Jesse. Um, the chair is in the attendees list. Thanks. Sorry about that. All right, I think we're all here and it's 5:31. I apologize for my tardiness. Um, why don't we call to order this uh July 7th, 2025 meeting of the Madison Plan Commission? And um uh Director Tuttle, would you call the role? Alder Field here. Alder Glenn here. Alder Yugare here. Commissioner Hec here. Commissioner McCill here. Commissioner Mendes here. Commissioner Sanders here. Commissioner Soulheim here. Alternate Bazine here. Alternate Wnuski, I think we saw you, but I didn't hear you. So, I'll note uh Alternate Wesnki is here. Chair Gdam here. And we do not have school district representative Soldner. All right. Thanks. Um as we'll as we start our meeting, we'll start with um our technical information from facilitator Jesse Pul. All right, welcome to our virtual plan commission meeting. We're going to cover a few basic items before beginning. 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. To members and city staff, members, if you're able, please activate the video and keep it on for the duration of the meeting. Staff, if you're able, please activate your video when you are speaking. Use the raise hand feature when you'd like to be recognized to speak or ask questions. Staff, click raise hand when you asked a question. The chair will do the best to call on committee members in the order in which your hands are raised. Lowering your hand will take you out of the queue. Members of the public who have registered to speak, the name you entered in Zoom must match the name you entered in registration. You will remain muted until called upon. The clerk will tell you when your time is up. After all register and speak, a member of the body may ask you a question. If you need to share documentation with the commission, please send it to the email list listed in today's agenda. Chair, the floor is yours. Thank you. Um, our first uh item for tonight is agenda item one, which is our time for public comment regarding items not on the plan commission agenda. Um, director Tuttle, do we have any registrants for public comment tonight? Uh, we have one registrant, Reverend Michael Ratawick, uh, who is registered in support and available to answer answer questions. Uh we believe based on our communications with applicants that uh the reverend may be here to speak on item number three, the conditional use at 2438 2462 Atwood Avenue if we want to just confirm that so that you know that he's available for questions on that item. All right. Um All right. Reverend uh are you online and maybe you want to confirm? Ah there we go. Yes. Good evening. I am here and happy to uh answer any questions. I believe uh Brad Servin from ADCI architectural is also on with us this evening. Great. And are your comments related to the um the project at uh St. Bernard's of Clarville Cathedral? Is that the That is correct. Okay, great. Um, so we will this this is kind of a general comment period, but we will um if we need to, we know that you're available to talk about uh item three on our agenda. So, thank you for coming out. Great. Thank you. Yep. Thanks. Okay, chair, that was our only registrant for item number one. Okay, great. Um, so next is 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 related to tonight's agenda? Commissioner Wnooki. Thank you. I need to recuse myself from items 12, 13, and 14. Okay. Thanks. Those are the zoning text amendments and um we will you will I think you'll be an alternate on tonight's agenda. So, um to the extent that that's needed, we'll definitely reflect um your recusal on those items as well. Thanks. Anybody else? All right. Um moving on, we have minutes of our June 23rd, 2025 regular meeting. Um are there any additions or corrections or questions to the minutes? Seeing no raised hands. Um, is there a motion to approve the June 23rd minutes? Alder Yugare. Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Mendes. Thank you. Um, any discussion on the motion to approve last meeting's minutes? All right. Seeing none, we'll come to a vote. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for this item? Seeing no raised hands, we'll record those uh we'll record the minutes as approved um from last week. Um next is uh confirming our schedule of upcoming meetings. Our next regular meeting is 3 weeks from tonight on Monday, July 28th. And then we have meetings on August 11th and August 25th. And those are all virtual meetings at 5:30m um just like this one. Right now we will move on to our new business or well to new business and we'll um start with our consent agenda. 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 in which the applicant accepts those conditions and there are no individuals who have registered to speak in opposition to those items. The items proposed for consent agenda for tonight are on your screen and those are um on our agenda. Those would be items 2, 3, 4, and five, items 8 and 9, and then items 10 and 11. So, of those items that are on your screen, are there any requests from the commission for separation from the consent agenda? Um, or are we ready to read those into the record? All right. Seeing no uh requests for separation, um we'll uh read the items into the consent agenda um before we open and close the public hearing. So um item two is legisar 88855 and this is determining a public purpose and necessity and adopting transportation project plat numbers 12777-3 through 402 amendment number two and 12777-34.11 amendment number one and these are respectively in district 9 and district 11 of our alder districts um for developmental for development related requests recommended for approval on the consent agenda. Item three is legar. Actually I think that might not be right. Megan I have eight I have 88555 for two and three. Is there a different number for one of those? Sorry. Yes, chair. One of them is 88855 and the other is 88555. I'm sorry. Thank you. They look very similar. Yes, they do. I'm sorry. So, item three is 88555, not 88855. So, 88555 relates to 2438 through 2462 Atwood Avenue in Alder District 15. And this is consideration of a conditional use in the traditional residential varied TRV1 district for a cemetery and consideration of a conditional use in the TRV1 district for a building exceeding 10,000 square ft of area. All to allow construction of a crypt addition to St. Bernard of Clairvo Cathedral. Then item four is legisar 88557. Um, and this is approving a certified survey map of property owned by Jacob and Jennifer Alexson and Stacy and Tyler Novagorats located at 1626 and 1634 Baker Avenue in Alder District 19. Item five is legisar 88717 creating section 28.022-0018 022-0000718 of the Madison General ordinances to assign SR-C1 suburban residential consistent one district zoning to property located at 60 White Oaks Lane and Alder District 20. Agenda item 8 is legisar 88336 relating to 709 Northport Drive in Alder District 18. This is consideration of a conditional use in the traditional residential urban one TRU1 district for a multif family dwelling with greater than 60 units to allow construction of a four-story 80unit apartment building in a planned multi-use site to also contain a proposed four-story 24 unit apartment building in an existing place of worship. Item nine is legisar 88558 and this is uh approving a certified survey map of property owned by Northside Christian Assembly located at 709 Northport Drive in Alder District 18. Um then item 10 is legisar 88551 relating to 2222 through 2304 city view drive in alder district 17. This is consideration of a conditional use in the suburban employment SE district for dwelling units in a mixeduse building. Consideration of a conditional use in the SE district for multif family dwellings and consideration of a conditional use in the SE district for residential buildings taller than four stories and 55 ft. All to allow construction of a four-story mixeduse building containing approximately 4600 square ft of commercial space and 60 apartments. A four-story 47 unit apartment building. a five-story 39 unit apartment building and a five-story 40unit apartment building. And then item 11 is legisar 88568 approving a certified survey map of property owned by investors associated LLP located at 2222 through 2304 City View Drive in Alder District 17. All right, having read the items uh for consent, um I will open the public hearing and close the public hearing on those items and we'll move to a vote. Could I ask for a motion and a second on the consent agenda? Motion to approve. Oh, thanks, Alder Glenn. Um is there Alder Field? Is that a second? I think you got in there ahead of Commissioner Hec. Um thank you. Um, so we've moved by Alder Glenn, seconded by Alder Field. Is there any objection to unanimous approval um for the consent agenda tonight? And seeing no raised hands, the consent agenda is passed unanimously. So now we will go back to our reg regular agenda. Um and we will pick up at item six which is legisar 88449 creating sections 28022-716 and 28022 uh-717 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of portions of property located at 604 Commercial Avenue and 604 through 902 Riner Road from Agricultural District to TR-P traditional residential plan district and TR-U1 traditional residential urban one district respectively and this is an alder district 3 and item six and seven are related. So we'll also be discussing item 7 legisar 88206 approving the which would be approving the preliminary plat of Ryland Grove on property addressed as 604 Commercial Avenue and 604 to 902 Riner Road in Alder District 3. Um we will start with a short staff presentation. I think we have Planner Parks with us tonight to walk us through this one. Welcome Tim. Thank you, chair, members of the plan commission, Tim Parks with planning staff. Just briefly, items six and seven. as noted by the chair regard the reasonzoning of approximately 2/3 of a 149.7 acre parcel located along the north side of Commercial Avenue between Felon Road and Riner Road uh to TRP and TRU1 for the purposes of the uh Ryland Grove uh subdivision which will contain 488 single family attached and detached residences and 60 townhouse units. uh to be located on individual fe simple lots. Uh four outlots for future development are proposed on the southern third of the site uh including most of the commercial avenue frontage and approximately 1,000 ft of frontage along Reiner Road north of Commercial Avenue. The four outlots for future development are proposed to remain agriculturally zoned at this time and will be reszoned to other zoning districts prior to any further subdivision or issuance of zoning approvals and permits for future buildings on those outlots. Uh the preliminary plat also includes uh an approximately 5.9 acre outlot for public parkland on the northern edge of the proposed subdivision as well as a 1.1 acre privately maintained park space and a variety of outlots for storm water management. uh a single family residence and uh some agricultural accessory buildings located along the RER road frontage of the site uh will be demolished to make way for the proposed subdivision which will occur uh over phases uh extending approximately 10 to 15 years based on uh the application materials submitted for you. This project was previously scheduled to be before you at your June 23rd plan commission meeting. Uh however, during the review of the proposed Ryland Grove subdivision, concerns were raised by the parks division and the planning division about the layout of the proposed single or I'm sorry, of the proposed public park uh that would be located on the north side of F Street uh between H Street and the extension