get started in just a couple minutes. Can everybody hear me? I think we'll go ahead and start and I think I'm sure Darren will join us pretty soon. Um it's 5:30. We have a quorum. So we're going to call to order this Monday, April 13, 2026 meeting of the Madison Plan Commission. Um and we'll start with um a roll call. Director Tuttle. >> All right. Good evening. >> Alder >> here. >> Alder Glenn >> here. >> Alder Ugar >> here. >> Commissioner Bazine is excused. Commissioner Hec >> here. >> Commissioner Mahel >> here. >> Commissioner Sanders >> here. >> Commissioner Soulheim >> here. Alternate Wnooki is not present, but we'll watch out for him. Uh, school district rep is also excused and chair Gnam >> here. >> Okay. >> Thanks. Um, we'll start with some information from our technical facilitator Jesse P. >> All right. Welcome to our virtual plan commission meeting. If you lose connection at any point during the meeting, you can reconnect by clicking the link or calling the number in your original email. Members, if you are able, please activate your video and keep it on for the duration of the meeting. Staff, if you are able, please activate your video when you are speaking. Panelists, use the raise hand feature when you'd like to be recognized to speak, ask questions, or request a roll call vote. Lowering your hand will take you out of the queue. Members of the public who have registered to speak. To be allowed to speak, the name you entered in Zoom must match the name you entered in registration. You will remain muted until called upon. The clerk will tell you when your time is up. After speaking, a member of the body may ask you a question. If you need to share documentation with the committee, please send it in the please send it in the email list in today's agenda. Chair, the floor is yours. >> Thank you. Um the first item on our agenda is um public comment regarding items not on the formal plan commission commission agenda. Um, Director Tuttle, do we have registrates for public comment? >> Uh, we do have one tonight, chair. Uh, Robert Cleba from District 6 is registered to speak on this item. >> Great. Welcome, Bob. Um, I think you're unmuted. Um, we're going to we'll stick to our threeminut rule for public comment as we usually do. So, the floor is yours. >> Uh, thank you, chair. Um, I thank the commission members and planning staff for their time tonight and their dedication to making the city of Madison a better place to live. In the past few years, your commission has reviewed and promoted important zoning plans like the like at Easttown Odana Road and initiatives like the transit oriented development over Lake District. All designed to increase affordability and quality of life. However, if there's one street area that defines Madison, State Street is it. I see it represented by pictures of my doctors and accountants offices in car dealerships, my mom's nursing home, etc. I do not see pictures of East Town or Adana Road in these places. As a plan commissioner, you can see how approvals of conditional use permits build the Madison of the future. You are aware of the everpresent need for more housing, but as you know, the cost of new construction results in rents at market rate or above. When new construction requires demolition, we are often facing a double loss of naturally occurring affordable housing and our unique architectural heritage. A good a good example is the Continental apartment building at uh on the 300 block of East Washington where 26 units of affordable housing in historic 19th century vernacular buildings were de um uh uh were demolished to build apartments at luxury rental rates. Whether you like it or not, your commission is a gatekeeper for the preservation of affordable housing and the cultural heritage of our city. There are many neighborhoods in the city that are now right for development due to changes in zoning. We are seeing rapid gentrification of Graham's edition on South Park Street, ironically forcing out the families that relocated there at the demolition of the Triangle neighborhood in the 1960s. Affordable housing in Darwington and along Northport Drive are now under development pressure due to zoning changes. The preservation of architectural character of the architectural character of State Street is also at great risk. The plan commission recently approved the demolition of 19th and early 20th century buildings at the top of State Street to be replaced by a contemporary building and a parking lot. The eclectic mix of pedestrian friendly architecture on State Street and affordable older neighborhoods is what provides Msonians their sense of place. The commission needs carefully to consider its involvement in their preservation or destruction. You are the gatekeepers for our built future. Thank you. >> Hey, chair. Those are all the speakers we have under general public comment. >> Thanks. Thanks, Megan. Thanks, Bob. Appreciate it. Um, our next agenda item is time for disclosures and recusals. Members of the plan commission should make any required disclosures or recusals under the city's ethics code. Does anyone have any disclosures or recusals for tonight's agenda? All right, seeing none, we'll move to minutes. We have two sets of minutes uh on tonight's agenda. Um, we'll start with the minutes of our March 16th, 2026 regular meeting. Um, are there any additions or corrections to the to the draft uh March 16th minutes? Um, seeing no raised hands, is there a motion and a second to approve the March 16th minutes? Alder, thanks. Alder Glenn, thanks. Um, any discussion on the minutes? Is there any objection to unanimous approval for uh uh the March 16th draft minutes? Great. Those will stand approved. Um, now we'll move to the minutes of our March 31st, 2026 special meeting. Um, again, are there any uh additions or corrections to those draft minutes as shared in the agenda? Um, seeing none, I'd look for a motion and a second to approve the March 31st minutes. Uh, Alder Glenn, thank you. Alder Yugare, thank you. Um, any discussion? Um, is there any objection to unanimous approval for the March 31st minutes? Oh, uh, Commissioner Sanders, thank you. >> Thank you, Chair. I just want to abstain since I was absent from that meeting. >> That's noted. Thank you. Any other um exceptions to unanimous approval for the March 31st minutes? Great. Those will stand approved. All right. We will just review our upcoming meeting schedule. Um we have uh two weeks from tonight, Monday, April 27th, we have a regular meeting at 5:30 virtually. And then in May, we will meet Monday, May 11th at 5:30 also virtually. And we have um a special meeting uh on just a note on your calendar if it's not on Thursday, June 11th at 5:00 p.m. Um we'll have a special in-person meeting and we'll hear more about that agenda. um as it gets a little closer. So, thank you. All right. Um we'll now move to our consent agenda. Um, so as you note, it's been the custom of the plan commission to handle on a consent agenda items on which staff members believe an application has been sufficiently reviewed to find the relevant standards met to support approval with all of the listed conditions placed upon it by the various city departments and where applicants where the applicant accepts all the conditions and there are no individuals who've registered to speak in opposition to the item. We will also use a separate consent agenda for items requested by an applicant or staff to be referred to a future meeting. Referral does not require a public hearing. Instead, the public hearing will be held at the future meeting date. Um so tonight we have both uh types of consent items. Um the first is uh items to be approved on the consent agenda. And as we look at our agenda for tonight, the approval consent agenda includes or the proposed approval consent agenda includes items 2, 3, 4, 6, and 10. Um, and then the referral consent agenda is um item 15, which would be referred to our next meeting on April 27th, and item 16, which would be referred to our meeting on May 11th. Um, so, uh, as to the items proposed for both consent agendas, are there any requests for separation from the commission? Elder Pritchette, >> I see your hand is raised. >> Yes. >> Requesting that item six be taken off the consent agenda. All right. Um, I think we can I think we can do that. Um, so we'll take item six off and Megan has that noted. Any other disc any other requests? All right. Um, seeing none, we'll start with the remaining items for approval on consent. Um first is item two and that is legisar 92352 vacating and discontinuing Kip circle within the plat of Marsh Road industrial subdivision to allow the combining of lots for development of a new industrial site. Um this lot is located in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 26 township 7 north range 10 east in the city of Madison Dayne County Wisconsin. And this is also an alder district 16. Um item three on our agenda is legisar 92355 and this is determining a public purpose and necessity and adopting a relocation order for the acquisition of land interest required for the construction of safety improvements at the intersection of South Whitney Way and Odana Road. And this area is located in part of the southwest quarter and the southeast quarter of section 30 um T7N R9E in the city of Madison. And this intersection is partly in district 11 and partly in district 19 for our alder districts. Item four is legisar 92234. This is 1051 South Pleasant View Road in Alder District 1. Consideration of a conditional use in the traditional residential urban TRU1 district for a multif family dwelling with greater than 60 units and consideration of a conditional use in the TRU1 district for outdoor recreation. All to allow construction of a five-story 226 unit multif family dwelling with an outdoor pool. And then uh finally is uh item 10. This is legisar 92209. Um, and this is creating section 28.022 through 00748 of the Madison general ordinances to change the zoning of property located at >> Sorry, chair. I'm just going to interrupt really quick. That is >> Yeah. Are we >> We should Yeah. Uh, so let's strike that. >> That goes with items 11 and 12. Yeah. >> Right. Item 10 is part of a a hearing with items 11 and 12. It's probably the least controversial part of that hearing and we'll figure that out later. So, I think we'll start we'll just stick with the consent agenda with these three items. Um, if I could ask for a motion in a second. Um, Commissioner Soulheim, thank you. Alder Yugare, that's a second from you. Thank you. Um, so, uh, actually, can you hold those motions? I skipped a step. I got off my I got off my rhythm. Sorry about that. All right. Um, the approval consent items have been read into the record, items 2, three, and four. We will open the public hearing and close the public hearing for those items. And now we'll look for a motion. Um and Commissioner Soulheim, thank you. And Alder Ugare, thank you. Um and now we have a motion and a second on these consent items. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for those items? And seeing none, the consent agenda, the approval consent agenda is passed. Um now we'll go to the items to be referred. The first is item 15 on our agenda, legisar 91647. Um, this item is uh to be referred to our April 27th, 2026 meeting at the request of the applicant that relates to 1010 and street in alder district 14 consideration of a conditional use in the commercial center CC district for a private parking facility in the transit oriented development to zoning overlay. Then item 16 is to be referred to the May 11th, 2026 meeting at the request of the applicant pending a recommendation from the UDC. That's legisar item 91511 relating to 2010 through 2030 Pennsylvania Avenue and 1902 East Johnson Street in urban design district 4 alder district 12. And that relates to consideration of a conditional use in the regional mixeduse RMX district and transit oriented development TOD overlay district for outdoor recreation a pool to serve a sevenstory 493 unit multif family dwelling. So um the referral items do not require a public hearing. Um so I'd ask for a motion and a second to refer these items to the dates noted. Um Commissioner Scholheim. Thank you. Thank you, Alder Yugare. Thank you. