's been a lot of discussion about site circulation, safety. There are connectors to all four sides of the site, whether you're coming from the north, the east, the west, or the south, to be able to get to the building onto the site without crossing vehicular traffic. We do have the one parking area with the circulation loop that will be shared by both Toki and Orchard Ridge. The loop to the north of the building is primarily for the fire truck to accommodate it. It's not to be a before or after school drop-off loop by any means, but it is sized to allow that fire truck access. Middle school playgrounds, because this is a combo building, middle school playgrounds are shown to the south, elementary playgrounds are shown to the east. You can see with some of those light blue markings along Whitney Way representing the conversation of the Whitney Way improvements that are happening parallel. Next slide. This gives you an idea of how those three floors are stacked. Like I said, Toki Middle School is to the south, Orchard Ridge Elementary is to the north, shared spaces are in the center, and only Toki Middle School is on level three, which is the three-story component. Next slide. So as you look at the elevations, we're looking at the north one here along the top, which is primarily that Orchard Ridge Elementary component. You see the Toki Middle School sticking up behind, but the Orchard Ridge is the two-story piece along the front. As we go to the east side, this is the side of the building that opens up to the Toki Forest. And so you see the two-story elementary school there on your right-hand side, and you see the three-story middle school on your left-hand side. And then in the center are those commons and library spaces with the large windows. Next slide. If we look at the west and the south, the south is primarily all Toki Middle School, and so that's where you see that three-story building the most. And then the west side faces Whitney Way, and so you see that gym box being expressed in the center between the two schools along that Whitney Way face. Next slide. And then there are five slides of images as you go around the building so you can kind of understand the circulation and how it's set up. This would be the northeast corner. We've come around the east side. This is the southeast corner. And so you see the three-story element with the elementary school there behind, poking around the corner behind, facing the school. forest and then this would be the view along whitney way and you can see that gym box in the center that faces whitney way between the two schools and then i think our last slide is the gym box at night being it would be the one part of the school that would be activated in the evenings or outside of the school day compared to the north and south education wings thanks susan

Questions from commissioners for Susan? All right. I had just one question, Tim. I was trying to figure out where the cafeteria was when we were looking in that center space. Is there maybe on one of those second or third overhead slides?

So you go back to slide five.

Thanks.

So on level one on the left hand side, you see the two gyms. Yeah. The cafeterias are just across the corridor from the two gyms. Got it. And the kitchen is between them. So one kitchen supports both cafeterias.

Oh, so they would, will both groups use both cafeteria spaces or is it intended to be separate?

It's intended that each school has its own dining space. Okay, nice. Thank you.

Commissioner Solheim.

Thank you. Just a quick question, Susan. One of the public comments had asked about tree preservation looking at the street tree report and this may be for Kevin although I think it's pretty straightforward just looking at the street tree report on Legistar it appeared that all of the mature trees along the street are being preserved there wasn't any request to take any down can you just confirm that?

Right. So we've had an arborist on our team working to obviously assess the trees and their analysis, but that is the intent is that the mature honey locusts along Russet are to remain.

Thank you, Susan.

Other questions? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing on this item and ask if there are questions for staff. All right. Without other questions, maybe we'll move, be looking for a motion in a second. Commissioner, or, Alder, you're here. I demoted you accidentally, sorry.

Thank you, Chair. Move that the planning commission finds that the standards are met and approve conditional uses to allow construction of a new Akira Toki Middle School and Orchard Ridge Elementary School, including the conditional uses for height and parking. and on the land generally addressed as 5606 to Rustic Road, subject to the conditions in the staff report, noting that there are amendments discussed here to conditions 28 through 30.

Thanks, Alder Ugar. Thanks, Alder Figaro-Cole, for the second. Any discussion on the motion? All right. Any objection to unanimous approval for this item? Oh, I'm sorry. Alder for your roll call.

Thank you. I was trying to find it out. Before we vote, I don't have any more to add to this project, but I do want to point out the... the amount of collaboration between city staff and MST on this project. And I get really, Scott and his team had really been amazing to work with and all the community engagement that they took on. So I really, I want to make that very clear that I appreciate that collaboration and partnership. And I'm so very much looking forward to seeing these projects continue. Thank you.

Thanks, Alder. Thanks, Scott. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion or comments? I'll call the vote. Any objection to unanimous approval for this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thank you. We'll now take up item six on our agenda. This is Legistar 94136 related to 302 Acewood Boulevard in Alder District 3. This is consideration of a conditional use in the Suburban Residential Consistent 1, SRC 1 district for a daycare center to allow an adult daycare center on this site. So we'll hear a short presentation from planning staff and I think Kevin, are you going to take this one? Okay, great. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Chair. Yes, as the Chair just mentioned before you tonight, for 302 Acewood Boulevard is a conditional use request to establish an adult daycare at this property. This request is subject to the approval standards for conditional uses. Subject building is at the corner of Acewood Boulevard and Jade Lane. The one-story house-like structure has most recently been used for many years as a place of worship. No changes to the building's exterior are proposed in this application, though the applicant does plan to add a solid wooden fence to enclose the western and southern yards of the property. From an operations standpoint, the applicant indicates the facility will operate between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays and that it could serve up to 28 seniors, though the applicant indicates that likely there will not be 28 people onsite at a given time due to various logistical considerations. With the property, no zoning change is proposed. It's zone SRC1, and that is not changing with this property. Daycare centers and adult daycare are allowed with conditional use approval in this existing zoning. From a planned consistency standpoint, the property is recommended for low residential uses. And in the description of that planning district, it does acknowledge that some non-residential uses, such as daycares, can be allowed within low residential planned areas. And staff believes that from a planned consistency standpoint, the proposal can be found consistent with the adopted plans. On balance, staff is not aware of evidence at this time that the conditional use standards cannot be met, as noted in the staff report, and would recommend approval subject to any input in tonight's public hearing and the comments in tonight's staff report. And staff notes, as with any conditional use, if approved, the Planning Commission retains the ability to address future complaints and concerns under its current jurisdiction authority, as described in the zoning code. So with that, staff is available to answer questions after the public hearing.

Thanks, Kevin. We have registrants, so we'll now open the public hearing on this item. And again, we'll work toward our three-minute time limit for registrants speaking. Thanks.

And as I called the registrants, I do want to confirm, I believe, with either Tanjay Moser or Nicholas Robinson, who are both registered to answer questions. There was correspondence with staff that they were going to change their registration to speak and do a short presentation as the applicant tonight. But I'm going to first ask Nicholas Robinson if he's planning to change his registration. Nicholas has got his hands up.