of Blue Bluestone Terrace South from where it's currently platted in the adjacent woods farm subdivision uh staff uh as noted in the June 23rd staff report was concerned about the configuration of the park which had single family homes uh abuing uh the park on both the east side of H Street and the west side of Blue Stone Terrace. Uh staff recommended uh that those uh nine lots be eliminated uh so that uh the park could be more consistent with the park shown in the northeast neighborhoods development plan uh to create a more useful layout of the park uh with more space for future uh planning for recreational amenities etc. and to uh eliminate uh any encroachments from those lots onto the public park. Uh following the release of those comments uh before the June 23rd meeting, uh the subdividers asked for a referral uh so that we could work with them uh to see if there might be a different layout of the park. Uh we did do that. Uh and the preliminary plat that's before you now uh has shifted uh the lots uh entirely to the east side of what would be the future park uh which will now be an L-shaped uh parkland uh where the frontage on H Street will be completely uh free of any encroachments uh as will the uh frontage along F Street and also uh you know providing for uh park frontage south of the proposed lots and uh with also a peninsula uh between D Street into the park for uh better connectivity which if my computer was cooperating better I would show our many viewers at home what that looks like uh so that they don't have to just take my word for it And oh, I think we might see it, Tim. Here we go. Well, hot dog. Uh, that only took a lot longer than it was supposed to. Anyhow, this is the proposed layout of the park after the changes that were made uh by the applicants uh after working with uh city staff. We feel that this is a better layout for the park. Uh and we will also note uh that the park space uh that is before you now roughly 5.9 acres is actually approximately an acre larger than the amount of parkland that was shown in the neighborhood development plan. Uh so I roughly some tradeoffs which park staff and planning staff uh feel uh are acceptable uh to accommodate uh the proposed lots on the east side of the park shown here along the extension of Blue Stone Terrace. Uh Blue Stone Terrace has been shifted a little bit further to the east uh to provide uh 100 ft of lot depth for those proposed lots. Uh the number of lots however in the subdivision is the same as what was before you on J or scheduled to be before you on June 23rd. Uh and that uh the remaining lot uh that was not incorporated into the uh park adjacency has been made up elsewhere in the blocks nearby. So, uh, the staff comments have been adjusted, uh, to, uh, reflect the proposed preliminary plat that's on screen now with its park, uh, reconfiguration. Uh, and, uh, staff is putting forward in the July 7th addendum, a basically a new slate of conditions uh, for the plan commission uh, should they find the standards for approval met. uh so that uh if the plan commission is going to move forward uh the preliminary plat which is number seven it should do so with the conditions in the July 7th uh addendum. Uh staff has reviewed the proposed uh preliminary plat and zoning for the subdivision and believes that it is consistent with the northeast neighborhood developments plan uh as well as complete green streets guide and uh the design standards and the subdivision regulation and I'd be happy to answer questions after the hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Um I believe we have registrance for this item so I will open the public hearing. Um and our registrants will have um opportunity to speak for three minutes and I'll try to interrupt briefly with a warning when we get close to the time limit. Director Tuttle, first speaker is Brian Mson representing Verdian Holmes uh registered in support. Great. Welcome, Brian. Again, my name is Brian Mson, uh, principal of Vanderal and Associates, here on behalf of Veridian Homes to talk about Veridian's, uh, next new neighborhood for the city of Madison. Uh, we're excited to be looking at this property on the growing east side of Madison and really excited about the opportunity to bring forward a truly diverse offering of housing on this project. Uh, so as Tim gave his summary, I did an excellent job. This is uh 548 housing opportunities for the city spanning from single family to missing middle housing, attainable housing to age targeted products. So really a full spectrum of housing within this neighborhood. We're excited to bring this forward uh having worked very closely with staff uh as Tim mentioned the back and forth uh to come up with a revised plat layout that you see before you tonight really reflecting uh the park department's uh input on the park layout. So, we're excited to be here tonight uh to move this project forward. Again, something that we've been working on for quite some time with staff and really do appreciate the back and forth we've had along the way to get here tonight. Uh and are excited to move forward. As Tim mentioned, this is reflective of the adopted neighborhood plan. Uh it includes uh the green street standards and meets those uh throughout the project and builds upon the network of of walkable streets and new neighborhoods on the east side of Madison. That's really what the Northeast neighborhood envisioned for this area. And so, as Tim mentioned, this will be built over the course of several years, uh, roughly 10 to 15 years based on market conditions. But we're excited to take the first steps tonight. Uh, and are happy to be here to answer any questions. Uh, as always, uh, Matt Brink uh, with Verian Homes and Dan Day with Dafio Kodki are also here available to answer any questions that you might have. uh because I'm sure as you know there's there's quite a bit of detail that goes into getting to a plat position like this tonight and so we're happy to answer any questions you might have but look forward to moving forward with this project and ask for your approval tonight. Thank you. Thanks Brian. Okay, our next speaker is Nicholas Davies from district 15. Neither in support nor opposing and wishing to speak. Hey, welcome. Yeah, thanks. Um, I value that this project will be adding housing within city limits. Um, but I see issues with making it 100% residential and with the overly large street layouts shown. I believe the plan commission can cite Madison's complete green streets guide and the comp plan's general recommendations about complete walkable neighborhoods as a counterpoint to the outdated 2009 neighborhood plan. Uh, these residents these residences are going to be quite far from anything other than other residences. The comp plan recommends commercial or mixed use at the corner of commercial and riner, but that doesn't exist yet and even even that would be a long walk for much of this plat. Uh meanwhile, all surrounding roads are completely unimproved for pedestrian and cycle traffic and these outerbring lower density low connectivity developments are challenging to provide transit service to. So what should we do then? Well, this development could include a mini downtown node. Uh you can find examples of this in the Northstar neighborhood or Fitchburg's Terravesta neighborhood for example. Another technique would be to make certain lots corner lots perhaps a neighborhood mixed use. Then those lots could initially be built with lowmedium residential structures for now. But the process to add commercial amenities later in those spots would be greatly streamlined. I think it would be a mistake to adopt this preliminary plat as is without including some walkable amenities for the future residents residents of the of it. uh we would be failing to ensure those residents the same quality of life that you and I enjoy today. The other area I want to touch on is the street widths. City has made mistakes in the past. Uh in the Northstar neighborhood, for example, the city approved overly large wide streets and once built those streets enabled a lot of speeding cut through traffic and the city has had to devote a lot of resources to calming that traffic. This plat shows 26 ft alleys, which is enough for high-speed traffic in both directions at once. Uh the 64 and 66 ft crosssections show no bicycle facility, a travel lane in each direction, and a parking lane on both sides totaling 36 ft of pavement width, which is not cons consistent with Madison's complete green streets guidelines for neighborhood yield streets. When those parking lanes go unused, this turns into a wide open straightaway. And there's even a cross-section of over 100 ft, practically unheard of elsewhere in the city. You could almost cut that street in half and turn the other half into more buildable parcels. There's literally no good reason for devoting all of this acreage to enabling fast, reckless driving. This is our opportunity to get this right. When this final when the final plat comes back to you, you'll be evaluating it for consistency with the initial plat. And then when Board of Public Works accepts the so-called improvements, those improvements will already be built. It might be years or decades after the site gets built before anyone comes before you with a request to reszone or redevelop a parcel within this plat. Um, so it's important that we get this right. Thank you. Oh, thank you, Nicholas. Okay. Um, as Brian Mson noted, the other two registrants for these items include Dan Day and Matt Brink, both here representing Verdian Homes and registered in support available to answer questions. Thanks, Megan. Um, are there questions from any commissioners for any of our registrants? Alder Field. Thank you, Chair. My question is for Brian or whichever among his colleagues would be best to answer. Um, I wanted to ask a little bit about the concern that another public commenter just brought up before us about nearby mixes of uses for future residents who would live here. And you and I have talked about this a little bit. I'm wondering if you can explain or just walk through what the future plans look like for the outlots that are proposed for future development and thus not proposed to be included in resoning in this request along the southern part of the new neighborhood. So the four parcels along the corner the northwest corner of RER and commercial are being uh retained by the seller of the southern two parcels that include that are part of this project. So those four outlots at this point are zoned agricultural and remain as outlots in anticipation of coming back through the approval process with the city of Madison to subdivide and reszone those parcels into their eventual uses. So at this point there's not a proposal for use on those parcels. However, if you look to the northeast neighborhood plan, which so much of this is based upon, um the anticipated uses Thank you, Tim. anticipated uses uh for that corner. Uh you can see the purples uh the darker browns and some of the reds imply uh opportunities for multif family housing uh commercial uses and mixeduse uh opportunities uh as part of the one quarter of the envision town center components that are clustered around the intersection of Reiner and County Highway T commercial avenue. So while those are not included in this application, uh we do anticipate that in the future the property owner has that opportunity to bring forward uh something uh to develop those parcels and would anticipate that the review would be based upon you know delivering some of those uses as anticipated in the northeast neighborhood. Okay, that answers my question. Thank you. Thanks. Uh Commissioner