Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Can everybody hear me? All right. All right. Welcome everybody. It's 5:30 and um we've got a full panel here. So, I will call to order this Monday, February 2nd, 2026 uh meeting of the City of Madison Plan Commission. Um, Director Tuttle, will you call the role? Yes, Chair. Good evening, everyone. Alder Field here. Alder Glenn. I see Alder Glenn. Hi. Hi. I'm here. Alder, you Gare here. Commissioner Bazine here.

Commissioner Hec here. Commissioner Mahel here. Commissioner Sanders here. Commissioner Soulheim here. Alternate Wisnooki is excused. Uh, school district rep here. And Chair Gnam

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

Thanks, Jesse. Um our agenda item number one is our time for public comment um regarding items not on the former plan commission agenda and director Tuttle do we have registrance for item one. Um this evening chair we do have Alder Figuron Cole who's registered neither in support nor in opposition and available to answer questions. Um there's not a specific item that for that so I don't know if you want to just check with the alder about that registration or not. Yep. Alder, I see you're here. So, I was just looking for the link. Thank you guys. Oh, okay. Thank you. Great. All right. So, you're all set. Yeah, I'm good. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Welcome. And that's all we had for that item, chair.

Okay. Great. All right. We uh now we'll have time for um disclosures and recusals. Members of the plan commission should make any required disclosures or recusals under the city's ethics code. Um, do any commissioners have disclosures or recusals uh for tonight's agenda? All right, seeing none, we'll move on to the minutes. Um, I've sorry I reviewed the minutes this afternoon and I just wanted to make a note to add the presence of um, Alder Harrington McKenna, Alder Vervier, and Alder Pritchette to our last meeting's minutes because those were I think inadvertently left off and I think they kind of came in and out. Um, but subject to that change, does anyone else have any additions or um, corrections to uh, last meeting's minutes? All right. Um, seeing none none and assuming that we can add those appearances to the um to the document, could I ask for a motion and a second to approve um last meeting's minutes as amended? Alder. Thank you.

Uh move to approve with amendments. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Hec second. Thank you. Um is there any objection to unanimous approval for last month's minutes? Uh, Commissioner Soulheim, I'll abstain. Thank you, Commissioner Mahill. Uh, same.

All right. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Um, any other uh objections or abstensions from uh the motion on the table to approve the minutes. All right. Seeing none, we'll um have those approved um by the remainder of the board. Right. Um schedule of meetings. Um, our next regular meeting is 2 weeks from tonight on February 16th at 5:30 uh virtually. And then for March, we also had meetings on the 2nd and the 16th of March, all at 5:30 virtually. Um, our ne our first special meeting of special in-person meeting of 2026 is going to be on Thursday, March 31st at 5:00 p.m. Um, and that will be in room 206 of the Madison Municipal Building at 215 Martin Luther King Boulevard. Um, so we'll make sure everybody's calendar's up to date. We will um move on to new business. Um, and we will start with our consent agenda. Um tonight we'll have two consent agendas. One for items with public hearings and um one for items being um referred. So, um, it's the custom of the plan commission to remove from the agenda those items on which staff members believe an application has been sufficiently reviewed to support approval with all of the conditions placed upon it by the various city departments and where the applicant accepts all the conditions and there are no individuals who registered to speak in opposition to the item. Um, so for uh so we'll use, as I mentioned, we'll use a separate consent agenda for items that are being referred and don't require a public hearing. The items proposed for tonight's consent agenda um for approval and um in one case to be

placed on file without prejudice are on the sheet before you. That those items are on our agenda. item two, item four, item five, item six, and item seven. Um, and then item 14, which is um recommended to be placed on file without prejudice at the request of the applicant. Of those items suggested for consent, are there any requests for separation? All right. Um, seeing none, um, first I'm just going to read into the record the items for, uh, consent for, uh, approval. So, item two is legisar 91149 related to 2401 Grim Street in Alder District 12, consideration of a conditional use in the suburban employment SE district for indoor recreational skating. And that said, skating rinks. Um item four is legisar 91288 relating to 60 6105 South Highlands Avenue in Alder District 19. And this is consideration of a conditional use in the traditional residential rustic TRR district for a building or structure exceeding 10,000 square ft in floor area to allow construction of a single family residence. Item five is legisar 91295 and that is approving a certified survey map of property owned by Katherine AK McQueen located at 1109 Simol Highway in Alder District 10. Um legis or agenda item six is legisar 91283. This would be creating section 28.022-0000745 022-0000745

for the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 1936 Tennyson Lane from PD Plan Development District to SR-V2 suburban residential varied 2 district. This is an alder district 18. And then agenda item seven is legisar 91150 also related to 1936 Tennyson Drive in Alder district 18 consideration of a conditional use in the proposed suburban residential varied 2 SRV2 district for multif family dwelling with greater than 60 units. Consideration of a conditional use in the SRV2 district for an assisted living facility, congregate care facility, and skilled nursing facility. And consideration of a conditional use in the SRV2 district for a daycare center. All to allow an existing senior living facility to remain in conventional zoning and for a daycare center tenant to locate in the facility. Um finally for our approval public hearing agenda we have item 14 um which is legisar 9936 which would have been creating section 28022-00743 of the Madison general ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 5,025 Shboen Avenue from PD Plan development district to amended PD GDP plan development general development plan district and create section 28.022-0000744 to approve a specific imple implementation plan and that was proposed for alder district 11 and again item 14 um approval means that this item will be placed on file without prejudice.

Um, so, um, I will now open the public hearing and close the public hearing for these consent items and move to a vote. Could I ask for a motion and a second on the um, approval consent agenda? Alder Glenn, thank you. And Alder Field, thank you. Um, is there any objection to unanimous approval for this consent agenda? Seeing no hands. Wait. Oh, maybe there is there a hand. Hang on. Sorry about the Elder Glenn. I think I still Yeah. Okay, great. I think that was for the motion. Um, so seeing no hands, we'll record the consent agenda um with the public hearing as passed unanimously. Alder Glenn. Yep.

I just wanted to say I know I didn't want to interrupt the vote. But I just wanted to I know that I don't know if usually with consent we have any talking. I just wanted to congratulate Samantha and Erica Brown on they've been trying to open daycare for quite a while and find a place on the northeast side and I just think it's exciting for a new daycare to come to the north side. Thanks Glenn. Yeah, I think that's that's um that's helpful. I got to sorry my my screens are jumping around and they don't look the way they usually do. So, um, Megan, maybe if I miss a hand, just please help me. We'll do. I was looking for my, uh, audio button. Sorry about that, chair.

Okay. Yeah, I'm just trying. I don't Somehow, uh, swap share. Anyway, all right. Sometimes I can make it pop out or pop back, but all right. So, we'll go to the consent item for um consent agenda for items for referral. Um and again we'll start with uh yeah agenda item 10 is that yeah agenda item 10 um which is legisar Thanks Megan sorry that's legisar 90916 um creating section 28.022-0000742 022-0000742 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 411 West Gilman Street from DC Downtown Core District to UMX Urban Mixuse District. This is an altered district 2. Um, agenda item 11 is legar 90614. Also relating to 411 through 433 West Gilman Street in Alder District 2. Consideration of a conditional use in the proposed urban mixuse district for a new building with greater than six stories and consideration of a conditional use in the UMX district for outdoor recreation to allow construction of a 15-story mixeduse building with 2550 ft of commercial space and 260 multif family units. And then item 12 is legisar 90618 approving a certified survey map of property owned by LCD Acquisitions LLC located at 411 through 433 West Gilman Street in Alder District 2. And items 10, 11, and 12 are to be referred to our March 2nd, 2026 meeting. And then finally, um, agenda item 13 is legisar

8, sorry, 90803 relating to 7401 Mineral Point Road in Alder District 9, consideration of a conditional use for a major alteration to a planned multi-use site with 40,000 square ft or more of floor area, of which 25,000 ft or more is designed as retail, a hotel, or motel, and consideration of a conditional use in the regional mixed use RMX district and transit oriented development to zoning overlay for drive-through window for restaurant and item 13 is to be referred to our April 27th 2026 meeting. Um so of those items um I would requ there is no public hearing because it's just a referral and the public hearing will occur at the future meeting. I ask for a second to refer um those five items, four items, sorry, four items. Um Commissioner Soulheim, thank you. Commissioner Hec, thank you for the second. Um is there any objection to unanimous approval for the referral consent agenda? And seeing none, um we'll approve the referral. All right, that will bring us back to our regular agenda items. Um, and we'll start with uh agenda item three. This is legisar 91287 um relating to 506 through 518 East Wilson Street and 132 through 150 South Blair Street in Alder District 6. This is consideration of a conditional use in the urban mixeduse district for an outdoor eating area open after 900 p.m. Consideration of a conditional use in the UMX district for an outdoor eating area with amplified