Hello, can you all hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay, perfect. I was just letting you know that, yes, I am here to, you know, any questions or clarifications that's needed, I am here and available to respond to that. But also TJ, she's actually, so I'm the architect. She is actually on the operations side with the business and have been with the business for a long time and pretty much wrote the operations document that was submitted. So she would be very much so. able to speak to the actual logistical things regarding the business, I could be more so a support for the actual, you know, building grounds, you know, just the things that are as far as the physical building.

Thank you. Okay, so it sounds like that would be Tanji Monser is available to answer questions as well. So then I am seeing two other speakers that are in the queue registered to speak. And the first one would be Thomas J. Coren Jr. to be followed by Bradley Clock.

Welcome, Thomas. It looks like you're unmuted on our end, so we should be able to hear you. looks like you're unmuted it might be you might have mechanically like turned off your microphone on your computer I don't know yeah if you're using yep there we go how about now okay yep there we go yep I had a external microphone plugged in that was not cooperating so that is unplugged now

Yeah, I'm the direct neighbor to the west. I have spoke with the staff, with TJ. I attended the previous meeting. I am not opposed at all to the use of the building. I actually want to be quite cooperative with them on eliminating my fence to allow them to maximize their yard usage and such. My only concerns are I've struggled. I've lived here since 2009, and Wednesdays and Sundays have been hell with the church parking and my driveway getting used as a turnaround. And my only concern, which I brought up in the previous meeting, is the use of the property on nights and weekends. I don't know if the intent there is to open, to make it more open to the community in the neighborhood with the Christmas markets and the Super Bowl night and the game nights and craft fairs. But I could say, speaking for myself and the neighbors, parking is an issue here. Acewood's very busy. People... want to use our driveways for turnarounds and parking. We're not able to get parking for our friends and family during these events or during the church events. I know there's some neighbors concerned because there's already three group homes within a block, 221 Acewood, 218 Acewood. But I'm not so concerned about that. I'd rather have this type of home than who I see at the existing group homes. But, you know, the The letter that went into the mail to the neighborhood was 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, but there is comments about night and weekend usage that has the neighborhood a bit concerned.

Thanks, Thomas.

Okay, and our next speaker is Bradley Clock, and that would be the last speaker registered for this item. And then I'll read the list of people available to answer the questions after that.

Welcome, Bradley. Hi. Thanks for letting me speak. So I live at the top of Flint Lane and I've probably been here close to 30 years. So I've seen the neighborhood kind of how it's evolved over time. And I would come at it a little different. I'm opposed to it for a little different reason, I guess, because if you look across the street. on Acewood. I can't give you, sorry, I don't have the house number, but I'm sure there are all their knows. And if you look up on Agate, there's residential housing being used right now for young men that has special needs, which everybody, we all But I'm coming at it from, at some point, this has to stop. At the end of Walker, Milwaukee Street, there's also challenging things. And I'm just seeing, and by the way, about five houses to the right going towards Milwaukee Street on Acewood, there's an orange house that has like 10 trash cans out there on trash can day and multiple cars. in their driveway and they park at the bottom of Flint. So there might be more going on there. So I think what it is, is we want to, I mean, I'm 62. I certainly, I am empathetic to what we're trying to do here, but there are other options. It's just getting too dense. And there's elder people besides myself that they won't take the time to go into a Zoom meeting to voice their opposition. But there is a lot of opposition, not so much to I think it's a density and it's just changing the neighborhood. I had a stem cell transplant, so I'm home. I'm on disability. I walk around. I see everything, probably more than everybody else. here and it's just at some point it's got to stop you know that's a home that a young family could be living in and um it almost sounds like this is a done deal the way it was proposed like the alder is in on this and there's at the if you take milwaukee street and you go towards is it sprecker there's apartments there and there's commercial space available there to rent. When they built the Ace Apartments at the bottom of Acewood, there was supposed to be commercial space. Well, it ended up being just a facility for the folks that rent out the apartments to have their business there. That would be a space that these folks could use. There's other options. It doesn't have to be on Acewood, I guess is what I'm saying. It's just changing You know, we would just love to see families have an opportunity to purchase that house. And they're probably being outbid by somebody that's looking at it. I know they're helping people, but it is a business.

There's about 20 seconds left, Brad. Okay.

I think I made my point. I don't want to beat it. But I would just say to my alder, just say there are other places this could be had and done. And I'm sure it would be a beautiful thing. It doesn't have to be on Acewood. So please let a young family move in there and use that home. And it just adds to the vibrancy of a neighborhood. Thank you.

Thanks, Harley. Thanks. Are there questions from the commissioners for any of the registrants?

And I would just note, oh, sorry, Chair, I was just going to note that was our last speaker, but we do have speakers available to answer questions. We've got Nicholas Robinson, heard from earlier, Justin Whitkins, available to answer questions, as well as Tanjay Moser, available to answer questions.

Thanks, Kevin. Sorry for skipping that. All right. Other field. Thanks.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for the applicant. I think Nicholas could probably speak to this, but Nicholas, please let us know if someone else. Could you share more about what you see in the 302 Atwood building that makes you interested in the site and how it differs from a legal house?

Yes, thanks for addressing that question to me. That was actually one of the notes that I was taking over here really quickly. There's actually no residential light layout within the interior. The interior is one large open room. It has an office, a very small, almost closet-like bathroom on the first floor. And then the lower level is a series of rooms with a large open area that kind of has an open kitchen. Essentially, this has not been a residential facility and was not built for residential facility, in my opinion, for a long time. It was just used for assembly, which is a lot denser of a population, like occupant load, because with assembly uses, you're assuming 15 square foot per person. With adult daycare, you're at 35 square foot per person. And with their program, since they do basically, like they service people that are usually at home, you know, older generation, you know, older individuals, things like that, that they're just looking to get out and get a little activity in for a few hours and go back home. So that's what the transport works. You know, they just kind of get dropped off. They hang out for a few hours and they go back. So it's more so conducive for that type of thing, which is why the building was purchased. Third building, which we've looked at over the past year to try to get this used to work because fire sprinklers is a thing. If you don't have a direct exit to the exterior from the primary function space where the people will be on, the clients will be the fire sprinkler whole building solution. has been a lot. They've actually been through an entire plan commission with approval and then abandoned the building because the lease didn't go through because a lot of times with these type of facilities, commercial building owners don't want to make any modifications to suit these type of needs because it is one of the most stringently regulated uses, which is I-4 institutional.