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for these referral items? Seeing none, those items are referred and we will jump back to our regular agenda. So, we should go, sorry for my paper wrestling. We'll start with item five on our agenda tonight and that is legisar 92235 relating to 1602 Gillson Street in Alder district 13. Consideration of a conditional use in a traditional employment TE district for a restaurant and consideration of a conditional use in the TE district for an outdoor eating area open after 9:00 p.m. and the amplified sound in an outdoor eating area for a restaurant. Um, and we will start with um presentation from planning staff and we have planner punt. Welcome Colin. >> Yes, thank you chair. Um so uh apologies that my uh intro will be a little bit longer here. Um a lot of considerations on this. Um so as the chair noted uh the applicant um proposes to operate a restaurant in a TE zoning district um in this existing uh building on Gillson Street and using the enclosed rear courtyard for outdoor dining um in addition to the conditional use for the restaurant itself. The applicant um is then requesting approval of conditional uses for the outdoor eating area as it is open after 900 p.m. and um would have amplified sound. Uh the uh proposal actually includes two separate outdoor eating area areas. There's a smaller one to the northeast of the building. Um in that case, uh the applicant is proposing that it would be closed uh prior to 9:00 p.m. and would host no amplified sound. So, all of the focus of the conditional uses for the larger um eating area to the uh to the south. Um I'm going to focus here on the conditional use uh approval standard number three specifically regarding the proximity of the outdoor eating area to surrounding residential uses. Um, in the staff report analysis, I noted several applications that have similarities to the current request, uh, specifically pertaining to the question of standard 3. Um, on this same site several years ago, uh, there was a an outdoor eating area for a brewery tasting room, the Funk Factory, um, which generally prohibited outdoor sound except for, uh, four annual dates, um, or four dates annually, uh, in which outdoor amplified music could be done until 10 p.m. Um, I'll note here that that conditional use has been unused for more than a year and and is thus expired. It is. It is uh dead. Uh there's amplified sound in an outdoor eating area um and hours of operation beyond 9:00 p.m. at the Villa Tap at 2302 Packers Avenue. Um in that case, the nearest residence was just across a small parking lot. Um, the Mintmark restaurant on East Washington um has uh has a outdoor eating area um uh with amplified sound and open until um later hours and in in that mixeduse building with residential units. And then um a very recent uh action by the planning commission at 2927 East Washington um uh regarding an outdoor eating area uh for request directly abudding um residential properties there as well. Um the outdoor eating areas um also have uh supplemental regulations uh that are found in section 28.151 of the Madison general ordinances. Uh staff have recommended potential conditions of approval if the plan commission finds that all of the standards of approval are met. Um those include hours of operation. Um staff have recommended um 9:00 p.m. for the outdoor eating area uh most days but allowing occupancy until um 10 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Um amplified music would be limited until 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays um during kind of the outdoor eating uh seasons. uh a limited approval period. This is something the plan commission does sometimes uh do. Um staff has recommended a period of one year. After that, the applicant would be able to come back and request um an additional uh approval um possibly with modifications. Um uh I would I would note that that would just be for the outdoor eating area. the restaurant uh conditional use would not have a sunset date um and would be subject to all of the same conditional use uh um requirements. Um and then finally, noise mitigation measures. Staff has recommended uh that the applicant submit a plan um showing speaker placement uh and and other um details about the outdoor eating area. uh if the plan commission does uh find the standards are met and approve. Um finally, I'll note that if approved um the plan commission retains continuing jurisdiction uh as the commission does over all conditional uses so that if there are complaints um the plan commission can take further action on the conditional use. Um staff believes all of the conditional use approval standards for the restaurant can be found met. Um and and as I said uh the proximity to the residential development um raises questions regarding standard 3. Uh obviously all conditional use requests must be reviewed on their own merits. Um but uh with those concerns, staff uh have not recommended outright approval. Um and I recommend that the condition give careful consideration to to all of those issues. uh staff do believe that it is possible that the plan commission can find that the standards are met especially with the um the recommended conditions and and any other conditions that the commission may have. Um so if this commission does find that the standards are met um that that staff recommends that it approves uh the request subject to those uh conditions. Um however, if the plan commission finds that standard 3 or any other standards are not met, um we just ask that you you provide the findings of fact uh regarding uh the decision uh and place that request on file without prejudice. After the uh public hearing, I am happy to answer any questions that the commission may have. >> Thanks, Colin. Um we do we have registrance for this item. So we'll open the public hearing. Um I'll remind the speakers that um uh yeah I'll remind the speakers that we have a three minute time limit for comments and I'll try to interrupt briefly um during the last minute just to give you a warning and help you plan your time. Um and director Tuttle if you would lead us through the registrant list for this item that would be great. >> All right. Uh we'll first hear from the applicant, Adam Benedetto of District 19 representing Friends Applaud. >> Uh hello. Um can you hear me? All right, >> we can. Welcome. >> Um good afternoon everyone. Uh first and foremost, I wanted to begin by thanking everybody in the planning uh commission. Uh those being Matt Tucker, Jenny Kurtgder, uh Lisa Ernst, and Ken Punt. They were all very helpful in uh helping me navigate this which I've never done before. So I just wanted to thank them again publicly for their patience and uh with me on my learning curve. Um Friends of uh Friends Applaud is now open as a coffee shop because of uh partly because of their efforts. And I'd also like to thank Alder Evers for his many thoughtful considerations that balance many motives and goals in the neighborhood. And lastly, I'd like to thank everyone in the Bay Creek neighborhood for their enormous support. The amount of people that say we love you here has been humbling. Um, in talking about the proposal before us today, I'd like to back up a minute and just explain the motives for building the restaurant Friends Applaud. Uh, for the past six years, um, I was a stay-at-home dad taking care of Nelly, who is now six, and Sibelius, who's now three. And while my wife was a very successful corporate executive, she didn't want to do it anymore. And so, 6 months ago, we decided to open a restaurant. and she got out of her corporate job and I started looking for possible spaces. But it wasn't without a great deal of hand ringing on our part. It was just a very big decision and um not just because it's hard to succeed in the restaurant industry, but because of the rising tide of fascism in America. Our choice was either to leave America or stay and try and do something beautiful and push against that movement. Um, so when I started construction with the restaurant, I did so with the idea that we needed a place so beautiful that people would be pulled into it and that its culture would outshine the hate and divisiveness that is dominating America right now. The premise of the restaurant is to pull people together who would otherwise be doom scrolling and facing the horrors of the news on their own. So when it came to the idea of music, I read in the Yelp reviews that Funk Factory had bands play there. And I thought music is a great way to build community. And that was really as much thought as I gave to it when I applied for the entertainment license. And when people said you need to get a community appu approval, I thought, well, we'll just go through the democratic process and if we get it, that's fine, and if we don't, that's fine. My main goal is to feed people and to create a comfortable atmosphere. At the ALRC meeting, only one person spoke against my entertainment license being approved. Her name is uh Miss Kitell. And since that day, we have met a number of times and been in good communication via email and the phone and in person. Um today, she is a supporter of my request for amplified outdoor events and uh has even helped me navigate things like Legar and other city things that I'm plainly not good at. The point is that Mrs. Kitell and I built a relationship and we have trust. Adam, I have about 30 seconds if you could um wrap up. >> Yep. Um all I I want to say is that since opening um people in the neighborhood have approached me asking to host kids movies which would require amplification. I've had a woman who wants to host a baby shower for 80 people um who wanted to play games and that would require amplification. There's just lots of things that could require amplification that aren't necessarily music. And um I feel like it's restrictive to hold uh things down to four times a year when there's decibel levels that can be met and and reasonably um you know kept under control. So >> thanks Adam. If you could stick around there may be questions for you um >> later in the process. Thanks. >> Okay. The next speaker is uh Helen Kitell of District 13. Registered neither in support nor opposition and wishing to speak. >> Hello there. Had to unmute. Um >> welcome. >> Well, thank you. Um so6002 um has the potential to be a nice neighborhood eery. Um, however, they are smack dab in the middle of a very familyoriented neighborhood and um and they need to prove that they are a good neighbor. There is a lot of concern amongst the neighbors about two primary um concerns um and that is their hours of operation and sound. And although Adam just alluded to some of the sound things, um, and the hours of operation can negatively affect those neighbors. Um, it's, as I said, it's a very familyfriendly neighborhood. Um, so keeping out all at this point in time, keeping all outdoor sound to a 900 p.m. closing time is something that the neighbors have said they could live with. And hopefully that that can be one of the criteria. Um and over time if that can be modified or not that may or may not be but that is one of the things that at least should be a basis for that. Um and the other one is sound which in dealing with sound is a much more complicated issue. Um amplified sound outside um should be um monitored um well-maintained mitigated um as to the extent possible. um it's just hard to put a specified thing. But the way to do that, at least initially, is to um put hours, days of limitations, hours of limitations as to when things can or cannot be amplified. Um and as such, I think that 9:00 um ending time is a good thing. Um and um that um in and specifying the number of days. I know that um the funk factory had a very limited number of days that they could be open. I think that that um because of the nature of the events that friends of blood may be open more often than that, but they also need to be very cognizant of the kinds of sounds and what sounds and what they can do about that. Um and a plan should be developed then to address um sound limitations and mitigation and submitted so that that can be reviewed and agreed upon um by many of the neighbors um and at least have that interaction with them so that um we can um make a good working um situation for this ery uh rather than having um coming back in a year and finding out >> about 30 seconds left in your time. >> Yep. coming back in a year and finding out that the neighbors are are unhappy with what it is. Um, we want to make sure that they that the eery does not intrude on their enjoyment and their well-being. Um, since they're right smack dab there. Thank you. >> Thanks, Helen. >> Can I make one more quick? Uh, >> uh, yeah, you have about 15 seconds if you want to. >> Okay. Um I was very confused when I read the staff report between some of the statements about Compt and the uh plans um the neighborhood plans in that this area is really is has been marked as being uh for um low residential area rather than for a um uh um an employment area. And this is one this one ery in the midst of all this is this neighborhood is really a very much a residential area. So I think the neighborhood plans should be honored in their desire to see this area residential. >> Okay. Our next speaker is