sound. in consideration of a conditional use in the UMX district for outdoor recreation. All to allow an outdoor eating area shared by three adjacent restaurants to operate after 9:00 p.m. with live music and outdoor recreation which is sand volleyball. Um so I think we'll start with uh a presentation from planning staff to orient us to the item and then we'll move to the public hearing. Welcome um Planner Parks. Thank you, chair, members of the plan commission, and advanced apologies if I'm a little glitchy. Uh, my computer has been acting up since I joined the meeting, and I'm told it's just me. So, story of my life. Anyway, 506 through 518 East Wilson Street, 132 through 150 South Blair. uh back before you once again uh for I believe the fourth year in a row uh it's almost like a new year tradition uh and it is a request by the comeback in Essen House and up north uh to have outdoor activities uh in the rear of the buildings which front on to East Wilson Street as well as in the parking lot which is primarily accessed from Blair Street. Uh this was before you uh last January 13th um was approved with a December 31st, 2025 expiration date which brings uh the requests back before the plan commission uh in a slightly modified format and I'll get to that in a moment. Uh but a refresher, they're asking for approval of an outdoor eating area uh that runs along the back of the Comeback and Essen House. Uh as well as adjacent to the uh back of the UPN North Pub. Uh and the

applicant is also asking for uh a stage with outdoor music on Sunday and Monday evenings from 4 until 9:00 p.m. And that would be from May 15th until September 15th. uh the resumption of sand volleyball, which would be 5:30 to 10:00 p.m. uh Monday through Friday and from 12:00 to 9 on Sundays, and for six outdoor events or festivals to occur in the parking lot, as noted in the uh application materials. Uh those events would run from 11 until 9:00 p.m. Uh they would be potentially for weekends. Uh and again those uh potential uh outdoor events and festivals are outlined in the letter of intent. There are two layouts proposed. The seasonal summer layout uh which is for everything but the six events. Uh the six events would be subject to the event plan layout uh that are uh also attached to the legislative file. Uh similar requests were before you uh last year. Uh one item to note, however, is a zoning uh code amendment that was approved uh last June 2025 omitted uh the restaurant nightclub and nightclub uses uh from the use tables throughout the zoning code. uh the comeback and Essen House uh received approval last January of uh restaurant nightclubs uh because the establishments have an entertainment license or entertainment licenses pursuant to MGO 38.06. Uh however the uh text amendment struck uh the nightclub related uses from the

code uh and so uh uses like the comeback esscent house and up north are uh considered a restaurant or restaurants uh for zoning purposes as determined by the zoning administrator. Uh restaurants are permitted uses uh in the UMX zoning district. So the indoor components of the comeback Essen house and up north no longer are subject to the plan commission approval just the outdoor stuff. Uh as a reminder outdoor eating areas associated with food and beverage establishments or conditional uses uh in the X district if they are open after 9:00 p.m. or if they have amplified sound. Uh both requests are before the body tonight. uh outdoor recreation uh is and remains a conditional use in UMX. So, uh, staff has reviewed the requests, uh, put forward, uh, in a November 2025 application, uh, and staff believes that following public input, uh, that the commission may find the conditional use standards are met to reapprove the requests for outdoor eating and outdoor recreation uh, subject to a strenuous set of conditions of approval. Uh the conditions of approval are very similar uh that are before the plan commission tonight to the ones that were before the plan commission last year. Uh and similar to uh plan development SIP alterations that were reviewed by the plan commission uh in the years preceding the conditional use approvals last year. Uh staff is recommending uh some adjustments to the conditions uh that were before the plan commission last year. Uh one that is consistent from last year and carried forward to this year uh is that only one performance space or stage should be

allowed. Uh which is similar to what we said last year. Uh but that uh we want to work with the applicant to locate uh where that stage will be on both the summer seasonal layout plan and the event plan layout. uh because uh we did receive some concerns last year about where the stage was placed uh and how that affected uh the residential uses primarily to the west but also to the north. Um and one of the other conditions sort of parlaying off of the sighting of the stage would be the uh uh direction where speakers are uh facing. Uh as noted in the report, there are residential uses to the north of the parking lot uh fronting on to Blair Street. There's also residential uses to the west uh fronting on to South Franklin Street. Uh we would like speakers both fixed and portable ones to be uh facing Blair Street to the extent possible uh so that uh public address systems, amplifiers uh etc. uh are faced away from uh the residential uses to the extent possible. uh and that in tandem with the location of where the uh stages are we hope will address some of the concerns that have been shared historically about uh noise from the outdoor uses. Uh we are also asking uh that the uh applicant clarify through this approval how they're going to provide notice uh for when the six outdoor events or festivals will be held. Uh we kind of feel that uh the way that has been handled previously is a little ambiguous. Uh and we're actually

asking the applicant to uh on or before March 15th of every year uh give uh the alder uh the zoning administrator and the director of the planning division or their design uh the schedule of when the six events will occur in that calendar year. uh so that that can be better uh publicized uh and that there's multiple ways uh both through the alder and through uh city staff for where that uh information will at least be held uh so that we know uh in advance before that season starts when those events are going to occur uh and uh also if there have to be deviations from when that uh schedule uh submitted on or before March 15th is provided uh how those changes uh can be handled uh through the alder uh zoning administrator and planning staff. Uh finally, the applicant has asked for and staff is willing to consider us not doing this next year uh in making the conditional use approval that's before the plan commission for the outdoor recreation and outdoor eating areas a 2-year approval for calendar years 2026 and 2027. Uh the expiration would then be December 31st, 2027. Give the applicant the opportunity to have two seasons uh under the conditional use approval before they would have to come back before the plan commission. Uh we feel that uh that would be appropriate uh and still gives the plan commission an opportunity to check in uh in 2028 presumably um on those conditional uses and the conditions of approval. uh but you know make it so that next January or early February uh that we would have the

opportunity that they would have the opportunity to go forward uh without having to uh make a stop at the plan commission like they have uh this year last year and in the uh two years preceding that. So uh staff is recommending approval subject to the uh conditions that begin on page nine of the staff report. And I'd be happy to answer questions after the public hearing. Thank you.

Thanks. Thanks, Tim. Um, we have registrants for this item, so we'll open the public hearing. Um, again, as a reminder, to be fair to everyone, each reg registrant will have three minutes to speak, and I'll try to briefly interrupt to give you a warning when you're close to the time limit, either a minute or half a minute ahead of time. Um, director Tuttle, will you call the registrance wishing to speak?

Yes, Chair. Um, I'll just note typically we do hear from applicants. Um, in this case we have two members of the applicant team, Kevin Burrow representing Kenothy and Bruce Architects and Robert Worm um that are both here registered in support and available to answer questions. So I'll just note that um if you have questions for them later. Um the other uh registrant that we have wishing to speak tonight is Bob Judy um on Franklin Street registered in opposition and wishing to speak. Hello. Can you hear me? We can. Welcome, Bob.

Yeah, thank you. Well, I would like to see this plan go to a one-year review, spreading it out to two years. That opens it up for them to insert and tweak things to their favor, and we won't have a chance to revisit this. So, I really think we have to have a one-year plan and not extend it to a two-year review. And also, the uh amplified music should really be ending at 9:00. That's the same time that we would like to see for like the volleyball and the food service as well. Uh when you live in this neighborhood and you hear this loud music uh going on so many times, it really kind of destroys the atmosphere of a nice neighborhood. And I understand uh we need to support our local businesses, but they need to support the residents as well. So, uh, we need to go back to a one-year review, and the noise and activities that disrupt the neighborhood need to end at 9:00 p.m. Thank you.

Thanks, Bob.

Okay, chair. I'll just note that we have two other registrants um registered in support but not wishing to speak. Those include Angie Gilner Scott of Manona and Nicholas Davies of District 15. Thanks. All right. Um, do any commissioners have questions for any of the registrants? Um, including those here to answer questions. Um yeah, I will then close the public hearing um and ask if there are questions of staff on this item. You had a pretty robust discussion a year ago. So um people may remember a lot of that. I guess I had one maybe clarifying question. Um oh well I'll I'll ask it real quick, Nicole, and then we'll have yours. Um maybe for Tim the I I was thinking that the amplification after 9:00 was only for um the volleyball games and not for music. And I thought there was a distinction there. And I'm just wondering if that um comes through in the report and the restrictions or if I'm misunderstanding that.

Uh the let's see. Yeah, the uh music on Monday, Sundays and Mondays uh is supposed to end by 9:00 p.m. Uh there's no amplified sound allowed for the outdoor recreation after 9:00 p.m. uh nightly. Uh that's in condition number two on page nine. Uh, so they would have uh they could have volleyball until 10:30, but no music or amplified sound for the volleyball after 9:00.

Okay. Thank Yeah, thank you for clarifying that for me. I think I said it all wrong, but that's Yeah, that's helpful. Commissioner Soulheim, thank you. Um, I just wanted to confirm, Tim, from what you said and what I remember from last time that the the stage location and speaker, you know, the direction of the speakers that you were describing, that's a a new addition for this year. Is that correct?