was Commissioner Wesnki. Thank you, Chair. Ryan, I have a a question just um because I think in your comments you mentioned compliance with the complete green streets guide um and our speaker had uh noted some discrepancies there. Can you just kind of walk me through um in your mind how it it complies with the complete green streets? Sure. Um so as noted by staff uh the both traffic engineering and engineering have reviewed the proposed street crosssections and found them compliant with the green streets uh network. Uh and that's really what we use as our baseline uh is developing streets that respond to the joining context as well as the needs for on street parking balanced with pedestrian activity. So, in the zoning application in the back portions of the uh the document, we actually walk through exactly what all those streets would look like. Uh from the 26t wide alley, which would have a 15 ft of pavement, uh all the way down to the 100 foot wide boulevard, uh which would have pairs of one travel lane in each direction at 11 ft and an 8ft parking lane. Um, so we've worked very closely with staff to make sure that that uh meets all the standards from the street cross-section standpoint, but then we take it one step further and that we've also included in here uh opportunities for some additional off- streetet trails uh and paths network throughout the neighborhood uh going east west from Felon Road to Riner Road with two uh distinct corridors uh both the extension of Blissful as well as Divine Street Extended as well and then a north south connection uh which is anticipated to connect from the park down to the future town center components and potentially from the park north uh along a corridor that's anticipated to extend through some of the undeveloped areas. So, we look very closely at all the street crosssections to make sure that we're designing them to the city standards. uh making sure that that's reflective of both the density that's adjacent and the amount of parking that's going to happen on it as well as creating a grid that is deflective of treat of street movements and making sure that we have uh you know really calm walkable streets throughout and that's something we take very very close attention to uh and as confirmed by staff uh that is something that is embedded in the green streets and reflected in this plan. Thank you very much Brian. Thanks. Um, Kusher Heck. Thank you. Uh, this is probably for Brian, too. Uh, we heard and and and read public comment about, you know, the lack of any, uh, nonresidential space. um other than that big uh commercial or or mixed use uh area that that you've been talking about it and and when you look at the the platted it does seem that there are many many blocks with nothing but residential. Um, did you consider uh maybe trying to supplement the Northeast neighborhood, the Northeast Neighborhoods plan uh with a little bit of that or did or what what what was your thinking? Again, using the Northeast neighborhood as a guide and understanding that, you know, one of the challenges of getting commercial to work is a combination of the need for for households and exposure. And so that's a lesson we learned and applied at Grand View Commons which is another close example uh just to the south along Cottage Grove Road uh where you have a town center uh that took many many years to achieve uh but we were diligently working at it. I think we started that project in 1998. We might finish the last homes here this year. Um but to create the commercial components you really need to be very cognizant of those two factors. And so when we saw the designations of the northeast neighborhood really focusing that commercial opportunity where it's going to have the greatest exposure to the region uh at the intersection of Riner commercial but then allowing this project to really infill the residential components to support it. Uh it's kind of that chicken and egg which comes first the neighborhood or the commercial and trying to find the right balance. What we found over time is that having the neighborhood in support of the commercial is critical to attract the retailers to serve a neighborhood. Um, easiest way to say is it's hard to get a coffee shop to serve a neighborhood if there's no neighborhood to serve. Um, so when we looked at this project and this stretch of the northeast neighborhood as really delivering that residential base in support of future commercial, that really kind of resonated both with our experience in the market as well as the guidelines of the Northeast neighborhood. of really having this be that residential piece. Uh we do uh look forward to further conversations and hope that the the commercial pieces move forward quickly uh not just on this corner of the intersection, but the fact that it spans over to three other properties uh represents opportunities uh for commercial to come uh in the near term as this area of the city continues to grow. Uh but we do uh really reflect the adopted neighborhood plan on this parcel. Uh, and so that's what led to the residential designation of these properties. Thanks, Brian. I I may ask uh a staff a question about that, too. But, uh, thanks for your input. Yep. Thanks, Alder G. Thank you, Chair. And, uh, I believe this would also be a question for Brian Mson. Uh the staff report notes that uh there are significant storm water limitations with regard to discharge rates and uh uh looking could believe they're looking for a plan that even in the 200year event that uh uh discharge would have to be within the capacity of the existing culverts. uh could you talk a little bit about the how the plant looks at uh methods for dealing with this storm water? Yeah, so we've been working very closely with staff and and Dan Day will be able to chime in here in just a second. and I'll kind of give a more generalized overview, but he can answer any of the technical questions you might have. But we've been working closely with staff because in this area of the city, uh there are some existing uh constraints offsite that we have to make sure we are designing to move the water through the appropriate channels uh both from a volume and a discharge rate. Uh we will be working to meet all the standards that are necessary uh and believe in conversation with staff that we have a solution that will move the water from the area where there's a constraint uh downstream uh through uh either the combination of downstream easements or within the rightway of Commercial Avenue. And so we continue to work with staff on that. Uh but we do work closely with them to make sure that we're meeting all of the standards. And if you have any detailed technical questions, I think Dan Day would probably be better served to to answer those. Dan, did you have anything you wanted to add to that? I don't need a real technical explanation. No, I uh this is Dan Day from Denafri Katkkey. Good evening. And um yeah, you know, Brian explained it very well. there's a a large area that drains to the basically to the intersection of Felon and T that um we are having to deal with because it does not have a very good outlet at this point in time. So we've done quite a bit of modeling of that corner and how we're dealing with it and we have solution on in hand uh that we've worked with uh the storm water staff at the at the engineering department to to come up with a a solution that we think we can we can design and make and implement. Will you be able to uh capture most of it for infiltration on the site or are you going to have to uh rely heavily on some easements for a different flow? Um actually we're going to do quite a bit with infiltration, but we will be requiring some easements um to to navigate some of the water. Also, I think the infiltration here is quite extensive compared to quote unquote normal um circumstances. Uh but yeah, I think it's a combination of both is what it boils down to. Thank you. That's responsive. No further questions. Thanks, Sergey. Uh, Commissioner Wnooki. Thank you, Chair. Brian, I'm going to go back to you with just this commercial question cuz when uh Commissioner Heck asked this question, it prompted something in my mind. Um, I was just listening to a conversation with the developer of the culde-sac development out of Tempe, Arizona, and he was talking about their realization of the idea of micro commercial um, outside of the the traditional sizes of of commercial store spaces that can be easily incorporated into neighborhoods. Is that something, you know, again looking at the the size and the age related things? I'm thinking of older adults and being able to walk, you know, easily uh when they're long able to drive. Is that something that your your planning team even looked at in in looking at this? In terms of the commercial uses, again, uh just to kind of give a point of scale, uh the entire neighborhood is a quarter almost a quarter mile walkable distance from the the pocket park. So, the main park in the middle. So just to give a point of reference, we're talking a matter of a 3 four block walk at the most uh to span through this neighborhood. So from a walking shed standpoint, the ability to move about the neighborhood and get to the commercial uses that are anticipated in the future is is certainly there. Um you know, we've looked at other examples and I'm very familiar with the culde-sac project which which benefits greatly from, you know, the ability to have the the the transit station right there at the front door. Um unfortunately we don't have that at this point to really help induce uh some of the commercial market that would support smaller scale commercial. We have looked at that in other neighborhoods and it's always been a challenge to find uh both the the right balance between number of households to support a a walking neighborhood uh commercial use that's really focused on serving the neighborhood but also having uh enough market around it. and not having an anchor uh such as a grocery store, a library or some other kind of civic destination use makes it very difficult to make those kind of investments work and attract the kind of uh users that would be would survive the buildout. Now, over time as this town center gets implemented, we do uh anticipate that a lot of those uses are going to be very walkable, very close. That's why we've designed the, you know, sidewalks on every street and bike paths connecting down to the town center so that we do have modes and opportunities for folks to walk through the neighborhood down to those destinations. And and quite honestly, Grand View Commons is another good example of of that in motion. It took probably about 15 years for the commercial to truly become realized in that project. And it wasn't until the grocery store came forward that that uh the greater commercial shed was able to be implemented. Um but at this point you know the challenges of implementing standoff uh standalone micro commercial absent transit a major destination or other supported retail is very difficult uh to achieve in the market. Um it's something we'll continue to to look at um and and see if there are opportunities but in this case again going back to the northeast neighborhoods really kind of focusing that commercial around the town center there at RER and commercial in the future. Um, we kind of leaned into that as as satisfying the residential component and looking to the commercial in the adjoining properties. Really, thank you. No further questions. Thanks. Right. Any other questions for our registrants? And if not, we'll I will close the public hearing and um ask if anyone if the commissioners have questions for staff. All right. Uh