Pepe Baros of District 14 registered in support and wishing to speak. >> Thank you and thank you commissioners. Um, the Bay the Bay Creek Brams editions and Bur Oak neighborhoods currently have a strong dependence on Park Street uh for restaurants and places to go out and for obvious reasons. We all understand that Park Street has not been the safest to walk and hang around. Um, I think that friends applaud comes in in a location that is safe to bike, walk, and roll to and from just off the Wingra path and on a bicycle boulevard street. Um, in addition to this, there's a scarcity of family-friendly restaurants and cafes in the area that can provide um, you know, an enclosed safe enclosed outdoor space. So, as a neighbor with kids of this area, I would love for Friends of Plot to be approved to provide outdoor seating and allowed to host amplified events that may include, you know, potentially live music, but also movie nights and other family-friendly events. So, we don't have to travel across town to such events that are sometimes hosted in different neighborhoods. Um, friends applaud also has the potential of serving one of the most diverse populations in the whole city. So, I consider this matter also a matter of equity. I very much appreciate your consideration. >> Thank you. Thanks for coming up. >> All right. The next speaker is Laura Zerngel of District 13, registered in opposition and wishing to chair, there's no person by attendance uh with that name in attendance. >> Thanks. Um Megan, is there are there other registers? >> Sorry, I was just looking list. Um we also have Peter Allen of district 13 registered and supported. Yeah. Hello. Can you hear me? >> We can. Welcome. >> All right. Thank you. Um, I am a neighbor in the of Friends of this new restaurant, Friends Applaud. I live just on Cedar Street close to a stones throw from the venue. and I wanted to uh come here and speak in very loud support, hopefully not too loud, um for this to happen. Um I think there's a massive community benefit for having a place of culture and gathering and a third place where we as a community can come together and celebrate each other. uh are particularly around music and community events and in the modern world that requires amplification. Yeah, I think there is reasonable like time limits you can put in place that I don't think would affect anything. And plus, we're we're a community, you know, events happen at the Labor Temple all the time that are allowed. You know, um Willow Island, we can hear all those events. It's it's not like we're unus to the concept of amplified sound coming through our community. And in my mind, that's the sound of life and a healthy community coming together and enjoying each other's company. And I I really truly believe that this would be a wonderful thing for the community um for you know uh and it's it again it's right off the bike path. It's a really you know walkable place. It's a lovely space that I think would be suited well for this kind of thing. I I was really excited by the idea of just the restaurant opening and when I heard they wanted to make it into a um place potentially to share music. Uh there's so few stages in the city that are not owned by just one mega corporation. Um with the recent consolidation with um Live Nation and all that has really put a damper on locations where um local musicians can come together and share stages. It's a It's another vital resource that I think would be I'd be overjoyed to have in my backyard and uh be able to hear even when I wasn't attending. I I I think it would be and and again there's reasonable accommodations that can be made to make sure everyone in the community is enjoying that space. Um I will full throat support this endeavor. It would I would be there all the time particularly if there's music. I that's my huge passion and I would love to um come together as a community in this third space and celebrate in an amplified manner. >> You have about Thanks, Peter. Does that um Yeah, I was going to give you a 15sec warning, but it sounds like you may have wrapped up. So, thank you for coming out. Appreciate it. Next we have Caleb Janice of District 14 registered in support and wishing to speak. >> Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? >> We can. Welcome. >> Thank you everybody. Um, so as a Madison native and somebody who cares deeply about my community, uh, I I saw with interest a few months ago in the paper that the city of Madison is spending 14 or $15,000 to develop a regional music brand. And that got me thinking about, you know, other other cities around the country that have uh good quality of life and and really uh a focus on music. Nashville, Austin, Texas, places like that, places where there's growth and economic growth and and and other kinds of growth uh that are that are closely related to the availability of live music and live music performance in particular. And so I I I just wanted to strongly support uh Adam's uh venture here and and to to say that it aligns with the city's uh desire to to develop Madison as a destination both for tourism and for the growth which we expect, you know, they're saying 100,000 new residents by 2050. Um, we want this to be the the the place where people want to come both to v to to visit and to live. And I think especially in the Bay Creek neighborhood, um, this could be a great driver of of growth and development for for the community. That's all I've got to say. >> Thanks, Caleb. >> Okay. Next is Carrie Rothbird of District 13, registered neither in support nor opposition and wishing to speak. Not sure there's no person by that name in attendance. I think I think that person may have submitted written Kyle and Megan, but I don't see them in the >> um we did receive uh several written comments from Carrie uh over the weekend or today I think that were posted online um a couple different packets. So, we'll just keep an eye out as I finish reading the list here for both Carrie and Laura. Um we have a number of additional registrants who I'll read some of now. Um there are number of folks who have registered available to answer questions. I have not sure that they're all here, but I'll read them anyways. Um Brandon Norstead of district 15 registered in support. Grace Ogle of District 13 registered in support. Eric Mickelson of District 5 registered in support. Carl Kendrick of District 13 registered in opposition. Daniel Dunn of district 14 registered in support. Justin Bloomer of district 13 registered in support. Remington Finn of 6 registered in support. Marsha Inglesson of district 13 registered in support. Christian Johnson Christristen Johnson of district 13 registered in support. And Taki Papaitro reg of district 13 registered in support. All of those folks indicated that they were available to answer questions. Um and then there are approximately 34 additional registrants registered in support and I believe one additional registrant. Uh no 34 additional registrants registered in support and not wishing to speak whose names will be attached to the record. >> Thanks Megan. Um I yeah I don't uh Jesse I don't think I've seen the two speakers that we couldn't get but I just want to check with you before moving to questions. >> That's correct. I haven't seen that. Oh just a second. Let me if you can give me just a second. I seen another person sign on. I got a cross reference. Thanks. >> Chair, we do have Carrie in attendance. >> Okay. Yeah, we can um recognize her. >> So, this is Carrie Rothbird. Uh do we have Carrie, Jesse? Okay, here we go. Um, this is Carrie Rothburn. Um, from district 13, neither in support nor opposition. >> Yeah, I will. >> Hi, Laura's here, too. Uh, the computer would not let us on. Okay. Sh. Thank you. And let me start. Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. I was chair of BCNA's development committee in 2018 and go between between6002's neighbors the proprietor the alderant plan staff the cup that came out of those discussions worked well the road to this cup has not been marked by discussion any discussion among any of these parties and I'm concerned that aspects of the staff report and the cup application are out of context with the real tree streets the comparison between the neighborhoods and the staff report surrounding 1602 Gilson and the 2927 east west east eastw wash patios is off. The tree streets are marked by small homes and quiet narrow streets. The comp plan foresees their increased residential density. The neighborhood close to East Wash is marked by a state highway and some vertical development. There are more residential units nonetheless within close proximity to the patio at Gilson than East Wash. Two units are 12 feet away from the patio of Friends Applaud compared to one unit at 40 feet from East Wash, 11 units Gillson to 8 East Wash at 175 ft from the patio and 14 units to 12 units at 250. Only at 500 ft from the patio are there more units at East Wash. Finally, the focus on zoning is off. Some of the tree streets are zoned TE, but the report casts the neighborhood as commercial. residential is equally a permitted TE use and it TE exists at TE at at at at Eastwash as well. This is a residential neighborhood. The fact is that this comparison shouldn't matter. CU standard 3 protects each and every existing adjacent use from disturbance. There is no minimum as the focus of of on single unit 40 ft from east wash patio shows. Staff doubts that the CU standard 3 can be met on Eastwash's patio whose conditional use application it filed without prejudice. The same for6002. Yet staff recommends a condition for approving the cup for a test run while increasing the number of amplified days of amplified sound from 40 with the prior CP to 60. The applicant proposes increased tavern occupancy from fewer than 80 people to close to 400. Those who celebrate the arrival of an outdoor patio with music are joined by the near neighbors of the tree streets who would support friends too if they just had the chance to talk with the business, the alder and the city about conditions that protect their existing residential use. >> So I urge you to put this application. >> Okay. I put this application on >> Yeah. So I urge you to put this application on. filed without prejudice to give Friends Applaud the chance to work out a business plan that is respectful of its neighbors before opening. They can even test out their sound mitigation system. This will also give the plan commission time to consider what happens to the patio on East Wash if you say yes to the patio on Gillson. It gives people who don't live next door to602 the chance to imagine what it's like to hear someone else's amplified music in your home for more than a hundred or more hours a year. >> Thanks, Carrie. >> All right, I'm finished. Can I hand the phone to Laura, please? >> Um, yes, we Yeah, we can. Megan will recognize Laura. Um, Z. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Laura. >> Yes, thank you. I appreciate it. It looked to me on my phone as though I was logged in and I've been following the whole meeting, but when it was my turn to speak, I don't know why I wasn't there or nothing came through. I'm not sure what happened. So, I really appreciate it. >> Glad we were able to get you on the line. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Can I go? >> Yes. Yes, please. Welcome. >> Okay. Okay. So, my name is Laura Zernible and I live with an earshot of 1602 Gilston and the only thing that separates my house from 1602 is a narrow residential street and one residential home. I love the concept of Friends Applaud and I believe it will be a huge success and well supported at this location. At the same time, I don't support amplified sound as a part of the plan. I support a business that I do not have to hear or smell on a regular basis. The handful of businesses nearby close early and make zero sound impact to our landscape. We coexist without issues. There's widespread support from people who can drop in for a couple of hours and then return to their quiet home that's easy to support. Um, interestingly enough, about six blocks from our house toward the bay, you will find Lakeside Coffee House. This business has a similar geographical setup. businesses next door, a school across the street, the bay to the backside, and a small number of houses within 500 ft. Yet somehow the neighbors over there, and the city agreed that amplification is only permitted inside the building. How is this different? The neighbors who live within earshot on Belden Pine and Cedar did a lot of work with Sarah the pre Estridge, the previous elder, to set standard of use that fit the corner of our neighborhood. Um, it permitted amp wait permitted amplified sound four times per year and this worked well. The SAM COP standards that were held in place for the next business, the Black Rose also worked out well. Adam's wish to have amplified music and events four times per week is not a good fit. Plan is suggesting a one-year trial with amplification on Saturdays, and I'm concerned that after one year, we'll have to go again and fight for our right to enjoy our quiet property. then we'll open the door to ask for more and if the nearby neighbors are not alerted we will miss the opportunity to once again defend our quiet Lakeside Coffee House is a huge success without outdoor amplification and I wish Adam and Friends applaud that same success I know everybody will support them thank you >> thanks Laura >> thanks all right I think um our reg uh you've heard from our registrants and I would ask uh the commission if there are questions for any of the registrant speakers tonight. >> Commissioner, thank you. >> Thank you. Uh I have a question for Adam, the applicant. Um Adam, uh we're we're hearing a a couple of different things. It sounds like it that you did spend a lot of time reaching out to the community through one avenue or another, yet there are some neighbors who feel like they weren't engaged. Can you kind of just describe what your community engagement process was like? >> Um, well, first off, we went through the ALRC meeting and so there were postcards mailed to everybody. Um then I had a public meeting um which the people that all registered against didn't come to. And then um I you know told everybody the door is always open. Come over and talk to me. And so lots and lots and lots of people have. I've actually been open for business 3 weeks. So I've served um hundreds of cups of coffee to everybody in the neighborhood. Um which means that everybody that signed my petition saying exactly what we wanted to do. It's I have about 240 signatures I think. Um and I submitted those uh to the to the legis the website thing. Uh you all have it. Um >> yes. >> So like I talked to all of those people and so anybody that was in opposition could come and talk to me. Um for instance today uh there's a gentleman named Alex that's at 1610. Um he I've knocked on his door a number of times. We didn't get to connect. he wrote um something uh stating he was in opposition to what was going on tonight. Um I saw his email address on that. I emailed him, he called me, we talked, and then he emailed the committee again saying that he reversed his opinion of the situation. So I I feel like I'm very responsive. I'm sorry if there are some neighbors that feel like uh they haven't been able to talk to me, but the literally I've been literally here for uh since January 2nd. I did all the construction myself. The door was open the entire time. >> Okay. Uh that was a good description. Uh you said you had a public meeting after Alrc. Uh was that >> before? Okay. And that was one that was postcard notified through ALRC as usual, I assume. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. I appreciate it. >> Sure. >> Thanks. >> Other questions for registrants? >> Um, Alder Evers. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, if it's all right with the committee, I'd like to be able to share as the owner of the district my perspective on this application. Uh, I offer my strong support for Prince conditional use application subject to the recommended comm uh conditions that staff put included in their report. Um, as some of you know who have been on this committee for a while, I have lots of experience with uh residents who are concerned about potential disturbances with respect to sound in their neighborhoods. Um, and I agree that residents have a reasonable expectations that their lives would not be disturbed by some new addition in the neighborhood. And um it's clear in my mind anyways from the the years of dealing with these issues that we can think of it in terms of frequency of use and intensity of use. These are the two elements of sound that become challenging when we're looking at at trying to do uh outdoor amplification or anything like what's been described in a neighborhood. Um if the intensity is not loud then frequency perhaps is not so much an issue. If the intensity is louder and disturbing then lower numbers of occasions reduce number of events lower frequency is preferred. Also uh time matters what's acceptable during the daytime is not usually acceptable at night particularly for families with small children. U I do want to clarify and based on my conversations with Adam, he's not looking to open a live music venue notwithstanding the support that Peter Allen and Caleb have offered that you know music lovers uh at large which I appreciate and um very much share in that belief. That's not what Adam is looking to do here. He's not looking to to create a live music venue. my understanding with Adam that um amplified sound would often simply augment the dining experience so that it would often not be uh heard outside the premises of the property uh the property lines but having having someone uh playing you know Catfish Stevenson or other folks like that or a small uh string quartet or or whatever. I guess the string quartet probably would not be able to be amplified, but it's hard to have acoustic music, a singer songwriter who does not have a microphone to sing into. So the concerns I think that have been raised by the opposition have been based on negative experiences in the past and an expectation that this would continue with this application. My sense is that Adam uh is certainly willing to be compliant with any conditions that the city and this body would impose. Um his primary goal is to feed people as a restaurant tour is experienced in that regard. I I don't think that this that the conditions the recommended conditions that staff have put forth as a matter of just trying to do this on a trial basis. It's the the one-year limit is a wise move whenever you're dealing with things that are more delicate and outdoor amplification is a more delicate situation. So I commend uh Colin Pod for coming up with this idea. On the other hand, uh after a year, I think that um because of continuing jurisdiction, there may be other elements of this that this body would may wish to visit with either lesser or more restrictive um conditions moving forward. So, um I would encourage you to vote in favor of this, grant this approval. There's no need to refer this. There's no need to put this on file. There have been many many conversations with nearby neighbors and with the extended neighborhoods in Bay Creek. Um I I think that we have enough information to move forward and I ask for your support. >> Thanks Alder Evers. Um if there are there any other questions for registrants? Um, if not, we'll close the public hearing and um have time for staff questions. Great. I um I'm now going to close the public hearing and ask if commissioners have questions for staff on this item. >> Commissioner Soulheim. Thanks. >> Thank you, Colin. And I know that this is in your report and you mentioned it, but since um there were different things in public comment regarding number of days and things like that, I was just hoping you could clarify. My understanding is if this were to be approved with the suggested conditions in the staff report, which of course can always be adjusted, um that would include amplified sound just one day a week, Saturdays from noon to 8. Is that correct? >> Yes, that is correct. >> Thank you. And just for clarification, that's for outdoor amplified sound. Um, this would not pertain to indoor sound. >> Push your head. >> Thanks. And I just wanted to clarify further. And that would be only allowed between April 15th and November 15th, not uh is that is that correct? or the wording sometimes confused me. It I I wasn't sure if it was allowed the other times or is it only during those six months that it's allowed at all. >> So, it would only be allowed between November or I mean between April and November and not the other months. Okay. You know, if if the if that is a condition that the the commission is happy with but would like to be clarified, you know, I think that could be part of a motion if if that's what the commission is is towards. >> Thank you. >> All of you gear. >> Thank you, Colin. Um with those conditions uh that have been added at the advice of staff, uh could you just take us quickly through the comparison with the recent decision of the plan commission to put on file that uh uh amplified sound application on East Washington? Yeah, I I I think there are um a few differences. Uh and you know, if if you read the report um you can see that they there are also you know numerous um uh similarities. I think uh some of the um big ones are that uh I think there are more residential units uh within proximity of the property on East Washington um than there are uh on near this particular site. Um the uh the patio, the outdoor patio for Gilson Street is uh larger than the um patio for um the the East Washington site, allowing um different layouts uh for the um for the property or I mean for the the outdoor patio um so that the sound mitigation um you know how the stage is set up um can can be different. Um there's more flexibility there. Um the uh you know I noted the the zoning districts um nearby I believe on um East Washington uh there that is zoned CCT and a lot of the um area near there is also CCT. Um the mixed use and commercial districts allow a lot more residential development. So even though there um are there's slightly more uh current residential development on East Washington, there can be a lot more. A lot of that area is also um recommended for mixed use uh a pretty high density of mixed use development uh in in the adopted plans there. So not only is there more existing residential, but there is there's also more um planned residential that could potentially be developed there as well. Um the the TE zone is is um does allow uh residential development as as I I believe um Carrie Rothbird had mentioned that um certainly true but uh usually uh does not allow the the same intensity of development as as some of those mixed use um districts do. >> Thank you Colin. Thank you. Thanks to you, G. Other questions for staff? Colin, maybe uh just to for me to say it out loud and make sure that I'm understanding with a motion would need to address three conditional uses. The use of a restaurant, the outdoor eating area, open after 9, and the amplified sound. Is that the right way to think about it? >> Yeah, I think to be uh to be clear with the motion text that would you would address all three of those. >> Okay. >> Um Commissioner Heck, >> just sorry, just one more clarifying question for Colin. Um I I know we're kind of loosely saying, oh, it's a one-year approval if we accept that first uh condition of approval, but it's really uh until December 31st. So it's more like a 8monish approval. Correct. >> Yes. Um I mean if if you are looking at the that April 15 to November 15 window anyway, uh a year would would bring us to to the beginning of the next April window opening. Um, again, if the plan commission wants to uh change that, I I think that would be um fine if if if that's the planning commission's wishes. But I think whether we say one year or December 31, um it does the same thing. >> Okay. Thanks. It wasn't a complaint. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Right. Thank >> Right. Are we ready to consider a motion on this item? Alder Year. Oops. >> Thank you, chair. Let me just get my notes straight here. Um, I will move that uh the plan commission finds that the standards for conditional uses are met with regard to the operation of the restaurant, the outdoor eating area. uh and uh for amplified sound as limited by the conditions uh that we approve that subject to the conditions recommended by the reviewing agencies and the staff report. >> Um Alder Field second for the motion. Um Alder, do you want to speak a little more to the motion and to the um certainly to the factual findings? I I think the major thing that in addition that I would point out are that in considerable difference to and related to my question about the relationship of this and the comparison to the recent decision on the East Washington uh permit application that uh we have seen such significant uh support here from the neighborhood for uh the kind of activity that's going on and I appreciate also Alder Ever's cl uh clarification about uh the nature of the activities that will happen in this area. I think that also shows with the additional of the review and uh next year that this is this is going to probably work well and we'll have ample opportunity to uh respond if there is a problem. Thank you chair. >> Thanks Alder Year. Um, Alderfield. >> Thank you, Chair. I'll just briefly add my agreement to comments just made by Alder Ugier. Um, I think that another important difference here that helps me feel much more comfortable with standard 3 being met is the responsiveness that this applicant has demonstrated in his various interactions with folks in the neighborhood. Um, and that is apparently in quite stark contrast with the previous application that we had seen. Um, I had actually hoped to ask the previous applicant the very same question that Commissioner Hec asked tonight of the applicant, but you may remember that the previous applicant was no longer on the call to speak to their efforts in building trust and connecting with neighbors. Um, so I think that that contrast helps me find this uh proposal standard meet standard 3 more confidently. Thank you. >> Thanks, Herfield. Uh, Kushner, >> thanks. So, I'm going to support the motion, but honestly, I was considering uh some additional hours allowed for amplified music rather than just Saturdays given what I've heard. But I think it's good to remind ourselves that uh taking a conservative approach is is not a bad thing in these situations because not only could the now apparently happy nextdoor neighbor become a different neighbor or the the business may not go exactly as planned and they could have to change their business model. So I I'm going to accept what I think is a a smart approach and a conservative approach. Thanks. Thanks, Commissioner Hec. Further discussion. Um, all right. We have a motion and a second. Um, and we've laid out I maybe before we call a vote. Um, I just Megan, would you uh I don't know if we need any additional discussion of factual basis for e any of the other either of the other conditional uses or if we feel like those are sufficiently supported with the staff report. >> Yeah. Uh, according to the staff report, standard three was the primary standard that staff asked for the commission to consider. Um, >> okay. So I think with the particularly with the note from Alderfield about about finding standard 3 met um I think that is helpful for the record and if any others have any specific standards that they were citing happy to have that clarified as well. >> Great. All right. Um, I will just doing one more little pregnant pause in case anybody else has comments. And seeing none, um, I'll just start with is there objection to unanimous approval for the motion? Um, as stated. All right. Seeing none, um, that motion is passed. So, thank you. Thanks everybody for the good discussion and thanks to all our registrants for, um, coming out to to talk about this item. Um we will move to item six on our agenda. This is legisar 92237 um related to 7601 Ganzer way and alder district 9. This is consideration of a conditional use in the regional mixeduse RMX district and transit oriented development to overlay district for outdoor recreation um in the form of a pool to serve a six-story 134 unit multif family dwelling. Um and um we have planner Ernest who can um give us a brief overview of this item. we had uh thought about putting it on the uh on the consent agenda, but I think we'll have a good opportunity just to understand the project a little better. So, thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Yeah, I'll give just a brief overview. Um so, the applicant is requesting conditional use approval for an outdoor pool to serve a six-story 134 unit multif family building. The multif family building is a permitted use in the existing RMX zoning and the TOD um overlay zoning district. Um for the pool operations itself um the hours of operation would be limited from 8:00 am to 10 p.m. And then uh planning division staff also recommended to additional conditions of approval um primarily due to the proximity of the existing residential units near the pool. that staff recommend that the six-foot ornamental fence along the southern edge of the pool area be replaced with a six-ft tall solid fence to match the exterior of the multif family dwelling. And it um the conditions also recommend that amplified sound shall not be permitted in the pool area unless allowed as an alteration to the conditional use. Thanks. >> Thanks, Governor Ernest. Um, we do have registrance on this item, so I'll open the public hearing. Um, and ask Megan if you can lead us through our list. >> Okay. Thanks, chair. Um, tonight we don't have any registrants wishing to speak. Um, we do have two registrants representing the applicant team. Uh, AJ Rabbitzek, uh, registered in support and available to answer questions and Tom Lind, um, of Jainsville, registered in support and available to answer questions. Thomas is with Angus Young Architects. Uh and then we have Nicholas Davies of District 15 registered in support but not wishing to speak. And that's all we have on this item. >> All right. Um thank you. Um I will uh since we have registrants available to answer questions, I'll ask the commission if um any of the commissioners have questions for the registrants. All right. Um, if there are none, we'll close the public hearing and I'll ask if the commissioners have questions for staff about this project. >> Um, Alder Yair, thank you. >> Uh, yes. for staff. Um there was not that I could see there was not a discussion in the staff report on the types of uh conditional use uh typical conditions that apply. There are these supplemental regulations that you went through. Is that sufficient uh that we find uh that the supplemental regulations are satisfied as opposed to the operation of condition three or condition 8 or any of the typical conditions that we look at in this particular case? Yeah, I can um I did not author the staff report, so I am just kind of covering it on um their behalf. But I think the way that the staff report is written is that the um all the conditional use standards can be found met subject to the recommended conditions of approval. And so that's where those um three conditions about the fence, the hours of operation, and the sound would come in. Um but it it sort of yeah broadly all of those conditions and and does not call out like a specific one like conditional use standard three for example. >> Thank you Lisa. Thank you chair. >> Thanks um Alder Pitchette. >> Yes. You know there there are several things you know that I want to comment on. Although there were no registrants for no registrants available to speak on behalf in in terms of opposition or support of the um the plan. Uh I have had a chance, excuse me, to speak to uh residents uh who live in proximity, you know, to uh this particular uh project. And actually there are two parts to it. Uh right now a major concern you know is the opposition to the pool. But then there are some things that um are also in opposition. There are opposition to the actual building itself. But I'm going to limit my uh comments to the pool for now and the concerns that they have. the residents that I've had a chance to speak to u the pool itself and it's about 30 feet you know from the adjacent uh property a major concern for them is why a pool especially when there is no green space no green space whatsoever uh this particular property is also across the street from a unit or structure that has had ongoing mischief for years since it opened and that's UNO terrace. It also is complicated by mischief from those who live in and around uh tree lane apartments and point place. That's a problem for them uh in terms of the ongoing mis mischief. people that will move or migrate from tree lane apartments uno uno terrace onto this particular site for some they're asking the question who it's it's multifamily but is this uh considered to be affordable housing is it what is it okay especially when one ask the question why a pool in an area that has no green space 134 units traffic there is one entry and one exit onto Deiona Drive which is very very busy. So when I think about the concerns that they have I think they are real and I think they are legitimate. Uh we don't look at um the quality of life for those who are living in around or near to this property. And so I asked the question then how do we ensure that those residents who would be directly affected by this you know what do they do? One person asked me it seems as though the city is more concerned about building but they're not concerned about what renters think what renters experience. And so they're asking for relief before a structure goes up that these kinds of things be attended to. I can speak to that because I know what happened at Tree Lane Apartments. I know now that we're trying to fix it. I was just there today doing some workshops for the kids and parents. But I I do believe, you know, we got to be a little bit more um aware of quality instead of just looking at quantity. And quantity is something that I thought I I know we need, but at the same time at whose expense? So before this is approved moving forward, I would really urge this committee, this commission to really begin to think long and hard about quality of life. When you have 134 units, mixed family, one entry and one exit, next door to it, there is icky sticky. There is a gaming parlor that's there. It's right on the BRT line. Sure. Across the street there's a liquor store. There are all kinds of ways that mischief mischief can be entertained. And so before we move forward on it, I ask that these kinds of things be taken into consideration. The other part to this is this, and that's the building height itself. They're asking why six stories. When you look around, there is no structure within 400 feet or even a half a mile that's more than five stories high. Why six stories? I went to and I looked for the archive uh planning report and I I didn't I couldn't find it. So I part one then I know nothing about. But part two, which is the pool, that I can address, especially as it relates to what uh those who live in proximity to this uh project would would be experiencing. Thank you. So I ask then that it be reconsidered, go back to the drawing board. >> Thanks, Holder. Richard other um Megan I maybe I'll just uh ask one clarifying question as a followup and that is um the size of the building is not a conditional use am is that correct >> correct chair um the underlying project the proposed multi-story building uh with 134 units is a permitted use within the zoning district and within the transit oriented development overlay. So, um the alder asked about five stories versus six within the residential mixeduse uh I'm sorry, the regional mixeduse zoning district here, uh five stories would typically be the maximum height allowed as a permitted use and within the to buildings are allowed to exceed that up to eight stories. And this project is proposing six. Um that is a permitted use and is not a conditional use that the plan commission is considering tonight. Um in terms of the conditional use that the plan commission is considering tonight, the pool is the conditional use, the provision of that um as an amenity on the property. And I certainly can't speak to why the applicants chose to provide it other than that it's a common tenant amenity that we do see in new multif family buildings. And so I think there are some applicants on if anybody would like to reopen the hearing and ask them any questions about the proposal. So we've been looking at how to address the potential impacts of that pool um on the adjacent property owners. And so that's where those conditions that uh Lisa mentioned in the staff introduction came into place. Um ensuring that there's a fence around it as part of the property, some landscaping, um changing the fencing material to help with both any potential impacts of noise uh from people using the pool itself and also to help with some additional screening and privacy of the users of the pool. Um, which I believe should also help with, you know, any non residents of the building using the pool in an unpermitted way. Um, and also making sure that there was a condition prohibiting um, noise uh, or limiting the potential impact of noise by prohibiting outdoor amplified sound within the pool area. So, ensuring that that is not an impact that neighboring residents would would experience. Um, as far as some of the other considerations in the area that the alder noted, um, we have to really look at what this project would be contributing to some of those concerns that the alder noted and would need to identify whether or not this project itself is contributing to those concerns or if they're the broader um, they're things that people in the area are experiencing, whether or not this project was approved. Thanks, Megan. >> I'll also note, I'm sorry this wasn't part of the question, but other questions that the alder raised, I I did just want to note are still applicable for review. Um