There was only one stage allowed for both plans last year. Uh but the new element for this year and next year depending on the plan commission's uh decision would be uh the place or the faces of the speakers directed away or toward away from the residential to the extent possible and towards Blair Street uh where there are industrial and office uses uh directly east or northeast if you will uh from the parking lot. We wanted to make that clarification this year. Uh so it it sounded like there were some issues uh based on where the stage was approved last year uh that sort of uh indirectly caused the speakers to be pointed towards uh Franklin Street in particular. That wasn't really the intent. Uh the intent of moving the or choosing the stage closest to Blair Street uh was to move it away. But when you consider where like the uh people watching or participating in the live music would be, that would put them in the parking lot basically between Franklin Street uh and the stage. And so the speakers are usually pointed to where the music uh uh where the stage is and where the people enjoying it are. So uh that was uh maybe a shortcoming of last year's slate of conditions. This year, we're going to try to see if we can thread the needle and put the the stage in the speakers uh where they will hopefully least impact those residences uh particularly on Franklin.

Okay. Thank you. And then just one more clarification. Although this would be a 2-year approval, I did see a note in condition two that the alder may request an adjustment to the hours of operation for both outdoor eating and the recreation, the volleyball um during that time period. Is that correct? That's a a condition that we put in a lot of our uh conditional uses with uh outdoor uh hours outdoor use uh whether it's amplified sound or hours after 9:00 p.m. that there can be an opportunity to make adjustments. Uh I could see where that might be uh causing some confusion. It's sort of a a standard operating procedure condition. Uh and frankly that could be struck uh from the slate of conditions if the the plan commission wanted. So I because I can see where it would be creating some confusion. Uh and the speaker did point to uh you know if it gets approved for two years maybe wanting to know or maybe how I interpreted it those comments was uh knowing what the uh slate of conditions would be for those two years and maybe that uh one uh comment at the end of the uh bullets in number two uh is maybe confusing that situation.

Yeah, I w I wasn't suggesting that be struck. I actually thought it may be helpful that if okay, it's not going well and there's a lot of issues that there's some flexibility there. So, thank you.

Yeah, I'll I'll just add to what Tim shared that um as with all conditional uses, the plan commission does retain jurisdiction. So, if there are problems, we are able to bring it back before you to consider what approaches could be taken to emilate those problems. And the reference to the alder here is is referring to our typical what we call our minor alteration process. So if there are changes um requested after an approval is made um the staff do consult with the alder of the district in which the project is located um to consider if those changes should be approved as a minor alteration or if there's something that should come back to the commission.

Thanks comm uh commissioner heck.

Thanks. Uh just in the same vein uh I want to understand if there's any sort of process related to um requesting uh an an alteration uh in that condition that you just mentioned. It's coming from the alder. uh if residents let's say contact uh planning staff or referred to planning staff perhaps saying you know this is not workable. Could that initiate uh that continuing jurisdiction process or does it have to come from the alder or staff? Continuing jurisdiction is something that is complaintbased and compliance driven. And that would be where we have the conditions of approval. uh that would be established tonight assuming the plan commission is inclined to grant the conditional uses that have been requested subject to the conditions that are outlined uh in the staff report and ultimately the the conditions that the plan commission decides upon which could be different from the ones that are enumerated in the staff report. Uh it would be if there is a violation of the uh conditions of approval uh that would bring the matter through the the zoning administrator to uh determine if there's a violation. If there is a violation, then the plan commission uh it's kind of a two-step process and we haven't had one in a while. So, I'm actually kind of walking myself through the uh continuing jurisdiction process, but there's first a complaint and zoning would report to the plan commission that there is a complaint and that uh the plan commission would then determine whether

it wants to set a uh hearing for uh reviewing the conditional use. Uh so first the violation then the report and then ultimately a public hearing where the plan commission can decide whether or not um there is a violation of the conditional use and whether it wants to uh you know uh modify the conditions of approval or worst case scenario uh the zoning code would allow the plan commission to revoke uh the conditional use. Um so if there is a complaint from the public, zoning would look see if it's uh a valid complaint uh based on an investigation that they would do. Uh they would report to the plan commission. The plan commission would then decide whether or not to set a hearing. If they do set a hearing, then there would be an opportunity for uh everybody to uh you know discuss with the plan commission uh whether or not they feel there should be a modification or revocation of the conditional use. And that was part of the reason why we still wanted to the applicant asked for two years and we said okay perhaps 2 years. Uh that is up for discussion. the plan commission, you know, could say, "Nah, we want to give it one more year and have it come back and instead of in condition one where the uh uh expiration would be on 31 December 2027, they would uh presumably change that to December 31st, 2026, which means that in order for the applicant to have the outdoor recreation and outdoor eating areas in 2027, they would come back like they are tonight for 2026, they would do so again for 2027.

Okay, thanks. Uh that was helpful. Uh one more question. I Tim, I hear you saying concerning the orientation of the speakers uh that they should face Blair to the greatest extent possible, but the condition of approval says shall face Blair. Uh, that doesn't sound like there's any wiggle room. Uh, how how do you interpret that?

The wiggle room, I apologize. If I shouldn't, I should have said should have said shall in my verbal comments. Uh, go by what's in the the staff report, which is a shall. The thing that we have some flexibility on is uh where the stages are placed. Uh, that's where we're going to work with the project team. Uh and that was something that came up during the review of the staff report where it it was uh we we wanted to make sure that we were not putting conditions against each other. Uh so we're going to work on where the stages we are going to be more inflexible about the faces of the uh amplified sound producing devices. uh we want those to face to Blair Street, but where the the stage on which those devices are located, that is what we have some uh we're going to work with the applicant on.

Okay. Thanks. That was good info. Those were my questions. Thanks, Commissioner Hec. Alder Figuro Cole. Thank you, Tim. So, I reading the the report and I see that there's six events that this is for six events per year. Can you please clarify that's if I'm interpreting this correctly?

No, the the six events are the uh special events uh like wedding receptions, reunions, items related to uh the great taste of the Midwest beer fest in August, uh the occasional Sanger Fest which is noted in the letter of intent uh or an October Fest type event. Uh so those six events are subject to the uh notification requirement to the alder zoning administrator and planning division. They're subject to the event uh layout plan uh in the application materials. uh the other events. So, the outdoor eating uh the uh outdoor recreation and the music on Sunday and Monday evenings from 4 until 9:00 uh from May 15th to September 15th would be subject to the seasonal summer layout plan uh and are distinct from uh those six special events that are uh outlined in the letter of intent. So amplification will be used for the special six events and then twice a week from also a period of time from the summertime or any time during the week just just two times a week and the special events amplification

outdoor amplified sound can occur for the six events. It can occur for the the music events on Sunday and Mondays from 4:00 until 9:00. And they also have uh speakers in their outdoor eating area uh and have had music historically for the outdoor recreation sand volleyball.

But is that um so are those part of the of the p of the Sunday and Monday or you mean like a daily mess outside? So they have uh outdoor music on Sunday and Monday nights.

They have uh sand volleyball uh Sunday through Friday uh differing hours Monday through Friday uh until 10:30 uh until 9:00 uh and through the afternoon on Sunday. Uh there is uh there is outdoor amplified sound uh for the outdoor eating. Uh the outdoor eating is open on is open past 9:00, hence the need for uh plan commission approval. Uh the six events also have uh outdoor music. Uh and those are the ones that have like the longer duration uh 11 to 9 on the uh weekends. Uh that would have to be published uh you know told by the applicant to the elder and planning and zoning staff. We lost the alder. Oh, no. All right.

Does that answer your question, Al?

All right. I think maybe any other questions for staff.

Um, are we ready to move to a motion on this item? Uh, Commissioner Soulheim. Thanks. I will move that the plan commission find the standards are met and approve the conditional use for 506 to 518 East Wilson Street and 132 to 150 South Blair Street to allow an outdoor eating area open after 900 p.m. and with amplified sound to serve three restaurants and a conditional use for outdoor recreation subject to the conditions in the staff report.

Thanks, Commissioner Salah. Is there a second? Um, thanks Commissioner Hec. Um, any discussion on the motion? Alderfield. Thank you, Chair. I just want to note and recognize how much work went into the development of the conditions that I think kind of shaped these uses to be a little more palatable. So, I appreciate all of that work and thoughtfulness that went into those. Thanks, Commission. Thanks, Elder Field.

Any other discussion? Um, is there any objection to unanimous approval for the motion on the table? All right, the motion is passed. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, Tim. We will go now to our agenda items 8 and nine, which are related and will be considered as one public hearing. um and separate findings and motions on each agenda item. So um I'll start by reading the items. Um item eight is legisar 91289. This relates to 21103 Sherman Avenue in Alder District 12. Consideration of a conditional use in the neighborhood mixeduse NMX district for a mixeduse building containing greater than 60 dwelling units. In consideration of a conditional use in the NMX district for a building exceeding three stories and 40 ft in height allow construction of a fivestory mixeduse building with approximately 1100 square ft of commercial space and 87 dwelling units. Um, agenda item nine is legisar 91294. Um, and this would be approving a certified survey map of property located I'm sorry, property owned by 2211 form Avenue LLC located at 21103 Sherman Avenue and all. Um, so we'll start with um presentation from the planning staff and welcome planner punt. Thanks.