Thank you. And then could you please touch on parking impacts from your use based on how people will be getting there and how you think that might compare to the previous church?

With the church, you have individuals coming, maybe one, maybe a couple in each car. Like I said, the density is a lot higher. You're sitting on bench seating, so you can fit a lot more people within the space. This is a 100% owner transport facility. business where no one will be driving themselves. Everyone will be transported in, you know, a few at a time to the site and away from the site. And like I said, there's, and TJ can speak to the actual logistics of this, but their actual staff is set up to only handle so many clients at a time so they would not have 28 people there so we're talking about you know a few vans every couple hours that are kind of coming through and dropping people off in a very designated spot right in front of the door and then proceeding on um and doing the same thing at pickup thank you that's it for now thanks overfield

Nicholas, if I could just ask a quick question, could you comment on evenings and weekends, kind of hours of operation? Is that something you're expecting to do or how often?

So to be honest with you, and I don't mean to speak for TJ and the client Faisal, but that was more so a good faith. Hey, maybe the community wants to be more, you know, neighborly with these elderly individuals that are coming in and, you know, spend a few hours at very, very specific times, you know, like the base business, you really actually don't want that to be honest, but you just want to kind of come in. do what they do. The privacy fence is to keep things isolated. They don't want to make anyone uncomfortable. You know, if you're sitting there, you know, just kind of enjoying your space, they don't want to make their clients uncomfortable. Or, you know, if there's kids in the yard next to them, let's just say the kids decide to come to the fence and stare, you know, that can be very tough. And, you know, with the intergenerational um kind of uh mixture that would be happening there so there was actually really no big push on this evening weekend thing that was more so saying hey maybe we'll do something nice that you know can cross-pollinate with the you know with the with the community but the principle of the of the operations is to really just supply that you know that that monday through friday during the day opportunity for um their clients just to be able to get out of the house and get a little activity just for physical health and mental health. And they also have a big memory care program and they have members on staff that are going to be running that type of specialized programming. So for them to be able to come to a facility, receive that exercise, that treatment, and then go back home, this is really the intentions of this not really outward facing building and outward facing business at all.

Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and I'll ask if there are any questions for staff on this item. Alderfield, thanks.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for either Kevin or Tim. Something that I think one of the residents stated well and that I've seen in a couple of emails too is there's some anxiety in this neighborhood about some of the adult family homes or group home situations based on, I'm not sure, behaviors or perceptions, possibly real concerns going on. I'm wondering if you could speak to the regulatory framework for group homes and who has the authority to regulate those and through what avenues when there are concerns.

Sure, I can start, and if Tim has anything. I don't get too involved with the regulatory aspects of it. There is a state licensing component, and depending on how the group home is classified, it may be a permitted or a conditional use depending on size. And also, there are some proximity factors in terms of if there are certain number within a set distance, they might require an additional conditional use or might not be allowed But it depends on a variety of factors where they are. For this, I think, Alderfield, just to be clear, and I think you are, this facility before us is a daycare, and it's not a community living arrangement or that. It's considered an adult daycare center. So it's not subject to any of those distance concentration. There isn't a regulation in the city zoning code. That would require that a certain daycare, be it adult or children, has to be, you know, there can only be a certain number within geography. Our code doesn't have that. I will note that the supplemental regulations for daycares does require a state license. And so if there is not a state license for the facility, if an operator were to lose their licensure at the state level, the conditional use would no longer be valid. So there is a tie with that. even with the daycare link. And similarly, group home type facilities also have state licensure requirements that the applicant needs to maintain in order to have a valid zoning approval. So I don't know if Tim had anything further, other clarifications I could provide.

So for those facilities, which I agree is certainly not the case with the proposal in front of us, that is about the state license. That the state license is the avenue for regulatory safeguards?

Well, there is a state license. There are some regulations and supplemental regulations in the zoning code beyond that. So there's both state and local regulations for both a group home type facility and a daycare.

Um, those are by right in the zoning code, though. Yes. So please correct me if I'm wrong about that. So an applicant would need to meet those regulations, but not necessarily come before a hearing.

There are instances, some are by right, yes, and there are instances when they can be a conditional use. It will depend on a variety of factors, the concentration area, the size of a facility. So there are definitely instances when they are a permitted use and you just have to meet the technical regs and you don't need a plan commission approval, for example, but there are some that are conditional uses and would require a plan commission review.

Okay. Thank you for humoring me on that.

Thanks. Any other questions? Barring that, I'd be looking for a motion on this item. Commissioner Solheim, thanks.

Thank you. I'll move that the Planning Commission find that the standards are met for conditional use and approve the request in the SRC-1 district for a daycare center located at 302 Acewood Boulevard, subject to the conditions in the staff report.

Thanks. Alder Ugar, thanks for the second. Any additional discussion? Alder Field?

Thank you, Chair. I wanted to just add to this that I'm happy to keep talking to the residents in the neighborhood who have concerns or have seen concerning behavior to get in touch with some of the property owners that you're concerned about. But I also want to make sure that the neighborhood resource officer is aware. There are some things that I want to make sure that we're talking about so that they can be addressed or else perhaps create a record of an attempt. I about this particular proposal in front of us, though I think there's no question that it does meet the standards of approval and will bring resources for elderly and disabled residents right into your neighborhood, so I just wanted to voice that and share that that's why i'm going to be supporting the motion, thank you.

Thanks. Other discussion. So we have a motion and a second, and we'll call the vote. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for this item? Seeing none, the item is approved. Thanks, everybody. Thanks for coming out and for the good discussion. We will next take up items eight and nine. These are related items that will be considered together as one public hearing. And following the public hearing, we'll make separate findings and motions for each of them. So I'll read them both. Item 8 is Legistar 94183, creating Section 28.022-00759 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 8302 McDowell Drive at the northeastern corner of Midtown Road and South Pleasant View Road. from Temp A Agricultural District to TRU2 Traditional Residential Urban 2 District, and creating Section 28.022-00760 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located At 8302 McDowell Drive from Temp A Agricultural District to CCT Commercial Corridor Transitional District. And these properties are all in Alder District 1. Item 9 is Legislature 93831, approving the preliminary plat and final plat of Hawks Nest on land generally addressed as 8302 McDowell Drive and located at the northeastern corner of Midtown Road and South Pleasant View Road, again in Alder District 1. So we'll start with a staff presentation from Planner Parks. Tim, thanks.