traffic service, other um aspects of the development proposal itself as a permitted use just because the plan commission is not reviewing the question of the multifamily building. Um that project will still be required to go through the city's review process and be reviewed by you over a dozen agencies to ensure that the project itself uh meets all of our standards of approval in various city ordinances, the zoning code, um other uh ensure that it's ser it's servable um in general. Um, if there if that Oh, if commissioners don't have additional questions, then I guess I wonder if it's time for a motion on the item. Commissioner Soulheim, >> thank you. >> Your microphone is like I don't know. This is super quiet to me. Okay. >> Ah, great. >> That better? >> Yep. >> Um, I will move that the plan commission find the standards are met and approve a conditional use for outdoor recreation pool for a multif family dwelling at 7601 Gzer Way subject to the conditions in the staff report, including um the conditions for fencing and a pool operation plan which helped to ensure that it meets the standards of approval. Thanks, Commissioner Soulheim. Uh, Commissioner Hec, thank you. Um, any additional discussion on the motion? All right, we'll call a vote and I'll start with is there um so Alder Pritchette, I I know that as a alder you can sit on the planning comm you can sit on the commission, but I don't know that during the vote maybe Megan, can you help me with the parliamentary procedure there? >> The alder um may contribute to discussion on the motion but is not eligible to vote on the motion. Yeah, >> great. Um, Alder Pritchette, if um you're welcome to comment on the motion. Um, Alder Pitch, I see your hand is up and um we're we have a pending motion that's available for discussion and you're welcome to unmute yourself. I would urge the commission to to go back to at least give this particular neighborhood community an opportunity to voice their concerns. I'm speaking on a bea on behalf of those that I had a chance to speak with and I don't think they've had an opportunity, you know, to get a fair hearing to hear their concerns, especially given the location of that particular dwelling that's proposed to go up and how close it is to someone else's property. We're talking about 30 feet. We're looking at that pool, you know, and I don't think it's fair. I really think that they have not had their voices heard. Thank you. Thanks for sharing your comments. Um, any additional discussion before we call the vote on the pending motion? All right. Again, we'll start with any objection to unanimous approval um for the pending motion. All right. See, seeing none, the motion is approved. Um I amed I understand there may be additional discussion, but the conditional use for the outdoor recreation pool is approved on item six. So that will take us to um item items seven, eight, and nine on our agenda which are related and will be considered as one public hearing. Um and then once the public hearing is concluded, we'll do separate findings and motions on each of the three items. So this um this item has already had a public hearing and after the public hearing, we referred the item to this meeting. You'll just to remind everybody with this item was the vote was to refer the item to um tonight's meeting to allow time to get um uh uh reports on the two buildings that were that were um subject to a request for demolition order. So, um, we may I what I would ask the commission to consider is after we hear a quick overview from Planner Wells, um, I would ask for a motion to reopen the public hearing if we want to hear from registrants tonight as part of an extended public hearing or do or do we just want to consider the documents that we received? I think I think the better course would be to reopen the public hearing and hear from the registrants, but I would wait for a motion from the commission before we're able to do that. But before we make that decision, we'll um hear a quick update from Planner Wells. Thanks, Chris, for being here. >> Thank you, Chair, members of the plan commission. Um just a brief refresher as to where we're at. Um not to um reiterate what uh chair just mentioned, but um the associated reasonzoning requests the um and and the CSM were um recommended for approval at the March meeting of the plan commission um and were subsequently approved by the council. The um planning commission uh approved the demolition of the former Rocky RCOO's uh building or the initial location of the first um restaurant uh at 411 West Gilman. And um the two demolition requests at 415 West Bilman Street for Master Hall and 433 West Kilman Street um were both referred. Um and those um building condition reports have both been attached to the respective legisar files. Um and also the conditional use was referred. Um and I I can just give a brief refresher on on the height. Um they are uh proposing to record a land use restriction agreement or allura with the city which would guarantee that a portion of the beds on the additional floors would be provided at below market rates to students from households with low or moderate incomes for a specified period of time and because of this they are allowed to exceed the story limit uh in in the downtown height map but not the height as measured in feet. So very quickly just to show this was a Can you see my screen? >> We can. >> Okay. Um so the um in in for example in in this area you see my my cursor that's that's outlined in green. They're allowed up to 80 8 feet or six stories. They are proposing eight stories um at each uh at 75 ft. Um similarly in this middle portion um they are allowed uh they're they're in in 116 feet of height or eight stories. They are proposing 12 stories but only at 105 ft. And then in this portion up here uh which is allowed up to 172 feet or 12 stories they are proposing uh 16 stories but only at 156 ft. So they are uh not exceeding the downtown height um by feet, but they are um fitting in more stories and um a portion of of the beds in those respective stories um are going to be affordable. Um with that the uh I would just note that a few uh additional public comments have been received and have been attached to the public record for this meeting. Um, and with that, I I'd be happy to answer questions after the public hearing. Thank you. >> Thanks, Chris. Um, is there a motion to reopen the public hearing on um, these three items? Alder Gar. >> Yes, I'll move that we reopen the public hearing. >> Thank you. Um, is there a second? Uh, Commissioner Soulheim. Thank you. Any objection? All right. Seeing none, we'll reopen the public hearing on this item and or on items 7, 8, and nine. And we do have registrants um wishing to speak tonight. I would um the registrants will still have three minutes according to our usual practice, but I would ask them just in the interest of recognizing that we've um spent some time on this project already if we could um try to focus on the new information received since the last meeting um which mostly focuses on the condition of the two buildings and um at 4:15 and 433 West Gilman Street. So with that in mind, u Megan, if you'd lead us through the list. Okay. Uh we have first uh have registrants from our applicant team who have requested to pull their time for a maximum of nine minutes. This will include Jim Buchanan, um John Metski and Josh Dawson who are all representing the applicant team including Metski Architects and LCD Acquisitions. And I believe Jim Buchanan is going to speak on behalf of that team. Thanks. >> Thank you very much, >> Jim. Welcome. >> Well, thank you all for the opportunity to come back um before you all here um with these condition reports in 415 and 415 33 West Gilman. Um at the last hearing, you asked us to produce these um really focused on standard 2. So, I wanted to walk them through at a high level. Our architect John Mayki can jump in um later if you have specific questions on code. Um the reports are prepared by a local construction manager and a local structural engineer. To be efficient, I'll focus on 415 West Gilman, although much of this is same is true for 433 West Gilman. Uh at a high level, I want to be clear. The issues with 415 West Gilman have nothing to do with what you can see from the exterior of the building. The building, frankly, is not particularly old. The issue is with the design of the building and the fact that is not designed in a way that allows you to bring it up to code for any amount of money. Um, on page eight, you can see the units have nearly original finishes. The kitchenets and appliances are built in and are failing in many units and replacement parts are not available. The owner, to his credit, has been maintaining these appliances by buying parts on eBay at this point in time and buying separate mini fridges. Um, it's not because the the and that is because the appliances are built into the structural walls themselves. None of the units are accessible. Trying to make them accessible would theoretically require breaking through the internal walls uh to reduce the unit count by one/ird but that is not feasible because uh the structural walls are dividing the units. As far as it goes for the building systems the envelope is uninsulated concrete walls and single pane windows pipes routinely freeze and the owner has cut panels into the concrete deck to reach them when they break. Um the roof is actively leaking and the penthouse deck is spalled with exposed rebar. Uh the elevators are 60 plus years old. Parts again are no longer available. Um there's no backup power and they cannot be used for emergency egress. Uh ADA compliant uh replacements would require enlarging the elevator shafts and the shaft walls uh are loadbearing concrete meaning they cannot be enlarged. Um there's no sprinkler system and an installation of one requires cing through the structural floors. Stairs are the only point of ingress. They're not compliant. um there's no areas of refuge and they discharge into the lobby rather than the outside. Uh the lobby split level with no accessible route to the elevators and an LULA is not feasible as it is blocked by loadbearing walls and dorsling conflicts. Um so you know really in summary it's it's not about cost. The work is structurally uh and feasible. The flaws are really just built in to uh the way the building is designed in the loadbearing concrete. Um, so you know, compliance under any pathway would require heavily modifying the structure, including, you know, doorways and the windows to a point where, you know, the building is no longer going to be maintained because the structure will not allow it. Um, I say this really because we're not, you know, just developers, although we are, we also own and operate assets across this country. And when we looked at this development, um, you know, we didn't look at it just in a vacuum. Um, we did obviously take into account the city's comp plan and height plan, but we also looked at these existing buildings and found there was really no way for us to own and operate them as they exist today with just some minimal fixes. Um, as time goes on, everything within the buildings will continue to deteriorate and there are no longer replacement parts. So, when you make efforts to upgrade or maintain the operability of the building uh within the units, you know, you start peeling back the onion, so to speak. So, not only does that lead to these code compliance issues through the level three uh element, but there also life safety and accessibility issues which cannot be met. Um, and as you sort of work through that, you're going to end up with major remediation efforts as uh you know, the building almost certainly contains large amounts of ACM due to its uh time of construction. You know, one point I wanted to make was, you know, there's been mention of, you know, naturally occurring affordable housing, which look, we think affordable housing is also hugely important and and not just from a supply and demand standpoint, which is why we're going to be providing 10% of all the beds in this building, which is about 100 foot beds as affordable units here available to students um by working with the city and the university. and we really thank the city for providing us a pathway to serve those residents with completely updated code compliant units designed for today. Uh many of these same structural constraints apply to 433 West Gilman. And we're happy to take questions on that property as well, but I'll just uh you know skip addressing the full report since you all have likely read it. >> Thanks, Jim. Okay, if the applicant team is done, um we'll move on to the next registered speaker, uh John Rowling of District 11, uh registered in opposition and representing