Thank you chair. Uh so tonight uh now the plan commission is reviewing um 21103 Sherman Avenue. Uh the applicant here is seeking the necessary conditional use approvals to construct this fivestory mixeduse uh building on a lot to be created by certified survey map. The applicant is uh requesting approval of um conditional uses for the the number of dwelling units in the mixeduse building as well as height and excess of the zoning district permitted use maximum which is three stories and 40 ft uh in NMX as as you noted. Uh the proposed building is considered um to be five stories tall uh as it is measured from the front facade um as determined by the zoning lot. uh the front in this case being Sherman Avenue. Uh though the building does read a six stories exposed along Forom Avenue due to the slope of the site uh down from Sherman toward Forom. Uh while there is not a specific neighborhood plan recommendation regarding height, the neighborhood uh m the neighborhood mixeduse land recommendation in the comprehensive plan uh does recommend a maximum height of uh four stories. Uh I won't go over all of the conditional use approval standards um that I touched on in the uh staff report. Um but I will focus on standard 11 which pertains to the application for height and access uh to that allowed in the district. Uh the report analysis uh compared this proposal to three re recent similar proposals uh of generally similar heights and plan recommendations including two that that did get approved by the plan commission and one that was placed on file. Um while the applicant has adjusted the

design um after discussions with staff uh and with the alder uh in response to that feedback um especially regarding the inconsistencies with the the plan recommendations uh about height uh it still remains taller than what is generally recommended for for new development in neighborhood mixed use areas. uh if the plan commission can find that standard 11 uh can be can be met um uh with with the the height inconsistency with the plan recommendation um staff believes that uh it it should approve the conditional use requests. However, if the plan commission uh finds that uh the the plan being incon or the proposal being inconsistent with plans uh means that standard 11 um cannot be met or if any other standards cannot be met. Uh staff then recommends placing the request on file and of course noting uh in the motion the findings regarding that standard and and any others as necessary. uh leaving the conditional use. Uh staff does believe that um regardless of of that those findings, the standards for land divisions um can be found met and the CSM could be forwarded to uh common council with a recommendation for approval. Uh as always, after the uh public hearing, I'm happy to answer any questions the commission may have.

Thanks, Colin. Um, we have registrance for this item. So, we'll open the public hearing. Um, and director Tuttle, if you could lead us through the registrant list, that would be great. All right, chair. This evening, we'll start by hearing a presentation from the applicant team who have requested to pull their time for a total of nine minutes. We'll hear from Daniel Schwarz representing Sarah Investment Real Estate, John Powers, also representing Sarah Investment Real Estate, and Brad Coning, uh, representing Sketchworks Architecture. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yep, we can. Daniel, welcome.

Thank you. Thank you for having us. Uh, as as was mentioned, I'm Daniel Schwarz. I'm the president of Sarah. We are a local east side real estate company. We uh our office in the 100-year-old bank building on Atwood and Winnebago which we renovated 10 years ago and now has Rotunda Cafe in it. I've worked with a lot of the the staff here on several projects. Uh it's good to see everybody again and we greatly appreciate everyone's time. As I mentioned, we're a local group. Uh we have a a lot of renters on staff uh in our Madison office here. Uh including myself who who would love to live in a building like this. Just for background, Sarah, we're not a family office. We were merchant developers that are working with local investors uh who would like to see more housing here in Madison. So, uh John Powers will also speak. He's from P Contracting. He's our owners rep uh also local to Madison. Brad Coning from the Sketch Works team uh in Middleton. And then, uh Bruce is also available to answer questions from the Denafhrio team on the west side of Madison. Just to orient folks on the site we're talking about today, this is 21103 Sherman. As was mentioned, this is the parking lot that is across from Web Crafters. Uh obviously kind of a gateway to the north side with frontage on Sherman and Forom as well as the Maguire through street. This is currently a surface parking lot. Uh so there's no displacement of of any structures or businesses of any kind. This is adjacent to the Bonso restaurant uh Aaron and Nettle's restaurant which we we know and love and we've been working with them uh throughout the process uh to make sure our building accommodates their needs. Uh but this is not adjacent to any single family homes of any kind. uh which again we think is makes this a great site for development. As Colin mentioned, we're proposing a mixeduse building in accordance with the neighborhood plan uh other than the height which we're of course requesting a conditional use for. Um and we'll talk more about height later, but given that we are proposing five stories, I wanted to talk about our goal with the project which is to deliver uh a dense and efficient building that that we can

price below other new builds. So this is not affordable housing, but we're hoping it can be attainable housing. Um, and without density, uh, we we're unable to to do that. And we're also unable to to accommodate parking for for the Bonso folks as well if we aren't able to get, uh, the density to make the economics work. So, uh, we're hoping to help solve Madison's housing crisis in an attainable way. We think this will be a really great addition to the neighborhood, which we really believe in, and we're really excited about it, but of course need your help to to see it uh to fruition. So, thanks for having us. I'll kick it over to John now to talk a little bit about the history with the site.

Hey, um John Powers um working on behalf of Sar Investment Real Estate for this project. Um for a little bit of background of just kind of the efforts of of our team to get us to where we're at today. uh started early um kind of last summer um in July and August talking with Colin, Jacob, city engineering and other other people at the city of Madison just to uh orientate ourselves to the site kind of what their concerns would be of this um what were proposed um in our our thesis. Uh based on the feedback we got um we put together a set of plans uh for our first DA uh DAT meeting um in uh early October. Um initial plan was six stories. Um, again, it's obviously um um based on the feedback we got that was uh an appropriate size and and more units we could put on the site, the more cost we can spread out across units, helping um bring the overall needed rent price down. Um after that initial DAT meeting, um had a second meeting with Jacob and um Colin to express just concern over height. Um and after that meeting we we made the a group decision to to bring it down down to five um to better fit or get closer to the suggested use of four. Uh this reduced our building by roughly 20 units or a 13% reduction. um which isn't ideal, but uh we felt it it it better uh fit what what Colin was asking for and what the city plan was asking for it for while still trying to maintain our our thesis of of having attainable housing um and units u um at this location. After that, like Dan said, we met with uh uh the Bonso owners um Aaron and Natalie. Um, in that discussion, we identified that there is concerns with uh maintaining access to their uh restaurant and prep kitchen to the north. Um, so we reduced our

building footprint to allow them a drive lane. um just because we want to be supportive neighbors to them and ensuring that just because we're building a building to their south uh they can still operate um in the manner of which they're um they need to to to have their restaurants and prep kitchen um run as it was before we build this. Um in doing so that pulled away roughly 10% of our our units from the previous reduction. Uh we also have been working with them to try and provide parking stalls within their or within our um parking garage. Um which is a large a big thing that they've been asking us for which we we'd love to provide for them. Uh but all the more reason that maintaining the proposed plan is important to make sure that we can work to to maintain the stalls that would help them. Um and then we also had two neighborhood meetings um in coordination with the alder uh to to get neighborhood feedback uh from that meeting. The large uh large item that that came up from the group was traffic just the additional units that are put at this location and what it does to the the drive lanes. After that meeting, traffic engineering reached out to us uh regarding step back along Maguire and increasing that uh step back by three feet for future improvements to that roadway. In doing so, that reduced our entire south elevation of our building um pushing back into parking structure and uh reducing unit sizes um a little bit further. So, a lot of background. Uh, like I said, we've we've all to outline, we've tried to be accommodating in every way we can to not just the neighbors, but um the neighborhood requests and and city requests to make sure that this building meets uh what the neighborhood wants it to um while still trying to meet our goal of of providing affordable housing for uh people that want to live

in this great neighborhood. So, um with that, I can hand over to Brad.

Thank you, John. Uh if we can advance to the I guess the next slide, please. Here's a couple just examples of the the site as it exists today. Uh so the the vacant um parking lot um that's shared by Web Crafters and and you can see Bonso there. Uh and the McKenzie Place Apartments kind of in the in the background there. Uh next slide, please. Uh yeah. So um so I'll quickly uh review the architectural design considerations uh to show how this project is not only consistent with the uh comprehensive plan uh and adopted land use objectives uh identified by the by city staff. So um just conditional uses uh are intended to allow flexibility where sight specific uh conditions justify deviation and uh I think this project introduces uh housing and neighborhood serving commercial in a designated mixeduse node of the city. Uh the project scale and density reinforce the gateway character to the Sherman uh neighborhood and the project also places the residents uh on a transit corridor uh which reaches as far as Epic and Verona and uh to the east Cottage Grove. Um the use itself a mixeduse development not only is permitted but encouraged uh in this location by the comprehensive plan uh and as a gateway project uh we feel that it's reasonable variation in height and density could be warranted uh based on these site specific characteristics. So looking at the site uh specifically uh topography played a large role in the design of the building as John kind of had mentioned along with the site constraints uh for setbacks and whatnot and and uh appeasing uh neighboring properties but it's also bordered uh on three sides by street frontage right so it's increased setbacks were requested uh like John said widening Maguire Street and then from Sherman Avenue to

forom uh the grade

30 seconds left just Oh jeez. Okay. Uh so the grade dropped over 6 ft. Um so this uh allowed us an opportunity to split the parking level. So there's two uh parking levels. Uh one uh is accessed off of forom and one is accessed off of Sherman. So what this will do is help traffic uh leaving and entering the site. Um you know for the neighborhood concerns. Uh next slide. Oh, sorry. One other uh point to mention there is that we're also incorporating green roofs uh at the second level. Uh so there's a unique unit type uh for walkups uh facing Meguire Street. And then the building the residential building above is set back about 20 ft. So you can kind of see that off of Meguire Street.