Thank you, Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Items 8 and 9, as the Chair noted, pertain to the rezoning and subdivision of a 31.36 acre parcel located in the northeastern corner of Midtown and South Pleasant View Roads. The parcel is is addressed 8302 McDowell Drive, but it primarily fronts onto Midtown and Pleasant View. The applicant is requesting approval to zone the site to the TRU-2 and CCT zoning districts. Six of the nine proposed lots are intended for future development with multifamily housing in TRU-2 zoning, while the remaining three lots will be zoned CCT and are envisioned for mixed-use development. In addition, the proposed subdivision will extend Mayo Drive from its current terminus on the western edge of the Midtown Commons subdivision adjacent to the site on the east. We'll extend Mayo across the site to intersect at a right-in, right-out intersection with South Pleasant View Road. Also, we'll extend Micah Road south through the site to a point in the southeastern corner of the site where it will be extended in the future to intersect Midtown Road at an existing intersection of Midtown with Micah Road that comes up from the south. so that will be a future extension that will occur once some adjacent parcels in the town of Middleton develop. The development will also extend McDowell Drive one block to that extension of Micah, and there will be a new north-south street that will be located in the future between that Micah extension and Pleasant View Road. Planning staff has reviewed the requests and feel that the Planning Commission can find that they are generally consistent with the recommendations for the site in the High Point Raymond Neighborhood Development Plan and Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the design criteria in the Complete Green Streets Guide. We are recommending approval with some modifications to the proposed zoning and subdivision. Of note, given the density recommendations for the site in both the High Point Raymond Neighborhood Development Plan and Comprehensive Plan, that the TRU2 zoning that's requested might be a little too dense or allow too much future density demand. For the at least portions of the area that are to be zoned TRU2, we are recommending that the area of proposed lots 5 through 7 along the eastern side of the subdivision, basically between the future extension of Micah Road, and the eastern property line of the site instead be zoned TRU1. The zoning code allows the Planning Commission to do two things with zoning map amendments when they make their recommendation to the Common Council. They can recommend a less intensive zoning district. You can also recommend that a smaller area than the one proposed be zoned to the requested district. So for reference, just noting, hopefully you see on my screen, that at least the area of Lots 5, 6, and 7, instead of TRU 2, be zoned TRU 1. TRU 1 has a maximum density for multifamily housing that is more in line with the density recommendations in both the Neighborhood Development Plan and the Generalized Future Land Use Maps in the Comprehensive Plan. So we are requesting at least that modification. We do think that there is a reason for the other three lots to remain TRU2 because we feel that TRU2 might encourage or facilitate the creation of more density. One of the things that the staff report makes very clear that in particular the High Point Raymond Neighborhood Development Plan makes very clear for this particular site is the importance of creating neighborhood mixed-use development. And we feel that we really need to have a meaningful commercial component as part of that. And as we often hear, both at the Planning Commission and at staff level, that rooftops drive the creation of commercial housing. So sort of a middle ground that we would be willing to allow more density on lots 3, 4, and 8 You know, on the hope, because it's not a guarantee, but certainly a hope that it will drive more ground floor commercial, in particular on the three lots and CCT zoning. Another condition that we're recommending because TRU2 and CCT for mixed use buildings have no density restriction requirements. that a restriction be placed on the proposed plat that limits the density of lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. Am I forgetting one? Maybe. No, I don't think so. That we cap those at 90 units an acre. Because again, TRU2 can go up to 124, which we're not really planned for that density here. And if we do dwelling units in mixed-use buildings, again, likewise, CCT zoning has no maximum density in the zoning code, so we would put that cap in on the plat as a restriction for public benefit. so that we are allowing more density on the portions of the site that we feel could support a little bit more and maybe lead to a better mixed-use outcome in the proposed CCT zoning, but that it's not an unfettered grant of zoning intensity there that we would use a restriction on the plat for that. And then lastly, There have been a lot of comments in particular on the subdivision component about the concerns about the loss of trees along the eastern property line that abuts a number of residential properties in Midtown Commons. We are asking for a tree preservation plan from the development team. that will take a look at the inventory of trees on their property line and provide strategies for how they're going to preserve as many of those as possible as part of the implementation of the subdivision. So with that, staff is recommending approval with conditions, both on the zoning and subdivision, and would be happy to answer questions after the public hearing. Thank you.

Thanks, Tim. We will open the public hearing on items eight and nine. Kevin, if you'll walk us through our register.

Yes. Well, first here, our first registrar will be Kevin Burrell, representing the applicant. And Kevin will be followed by Bonnie Wendorf to be followed by Beth Pinkerton. Thanks.

Kevin, you're unmuted. I think we're ready. All right. Good evening. This is Kevin Burrow with Knuthe and Bruce Architects. I want to thank you for your time this evening as we review this proposed plant and rezoning of these parcels. As Tim Parks correctly mentioned, we are proposing two different zonings for this property, being the CCT in the southwestern corner and then transitioning to the TRU-2. And then, as Tim also just mentioned, further transitioning to TRU 1 along the eastern side. That will be sufficient for the proposed development that is earmarked for this, and we do want to be sensitive to the neighboring properties immediately to the east in regards to how this density is laid out. Utilizing the intersection of Midtown and South Pleasant View Road for the commercial areas with the higher density is appropriate. It will help make that commercial space more viable. And then as we said, transitioning more to the eastern side in just slightly less density will be sufficient for what we are intending to utilize this property for. I also want to further reiterate the comments that were raised in regards to trying to do a tree preservation plan that will be our intent to document the trees on the eastern side of the property, many of which we feel to be on the adjacent property and on ours. So we will make sure we understand where those are laying and do our best to try and preserve them as part of this development. Once the mass grading plan and utility and road layout plans have been finalized, we can understand where the final grades will be placed based on trying to tie into the existing street infrastructure, obviously, which we do not have control over. So with that, a client is also available here to answer questions should any specific questions come up on this proposed development.

Thanks, Kevin.

Thank you.

All right. Our next speaker will be Bonnie Wendorf, to be followed by Beth Pinkerton, to be followed by Kimberly Munson. And that right now, I believe, is our last speaker on this item, those three.