Madison Trust for Historic Preservation. >> Thank you. >> I'm speaking on behalf of the Madison Trust. I wrote the Landmarks nomination for Master Hall that is now before the Landmarks Commission. I am also a retired real estate appraiser experienced in the valuation of commercial buildings including apartments such as Master Hall. At your March 16 meeting, you reflected on section 28185 standards that might outweigh public interest in reserving Master Hall. Those are building conditions so deteriorated that it is not structurally or economically feasible to preserve, a structural or a fire hazard, a public nuisance, or a health and safety concern that supports the need for demolition, or alterations such that Master Hall cannot convey its historical association or architectural significance. There is no question that Master Hall retains its historic appearance. You see a current photo uh on our screen right now. Uh staff, could you please move to the other photo? And that is a photo taken in 1974. Can you tell the difference? No, you can't. The property condition report commissioned by the developer characterizes master hall as quote functionally obsolete and goes on to detail several building components as structurally not feasible to remodel or replace. But what this report does not address are the real questions posed under the standards. That is, is this building in such terrible condition that it can no longer serve its purpose? And does this building pose a danger to public health and safety? The answer to both questions is no. Even the developers consultant had to conclude that the building shell could remain standing for years. A later Madison Trust speaker will detail our research into the building's condition records and our review of the developer's condition report, but our review of building inspection records over many years reveals only minor nuisance/maintenance violations and no record of structural concerns. The developers condition report speaks to problems the building may face in a major rehab/reodeling project, not toward maintaining the building in its present use and configuration. This report finds it quote infeasible to bring master hall to standards for new construction. It does not address code requirements for the continuum use of older buildings like master hall. If we were to apply these new construction standards generally, we would need to demolish most of Madison's existing buildings. Speaking as a longtime real estate appraiser, I alert you to the textbook definition of economic feasibility. That is when the estimated value at completion equals or exceeds the estimated cost. >> We have about 30 seconds left. Thanks. >> Thank you. Master Hall has been owned and managed by the same entity for over 50 years. These owners own many other older rental buildings in Madison. They are well experienced in maintaining such buildings and operating them profitably. So don't be fooled by the scare story that the developers have concocted here. Please find that the standards for demolition approval are not met. Thank you. >> Thanks, John. >> Okay, the next speaker is Kurt Stegy uh of Madison, registered in opposition and speaking on behalf of the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation. >> Uh, welcome. >> Thank you. Uh, good evening. Um, I spent a heck of a lot of time preparing remarks that uh relate more specifically to the general question of of uh demolishing or saving this historic building. And um so in I'm not able to limit myself to the really invalid irrelevant condition reports that that have been submitted. Um, and I I think it would be if you if you think this has to be demolished, then I agree. You've got to demolish a heck of a lot of other buildings in the state in the city of Madison. Okay. I have four points. Uh the applicants hired legacy architecture in an effort to undermine the landmarks commission conclusion that both Stratford Atrium and Master Hall deserved red light determinations i.e. are within the highest of three levels of historic value. But the unsigned letter from the firm was lavish in its praise for the quality of the master hall architecture, calling it a notable architectural example of the modern brutalist style designed by a notable Milwaukee-based architect. The letter then referred to this striking form of master hall and while mentioning other brutalist buildings within the city called out its singular expressionist design. These descriptions bely the hired firm's effort to dismiss highstyle master hall as not the best local example of the architectural style. In contrast, Landmarks clearly supported its conclusions that both buildings warranted its red light recommendation. Landmarks concluded that once a nomination was filed, both buildings were potentially eligible for listing on the National Register or the or as a local n landmark. This conclusion arises from a report prepared by an unbiased Madison planning staff person, not a hired opinion. Two, city plans are not mere window dressing in your decision. The city's downtown plan identifies this entire site as part of the state street district and refers to having pedestrianfriendly design within that district. >> Kurt, you're about 30 seconds left. Oh my god. Um, recommendation 75 of that plan seeks the preservation, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of sound older buildings. Um, and the comprehensive plan defers to the downtown plan rather overruling it. Um, I'd like to look at this image. Thank you. If you stuck, this is this is what you're going to see if this building is built from uh State Street and uh Master Hall would fit in the first segment of this that first part half of the um footprint and go up. I'm >> I'm going to call time, but um hang around because there may be questions later. So, thank you. Okay, the next speaker is Jean Parks of District 5, registered in opposition and representing the Madison Trust for Historic Preservation. >> Jean, welcome. >> Hi, thank you for the opportunity to share a few thoughts about this 400 block of West Gilman. First, there's no question that Master Hall and the Stratford have high historical value. The landmarks commission's already determined that. Second, I'm confident that if these buildings are not demolished, they will provide nearly 200 relatively affordable housing units for decades to come. Sure, they'll need the typical maintenance and updates that are expected and required of old rental stock, but that goes on all over the city all of the time. In fact, it's very nice to see. What I don't want to see is Master Hall and the Stratford end up in the landfill. It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to wipe out all these irreplaceable Noah units, and it certainly doesn't make sense to needlessly generate a small mountain of deconstruction waste. Third, and finally, the most recent housing snapshot that's on the city site shows some some really good things. And kudos, and I say that with a capital K, to Madison for making these good things happen, namely new apartments. As of late 2025, the apartment vacancy rate was at 4.8%. And looking at just the high-end apartments, the vacancy rate was nearly 7%. That's that's a real improvement. With these numbers in mind, it seems that for now, Madison really doesn't need more luxury highrises. What it needs to do is protect what it already has that is serving the city well and is providing it with its uniqueness. I ask the plan commission to pump the brakes, study the numbers, and deny the demo of these level A historic properties on West Gilman so that the buildings can keep on providing affordable downtown homes for many years to come. Honestly, I'm I'm I encourage thoughtful development that finds the right place in the right time. I don't believe this 400 block of West Gilman fits that bill. Thanks, guys. >> Thanks, Jean. >> Our next speaker is Bob Cleba of District 6, registered in opposition and representing Madison Trust for Historic Preservation. >> Welcome. Uh, thank you. Thank you members of the commission and staff for your time tonight. I worked with Sam Brightenbach, a builder with over 40 years experience on evaluating the integrity of Master Hall. We reviewed more than 50 years of building inspection records or violations for this property and we found the majority to be nuisance or maintenance related. We saw no records of violations that address any structural concerns. There doesn't appear to be any immediate urgency to make any improvements. The building can certainly operate into the foreseeable future with regular ongoing maintenance and improvements rather than embarking on a major re renovation. However, if the owner chooses to renovate the building with the goal of long-term maintenance and preservation, this goal can be achieved under a level two or three classification of the 2021 International Existing Building Code. IEBC. Some alterations are required, but others have some flexibility. For example, the section on accessibility for existing existing buildings states that an alterations shall comply with accessibility requirements unless technically infeasible. And where a requirement is infeasible, the alterations shall provide access to the maximum extent technically feasible. Energy code compliance for existing buildings offers similar flexibility. The installation of a new limited use limited application elevator alula to allow accessibility on the first floor split level may be feasible with some effort. Looking at the photo and the condition report, it appears that with some creative design and rebuilding of the existing half-flight stairs, Alula may in fact be uh fit into the existing space with skilled experience planning and a willingness of the owner to see it through. A building's finishes, mechanical systems, and safety concerns can be vastly improved. There are hundreds of other innovations and adaptive reuse projects throughout Madison that exemplify this. Master Hall has the ability to join the ranks of other renovated and rehabilitated historic buildings that are now popular apartments, hotels, restaurants, and retail destinations. Thank you. >> Thanks. Thanks, Robert. >> Okay, our next speaker is uh Sam Brightenbach of District 15, registered in opposition and representing Madison Trust for Historic Preservation. uh chair, there's no person by that name in attendance. >> Thought I did see him earlier. Um let's uh why don't we move to the next person and uh or is that the that's the last uh >> No, we do have one more. >> Okay. Um, we also have Lynn Bjorkman of District 13 registered in opposition and wishing to speak. >> Welcome. Um, let's see. Uh, Lynn, you I just sent you a unmute. Uh, you should have a prompt to unmute yourself. It might be behind your screen. or behind. >> I have it. Thank you. I did not see it earlier. >> No worries. Welcome. Thanks. >> Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to this issue. There's a challenge in the 2024 Imagine Madison Comprehensive Plan. It's in the culture and character element of the plan. and it reads, "As Madison continues to grow, our greatest challenge will be to balance growth with the historic and cultural resources that make Madison unique." That's the challenge confronting you tonight. In earlier written statements and in testimony tonight, you've heard evidence that I believe tips the scales toward supporting the preservation of Master Hall by denying this demolation demolition request. You've received the recommendation of the landmark commission that the building has been found to have architectural significance and integrity as an example of the brutalist style. Also, the preservation planner's opinion that the building may be eligible for status as a local landmark or listing in the National Register of Historic Places and that its presence furthers objectives in the 2012 downtown plan. Importantly, I point to new information in a planning staff report addendum dated today. Here, the preservation planner states that an historic context survey of buildings dating from 1960 to 1989 is now underway. This is crucial information in that the architecture of this period has not been documented by the city in this way before. Having worked professionally as a preservation planner, I believe that the results of this study will further elevate the significant role of Master Hall to Madison's architectural history and perhaps to that of the state of Wisconsin. With the demolition of Master Hall, Madison will be missing a significant and unique piece of its midcentury modernist design legacy, one that enriches our urban environment with variety and vitality. In addition, if demolition is approved, the design legacy of an important Wisconsin architect, Jordan A. Miller trained here at