Hey Brad, I'm going to call time now, but you may there may be time for questions from the panel um after the other registrants. So thank you.

Thank you. All right. Um, as Daniel noted, there are other members of the applicant team that are available, notably Bruce Holler, uh, with Sarah Investment Group that's here and available to answer questions if the commission has any for him. Um, and I'll also note that Steve Schaefer, who I don't believe is here representing the project tonight, is also registered for this item. Um, moving on to other registrants. Uh we do have our first registrant is Robert Johnson of Sherman Avenue registered in opposition and wishing to speak. I did get a note from Jesse though that I don't believe we see Robert Johnson on the meeting. So Robert, if you are here under a different name, um please make sure to change your name on the Zoom account to match the name that you registered with. Um, also we'll note um our next registrant is Jennifer Argolander of District 12. Um, registered in opposition and wishing to speak. Um, I believe the same note applies to Jennifer that Jesse notified me that we do not see Jennifer here in the list of registrants. So, if you're here under another name, please make sure to change your name to match um that which we have registered. Um, next we'll hear from Sarah Johnson of District 12, who's registered neither in support nor opposition and wishing to speak.

Welcome, Sarah. Hi. Yes. Um, I just want to confirm that you can hear me. Yep, we can.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. Yes, I appreciate the opportunity to chime in on this development. Um, I live at McKenzie Place and I uh fully support additional housing on the vacant parking lot. Um, there's two things that I wanted to highlight and I did include these in my written comments as well. Um, one is I do think the size should be approximate to Mackenzie Place. I think that um the 86 or 87 units is uh squeezing a lot on that lot and the Mackenzie Place uh building fits fits the neighborhood and I think accommodates the balance between wanting to have um wanting to have apartments and have housing and still complement the park and the residents that are around in the neighborhood. The second thing is my bigger concern and that is the the um driveway that would exit towards Burroughs Park. That intersection is very problematic as it exists already. And putting a driveway that will face the intersection of Sherman Harort and Warner and Maguire will just add additional traffic and additional congestion to that intersection. I walk my dogs multiple times a day in the neighborhood and always have to have a lot of caution at that intersection. And so I strongly encourage cons reconsideration of the placement of that driveway and the height and capacity of the building. Thank you so much.

Thanks, sir. Okay, our next registrant is uh Nancy the Hart um of Madison, registered in opposition and wishing to speak. Nancy, your microphone is unmuted, so we should be able to hear you.

Nancy, welcome. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can.

Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, out of respect for the time of all of you on the plan commission and others wishing to speak, I'm not going to repeat my written comments that I submitted. Hopefully, most of you are already familiar with my reasons for objecting to this request for conditional use. Instead, I'd like to share a couple of recent observations that support the points that I made in writing. First, in other parts of Madison, I've noticed that when new apartment buildings interface with residential neighborhoods, they're rarely more than three stories tall. And if a building does go to four stories, portions of that building are reduced to two or three stories to miticate the effect of a massive structure towering over the existing homes and existing buildings in the area. and just wondering why can't our wellestablished neighborhood be given similar consideration. My second observation is that the concerns about adding massive numbers of cars to our local streets in this area are not hyperbole. From personal experience, I can tell you that traveling through downtown now takes at least 10 to 20 minutes longer than it did just 6 to9 months ago. And if you multiply that by the number of cars likely to be introduced to our neighborhood if this project is com approved at this size, um I don't see how the plan commission can possibly say that conditional use approval standard one or standard three is satisfied. One last thing. I'm curious whether any of you have noticed how gloomy downtown Madison now looks. Even on sunny days because all the tall buildings don't

allow sunshine to reach the sidewalks. Even a three or fourstory building can have this effect. If its footprint is the size of what you're reviewing tonight, that will certainly diminish the enjoyment of those who use Burroughs Park or who already live in the neighborhood in an easily foreseeable manner. Thank you for listening. Okay, so just double checking here briefly. Um I do not believe that Robert Johnson or Jennifer Argolander have joined us. Um so I'll read the rest of the registrants. Um, we have Don Lindsay of District 12, Rebecca Ledner of District 12, Cara Tolstead of District 12, Beth Slays of District 18, and Laura Vogle of um of Madison, who all are registered in opposition, not wishing to speak. Um, we have Nicholas Davies of District 15 registered in support and not wishing to speak. I believe that's everyone. Chair,

thanks Megan. Sounds good. Thanks. Um, thanks for those who came out to to speak on this item as well. Um, I will Yeah, I don't see the other I don't see those other registrants either. So, I will ask the uh commission if you have questions for any of our registrants tonight. Commissioner Hec, thank you. Thanks. I I have a question for uh Sarah Johnson, please.

Yes, Sarah. you were you were describing your concerns about the intersection there where one of the parking entrances and exits is is proposed. Uh I know that intersection well having uh

ridden my bike through there many a times. Uh my my impression is that the confusion the current confusion at that intersection is really on the lake side of of Sherman. Uh those those streets are a little bit unusual the way they intersect and that uh my thought would be that cars coming and going into this building uh would be mostly turning right or left off of Sherman and not involving themselves in the kind of spaghetti that's that's on the northern more northern side. Uh would you agree with that that that you know it's it's mostly people who are coming and going through Maple Bluff and and the and the neighborhoods there that that are that cause the confusion. Would you would you agree with that? Um, I recognize what you're saying and I I see it a little bit differently because I think adding adding traffic to that to that spaghetti junction as you kind of described it um will I think that will create more density of cars in that area because that is one of the two ways of cars of the 40 I think it was 40ome parking spaces. So, even if it's 20 cars, you know, going in and out, it's going to add cars to that intersection and create more people just trying to navigate through that. And you're right, yes, I think it is problematic when people are coming down Warner and and sliding right through that. What I also see is um cars coming down Sherman and everything just everything connects at that same point. I was actually just walking my dogs today and noticing the driveway, the curb cut right now is right exactly where all of those roads converge. And I

appreciate your point about being a cyclist because I think it's cars, cyclists, people walking, all of it in that intersection. It all just comes together right at that point. And I do think like McKenzie Place pushes traffic to the more car dense road is form avenue and McKenzie Place right now our driveway dumps onto forom and I think that is the much more appropriate place to direct traffic to direct it to McCormack to direct traffic to form avenue because that's the more car ccentric um border or boundary of the property and the more pedestrian side of the property. keep the traffic off of that because we don't need to add to what you were also explaining as a very um confusing intersection.

Okay. I I appreciate your uh your additional information. Thanks. Thank you for the follow-up questions.

Any other questions for registrants? All right. Uh, Commissioner Soulheim, I was just going to ask we cut it off maybe just one more minute for the development team. One or two more minutes to finish um the design slides in particular. Sure. Um, yeah. Um Brad, if you that's kind of you. Brad, if you want to maybe um kind of do your wrap up on the remaining slides on the presentation, that would be that would be fine.

Yeah, absolutely. And I'll I'll make this uh make this quick and um so if we could go to the slide deck and go to uh the elevations. Um I'll touch base just quickly on the elevations and then the the comparison between the McKenzie place and this uh proposed development. So what we're doing on the elevations is we're breaking down obviously the facade with mater materiality uh that's consistent with the neighborhood. So we've got masonry at the base cut stone uh and then lap sighting, two different colors of lap siding above as more of the residential areas. Uh, and that's in the green and the and the tan there. Uh, masonry is kind of in the buff. Uh, and then the more of the I'll say reddish uh, masonry uh, that splits. And then I will say that uh, you know, we do have commercial uh, space along um, Sherman Avenue uh, as well as as well as one of the entrances into the parking. So, predominantly uh, and that's where the Bonszo parking would potentially be as well. Uh so parking that's on uh or coming off of uh Sherman will be focused mainly on commercial uh additional parking potentially for Bonso and then yes some residential. A majority of the residential uh cars will be exiting off of forom. Uh and forom is the uh the main entrance of the residential um development. Um next slide please. Uh again, uh one of the other things, oh I'm sorry. Can we go back uh one slide, please? Uh one of the other items I wanted just to mention, there were some staff comments about extending some windows um further down on the stair towers. Uh and as you can see here, um we were uh anticipating uh building signage to be placed in that area. Um so that would be one of the considerations