Thanks. Bonnie Wilcox. Hi, thank you. I just have a comment and a question. I've already submitted written comments and some of them were addressed here. So I just have one comment, which is about traffic flow on Mayo. And I think that needs to be looked at very carefully because within a half a block of where it truncates now, we've got a four-way intersection basically with our driveway and Mayo and Stargrass intersection. and how you're going to control traffic in there and what that's going to be because the promontory condo building has commercial space out in front of it and there's parking on both sides of the street and Mayo is not as wide as Mansion Hill or Waldorf and that's going to be problematic if you have cars coming at speed up Mayo because there's a hill there and up our driveway you can't see where the darn now much less what's going to happen in the future so that's just a comment that I have that I want you know I hope you can look at that I do have a question you address the tree issue which is what we asked you for the on the zoning for that lot and for our lot and for the other lots though the ones that are in that range. What is a TRU1 in terms of density?

Well, we can have staff address that in the next segment, Bonnie, but okay. Yeah.

All right. And otherwise, my comments are what my comments were. So thank you. Thank you.

All right. Next would be Beth Pinkerton to be followed by Kimberly Munson.

Good evening, thank you so much. I'm representing the Rockery Point Homeowners Association, which includes four buildings and 48 condos at Stargrass Drive and Mayo. Two of our buildings share the property line with the land being developed at 8302 McDowell Drive. And I believe I'm probably reinforcing some of the comments made by the previous speaker, Bonnie Wendorf. As property owners, we did anticipate there would be development. We did register an objection primarily because of concerns that about the lack of detail with the plan. Greatly appreciate your recommendation to change the zoning to a lower density and to add the tree preservation plan. It's clear you've heard our concerns, which we had shared in writing. I think our primary concerns is that development could start as close as 20 feet from our front doors, which could have an extraordinary impact on our quality of life and property values. There's also significant new development surrounding us for adding homes off High Point with more than 1,200 condos, homes, apartments, additional apartment building just a couple blocks away with more than 240 units. And for us to feel comfortable, we rockery point HOA would like more details about the development, the number of units, and anticipated population and traffic increase. And a commitment from the development company, which it sounds like you're already making, and the city, to collaborate with our HOA and to minimize the impact. Specifically concerned about making sure there's adequate space between our existing units and new development, especially if they are commercial or multifamily buildings. Again, plans for maintaining the existing tree line and adding any additional landscaping that may allow unit owners to maintain privacy. Aesthetic concerns about what our units might overlook. Are we going to be overlooking a giant parking lot or groups of commercial scale garbage dumpsters? Placement of streetlights, distance from existing condos, impact on unit owners at night. And more broadly, for everyone who uses our neighborhood, as Bonnie mentioned, the intersection at Mayo Drive and Stargrass is currently not regulated and will be very dangerous once it becomes a thoroughfare area. to Pleasant View Road, especially given the number of people who use the park and walk dogs, in addition to being noisy and disruptive. So again, I would like more detail on the plans to manage the traffic at Mayo and Stargrass and would strongly advocate for a four-way stop at that intersection. So thank you very much. I appreciate the recommendation to some modifications to the plan. It's clear you're listening to our previously provided comments and writing and Look forward to hearing about what will take place on Pleasant View.

Thanks, Beth.

Okay, and our next and I believe last speaker is Kimberly Amundsen.

Thank you. I really appreciate the opportunity. A lot of what Bonnie and Beth have already mentioned were the same concerns I've had. I've already submitted those comments, and Tim, what you presented addressed quite a few of those items. I would like to know more details, like Beth said, as we get closer, especially with the intersection at Mayo and Waldorf, and then also, again, like along the tree line, just looking for good land stewardship between the new developer and also with, you know, existing homeowners on this side. My only question is the same as Bonnie, and I know that will be addressed in the Q&A section. What is the density for that T, what was it again? I'm sorry, TRU1. Correct. Yes. So thank you again. I appreciate this.

Thanks.

All right. Questions for registrants from the Commission?

Chair, just really quickly, I'll list the other speakers who are available to answer questions. Oh, thank you. Yep. We have Colin Smith with the development team, Joseph McCormick with the development team, Zach Dresser with the development team. And that is it. Those are the additional speakers available to answer questions, and then a few other speakers not wishing to speak, which will be noted when we post the registration list. Thanks.

All right, last call for questions. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing portion of our discussion tonight and move to questions for staff. I think... Tim, I'll just let you answer the first one without making anyone ask it. If you don't mind going through the TRU1 density numbers for us.

Sure. Well, you kind of asked. So, yeah, TRU2 requires a minimum of 350 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit for multifamily housing. That number jumps to 750 square feet per unit in TRU1. So the resulting densities that you get TRU-2 maxes out at about 124 units per acre. And so with that significant increase of more than double from TRU-2's 350 to 750 and TRU-1, you max out at 58 units an acre. So it's a reduction by more than half. from TRU2 to TRU1. And I should point out, and it was mentioned in the written report, that a similar approach was taken on the Springs of Pleasant View subdivision to the north, where there was a little bit of disagreement between the zoning districts that were desired and the reasons for those in that development. And the same adopted plans, and in that case, plat restrictions were used to make sure that the zoning or what was ultimately built was more consistent with the plan recommendations than would have otherwise been the case in the base zoning.

I have one more question before I look for hands again. In item eight, which is the zoning change, we have a creation of a zoning code for the TRU2, creation of a zoning code item for the CCT. We need a third zoning code ordinance section to cover the TRU1, or could you put one and two in the proposed 28022-00759?

This is something that if the plan commission is inclined to follow the staff recommendation, they can just say their piece. And then I will get to spend some quality time tomorrow working with the applicant surveyor and the city attorney's office to figure out how we effectuate that. Because it's been a while since we kind of, you know, quote unquote, split the baby like we would be with the TRU2 program. When we have done this in the past, and I can't even tell you the last time we have, it's usually we're going to do one or the other. We're going to recommend a more restrictive, less intensive district, or we're going to apply that zoning ask to a smaller area. And in this case, we may end up doing both. So exactly how that happens is probably a substitute at the Common Council at next week's meeting. But exactly how that gets pulled together, I will spend quality time on tomorrow. Okay. If the Planning Commission is so inclined.

Sure. Alder, you're here.

Thank you, Chair. Leonard Parks, just to put more clarity on the question about density. So as you just explained, TRU2 allows a density that works out to 124. per acre. But with condition number one that's proposed here, we're looking out of lots three, four and eight that we would approve for TRU two, three and eight would be kept at 90. Correct. Yeah, right. Okay. We're not looking at additional restrictions on 5-7 and TRU-1. That's around 58. And then with regard to the, I guess it's three lots in CCT, 1, 2, and 9, that 1 and 2 would also be restricted to 90 per acre? Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Other questions for staff? Commissioner Heck.