Commissioner Hec, thank you. Thank you. Well, I guess I'll just follow through and ask uh Tim Parks uh about I guess it's it's primarily the the age of the neighborhood plan. It's it's not a new one and that maybe uh some aspects of the design could uh possibly be a little bit outdated. Certainly we have much older uh guiding plans in the city still. But uh when thinking about uh small very small commercial nodes uh is is it possible that that to to justify requiring something like that in a in this in this venue I uh when it's not part of the the the neighborhood plan? Well, um I'll try to try to capture uh your question in a succinct answer. Um so bear with me. uh Northeast Neighborhoods development plan uh is actually still uh relatively contemporary uh in staff's estimation. uh in from the perspective that uh when the comprehensive plan uh was updated in 2018 and then further updated again in 2023, we basically rolled a lot of the land use recommendations uh from the neighborhood development plan into the comprehensive plan. And uh where we have older plan recommendations uh that has not necessarily been the case. we might use the comp plan updates to uh maybe make a more contemporary uh recommendation for a site uh because we're concerned about the age of the plan. But I would say that the northeast neighborhood plan was um kind of uh a pioneering document in that uh it really tried to uh not the first plan neighborhood development plan that we did that uh did so but really tried to you know look uh at creating more cohesive neighborhoods uh with more walkable denser nodes like the one that's recommended for the RER commercial intersection. action. And so I think the the thing that we know we know uh tonight is that all of the the mixed use and higher density housing uh that is recommended in that plan uh and also in the comprehensive plan uh is not before you tonight uh but will be eventually. uh and that uh to the speaker's comments about uh where the the proposed residential is in relation to the rest of the city and to uh the rest of this planning area. Uh we only have one other development that's actually gone forward in the northeast neighborhoods plan uh area uh in over 15 years of it being in effect and that's the nearby Janna Village subdivision. We did have a subdivision approved across Riner Road from this site back in 2019 uh but that did not move forward. uh it is zoned uh for future uses. Uh but uh the project just didn't move ahead. I think it was a victim of uh the the COVID pandemic. Uh and you know uh the fact that it was at that time a relatively newly developing area. Uh so this project will be only the second project to move forward. uh presuming that they are approved uh tonight and at the council next week and when a final plaque comes forward uh and is ultimately recorded. Uh there there's going to be rooftops out here without a lot to serve them initially. Uh that's good, bad or indifferent. Not uncommon uh with a lot of developments. Uh Mr. Mson uh mentioned it in relationship to Grand View Commons about a mile or so south of here uh which was a traditional neighborhood that started over 25 years ago. Uh we're seeing it at Midtown Commons, which was sort of a westside uh version of Grand View Commons uh to a degree. Uh not to make it a comparison, but uh we still have not seen much uh commercial of consequence at Midtown Commons despite a few hundred housing units having been built just within that development. to say nothing for the other developments that have uh developed around it over the last 25 years. Um so the commercial usually comes last. We anticipate that when the property owner uh for these four outlets for future development comes forward uh that the plan commission will have an opportunity to review their proposed zoning and any further division of those four outlots for further development. uh to make sure that they are as consistent with the northeast plan as possible. Uh and then hopefully we will see soon thereafter uh the development of those uh parcels uh with even further consistency with the adopted plan in terms of the density of development and the orientation uh because you know something that's unique in Northeast uh that I would say we even struggled a little bit to get at Grand View Commons um is to get that that mixed use and higher density development uh oriented to the major street. Uh that's a probably a point of departure between those plans. Uh we would really like to see buildings at the corner of commercial and Reiner, not necessarily backing up to it, uh but trying to to create a real true node at that intersection to the extent possible. So, uh, things that we, you know, would like to see today, but for, you know, myriad reasons, uh, we don't, uh, the residential that's before you, we feel is consistent with the adopted neighborhood development plan, but recognizing that we have that additional development land to the south of those lots, which is a big blank that we'll need to fill in in the coming years. Thanks. Um just a you may have a comment about this but I mean I I kind of am am interpreting this as uh even things like micro commercial are things that may take many years to develop and certainly zoning doesn't quite accommodate that right now. uh in in at least in what I'm thinking of, I'm thinking of a little store or not just a coffee shop, but uh I think that's a probably a bigger zoning discussion uh about allowing small commercial uses in residential districts uh uh in in the future rather than something I think we can conquer right now is my thought. And I would love to have that conversation in the future, but it's kind of difficult to shoehorn it into uh this particular approval. I suppose I I think it is uh first of all, we we do have a couple of zoning classifications that might possibly accomplish uh a a quote unquote micro micro commercial uh project. Uh that would be the limited mixeduse district. uh and possibly the neighborhood mixeduse district, although that might be a little bigger, ironically uh than what we're talking about here. Limited mixed use, however, has been used on a pardon the phrasing, limited basis uh because it is uh very limiting uh in terms of the uses allowed and how you can execute uh development in that district. But it was intended for uh small mixeduse buildings uh that might be uh within a neighborhood that you know I think the intention would be that if someone came forward and said I want to take uh lot X of Ryland Grove and zone it for uh limited mixed use for permitted use in the district. I think the the basis of LMX is intended to allow that without the the the site having to be, you know, shown in a neighborhood development plan for, you know, neighborhood commercial or neighborhood mixed use. uh but it's a very very small box in which uh LMX allows someone to propose something and that was done for a reason because maybe historically right or wrong we have looked at commercial uses in residential uh neighborhoods uh with uh some skepticism bordering on concern. Uh so I think it would depend on where and what and how much as to whether or not it would be supportable. Uh but that is certainly something that I think you know could be uh a topic of consideration in the future. Okay. Thanks. And then sorry one one unrelated question. Uh I I I think I'm seeing there are no bike lanes necessarily on these streets. Is that correct? I we that we heard about the bike paths potentially. Right. So, tonight we're uh approving whether or not the rights of way shown on the preliminary plat are consistent with the street layout in the neighborhood development plan and consistent with the complete green streets guide. Uh and that's uh where the traffic engineering division and city engineering division in particular with you know some input from uh myself and from planning uh on whether uh the proposed streets will uh meet the uh different typologies in complete green streets but we're not approving what will go within those streets uh tonight. So uh that will be a uh topic of further discussion primarily between uh city engineering, traffic engineering, uh the transportation commission and the board of public works uh who are involved in the development, review and approval of the actual cross-sections within those rights of way. Uh so again, we're we're just looking at the boundaries within which the proposed streets will be built in the future. Okay, thanks. That helps. I guess the uh the widths will dictate some of the future considerations. Uh but so there must be ideas unspoken about what could be what. But uh that that that makes sense. I I appreciate that. Okay. And and again I would you know uh point the the plan commission to the plans that were provided forformational purposes by the development team uh that have been vetted by uh city engineers uh which show uh what type of streets or which streets will be which type in the complete green streets guide uh and showing what those cross-sections could look like. That's in the attachment uh uh Ryland Grove plans. Uh and so that's where I saw no bike lanes. Well, it will depend on uh the the different street types uh and the the design uh that traffic engineering and city engineering come up with. Uh but yeah, I I think there's definitely more that will get fleshed out uh once the preliminary plat moves forward. a final plat is submitted and uh they you know the engineers start you know hammering out uh what those streets will look like. All right. Thank you. I appreciate it. Sure. Other questions for staff? All right. Um are we ready to move to a motion on um I think we need to take them in order or separately. So we'll start with item six which is the um zoning questions. Um Alder you gear thank you. Oh you're still muted. Let me just uh switch around here so I can get my wording correctly here. All right. With regard to the zoning, um finding that the uh standards are met, uh uh I move that we forward zoning map amendment ID 28.022 022 to 00716 uh resoning specific portions of the site from A to TRP and uh likewise uh zoning map ID 28.022-0017 022-0000717 reszoning specific portions of the site from A to TRU1 uh that uh we approve and uh recommend approval to the common council. Thank you, Alder Field. Is that a second? Thank you. All right. Any discussion on the motion? Alder Field. Thank you, Chair. Just briefly on the question of um commercial uses and the spatial orientation of such. I this is something that I've been thinking about since I learned of the proposal. Um because I certainly agree that we want neighbors to be moving in with walkable amenities with within or accessible from their neighborhood. And that is actually one of the what I consider to be drawbacks of where we live. We live in a primarily residential only area of the city and I'm eager for the area plans to come through and help us rethink what future land uses are allowable um accessible to our otherwise entirely residential neighborhoods. Um I'm also sensitive to the comments that the applicant made about the fact that it is hard to get commercial off the ground so to speak until areas do fill out with more residents and more families. Um I'm represent the uh area that is Grand View Commons and a bit surrounding and I'm aware of two storefronts uh areas in with mixed use um recommendations that are still vacant all these years later and neighbors are still wondering what's going to go in there and that I understand will happen as more prospective customers and diners and shoppers move into the neighborhoods. And so, um, I understand the logic of the sequencing behind the land uses that the applicants and property owners are proposing here. I'm certainly very eager to see what they come up with though for that uh corner of Reiner and Commercial because that will be a very prominent feature of the east side and the growing part of the east side in my district. Um, but generally I agree with the motion and the findings that this uh subdivision plat is consistent with recommendations from the area plan. um the neighborhood development plan in the portions that it covers. Thanks very much. Thanks, Alderfield. Other discussion? Um seeing none, we'll call it to a vote. Is there any object any objection to unanimous approval for um item six? All right, seeing none, we'll record that as unanimously passed and um move to item move to item seven, which is the preliminary plat. Um I'd be looking for a motion and a second on that item. Commissioner Soulheim. Thank you. I'll move that the plan commission find the standards met and forward the revised preliminary plat of Ryland Grove to council with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions in the amended staff report uh dated July 7th. Thank you, Alder Glenn. Was that a second? Thank you. Um discussion on item 7. All right, we'll call that to a vote. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for um the motion on the preliminary PL? And seeing none, we'll record that as also unanimously passed. So, thank thanks for the good discussion and thanks for the registrants for um their assistance as well on this one. That will take us to item items 12, 13, and 14 on our agenda. These are um three zoning text a proposed zoning text amendments and um the way we'll go through these is we'll have one staff presentation to cover all three items um and have the public hearing and discussion on those uh to our registrants and then we'll vote on them separately as as is our normal practice. So I think um we have director Tuttle and and um her colleagues will walk us through this. Thanks. Yeah, thanks chair. Um, I'll give a presentation as the chair said with an overview for all three of the zoning text amendments that we're going to talk about tonight. Um, and then we will move forward from there. Um, the I want to note that Katie Bannon, who is the city's uh, zoning administrator, is also here tonight. Um, the work that we're going to talk about this evening um, is coming from Oh, give me one second. Are you seeing my presenter screen or No, we can. Um, it's the it's it's the it's like the projection screen where the the next slide shows off to the How does this look? Ah, that's better. That's slide at a time. There we go. Great. Um, so Katie Bannon and the team in the uh the zoning division have been working closely with the planning team to bring forward these specific proposals that we'll talk about tonight. And I'll also note that deputy mayor Christy Bomel is here in case there are any questions about the housing forward initiative or the broader policies that are included within housing forward or kind of uh behind the package of zoning amendments that we're talking about tonight. Within the three or within the housing forward initiative, there are a number of goals and action items that were outlined to help address the city's overall housing targets. The zoning changes that we're talking about tonight all relate to different action items under the primary goal to increase housing choice. Um these relate to things that will help support more small-cale missing middle housing, more opportunities for lot division to create places for new homes to be created and to help simplify some of our standards for infill zoning in this case uh within the downtown core itself. So, I'll briefly walk through each of these uh to explain a little bit more about that. The first ordinance uh would allow duplexes and twin homes in all residential zoning districts in the city. Specifically, what this ordinance does is enables these housing options in the six zoning districts where these have not generally been allowed in the past. I say generally allowed because in 2023 the city adopted the transitoriented development overlay district that did allow for two units in some of these zoning districts uh where they were in close proximity to the highfrequency bus routes in the city. Um but this change would expand upon that and make this um an allowable housing type in all residential zoning districts in the city. Uh this is really the one of the policies that's intended to support more small-cale housing choices within neighborhoods over the long term. This map shows uh a little bit more graphically what I was just describing in terms of the areas of the city that would be impacted by this change. The areas in orange are those zoning districts that either allowed two unit buildings um already or were within the transit oriented overlay um district boundaries where two unit buildings became permissible a couple of years ago. The areas in yellow represent the approximately other 2/3 of the land that's in our residential zoning districts where two-unit buildings would become allowed uh if this ordinance is adopted. I will note here and you might have seen in some of your public comment that this does not include uh residential neighborhoods that may have been developed under a planned development zoning. Um that is a sightspecific or development specific zoning tool that was frequently used uh generally more historically in the city. Um, and because of the specific nuances of each of those neighborhoods zoning districts, um, this apply this will not apply, um, and will not affect those districts, but will apply to all of the residential areas that are in conventional residential zoning districts, as we call them, those 15 other districts that we have. Um, this also builds on a zoning change that you may remember from earlier this year. Um, we included a number of or we introduced a number of text changes that you saw, one of which provided more flexibility for where a second unit could be located within a building. Um, our zoning code p previously limited the placement of those two units to a sort of traditional sidebyside or over under kind of scenario. And we adopted as a city an ordinance that provided more flexibility for how those two units could be placed within a building. particularly to allow more flexibility for internal conversions or additions to homes uh that didn't meet those specific configurations. So, this builds on that as well. Um not by changing those kind of interior um details, but instead by allowing those two units in more places within the city. We would expect this to be implemented incrementally over time as individual property owners make choices about adding a unit to their home or converting uh the home that's on their property. The next ordinance uh is to allow more backyard lots. Uh for plan commissioners that have been on the commission for some time, you may have heard this referred to as a deep residential lot as they're called in our zoning stand or I'm sorry in um the MGO. Uh you may have also heard these more colloquially called uh flag lots which you can see in the diagram shaded in blue. The shape of the resulting lot um kind of resembles a flag on a flag pole. Uh so this proposed change would make it easier to divide large lots to create a backyard lot. This one ultimately is about creating more housing choices over time in existing neighborhoods and specifically when we hear a lot of interest in new home ownership opportunities is about creating lots where new homes can be built which can be a tool to help us achieve more home ownership opportunities in the future. Um, this diagram provides a quick graphic example of how a lot division of this type might occur. And one thing that I just want to note here is that this is different from an accessory dwelling unit as you see a sort of rear backyard uh building in the bottom example in that the land under the building itself can be owned individually um or separately from the primary home that the lot was divided from. In the case of an accessory dwelling unit, we do allow freestanding rear buildings. However, that building has to be on the same lot as the primary home. We have seen some examples, though few examples, under our existing um deep residential lot standards. This is an example of a deep residential lot that was approved nearly 20 years ago where the division created a new lot in front of an existing home. Um so you can see here at the top of the screen was the large existing lot. A new lot was created in the front and a new home was created in front of the existing. This is another example of a deep residential lot. Um this is a nearly 2acre lot that um the plan commission approved this rear um lot division for earlier um actually I think it was in the fall of last year and while we have not yet seen a new building constructed on this lot uh it could be a place for a new home to be constructed but the common example for these lots is that they're very large those are 1 and 2 acre lots respectively um the standards that we've had in place um have made it somewhat challenging to find lots that are eligible for division. So this ordinance proposes several changes to the dimensions that are required for a backyard lot to be considered. The first is the width of the pole of the flag pole uh where it meets the street and serves the driveway. Today that width of that um flag pole is required to be 30 ft minimum. This ordinance reduces that to a 10- foot minimum, which is a width that can accommodate the minimum width of a residential driveway to serve the rear lot. This also standardizes and reduces the minimum lot depth for both the existing and well, I should say for both of the resulting lots in a backyard lot division. Currently, our ordinances either require these lots to be 100 ft deep or 80 feet deep depending on which zoning district that it's in. The ordinance that you're looking at uh recommends standardizing the minimum lot depth to 75 ft per lot. And finally, as part of this um package, the housing policy committee actually recommended this change to you about uh reducing the minimum lot depth to 75 ft. When this was originally introduced, the minimum lot depth was recommended at 80 ft. As we dug into what a minimum lot depth of 75 ft could mean, um, we recognized that there was a need to consider an alternative front yard setback for the newly created backyard lot to ensure that the resulting setbacks that would apply to those new lots um could still um enable a reasonably sized building footprint for that rear lot. So, this proposes um a standard 15- ft minimum setback for the backyard lot um rather than the 15 to 30 foot minimum that might be required otherwise of the zoning district in which the lot is located. The final change that I'll recommend or I'll note is recommended as part of this ordinance is to um remove the uh lot divisions sorry to change the process for these lot divisions um to rely on our processes for CSMS rather than to require all of them to be reviewed as a conditional use by the plan commission. So, they'd be reviewed administratively except for under the standards of the CSM um and the guidance that the plan commission would look at for a CSM in uh resulting lot divisions. Um it's worth noting that other zoning standards will continue to apply. Uh particularly things like lot size. Um we already talked about other setbacks, side and rear setbacks. Um, for example, each lot would need to meet the minimum lot area and would need to be able to accommodate all of the other zoning standards or other building code requirements that would be applicable to the lot. When we look at where this um would apply in the