um if if it's so to choose. Uh but finding areas for signage. Sorry, next slide. again just further further uh elevations. Um next slide please. So then yeah so here we um have a uh example of our building compared to uh McKenzie Place. Obviously the rendering is focused uh on the development but you can see McKenzie in the background as it as it goes along Sherman Avenue. And then we have the street front uh I'll say street facade uhcape uh that uh kind of illustrates our building height which is only uh at Sherman Avenue side 8 ft above um above Mckenzie Place uh and that is kind of the distance between the two. So, as you can see, the building uh Mackenzie Place kind of steps up and the the topography also steps up. And so, our the proposed building uh is at the highest point uh and then just marginally higher than McKenzie Place. Um and again, given the uh the dual um uh the dual parking uh structure uh condition uh and the commercial space that we have on Sherman Avenue increases the building height slightly. uh to take part in in in that overall height. Uh and then you've got uh three levels of of residential uh parking. So, um, again, we're trying to break down the the elements of the facade to line align with McKenzie place both in materiality, uh, and the brick, as you can see, uh, and then have the, uh, lap sighting step back, uh, to accentuate, um, you know, kind of the residential aspect and the residential materials, uh, that are consistent with the neighborhood. um from a shadow and and sight line perspective um you know one additional

uh story um from a shadow uh perspective is only placing it on um commercial spaces um and as you can see um the width of that building the width of the proposed building is significantly less than what McKenzie uh has existing um so in response to uh let's wrap up here. Um, you know, we've talked a little bit about the streetscape along Sherman Avenue. Uh, it illustrates the scale of Mackenzie Place, uh, to the east as it relates the proposed mixed unit mixed unit development. Um, I think the increase in the height is a natural progression from east to west. Uh, and then the topography of the street also rises, like I said, along Sherman Avenue, which also contributes to the overall distance and the height between the two projects. Um you know I think uh I think the standards uh as as condition as staff has mentioned um meets the conditional use standards for one through six and eight. Um I think standard 11 can be met uh based on the contextual considerations uh that we've talked about topography location uh significance as a kind of a gateway project uh as it enters. Um we've tried to um uh work with uh the neighborhood uh neighboring properties like Banzo uh and the city um for increase setbacks um to maintain the density uh that this uh that this project needs to be sustainable. Um I think we're trying to advance the project to meet citywide housing goals uh and sustainability. Um and then support uh support the project by uh adequate parking uh not only for the residences but for um commercial um both on our site and adjacent um while all responding to you know the topography of the site and uh the

location of where it's at. So thank you for the opportunity to uh for me to finish that presentation. Thanks Brad. Any other questions for registrants? And seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and offer the same um opportunity for questions of staff. Um I'll do you G.

Thank you, Chair. Uh all my questions are going to be for Planner Punt with regard to condition 11. And uh let me just start by saying that I really appreciate the extensive discussion uh in the staff report on condition 11 and the relationship uh to those three other recent um decisions that we made two finding conditions met and one not. It was therefore two of those three at any rate and and do recall the condition. Um well, first of all, a quick one. Uh did McKenzie Place require a conditional use exception for density or height?

I believe the uh McKenzie Place is uh zoned NMX the same as this site. So um that same requirement, three stories, 40 ft um and and the building is four stories, so it does have a conditional use for height.

Okay. Thank you. Uh so second and this was uh mentioned uh by the development team uh the need to satisfy ourselves with regard to condition 11 is that we could say from the staff report that we don't really have as I read it any equivalent um to the reasons why we were able to approve two of those projects. It almost seems with regard to uh the situation this would be more like the third one where it was denied. Uh but the need for us to find uh in quotes context contextual uh considerations to be able to say that uh it should be reasonable to do this. you know, something uh something more specific, I guess, for the location or other considerations uh than just financial need or uh the city's need for housing, which would it would seem to me that if we were uh going to look at financial viability and city need, that gets into a problem area with regard to the importance of uh the uh land use in the uh comprehensive plan andor the zoning. Uh could you just talk a little bit more about uh contextual things that we might be able to grab a hold of here that would allow us uh to think about reasons why we could accept something that's so significantly different than the land use or the zoning? Yeah, I can I can try and you know I will um you know I will refer the the commission back to my staff report for the the

majority of the discussion here. Um but I think since you brought up those those few other um examples that I that I discussed, um one of the the major differences uh in a few of those is that there was uh additional guidance from neighborhood plans or or special area plans. uh the the location on Sirloin strip, which um was the the proposal that was placed on file, uh had very specific um recommend height recommendations for that location uh in in the South Madison plan. Um and so that I think made it uh a lot easier for the plan commission to come to a decision because of that guidance from the plans. Uh in this case, um the there there is an underlying neighborhood plan here, um but does not provide any um any actual uh uh recommendations for height. There's a uh there is a uh a concept plan um for the area, but uh that concept plan actually includes moving Meguire in a location that uh I think would cut right through um McKenzie Place. So you that's kind of out the window already. Um I think if we're looking at context um you know in in this case uh you know M Mc Mackenzie Place is is certainly um a shorter building. It is four stories um but it is also quite a long large building. Um I think one of the other things with context uh in this particular situation uh is that it uh is across the street from webcrafters um which is an industrial use um an employment use that uh is recommended for continued

employment use um in the comprehensive plan and you know I would assume that's going to continue for for some time. Um, so if there are uh considerations about the uh impacts of the height um that that this proposal may have at least on one on one side of the um of of the property. Uh those are are going to be pretty mitigated by the fact that that's a very large industrial user.

Thank you. And final question just to uh it's always a struggle. We we want to find more housing but we would like to give reasonable credence to our comprehensive plan and our zoning. Uh what would a developer need to do or or the common council to uh alter the underlying land use and or adjust the zoning so that a building like this uh could be done uh without a real issue under condition 11?

Yeah, that's that's a very good question. Um, I think there are a number of changes to the zoning um that could be pursued uh that would be consistent with the the land use recommendation in the comprehensive plan. Um, none of those uh though I think kind of give a lot of options for additional height in this situation with the neighborhood neighborhood mixed to use the NMU um land use recommendation. Um there's some of the other zoning districts that could go to is is traditional shopping street TSS. I think that would work. Um but that's not going to give them that much more permitted height. Um and and we would still be looking at a a conditional use in this situation. Uh the the other option is to um amend the comprehensive plan, which is something that we uh as staff typically uh don't encourage. Um it is a very timeconuming and um and and higheffort uh um undertaking. Uh that does require us to do a a large number of um meetings and notifications to uh other entities um to other municipalities. Um and so it's not something that we uh take lightly. um changing the the underlying plan um and and you know we really only do it every 5 years when we open up the the comprehensive plan. Uh this area is um going to be part of the I believe this is the Near East neighborhood plan um which will not be undertaken for for a few more years. Um, so at that point we can

look at land use uh recommendations again, but like I said, that's that's a few years out and if I'm I'm sure Megan knows when when that will actually happen. Thank you. Those answer my questions. Thanks, Alder. Any other Megan, did you want to add to that? Uh it I think the alder's question seems satisfied, but um if there are any other questions about our process for updating our comprehensive plan or the area plans, I'm happy to help answer. Great questions from the commission or um are folks ready to Commissioner Sanders.

Thank you, Chair. Um for planner punt, just um I want to revisit this concern um from the public about traffic. So, as I am looking at this map, and please correct me if I'm wrong, some of this is actually going to be uh Maple Bluff and not the city of Madison's jurisdiction. Is that correct? Yeah. So, um Maple Bluff is is more or less directly uh to the west of this site. Um and then Burroughs Park to the to the northwest northwest um would be the city of Madison. And then everything on the east side of of Sherman Avenue would be City of Madison.

Okay. Are there any avenues for the city of Madison to work with uh Maple Bluff to try to help inate some of these uh concerns in that uh junction? It does look like there's a lot of streets converging in that one corner.

Yes. Um two things are I I think are happening right now. So, first of all, there's a portion of um Sherman Avenue that is scheduled for reconstruction. Um I believe that is in 2027. Um although it might be later this year. Um I'm sorry I don't know the the exact date. Um the other thing is that uh I know that the village of Maple Bluff is um looking at updates to their own comprehensive plan. Um they have already re their um consulting planner has already reached out to our planning staff um to discuss. Uh so it may be something that um we can have a a dialogue um with that between municipalities about those traffic uh issues.

Thank you. That's helpful.

Alder Glenn. Yeah. Uh um this is for Colin. Um I'm just looking at it like looking at density. Can you talk a little bit more about what what you when we're talking about the density of changing in the PUO with the it being so compact in the area? Sure. For normally the 60 units that's kind of going around and then I see that they changed it to change the bedroom side. I just wanted to hear a little bit more from your perspective.

Yeah. Um, for sure. Uh, so the, um, I guess I'll I'll go back to the the com or the the comprehensive plan first. Um, neighborhood mixed use generally recommends up to about 70 units per acre. Um, I think the density in this location is around 110 or 115 or so um, units per acre. Um the the 2018 and 2023 comprehensive plans really um tried to focus more on height and bulk um of new development uh and move a little bit away from um from density as an as an arithmetical um analysis. uh mainly because the there a lot of things can really impact um density and make a huge difference. Um, you can have a building full of two and three unit uh or two and threebedroom units um and have the exact same number of people uh that are in a building full of studios and ones and twos uh and and the density will appear to be much much smaller. So, um I know in this building there's a lot of onebedroom units um and some two-bedroom units and I think only a single three-bedroom unit. So, that I think the um density, the residential density seems to be a lot higher. I think the um discussion about uh bulk and height um are really what uh impact the the neighborhood a lot more than than that actual residential density does.