Thank you. This is for Tim also. Tim, given where we are in this process and assuming some version of what's been proposed moves forward, Where do we lie with respect to something as detailed as a particular type of traffic control feature at an intersection, at a new intersection? Are we too early in the process or is it possible to address some of those items?

That's a great question. First thing I will point out is the commission will note, I believe, in both the traffic engineering and city engineering comments that there is a request for right of way for the construction of a roundabout at Micah and Mayo. That will be an important way of slowing traffic going both north and south once MICA is able to connect to Midtown Road, but most particularly and most immediately east and west on Mayo Drive so that when that traffic is coming up the hill from Pleasant View, it will have the additional step of needing to slow to navigate the roundabout. In terms of what will happen at the intersection of Stargrass and Mayo, that remains to be seen. That is typically something that the traffic engineering will pay very close attention to once Mayo Drive goes through. To determine what, if any, modification to that intersection is necessary. If I were to guess, there would be a stop sign added southbound on Stargrass. I do not believe there is one there now because right now that is the very western edge of the Midtown Commons subdivision. And so there probably has not historically been a need to add what would be a two-way stop control. There should probably be a stop sign leaving the private property going north to the intersection of Stargrass and Mayo. I don't know if that got missed years ago when the development was approved or has been knocked down and not replaced. But my guess is that Stargrass and Mayo will be stopped in the future, approaching Mayo, and that Mayo will continue. Whether or not that would become a four-way stop, I think that is in the future file. Typically, traffic engineering pays pretty close attention. They'll use comments like the ones that we've heard tonight and the written comments that are in the file as sort of a baseline of things that they need to keep an eye on as the project goes forward from approval, potentially tonight, to implementation, to starting to see subdivision improvements go in and development occur. Once the connections get made, they'll keep an eye on the behavior that occurs along all of the roads surrounding the proposed Hawksnest development. And if there are modifications that are needed, at intersections like Stargrass and Mayo, that would be something that would happen after the fact. So it's kind of a wait and see, which I know is perhaps not the answer that some or all of the folks from the public on the call were hoping to hear. But that is typically how those things come to pass. And it's certainly not uncommon. When we have a development going forward that proposes a connection along what has been established as a kind of an edge of a development for probably approaching 20 years now, and that street like Mayo is now going to go down and intersect a road like Pleasant View that people have their antenna up, it's totally understandable. But it still falls within typical traffic engineering standards. behavior to study those things, take the input, be watching how things transpire and making modifications as needed once that street, which has long not gone through, does finally go through.

Thanks. And for those potential future decisions, do those usually get handled at the staff and alder level or is Transportation Commission involved at any point?

Typically, I believe that those at a minimum go through Transportation Commission as an update. So if a stop control is added where one wasn't, I believe that that would be at least a heads up from traffic engineering staff to the Transportation Commission to let them know that something is being installed, a new traffic control, whether it's a change from one that's there now or the addition of one that is not there at all.

Great. That's helpful. It might give some hope to the neighbors if they have particular solutions in mind. Thanks.

Other questions? Seeing none, we would start by taking up item eight, which is the recommendation for zoning changes.

Alder, are you here? Thank you, Chair. I will try to properly phrase the fairly complex challenge here. Yes, so I will move that the Plan Commission recommends approval to the Common Council of a substitute for zoning map amendment ID 28.022-00759 to rezone the area of proposed lots 3, 4, and 8 of the proposed Hawksnest subdivision from temporary A to TRU2 while the proposed area of lots 5 to 7 is rezoned from temporary A to TRU1 as allowed in section 28.182 sub 5 sub A sub 4. And I'll note in that regard that there are in the conditions additional restrictions on density on lots three and eight in the TRU2 designated parcels. And then that the Planning Commission finds the standards met and forward zoning map amendment, ID 28.022-00760 rezoning a specific portion of the site from Temp A to CCT to the Common Council with a recommendation of approval. And then also noting the additional restrictions on one and two. to a lower density, and then all of this per the, and subject to the conditions in the staff report.

Thanks Alder. Commissioner Heck, thanks for the second. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Is there objection to unanimous approval for the motion? All right, thanks. That motion is approved. We should now take up item nine. If there is a motion on that one, and that's the preliminary and final plats.

I'll do you here. Thank you, Chair. I will move that the Planned Commission finds the standards met and forward the preliminary plat and final plat of Hawks Nest to the Common Council with the recommendation of approval subject to the conditions from the reviewing agencies in the staff report.

Commissioner Alderfield, thanks for the second. Any additional discussion on this motion? Seeing none, is there objection to unanimous approval on the motion? All right. Thank you. That motion is approved. We will now go to our last public hearing item or two items. Items 10 and 11 are related and will be considered together in a public hearing. Item 10 is Legistar 94184, creating Section 28.022-00757 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 1001 Wisconsin Place from PD, Planned Development District. to amended Plan Development GDP Plan Development General Development Plan District, and creating Section 28.022-00758 to approve a specific implementation plan for the site, which is in Alder District 2. Item 11 on our agenda is Legislature 93828. We're also relating to 1001 Wisconsin Place in Alder District 2. This is consideration of an alteration to an approved conditional use for lakefront development to allow modifications to an expansion of the Edgewater Hotel and consideration of a conditional use in the PD district for the Edgewater Hotel for an outdoor eating area for a restaurant on the 15th floor. And I think, I know there was an update on the agenda to item 11, so I'm pretty sure I read the correct one. Tim's nodding at me, so that's good. So we will, Tim will have a brief staff report on these two items before we have our public hearing.