city, uh we've identified that approximately 7% of the residential lots in the city could meet the basic size requirements um for a lot division under these proposed changes. This is about double what uh we expect um double the number of lots that we would expect could meet the minimum requirements today. But again, we'll note that this is expected to be an incremental um housing solution, adding choices into individual neighborhoods over time as individual property owners consider whether their lot meets both the minimum requirements as well as meets all of the requirements related to building placement and other features on a lot in order to pursue division. And finally, um our last proposed change here is to simplify the process for uh review of small and medium-siz downtown development proposals. Uh specifically, this raises the threshold for conditional use review within four of the downtown zoning districts uh to make more permitted uses within those districts um possible. I think the plan commission knows pretty well the differences between a permitted and a conditional use. Um, but want to just note here that even under a permitted use scenario, uh, the city applies a robust set of development review processes and ordinances to developments that come through um, even when there's not review by the plan commission. And specifically when we're talking about the downtown uh zoning districts, we have some specific standards within the zoning districts that apply um in addition to those that apply in other parts of the city. For example, we have design review standards that apply in the downtown zoning districts. We also have specific height limits that are mapped within the downtown zoning districts. Um, we also have in some cases processes for landmarks commission and urban design commission to continue to review projects uh even if they are not conditional uses that would be reviewed by the plan commission. This is a simplified map of the downtown zoning districts and uh we're going to talk about just four of them tonight because those are the areas that this code applies to. Uh but want to note here as well that we have a number of blocks within the downtown area that developed over time under planned development zoning. So sight specific zoning districts and the changes that we're talking about tonight will not affect those um individual sight specific standards for those uh parcels. It will apply uh to developments within the DCMX DR1 and DR2 districts. So the first change uh is for the DC and UMX zones. Today the threshold for when a project is reviewed as a conditional use is either four stories or 20,000 square ft. In some cases it may also include um any project that is more than eight units. The proposal um is to increase that threshold to projects that are over six stories. The one exception to this proposed change is for developments that directly front on State Street or the 100 block of King Street. This is because we know that there's great interest in how properties on those corridors develop. Uh so we want to retain that lower threshold to make sure we provide a closer level of review and know that our downtown plan process is coming up soon that will help us to explore um what uh development outcomes we think might be appropriate within these areas. For reference this is a a couple different examples of what a 20,000 foot and fourstory building might look like. So again, this is our current max size and height that could be permitted as reviewed as a permitted use, I should say, um, under our current zoning for these two districts. Um, this example, uh, 520 Eastwash is a real world example of kind of range of building that we're talking about. This is one example of a building that has been built in recent years on the 300 block of East Wilson that could become a permitted use under these proposed changes. And this is another example at um on North Webster Street that is a slightly larger building, but is another example of a building that could become a permitted use. to zoom out and just share um what this means in context of other parts of the city. Um these are some details about conditional use thresholds for projects outside of downtown. Um these are not proposed to be changed by this ordinance just to be clear. Um but sharing this information for reference in our comprehensive plan we identify a number of growth priority areas and in some cases we have done the work to change our zoning standards whether that's um the map zoning districts or other details to help with implementation of those uh growth priorities. Um, in the case of places like East and West Town Mall, for example, it's possible that a development of up to eight stories could be reviewed as a permitted use. Um, depending on the project specifics, you can see some other examples of what the thresholds might look like around other parts of the city. Um, so ultimately by focusing the conditional use standards more on projects of more than six stories, we're focusing less on the square footage or number of units in a building in the downtown districts, which is one of our major growth priority areas in the comp plan. Um, and trying to be a little bit more consistent with how we've uh aligned those processes in other areas of the city. We have reviewed the developments that have come uh before the plan commission over the last decade um relative to these proposed changes and think that if development in the future were to roughly mirror the size and scale of developments that we've seen over the last decade um probably about a quarter of the projects that we are to see would be um become a permitted use under this proposed change. So projects like the ones that you see here on the screen that are much larger would continue to be a conditional use within the DR1 district. Um we are proposing the threshold change from uh projects of more than four units to projects of more than 12 units. The purpose of this change is to enable more of the upper end of the missing middle housing spectrum by right uh than what our ordinance would allow today and align the DR1 district uh to be more closely uh related to other medium residential districts in the city. And then for the DR2 district, uh, which you see applies here along Langden Street in the sort of southwest area, um, West Mifflin, West Wash, West Main Street, um, is proposed to change from projects greater than 8 units to projects greater than 36 units that would become a conditional use. And again, this aligns more closely with other high density areas of the city. So, I'll just I'll wrap up here by saying that we're talking about these ordinances tonight. Um, we have discussed them with the housing policy committee a couple weeks ago who um in addition to recommending the change to the backyard lot ordinance that I mentioned earlier, recommended your approval of these policies. Uh, and we discussed them at a community meeting last week. So after your uh review and recommendation this evening, they are anticipated to go to the common council for their consideration of approval next Tuesday at their meeting. So I'll wrap up there and happy to answer questions when we get to that part. Thanks, Megan. Um we do have registrance, so we'll open the public hearing. Um not sure if we have registrants wishing to speak, but um I'll ask you to walk us through that, Megan. Okay. And chair, just um one quick note is that we will want to do the hearings individually for each one. So yeah, let me So let me pause and um go back. I neglected to read the legisar items, but I will do that now that we've had our overview. Um we'll we'll take up first um item 12, which is legisar 88735. um amending sections 28.135 and 16.23 pern 6 pernd of the Madison general ordinances related to deep residential lots to facilitate easier development. Um so we'll with that item and and having heard our staff presentation we'll open the public hearing for item 12 uh and welcome any registrance on that. Okay. Um, we do have one speaker on this item, Will Frederick, who is from district 2, registered in support and wishing to speak. All right. Uh, chair, there's no person by that name in attendance. Yeah, I see. I do see that. Um, all right. Well, um I don't know, Jesse, if you've been watching that for some time. I don't I don't know if he was here and left or maybe he didn't understand what he was doing when he said he was wishing to speak but um yeah I have not seen that person in attendance tonight. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Um well then I will just move on and note that um we also had registrance Chang Wu registered and support available to answer questions from district 9. Blake Wasang from district 19 registered in support available to answer questions. and uh 12 other registrants um all who registered in support not wishing to speak who will be part of the record after the meeting. Great. Um so I will I um so we do have folks who are available to answer questions if commissioners have any questions for our registrance. I I will note that um that there's the registrance reflected a lot of support for the item. So, um, seeing none, I will close the public hearing on item 12 and, um, ask if the commissioners have questions for staff on this item. Commissioner Solheim, thank you. Quick question. Um, Megan, you mentioned the CSM process for splitting the lot. So, is that administrative or does it still come before the plan commission because we usually see CSMS? Yeah. Um, I think a number of CSMs will still come before the plan commission. I think the difference that I alluded to is that, and Tim, feel free to jump in here if you'd like. Um, the difference that I alluded to is that we'll review them under the CSM standards in MGO16 rather than under our conditional use standards in the zoning code. Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thanks, Commissioner H. Thank you. Um, I'm not sure who will want to answer this, but I'm thinking about the proposed uh changes to thresholds in the downtown area. And as I think back on past projects, I realize um that many of those are apt to be uh adjacent to local landmarks in local historic districts, etc. And uh if if a project is uh not going to come to plan commission because it's become the a permitted use by virtue of these new height thresholds. Will does plan commission still have a role in uh consideration of projects in local historic districts for instance? I think in those cases the landmarks commission is able to uh approve a project within those local historic districts. So um I don't believe the plan commission would have a direct role in approving those, but the landmarks commission would continue to do their work to review um adjacency and to make any approvals needed for those projects. Yeah, I'm thinking about situations in the past where plan commission uh did weigh in uh based on some, you know, items in the historic preservation plan ordinances because of the way the standards of approval are written. Um uh I I guess it gives me it it doesn't concern me that much, but I can imagine that it will give some pause if they realize that. Um like an example I can think of recently um I'll note was a larger development in the 600 block of West was it West Methlin? um where you did receive some comments from the landmarks commission and the UDC about how to treat the corner of a building that was adjacent to a local landmark. Um and it was ultimately up to the plan commission to weigh in on which approach to take to um address that adjacency. That project is a a candidate that would continue to be a conditional use under this proposed change. Um what we found, I don't