Thank you. Thanks, Elder Matthews. Welcome.

Hi. Thank you. Um, Colin, this kind of I think is a little bit a followup to Carmela's question. Um, but can you speak at all to kind of the unique qualities and restrictions of this site, especially compared to the McKenzie place site? Like is McKenzie is that site larger than this site? um how and maybe how like the setbacks and the the considerations with it being three streets um abuing it how that impacts uh the available space for building.

Sure. Yeah, I can I can attempt to to um talk to that. I think there's a few things. Um you know, obviously we have we have already talked about how the McKenzie Place um building is is quite long. Um, you know, it is a larger larger site. Um, but we need to make sure we're treating all of these sites individually as as they are. Um, I think the there's maybe three other um um site uh characteristics, I'll call them, um that that really shape the way that this building um or any building on this site is is going to work. And one of those is the slope um from Sherban Avenue down to form avenue. I don't I don't anticipate any sort of design um not, you know, using that slope and and ending up with Ormom appearing to be one additional story than than Sherman Avenue is. That's going to happen, I think, regardless. Um the fact that there are three street frontages on this um also uh makes the um the identification of setbacks uh and yards for the different lot lines um a little bit difficult. In this case um the the applicant in working with the zoning administrator identified Sherman Avenue as the front um and so form avenue becomes the rear yard. Um and then the and then you have two sidey yards which um Bonso and and and uh Magguire um those those yards can be changed around depending on the the design of the building um in consultation with um the the zoning administrator. But I think the um you know the layout that that was identified here again is

probably the one that um I think most proposals on this site would uh end up at. Um and then finally um just the site is not very deep um if you're looking at it from Meuire. Um and and I think the one of the things that uh I noted in the staff report is having access um to the restaurant uh on to the north um was something that came out of a lot of discussion. I know you obviously were were involved in those discussions. Um, but I think that really helps maintain um the ability to uh have the rest of the block function. um which really um speaks to standards three and four which which I I didn't um spend a lot of time on in uh in the staff report but um it it allows those those uses to continue uh as they are um despite that you know kind of that narrowness of the the site. Thanks. Um, Alder Field,

thank you, Chair. Um, I have a question for Colin. Um, and I want to reiterate the appreciation for the thorough analysis and comparisons in the staff report. Um, when I'm thinking about standard 11 for excess height and this question of context that we're trying to think about, I noticed that in the comprehensive plan, the generalized future land use recommendation for the cluster of parcels south. So like further down the triangle formed by these two main streets, Forom and Sherman, is medium residential MR. And so if I'm remembering correctly, that's up to five stories. Um I so I'm wondering I suppose if when thinking about this question of context and looking at five stories here if it would be appropriate or justifiable to consider not just the one-story building that's there today but also the possibility of an up to fivetory building on the parcel immediately to the south. Yeah. I think um if if a land owner or developer applicant um was interested in the land on the other side of Magguire Street um a reasonzoning to a a a residential district that um fit within that MR land use recommendation and and the construction of a fivetory residential building um is certainly within the realm of possibilities and I I don't see that there would a lot of plan inconsistency with that. So, um I think that you know the plan commission could could certainly you know take that into account.

Sure. Thank you. Thanks Alderfield.

Alder Matthews.

Thanks. Um, I just got a message from uh one of the constituents who had registered to speak that they're having trouble getting into the meeting, I believe. Um, and I just was wondering if it if it's possible for them to still speak if they're able to get into the meeting or if that wouldn't really be possible. So we could so we could reopen the public hearing if there we did have two folks who had registered to speak and were not on our were not on our attendee list at the time. But so I anyway I don't know if um if it were one of those two we'd probably want to entertain that. I don't know. Um, Jesse, is there I guess I don't know how to

um, yeah, do you know if they have been able to get into the meeting using a phone number or another way?

They're saying that they are listening but can't sign in um, so let me just ask them. um or what name they would be. Um otherwise I could forward them a link if there were one of those. Jesse, do you have any um help you could provide here to the applicant about how they might be able to resolve

um they're they're saying their name should say Argander um A R G E L A N D E R Have they confirmed that they were able to get into the meeting? Um I don't see anybody with that name. Okay. Yeah. I mean there were we did receive several written comments which I know were considered by the group. So I don't want to Do you know if they are on a phone or if they are on a

Yeah, they just sent their cell phone number. Can I send that in a chat to someone to check or do I I don't Yes, you could say it. Um, Alder, you could email it to me and I could check to see if that's the number that's great.

I will email it to Megan right now. Okay, it does look like uh we have um this is me pull up the registration list. Um yes, to Jesse's question. Um let me just read the name here very briefly. Uh Jennifer Arglander of District 12, who's here on a phone number, Jesse?

Okay. Thank you. So, um but before we do that, chair, um we should take a vote to reopen the public hearing if that's the will of the body.

Yep. But um is there any objection from the commission to reopen the public hearing um to allow speaking and and I guess if if you object raise your hand and if you don't object um then we'll we'll do that briefly. All right. Thank you. Um so we'll reopen the public hearing to allow uh one of the registrants to speak who couldn't um previously or wasn't in the meeting previously. Okay. So, this is Jennifer Arglander of District 12, registered in opposition and wishing to speak.

All right. Um, Jesse, can how does she unmute herself on the phone? Is there a some numbers to punch? Yeah, I just sent the prompt to them, so they should have that information. Thanks, I think star six also um mutes and unmutes on phone. Yeah. This Yeah.

I think we may have lost her again. Yeah. Appears to be that way. I guess it's the case.

All right. or Matthews, any feedback on your end that uh would be helpful. Um let me look right now. Uh and then um just one other thing I also had an email um from uh Aaron from Bonso that he had registered uh not to speak but just to be available to answer questions. So he and he didn't hear himself as part of the registrance. So Oh, okay. I'm getting

from from that. So maybe I can

um my apologies. Yes, Aaron Collins of District 12 is registered neither in support nor opposition and available to answer questions. Thank you, Alder, for flagging. Oh, now you're Oh, she's supposed to She's Well, um, it's not super late, but if anybody would like to take a recess and see if we can get this sorted, if you want a bio break or something, just raise your hand and we can do that. But I think also think we can stay here. So, Okay.

Um, I'm going to hold her up to my my earpiece and see if that works. Okay. Can you try talking now? Okay. Can anybody can anyone hear me? Is this okay? I'm getting thumbs up. Okay. Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. All right. So, I'm sorry about the confusion here. I usually get in. Okay. But basically, I have to oppose this because of the the density and the height. Um, we've been through this all with McKenzie Place as far as we were promised nothing more than four stories in the future. The traffic pattern will be awful. I have to cross that area all the time with my old dog. Um, just the whole lighting issue will be bad. And the fact that you're going to try to put businesses on the main floor. We were forced to do that with McKenzie Place years empty, nothing rented. Um and we had to turn it into apartments. So I don't think businesses are a good idea and I really don't want it um as tall. We need to keep this and the park is a quiet place and we ought to respect the environment there. So I'm very against this. I hope you really think about this. So, thank you.

Thank you. Thanks, Elder Matthews, for facilitating that. Thank you. Yep.

Okay. And while this is reopened, I'll just note that after the meeting began, uh there was another registrant, Nick Smith of District 12 registered in support but not wishing to speak on this item. Megan, is there just an updated Well, that's okay. I'll just I'll leave it. So, thank you. Um, are there any questions? Well, I'm not sure we had the ability to ask Jennifer questions. So, um, if there are any questions for registrants, you have one last shot at that before I reclose the public hearing. Right. Seeing no hands, we'll close the we'll reclose the public hearing. Um there is still opportunity to ask staff questions and if unless the um commission is ready to move toward a motion. Um and these are conditional uses. So um we would be approving or or placing on file I think are best options. Commissioner Schheim. Thank you.

Okay, I'll take a shot at this. Although our first is the first one the CSM. Yes. I'm sorry. Item eight is the Yeah, conditional use for the number of dwelling units, the height, um, and then Yeah. Okay. Got it. Sorry, I was looking at point. Um

um so related to um item eight, I will find that the plan commission find the standards for conditional use are met and approve the necessary conditional uses for the proposed five-story mixeduse building. Um subject to the conditions in the staff report. Um, I'll specifically note um that standard 11 is met. Um, I find that this is generally consistent with the comprehensive and neighborhood plans, although it is um more dense and taller than the the comprehensive plan. Um, it was not specifically called out in the neighborhood plan. And I do believe that this addresses the goals for a neighborhood mixeduse area and contributes um to the desired neighborhood mixeduse node that is called out in the plan. And I can expand on that a little bit more as well.