Planner Parks. Thank you, Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Items 10 and 11. First, item 10 is noted by the Chair. This is a major alteration to the Planned Development Zoning District for the Edgewater Hotel. Addressed is 1001 Wisconsin Place. Due to the significance of the proposed changes that we'll hear about in a moment, feeling that that warranted a major alteration, which would go to the Common Council in the form of a zoning map amendment based on the plan commission's actions tonight. And then the second item, number 11, because it is, as its name betrays a lakefront development, there is a conditional use alteration required for the Edgewater Hotel lakefront development. And then specifically the zoning text for the Edgewater Hotel spells out that outdoor eating areas are conditional uses in that planned development zoning district. And in particular, that 15th floor or level 15 outdoor eating area is a new or substantial increase in programming on that level of the hotel. And again, we'll hear about that in a little more detail, both in my comments and also in the applicant's presentation. Just a brief summary. There are five projects that are part of the two applications that are before you tonight. On level one, which is the lake level of the combined hotel facility at the level of Lake Mendota. On the 1946 Hotel, which if you're looking at the edgewater from the intersection of Langdon Street and Wisconsin Avenue, would be the building on your left as you look towards the lake. That is the original hotel. And on the lake floor or lake level, level one, Of that building, there is the boathouse restaurant that the applicant is proposing a new awning to cover an existing outdoor eating area that exists down between the building facade and lakefront of Lake Mendota. Moving across the hotel property, there is what we refer to in the staff report as the contemporary hotel tower, which is the 15-story hotel that would be to your right if you were looking from Langdon Street towards the lake, the taller or tallest structure on the site. Level 5, again, counting the levels up from the lake, not from the street. On the Grand Plaza, the applicant is proposing to create a new plaza slash lake facing concession stand slash bar in an existing wall, creating an opening there for a food and beverage space at that location. On level seven, again, on the contemporary hotel, taking an existing outdoor eating area adjacent to the state house restaurant and putting an awning similar to what's being proposed for the boathouse restaurant, but covering the existing outdoor eating area with an awning on level seven. And then perhaps the highest profile portion of what's before you tonight are requests to take the 15th floor and convert that into a food and beverage establishment. There is currently an elevator lobby on level 15 that provides access to a rooftop seating amenity that has been used or is occasionally used for functions related to the hotel. But the request before the plan commission tonight would be to enclose the area basically on the capital side of that lobby area. What is referred to in some of the application materials as a greenhouse of sorts to create a dining area there that would have a small outdoor eating area on sort of the southerly facing part of that. And then a 2660 square foot lakeside terrace there. That would be located westerly and northerly of the lobby that's there now, which is going to be converted into what the application materials refer to as a sky bar. So that would bring a more permanent food and beverage presence to the top of the building with a fairly substantial outdoor eating component that is covered, would have lighting and heating so that it would be available for use Maybe not year-round, but certainly more than some outdoor eating areas around the city. So staff has reviewed the requests and believe that the standards for planned development zoning and conditional uses can be approved with conditions. We do feel that given the elevation of the outdoor eating areas on level 15, that it would be appropriate for the plant commission as part of their approval to limit the hours of operation for the outdoor eating component to 11 o'clock, seven days a week. And that outdoor amplified sound, if any, be ended at 9 p.m. Again, seven days a week so that any noise impacts generated by the food and beverage establishment at the very top of the contemporary hotel can be limited. Much of the area surrounding the Edgewater is residential in nature. There are exceptions there, and some of those residential uses vary in terms of who lives where and in what. So we feel that the 11 o'clock stop time would be an appropriate condition, certainly initially with this first approval being sought tonight, so that impacts on surrounding properties can be limited significantly. And I will note that the Urban Design Commission has reviewed the project and is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the project. It is also in the Mansion Hill Historic District. And likewise, the Landmarks Commission has reviewed the changes. and has granted a certificate of approval. They did that at their meeting last Monday night, August 24th. And I'm happy to answer questions about both the amended PD zoning and conditional use after the public hearing. Thank you.

Thanks, Tim. Well, open the public hearing on this item, and Kevin, if you'll walk us through that.

Yes, we have two speakers. The first speaker is Kavitha Muradadu, and to be followed by a speaker who was registered under general comment at the beginning of the meeting, Peter O. Johnson, who I believe is still in attendance at this point. So Kavitha will be our first speaker.

Yes, hi. Good evening, everyone. I'm Kavitha Marudadu with DMACC Architecture and Interiors representing Edgewater Hotel. I wanted to thank everyone for the opportunity to speak a little bit more about the project. And the primary, the most significant intervention that we are talking about today is Level 15. And we are transforming the existing rooftop into a an open lakeside terrace and a smaller enclosed capital terrace. And I wanted to point out just a couple of key factors. Kaibar today currently functions as an occupiable assembly space. There are weddings that occur there and other events. So there is already an assembly space that's existing. And what we are looking to do is to extend the duration of use because of the weather conditions and the wind and the rain. The use of that space is significantly limited. And what we are proposing as this architectural intervention is to have an awning covering over the roof to support the functions. And so that's what this proposal is. And the smaller enclosure on the capital side is an enclosed covered area our objective was not to create an architectural statement and we really wanted to create something that is uh respectful of the building's architecture preserving the architectural identity we also wanted to point out that the access to to this space would be controlled and not all guests would have access to it and it to the space So there are means to control how many guests can be occupying the space. And also, we've been very mindful of sound and light leaks from the space. So the design has paid close attention to how we operate. actually treat sound control in here. We're using decking, the awning covering itself as acoustical properties with insulation inserted into the decking. So we are taking that into consideration. And also the lighting is designed to be warm and low level with directed inward minimizing glare and light spill. So we are taking careful consideration with how lighting gets designed and will, of course, work with the staff in getting final lighting package approvals as well. And so that's predominantly the significant aspects of level 15. The smaller interventions we're talking about, level 7 awning and also the awning over the plaza concessions area, which is really to support the function, to convert the existing support space for the plaza with modifying the planter and creating just an awning to protect the guests as they line up at the concession stand. So these are essentially the primary interventions we are looking to do and happy to answer any questions or concerns that might come up.

Our next speaker then would be Peter O. Johnson.

Peter, you may have a signal to unmute yourself. You're still showing as muted from our end.

Yeah, Peter, I just sent you a request to unmute. It may be behind Windows if you're on a computer. So you may want to look around, check your tab for that. But I just sent you again a request to unmute. So if you're there, Peter, if you want to just hit accept on that, if you can find that. Again, Peter, you are muted on your end, but you are available if you just select unmute.

You also might see an audio button in the bottom left of your screen that you could click on to take away the slash. Maybe while the public hearing is open, and maybe we'll see if we can give Peter just another minute to see if he can get himself unmuted. Does the commission have questions for our first speaker for Kavitha on the project? All right, thanks.

There you go, Peter. You are unmuted. We should be able to hear you. If you are speaking right now, we cannot hear you. You may want to check either a headset or microphone. There we go.

Peter, are you... There we go.

Yep, we can hear you. Welcome. Thank you. That's... My assistant said you would turn it on at your end.

We are able to hear you. So please go ahead with your comments.