know if this is helpful to um the kind of the point of your question, Commissioner Hec, but what we found is that there was a pretty big difference in terms of the overall size of projects that kind of fell under this sixstory proposed threshold and over this six-story proposed threshold. Um in many cases, the projects that were under this size um were under a 100 units. they were under, you know, 80 or 90,000 square ft of total area. And if they were over six stories, seven stories, they were far in excess. You know, they were several hundred units, they were many thousand, hundreds of thousands of square feet. Um, so we're talking about very different scales of buildings. And in the case of that project that was um I think it was on West Mifflin, I'm sorry, I'm forgetting um the exact address. Uh that's an example of a project that would continue to fall under the conditional use criteria and would continue to come to the plan commission after landmarks review. Um but in the case of permitted projects, those smaller projects, um they would have the ability to approve projects under the standards that are in the um chapter 41 that deal with um adjacency to landmarks. Okay. Um I I I I guess I mean a lot a fair number of things seems like they're are there I have they're empowering landmarks a little more than they used to be uh in in some ways and uh I'll think about that. Thank you. Thanks Alder. Thank you chair. I think this is probably a question for Katie Bannon. Uh perhaps the most frequent question I'm getting from uh uh residents interested in these particularly with regard to 12 and 13 is the interaction of these proposals and existing covenants that may be on the property. And I wonder if you could just uh for the record speak a little bit about uh what we do or let's say we have as an example someone who would like to split their lot but uh uh they have a covenant that is part of that neighborhood that requires certain size limitations and so forth that may make it awkward. Could you just mention to us how that interaction will work and uh what the city would do uh uh if it received a an application to split a lot where there was a covenant in place and that is a good question that we've had a number of times. So with those covenants those are a private agreement that the city is not a party to. So it's not something we're necessarily even always aware of. um it's not something we enforce. It's not something we look at before we do an approval. You know, however, that that private property owner may be aware that those covenants are in place and there could be an action taken privately um to try to enforce those covenants outside of any city process. Um so that can be an obstacle in some cases um but it's not something the city really, you know, has any control over ultimately. And and the point Katie is then that uh the city is not going to enforce that covenant. U correct would not be a party to a a legal action by uh a neighborhood association or one or uh more neighbors uh who would seek to enforce it. The city is just not a party to that action if it takes place. Correct. Thank you. Oops. Commissioner Shan, thank you. Um, I wanted to follow up on Commissioner Hex questions. Um, so if this were to move forward and a building came forward that was within the sixstory, you know, limitation and was therefore a permitted use, but was adjacent to a landmark or within a historic district. Therefore going before landmarks and you know in reviewing that landmarks determined for example that you know five units should come off the back of the building due to a transition to the landmark or something like that but it was also a permitted use. you know, in other situations that would then come to us and plan commission would kind of make a determination of the standards and what's consistent with the plan and kind of make the call on that. But if it didn't come to us, what what would happen there? It seems like it could be a little bit of an impass. So, that's mood because there's other projects that are currently permitted uses where that same exact thing could happen. I'm just now thinking about it as we change it from potentially to six. Great. I think that was part of what I was going to say. Um I mean I think it's a fair question because the standards for the thresholds for what is a conditional use within the downtown core and district are pretty low in terms of their um the scale of developments that we see within these parts of the city. Um I was going to see if Katie or Tim had any perspective on this just from being um involved in the development review space for longer. um if they can think of any examples where we've seen um recommendations from landmarks that would have impacted for example um if a project as a permitted use was made smaller by any of the recommendations from a landmarks commission review of adjacency to a landmark. Tim's probably going to have a lot more on that um with his history. Um, but I did just want to clarify that, you know, Landmarks would not become the deciding body on this if it's a permitted use. They would be providing an advisory information to the Urban Design Commission, which would still continue to review all these downtown projects as they do today. Um, so there would still be kind of that opportunity through the urban design commission to to make a determination of what to um approve based on that advisory um information from landmarks commission. Thank you, Katie. That's important. And and advisory to staff ultimately for approval. Um using the standards that are in the ordinance itself as well. Tim, did you have anything that you wanted to add? Sorry. No, I do not. Okay. I do want to I just want to pause for a second because the the issue that we're talking about with sixtory projects is really item 14 and we were still working on item 12. So I think the conversation is good and I don't want to disrupt that but at some point we do have to pause and go back to item 12. But I suspect that Commissioner Hec has a comment about item 14 and I will let him make it. Thank you. I I do indeed. And uh I guess because we had the presentation on all three, I got lost. That's okay. Sorry. I probably should have caught you and I'm like, so I just want to make sure I understand uh what what Katie was saying and what Megan were saying. Uh in in some of these situations, we're talking about uh the the landmarks commission currently. I think makes a finding and is advisory to plan commission and urban design commission is often advisory to plan commission. uh in and so I I I guess it's sometimes they're actually making a decision and it's not just advisory and that will go to staff who will uh make a determination that it fits the parameters of a permitted use uh being approved. Is that more or less correct? Um, is that your understanding of what you were sharing? Yeah, I mean it's my understanding that because these will all still go to urban design commission that landmarks will be advisory to the urban design commission decision. You know, as staff were really looking at what does the ordinance say? Yes or no? Is this allowed or not? um it's a little bit less of that kind of that more squishy discretionary things that boards and commissions are are tasked to to um make determinations on. Um so it' really be through that urban design commission path for the landmark for adjacency to a landmark that that decision would be made. Um, as far as the local historic districts, same process as today where the landmarks commission does make a decision about um, historic preservation standards and whether those are met with a development. Yeah. So, two separate kind of things, right? Yeah. And so it's the the latter part of what Katie I mean yeah it's the latter part of what Katie is saying that's maybe the most uh focus of what you're talking about Commissioner Hec um which is development within local historic districts and alterations to landmarks is what the landmarks commission already approves um and so um it's the development adjacent to a landmark where their recommendation is advisory to the UDC or the plan commission if it's reviewed That's okay. I see. Yeah. Landmarks does make those final decisions and uh historic districts in those situations. Okay. I get it. Yes. Yeah. All right. Thank you. All right. Any other any questions related to item 12, which is the deep residential lots? Um, are we ready to uh move to a motion on that item, Commissioner? Thanks. I'll move approval of legisar 88735 um zoning text amendment for deep residential backyard lots. Thanks, Alderfield. Second. Thank you. Um any dis further discussion on uh this item? We will see none. We'll call a vote. Any um uh I think Tim might be saying what I was just about to jump in for. Go ahead. Oh, then I'll let Megan say it as long as somebody says it. Megan, take it away. Well, I think if I'm reading Tim's mind, we might just want to clarify that we're talking about the substitute that was um Oh, thanks. the substitute version. So, that is the version that includes the recommendation to the depth of lots at 75 ft and the 15 foot front yard setback that was recommended by housing policy committee. Commissioner Solheim is and Alderfield are confirming that that is the their motion. Um, thank you for that clarification. With that clarification, is there any objection to unanimous approval for item 12 with the amended version? All right. Seeing none, we'll record that as approved. Thank you. All right. We'll move to item 13, which is legisar 88736. And this is a substitute also a substitute um item amending various tables within chapter 28 of the Madison general ordinances to permit two family twin and two unit buildings in all districts where single family dwellings are also allowed. Um so we I will open the public hearing on this item as I I understand we have registrants although we may we do um the first registrant I don't see but I'll read Victor Wagner at in district 14 registered in support and wishing to speak I don't know if Jesse has seen Victor no there's no person by that name that's been answered attendance. Okay. Um, so our next registrant I do see is here now, Will Frederick in district 2, registered in support and wishing to speak. All right. We will we have a three minute time limit, Will, and I'll try to interrupt uh briefly before when we if we get close to the limit, I'll give try to give you a little advanced notice. Um, but welcome. And your microphone is live. Hey there. Um, my name is Will. Uh, I'm a 24year-old living in Mansion Hill. Um, and can you just remind me what agenda the item this is? Cuz I was in support of three of them. So, this is the second of the three. This is the um uh two family twin and two unit buildings um uh change in the uh uh rules for single family dwellings. So, this is agenda agenda item 13, correct? Yep. Okay. Yeah. So, um, you know, I'm a 244y old. I would love to, um, stay in Madison long term. Um, recently I just faced a rent increase of 5%. Um, and I was only able to achieve a salary increase of 3%. So, I feel like the city is, you know, just in the short time that I've lived here postgrad, um, already still, um, struggling to meet the demands of housing in the city. And I think this initiative um I I support because I feel like it would increase density in single family zoning areas that I think um would allow us to build more housing and allow young people like myself who are working and who would want to stay here longterm, potentially raise a family. I think it' allow us to have um greater mobility and economic freedom. And I think that um it's one step in the process that um deserves to deserves