Thanks, Commissioner Shim. Alderfield, thanks for seconding the motion. Um there is time for um uh Commissioner Shim, maybe you'd like to speak a bit more to your motion and then we can see if there's discussion. Yeah, I just um wanted to add to that. Thank you. Um but again noting that I think this um varies from uh the one that was mentioned in the staff report on Sirine Strip. Um for me because it was not specifically called out in terms of height in a in a recent neighborhood plan um as it specifically related to adjacency to a residential area. Um there was a concept plan in a neighborhood plan that I reviewed that did show four four stories. However, that concept plan also showed um the demolition of Bonszo and taking over the office uh building that is next door. So I think that this concentrates the housing on the uh vacant parking lot but retains the commercial space um and Bonso and the office building. And I I also think that the context surrounding the area being surrounded by commercial uses in the park is important for this consideration, including to Alder Fields point about the future um planning to the south which is mixed residential which would be uh allowed to have a consistent height with this building.

Thanks Commissioner Schheim. Any other discussion um questions? Alder Gear.

Thank you chair. Uh I have to say that I struggled most of the day uh on uh trying to figure out how we could satisfy condition 11 with regard to density and height. Uh I want to thank uh older field because I found I find that the land use in the land of the south is very helpful in my thinking uh in terms of understanding future permitted uses that uh would be of comparable height. Um likewise the comments from staff that uh at least if we can imagine a long uh future time that we would have the industrial use to the south that's not going to be impacted by this and so forth. Uh I thought that the uh that the applicant's comparison to uh the massing of Mckenzie Place was helpful in considering this as well as some of the other uh adjustments that were made during their process of coming up with plans before us. So, uh, uh, after wondering most of the day if I should be putting in a motion to put this on file, I'm going to vote in favor of it. Thank you.

Thanks, Alder. Alder Glenn.

Um, yeah, I agree uh with Alder. I did not know how I was going to vote up until I listened to actually um Commissioner Soheim even describe in the Y and Alderfield talking about future um as someone who really wants to see housing and and um housing that uh is affordable uh but also not in the sense of um also having some market rate to it. We need that. North Side has really great amount of affordable um what would be considered quote unquote market rate housing. Um but it we also need more of it. We also have a quite a bit of affordable and um I really wanted to see more um come into the area to be able to build up attract those businesses that we here that the Mackenzie place kind of struggled with. Um and uh I think this is different than even a couple years ago uh due to being close to Bonso. Um and it and um and yeah and the condition can be met. I think the future of the north side is uh going to um have people sometimes struggle with. Uh, I also think that where it sits at is a beautiful area. I saw some of the outside of it, um, and how it's going to be built to blend in with the neighborhood, which I think is so important. Um, but yes, so I will also

be approving it and I think the condition has been met. Thanks, Holder. Commissioner Hec, you're still muted.

Thanks. Uh I agree with uh those who spoke before me, but I just wanted to add for uh those who gave public comment about concerns about traffic. Uh I I understand your concerns as as I said I use this intersection along uh Sherman often, but I I I really think that the amount of increase in traffic will uh barely be noticeable. 40 cars at most would be leaving this uh this building uh if half uh of the parking stalls were to exit there. But uh they're not all leaving at once. There many are not leaving street and uh I really don't think it's going to be particularly noticeable. uh and and many uh buildings that we approve are bigger than this, have a lot more cars, and and even then the the traffic analyses show that it's it's not something that's going to change the current condition by a great degree, but we heard you. Thanks.

Thanks, Commissioner Eck. Alder Matthews.

Um I just wanted to also thank all the speakers and folks that emailed um and all the folks that came to the two public meetings. Um they are not very represented here tonight, but there were some uh positive comments that came out of the public meetings. Um and I do also want to point out, I think the developer mentioned it, but this is on one of the bus lines, which is also a really great thing for the area. Um, but what really uh I think was the most impactful for me is that they were willing to work with Bonso to put in this driveway. I know as a a pretty pretty brand new alder, I think Bonso had reached out to me. Um, and I sent, you know, Megan and other planning staff probably what was an very obnoxious email with like screenshots of Google Maps cuz Google Maps shows a full street going through that parking lot. Um, and that's obviously that doesn't matter for the city, but um, you know, I with my more limited experience, but still having worked with several developers and witnessed a lot of projects with developers, I think that their willingness and their proactive willingness to work with Bonso on this and to give them part of their land that they did not have to do um, or, you know, create a part of their land that is specifically for the use of Bonso is is not something that um I I just think it should be mentioned like that they were seeking that out even before they came to me for this project and you know as soon as I pointed it out in their their initial plans that they showed me they were like okay we'll go back to the drawing board and we'll change this before your meeting that's in 8 days or something it

was maybe 2 weeks But still um so I just wanted to to share that as well. I I would be very worried and again not as experienced as all of you explicitly but I would be worried that a future project would not necessarily be this willing to work with um the surrounding neighbors in that way. And so that is yeah but thank you all for

Thanks thanks Elder Matthews. Um yeah um I think we'll call the vote and we'll start with um is there any objection to unanimous approval for the motion on the table regarding the conditional use permit or applications. All right seeing none that item is passed. Um we next need to deal with item nine on our agenda which is the the certified survey map for the lot. Um uh Commissioner Swan, thanks.

I'll move that the plan commission find the standards for land division are met and forward the CSM to council with a recommendation of approval subject to conditions in the staff report.

Thanks Alder UR. Thanks for the second. Um any discussion on the CSM motion? Um seeing none, is there any objection to unanimous approval for that item? Seeing none, that item is also approved. So, thanks thanks thanks to everyone who came out and provided comment and for the good discussion tonight. Well, that brings us to our numbered agenda item or the end of our numbered agenda items and we now would go to um member announcements, communications or business items. Um any any of those things from the commission? Um seeing none, I would just ask that um we have our in-person meeting coming up near the end of March, which will be here before we know it. And uh it'll maybe it'll warm up a little even. Um, if you have ideas of things that would be good, um, subjects or or presentation topics for our special meetings, um, I would just encourage you to send them in an email to me or to me and Megan and we'll kind of put them in the idea hopper as we start to form those agendas. Um, and appreciate you doing that. And you also feel free to um, well anyway, if you wanted to get to talk on the phone or get together, that'd be fine, too. But um definitely want to talk about things that people are interested in. So this is this is all of our time and so let's make the best use of it we can. Um I will now just move to the secretar's report and um Megan you have the floor.

Great. Thank you. Um I'll just add to what the chair was saying about topics for our first special meeting this year. We'll also go back. I do have um a short list been shared with us. So, we'll go back and review that um and chat about it with Emily as well. Um we are currently anticipating one item which will include a bit of an update on the housing forward initiative from last year. um specifically focusing on one of the longer term items that was um announced last year related to the zoning for um we call it single family planned development districts. Um and talk to you a little bit about what a process could look like to um evaluate neighborhoods that were developed using that mechanism and the potential for bringing them into conventional residential districts. So, we'll share more about that at that special meeting, but certainly um want to echo what the chair said that if you have questions or ideas, feel free to reach out to both of us as well. Do you have a question about that, Commissioner Sheim?

I just wanted to note because I was staring at this for too long, but our our agenda and the schedule of meetings notes that it's Thursday, March 31st, but it's actually a Tuesday.

Oh, great. Thank you for that. Um we'll make sure that gets updated on future agendas. Thank you. Um so moving on to other items under the secretar's report. Uh want to note that there is an amended elected and appointed officials code of conduct that was adopted by the city council at the end of last year. Uh you may remember that the chief of staff or the council office came to present on this maybe close to a year ago. It was sometime early in 2025 to just update you on the pending updates that the council was considering. Um that was ultimately adopted at the end of the year and we've provided a link to the updated code of conduct for you here in the agenda. So when you have a moment, please take a look at that. Um we'll also make sure that the next time we update your plan commissioner um uh policy and procedure guide that we include an updated link to that as well. There's a longer list of items under recent common council actions, but as you look ahead to our next meeting in February, um we are anticipating a shorter list of items. We've had a number of referrals. You've probably noticed in our last few meetings, just as applicants continue to navigate all the processes that they need to get a project ready for your review. Um so we have a shorter list of items that will be on our agenda for February 16th. Um, one of the more notable ones that I'll just mention here is for 437 South Yellowstone Drive, um, which will be a conditional use for a six-story mixeduse building, um, with a small amount of commercial space and 130 dwelling units. Um, I will also note for that meeting that I will not be in attendance. Um Kevin Furkow who is our principal planner that leads the development review section will be in attendance along with any of the staff uh that will be present to present those projects to you.

I think that's all I have for tonight chair. Great. Thanks. Any other questions or comments for Megan?

Seeing none. Um could I ask for a motion in a second to adjurnn? Alder Glenn. Thanks, Alder Field. You got in the second. Um any objection to unanimous approval for the motion to adjurnn? And seeing none, we'll stand adjourned and we'll see you in a couple weeks. Thanks everybody. Good night. Thank you. Have a good evening.