Peter Johnson, I am one of the four owners of the four condos in the Edgewater Hotel. I am one that is probably the only Wisconsin resident and longtime Madison resident. And I'm the only one that really spends any time here. And a year ago, we have a condo meeting once a year. They said they were going to talk to us about it in the meeting coming up, but we have had no report whatsoever as to what was happening on the project. A year ago, they said it was... not in a position to talk about. So I must admit that the right place for myself and the other three condo owners is to talk to the Edgewater management, but we have not had that opportunity to do so. I will say that I support very much what they're trying to do down at the lake level at the boathouse. I support what they want to do on the fifth floor because they do every Friday night. They have bands here that have agreed to not play after 9 o'clock. And I agree to the changes at the statehouse level. I think it would enhance, and I'm not quite clear exactly what they're going to do. We might ask that the bar is going to be moved closer to the lake. I don't know what that one's all about. But I do think the Planning Commission should think about two or three things. And that is, first of all, there are only four elevators. Presently, one is committed to the condos. Another one is committed to go to the 15th floor. That only leaves two other elevators. And the few times they have had a function going on in the 15th floor, having just one elevator to use to get up to the 15th floor, you will have a lot of people waiting. So I think there's an issue there.

Peter, you have about 30 seconds left just to help you manage your time.

The security issue would be the second thing, and that is... people from this bar restaurant up there at the top would, you know, are we going to be secure at the two condo levels? Because right now we are and how they would manage that. And the third issue I would say is the timing. 11 o'clock, in my opinion, is a little too late for a hotel to respect the sleeping members. And I know when they first opened and they had some parties up there, they got complaints from hotel guests and also from condo people. I was not living here at the time.

Peter, thank you for your comments. That is past the time for the meeting. So appreciate it. Thank you.

Go ahead, Kevin. Oh, just going to double check. I'm checking. I've run the list. I believe that is all the speakers we have on this item. I do want to note Amy Supple, the applicant, is registered in support and available to answer questions. She's with the Edgewater Hotel.

Thanks. I'll just ask if any commissioners have questions for any of the registrants available to answer questions. Commissioner, thanks.

Thanks. I wondered if Amy Supple wouldn't mind addressing some of Peter's concerns that he brought up and talk about a plan for at least for communication.

Amy, you're unmuted. Can you hear me?

Yes. Yes. Hi. Yes. Thank you for asking me to respond. as Peter mentioned, we did indicate to the condo owners that we were going to move forward, um, with a project last October. Um, we, um, I did mention to Peter that we were moving forward when I saw him, um, in the building, uh, it wasn't passing. Um, but I did mention to that to him and I did end up having two very long conversations with two of the condo owners, um, in going forward and they were in support when I spoke with them. I never heard from Peter again in relation to this. We did notice a public meeting. There was a newspaper article and other opportunities for us to speak. I have not heard from him on this matter, but I am happy to follow up with him and talk through these concerns. A few things I would note. The space is used today as a banquet space. The conditions that we're talking about doing actually where his condo is located would be approximate to where the more covered spaces for the outdoor area. So the conditions would actually improve on the outside closest to his condo. The time limitations that are proposed in the Planning Commission Memo would be more restrictive, not less restrictive than we have today. And we're okay with that. We have thought a lot about security in the building and in particular about how to move people through the building and up and down. And so the elevators will be locked down. The condo elevator is locked down today, but the other elevators In the building or not, the elevator to the sky bar would be secured and you would only be able to get up to the sky bar and up to that floor with secure access. You would then check in with a host. And so people moving through the building wouldn't have access to the other hotel floors from the sky bar. And so we have thought a lot about that. We will be adding additional security and additional staff to ensure that we are thoughtful and mindful of those issues. And just thinking about, as Kavitha said, thinking about sound and light and music, we've spent a lot of time Thinking about the impacts, not just to the condo owners, but to our hotel guests and to the neighborhood overall. I think we've done a good job of addressing when concerns have risen. And we, of course, have a vested interest in not being... you know, a problem to our own guests who are also just below the sky bar space. So we've given a lot of thought to that. You know, as I said, I haven't heard from Peter, but I'm happy to have a conversation with you at any time.

Thanks, Amy.

Thank you. Other questions for registrants? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing on this item and ask if there are any staff questions. If not, then I think we'd be looking for a motion and we would start with item, sorry, start with item 10. which is the zoning change. Thanks, Commissioner Solhain.

I will move that the Planning Commission find the standards met and forward the zoning map amendment to approve an amendment PD GDP for the Edgewater Hotel. and approve an SIP to construct the various exterior modifications to the hotel and send that to the council with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions in the staff report.

Thanks. Alder Ugar, thanks for the second. Any further discussion on the motion for item 10? Seeing none, I'll call the vote. Is there objection to unanimous approval for that item? All right, that item is approved, and we'll move to item 11, which is the alteration to approve conditional use. Commissioner Solheim, thanks.

I will move that the Planning Commission find the standards are met and approve an alteration to... between improved conditional use for lakefront development and a conditional use in the Edgewater Hotel for an outdoor eating area on level 15, all subject to the conditions in the staff report.

Thanks. Commissioner Heck, thanks for the second. Any additional, we got you off the hook, I'll do you here for one. So any further discussion on item 11? Commissioner Heck, did you have some comments?

Yeah, I just wanted to at least partially reassure our public commenter that the conditional use portion of this is under continuing jurisdiction by the plan commission. So if there really are some some new concerns about the impact on your quality of life, The plan commission can take complaints and and and try to work something out with the edgewater, if that should be the case. But I also this used to be once upon a time in my alder district and I wanted to complement. the Edgewater and the Edgewater team for the quality of their materials and their proposal. It was obviously very well thought out and they anticipated I think many of the potential questions and so I'd say they did an exemplary job.

Thanks, Commissioner Hecht. For the discussion If not, we'll call the vote. Is there objection to unanimous approval for item 11? Seeing none, that item is approved. We now have time for member announcements, communications, and business items. Does anybody have anything they'd like to share? All right, seeing none, we'll jump to the Secretary's report, and we have Kevin Furco.

Thank you, Chair. Just to note, and as the Chair mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, our next regular meeting where we'll be discussing development items is not until October 5th. Just to highlight a couple items on the agenda for that. There is a rezoning. on Willie Street to allow for an existing building to have a hotel and some other uses. So that's scheduled for that night. And also scheduled is a demolition for a former water utility building on Vilas Avenue. And so we'll keep you updated as that. But that's what we have in the agenda for the 5th. And that's all I have for this evening's Secretary's Report. Unless there's any questions.

Any questions for Kevin? All right, I think I would ask for a motion and a second to adjourn. Commissioner Heck, thank you. And Commissioner Solheim, thank you. Any objection to unanimous approval on our motion to adjourn? Seeing none, we'll stand adjourned. Thanks, everybody. Have a good discussion.