to go forward um for the for the people who need it most who who are not economically advantaged um in this city. And I just want to say that I have um a ton of faith in the leadership that's now in the common council, especially with Will, who is now my alder, Will Oich. So, um, I I wholeheartedly trust that he will attack be tackling this issue obviously in collaboration with the rest of the sponsors of this amendment. So, that's all I have to say. Thanks. All right. Um, yeah, Megan. Uh, we have a long list of additional registrants. Um, Chang Wu again registered in support available to answer questions. John Wyn, support and available to answer questions and Blake Wasung in support and available to answer questions. And there are u approximately um 16 additional speakers who have registered in support and not wishing to speak that will be attached to the record. Thanks Megan. Um are there any questions from the commissioners for any of the registrants? um on item 13. All right, seeing none, we'll uh close the public hearing on that item and ask if uh the commissioners have questions for staff. All right. Uh Alder Field, thank you. Thank you, chair. Um I wanted to ask about a question or a comment that came in from a resident about PD zoning. and the fact that this particular change doesn't apply to uses in PD zoning because those are custom. Um the comment suggested a couple of different paths that are not quite the same thing as this proposal. Um, but I just wanted to ask if on the staff level there had been a discussion about whether there was an elegant mechanism to have a zoning change like this that is applicable in PD zoning or some way to discern between the PD parcels that would be more appropriate for two family homes as opposed to the ones downtown that we looked at in a previous in the staff presentation. I'll let Katie speak to this one. Sean, uh, yes, Alderfield, this is something we're definitely looking into um because, you know, we do think that a lot of these single family um plan developments should have this opportunity for additional housing choices as well. And so, that's something we're really actively looking at right now um with the office of the city attorney of what what that process look like, how do we do this? Um, so stay tuned. Hopefully, we'll have more information to come on on a path to that. Gotcha. Sounds good. Thank you. Thanks, uh, Elder Glenn. Thanks. Yeah, I just have a question. I don't even know if it Oh, goodness. Hold on. Let me shut my video off. For some reason, I'm freezing tonight. um question and I don't know if this can be answered with the twin homes in neighborhoods and thinking along with what was just approved with 12. Could 12 and 13 could the backyard lot be a duplex and does it have to be um can it be rental or is that freed up for whoever is deciding to do it? can be rental or seller, you know, to own. Can you understand what I'm saying? Yes. Yes. Totally understand your questions. Um Katie, do you want to take these or do you want me to jump in here? I'm sure I can uh start and then Yeah, feel free to jump in with additional details. Um yes. um the um each lot, the the front lot and the backyard lot um but could both um have a duplex or two unit twin. You know, the different ways our zoning code refers to these two unit um buildings. Um that would be possible. Uh the city is not able to um regulate whether um housing units are available for rent or ownership. That's across the board for single family houses, apartments, all all of it. Um so they could be renter units as well um as home ownership um opportunities and they could go back and forth um one unit one side we've seen this in some cases where one side will be um owned and then the other is rented out by that owner. Um so any of those configurations would be possible here. Thanks. Other questions or are we ready to move to a motion on item 13? Uh, Alder Glenn, I move to Hold on, let me get this back up. Um, I move to approve the substitute amending various tables within chapter 28 of the Madison General Ordinance to permit two family twin and two-unit buildings in all districts where single family dwellings are also allowed. Thank you, Alder Gar. That's a second. Thank you. Any additional discussion? Um, Megan, I should have mentioned what the substitute meant in this case. So, thank you for moving that with clarity. Um, this substitute makes a technical correction. Um, at after this was originally introduced. Um, the council adopted an ordinance that fixed a front yard setback issue that we had identified in one of the residential zoning districts. So, we made a technical correction to this to make sure that that also made that change. Um, just to make sure we didn't undo the ordinance that we just adopted. So, just a technical issue. Thanks for that clarification. Um, with such any other discussion or um comments on this item, seeing none, we'll call call it to a vote. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for item 13? All right, we will record that item as approved. Um, and we'll move to item 14. Um, legisar 88737 amending sections in chapter 28 of the Madison general ordinances related to downtown and urban districts to allow more permitted uses within the districts. And is that is there a substitute on that, Megan? That's the same one. We're sticking with the That's the same one. All right. Thanks. Um so I will open the public hearing on item 14 and um we can read our registrance as well. All right. Um so our first speaker on this one is Will Frederick of District 2 registered in support and wishing to speak. All right. Will you're free to um uh use your three minutes on this on item 14 if you'd like or if you kind of already said what you needed to say. that's fine too. And um we appreciate you uh participating in the meeting. All right. Welcome. All right. Thanks. Um yeah, I think I would like to speak separately about this issue. Um, specifically, um, I'm happy that this has been proposed and I support it because, um, I see far too often the, um, challenges I think Madison faces, um, by those who, you know, don't wish to see increased development or, you know, have some qualms about, you know, certain developments that they might be directly in their, you know, space of living. Um, and I think that the conditional use process, like from what I understand, I'm not that well versed in it, but it seems as if it makes it harder for um the will of, you know, people who will benefit most to be um brought to like fruition. It it makes seems like it makes it easy for the people who are the most upset about a specific development to have the loudest say. And I think that this change will um allow us to more quickly um increase housing density in the city and again um allow people like myself who's you know a 24-year-old working person in this city to continue to call Madison home and continue to call the city of Madison home. And I think um I especially um mo out of the three that are here on the ballot today or on the docket today, 12, 13, and 14, I think this one seems the most powerful and transformative for increasing housing um supply in the city. Um and I think yeah, I'm just really excited that this is um getting done and getting proposed. So um I support. So all right, that's all I got. All right, thanks Will. Okay, again we have Cheng Woo registered in support available to answer questions. Blake Wasung registered in support available to answer questions. And then um 12 other registrants in support and not wishing to speak that will be attached to the record. Great. Thanks. Um are there questions from the commission for any of the registrants? on item 14. All right, seeing none, I will close the public hearing on that item and ask if there are any additional questions for staff. We kind of talked about this one a little bit. So, all right. Um, I think that there not any other staff questions. I think we're looking for a motion on item 14. Thank you. I will move approval of legisar 88737 zoning text amendment um amending downtown and urban district permitted use standards. Thank you. Um Commissioner Heek, that's a second. Thank you. Any further discussion? Commissioner Hec. Thanks. I would just ask that uh if I I first I guess first I'll apologize to staff for not thinking of the landmark issue until until this evening's meeting. But it I I would I think it might be helpful just to spend a little bit of time mapping mapping that process out to make sure we understand that so it there isn't a hiccup uh with some other entity that's going to consider this. But I do support it. Thanks. Thanks, Commissioner Hick. Um, any other discussion? We'll call it to a vote. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for uh this item for item 14? Seeing none, we'll record that as approved. Um, thank you. Thanks for thanks for all your work um to to the city staff on these amendments and the housing first proposals. These are this is kind of a all of the above strategy and we we're seeing it play out. So, we appreciate the the good presentations and engagement as well. Um, thank you and thanks for the good questions. I appreciate your comment, Commissioner Hec. I think um asking for a map of these processes is a really good point. Um, and certainly I think how we explain what different processes um items will move through either under our existing ordinances or as they change is a a really good point. So, thank you for that. So, we now have time for member announcements, communications, and business items. Does anyone have anything they would like to share? All right. Um, seeing none, um, we'll move to the secretar's report. Megan, you have a lot of lines in tonight's meeting. So, yeah, not as many lines as the last few upcoming matters list, but yes, a lot of lines nonetheless. Yeah. So, um, a couple of notes for you for the July 28th meeting. Um, just will call your attention to, um, the projects on TwoLane Avenue and Williamson Street as items you may um, if you'd like to look ahead at. Um, probably items that will involve some discussion by the commission in two weeks. Um, I wanted to flag that I will not be in attendance for the meeting on June 28th. Um, I'm sorry, on July 28th. Kevin Furkow will attend in my place along with one of the planners who will um be able to walk you through all of the projects that are on that agenda. Um and then finally, I wanted to note that um on the common council agenda for July 15th, we have uh plan commission appointments. Um those were introduced at the meeting on July 1st and they will be voted on next week. Um, so, uh, hoping that as part of that approval, we'll be welcoming back Commissioner McCill. Um, she's not here right now, but Commissioner Bazine. Um, and we will be saying goodbye to Commissioner Mendes. So, wanted to say goodbye to him this evening. um and offer him an opportunity to say anything if he'd like, but thank you very much for your commitment to the plan commission over the last four years and service to the city in this capacity. Sure. Uh thank you, Megan. Thank you everybody. I appreciate it. It was fun and I enjoyed serving. So, thank you and good luck. Thanks. And that's all I have for this evening, chair. Thank you. All right. Um, thanks Megan. Um, any other questions for Megan on the staff report? And if not, uh, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn in a second. Alderfield. Thank you. And Commissioner Mendes. So, we'll get you're second to the last chance to second a motion to adjurnn. So, thank you. Any objection to unanimous approval for our motion to adjurnn? And seeing none, we will stand adjourn. Thanks, everybody. Good night. Thank you.