the university recognized for his innovative design in concrete construction will also be erased. Finally, the tangible concrete physical presence of Master Hall, the design qualities, visual impact, feeling, and historic significance it represents cannot be adequately reproduced by an exhibit of photos and written text. I urge the commission to weigh your decision toward preservation of Master Hall and deny this demolition request. Thank you. >> Thank you, Lynn. >> Okay, we also have Kyle Jones of District 4 representing Landmark Properties available to answer questions and Angie Black also uh listed in District 4 representing the applicant team LCD Acquisitions available to answer questions. And then finally, Alex Soludos of District 5, registered in opposition but not wishing to speak. Let me just refresh and make sure that's everyone. >> Thanks. >> Uh we also have Wendy U of District 19 uh registered in support but not wishing to speak. Um and Sarah Church of District 9 available to answer questions representing Beerbecker who is the applicant team. And then finally Nicholas Davies and David Null uh registered in support but not wishing to speak. >> Thanks Megan. I'd also note I believe that Sam uh Benbach who wasn't on the line I think he may have submitted written comments as well. So, I just wanted to note that since we didn't get to hear him live. Um, so, um, are there questions from the commissioners for any of the registrants, um, for any of the three items 7, 8, and nine that we have before us? Uh, Commissioner Heck, >> thanks. Uh I have a question for I guess Jim Buchanan of the applicant team. >> Hi >> uh Jim. Uh in in these reports about the the condition of the two building uh there there was a lot of information for example about uh making the buildings ADA compliant. Uh and and that was apparently going to be at at large cost. Um is there a reason that the buildings need to become ADA compliant? Isn't that uh wouldn't wouldn't they be grandfathered in if they uh even if they were purchased? >> Yeah. So I I could probably kick some of this over to John Mayvski who's architect. He's familiar with a lot of these different codes. Um, I think you know what you're referring to is, you know, basically this is a level three renovation, meaning that everything needs to be brought to the code. Um, and then I think you're referring to 3067, which basically says if it's infeasible, um, you know, you can attempt to just do what is minimal. I think, you know, basically what the report states is that the buildings are designed in such a way that it's not about a lot of money. um it is about the fact that you are having to demolish um the structure itself to try to accommodate um this and if you don't what you're saying is you know the buildings are so infeasible at being brought up to code that they're you know you know effectively functionally obsolete because they can't be brought up to code at all. Um so I mean I I understand maybe there's a conflict there. I'm happy to kick it over to John Mski as well to chime in. >> Okay. when as as we'll bring John in, but I I guess my question is not really the same as what your answer was. Why do they need to be code compliant? There are thousands of buildings that are not code compliant in Madison and we're not proposing to demolish all of those. Uh, is it because you're assuming there would be a sale uh and perhaps you would be the buyer and that you'd want to bring them up to code so that you could market them appropriately or I'm not really understanding why they have to be up to code. >> So, I'd love to have John jump in here, but from my understanding as well is, you know, you're talking about there are areas that have needed uh renovations, right? the areas where um the building is basically there, you know, appliances that are no longer functioning. There are units that are no longer having enough um you know, ability to function correctly. They're being basically parts on eBay are being used to operate them, including the elevators. And at a certain level, it actually requires of that renovation triggers other code compliance uh issues. So just by changing some things eventually you reach a breaking point where you need to bring it up to code is my understanding. I'm happy to have John jump in here to help add to that. >> Yeah. And if you would like me to I would just it's kind of a I can explain it very quickly. It's kind of a snowball effect. The first thing and this is what I've done for 35 years. The first thing that's going to happen is that the elevators are no longer going to be able to get parts and that's already begun. So, they can work do workarounds um for only a certain amount of time and and I think once that happens and that's pretty quick as we understand it in dealing with the maintenance people there, the elevators will need to be replaced. That's just to get the building to function. It's a high-rise building, so you need those elevators. To do that, you would either have to build custom elevators because they're so old, or you would retrofit elevators that would actually work. Once you the one that would make the most financial sense would be to retrofit. And when you retrofit, you need to alter part of the structure. In addition to that, now that we've done that work, we need to do what was mentioned by others, the Lula elevators. Those are just simply to get you in the front door down to the level of getting to the other elevators. So now we've done two things that have really created a great deal of work. The idea of modifying the elevator shaft has now rippled through and has impacted several units. And as that impacts those units, we get to a point where we've spent and we've worked on so much of the building that we're going to eventually achieve the 50% that requires us to bring it up to code. Others have mentioned things like um fire and safety and health safety. Those are things that would also be clicked in with what we want to do it. I think everybody reasonably understands that under any circumstance, the building does need to be bitted with a fire suppression system. That's something that is held outside of all the other codes and is usually a negotiation with the fire department. I would find it very reasonable to expect that given the work that I mentioned to you, there's going to be an expectation that we would do that fire suppression system in addition. So, I'm just hoping this starts to explain some of the things. And we haven't even gotten to the functional need of actually needing to restore the exterior of the building, which is just something that's common place that we would have to do for any building of this age. But one would want to do it to a state that would actually build bring the building up to a point where you could use it functionally for a period of 25 to say 35 years with just normal maintenance. And that really has to do with really repairing some of these cracks and the things that we have found within the structure of the building. I think the other thing that we've tried to mention is we've kind of got an outside of a building which is a fixed shell and we've got an inside that is fixed and the inside is going to start to evolve and move out. But it's a very unique building in that the exterior doesn't allow us to have great deal of flexibility within the units because each of those little boxes is a room. And in a typical building, you might have a window on a flat wall or somewhat of a jog in a different location. But when we start to move the walls on the inside of this building, you really have to go from one room to the next room. So if a bedroom had to increase to create a living room, it can't be a room necessarily and a half as easily it might be in another building. It almost becomes two of these modules that you have to work within. So I hope that just helps explain a little bit of the detail of what would be involved. >> Uh John, that that was helpful. I I understand the 50% threshold better now. That's really the key, I think, to what you're saying is that if you reach uh 50% of the property's value, then you're going to uh trigger code compliance. Do I have that right? >> Yeah. And it's actually 50% it it used to be just based on cost and was actually a much lower threshold. It's now based on square footage, so 50% of the building itself. And that has to do with both the floor plate that's impacted, but it also has to do with things that are impacted on the exterior. >> Okay. Um, that was my question. Thank you. >> Thanks, Commissioner. Heck, Commissioner Sanders. >> Thank you, Chair. This question is also for the development team. I know that uh in some of your comments and in some of the comments from the public, there's been talk about this naturally affordable housing that Master Hall currently provides. And I understand that the proposed development to go on this site would provide approximately 100 beds or 10% of the development as affordable. Do you have a ballpark for what those rents might look like? I was trying to look through the project plan and I saw the bed count, but I wasn't able to find a ballpark on rent. >> Uh I'm happy to jump in here. Thank you for the question. So um the way the Laura has been done with other developers which is the same way we're intending to do it would be the rents are a 40% discount to market rate and importantly the way it works is the university um will say that hey um they'll take the basically the student and verify their status bring it to us with a simple letter and we just give them the discount off the unit. So I can't give an exact dollar figure due to it being a discount to market rates. Not exactly sure where that will shake out, but it'll be significant. Um, and it's worked well in other buildings in Madison and you know, we're very pleased to work with the city on this. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Commissioner Sanders. Other questions for registrants? All right. I think then seeing none it uh I will um reclose the public hearing and ask if there are questions from the commission for staff. All right. Um if there are no questions for staff then we may be ready to move to a motion on um and I think we would start with item 7 91234 which is um the uh consideration of a demolition permit for 415 West Gilman Street. Um, Commissioner Soulheim, >> thank you. Um, I will move that the plan commission find the standards of approval for demolition permits are met for 415 West Gilman Street. Um, including the standard one that is consistent with uh the area plans um due to the height map and land use recommendations in the comp plan and downtown plan as well as standard two related to condition of the building. uh given the support that was provided um and additional detail in the public hearing on the condition of the building. >> Thanks. Um Commissioner Sanders seconds the motion. Thanks. Um any discussion uh from the group? We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Mahill. >> Thanks. Um I just wanted to say appreciated the the materials from the development team and the discussion here. Um, when this came through before, I really didn't have any doubt about standard one that it met the development met plans and all that. Um, but I don't think we had enough information to justify the demolition, especially without considering future use. Um, so I think what we have here is sort of a better understanding that this building is designed in such a way that it can't really reasonably meet the needs of the city moving forward. Um, and I guess the factors that make it sort of an interesting historical building also create all these problems in in using it in the future. So >> that's all. Thanks. >> Thanks, Kosher. >> Uh, Kusher Hec. >> Thanks. Um, I I struggled with this one as you can imagine and uh I really think that the the answers to the questions that I asked uh are kind of key to my thinking uh living in an old historic building as I do I I understand some of what what was discussed particularly old elevators and I I I think uh I I'm agreeing with with what Commissioner McCill just had to say that the information uh provided to about this very unique building uh which I love personally uh I I think it it does indicate even if perhaps there was some exaggeration in the report uh but I really do think that something as simple as an elevator could cause uh a chain reaction of events that will make uh this building need to come up to code and even if that's not the case uh there will be some very complicated renovations and uh maybe it's a victim of its design which as wonderful as it is uh I think is is too problematic. So I'm going to support the motion. >> Commissioner Sanderson. >> Thank you Chair. Um, I also just want to thank everyone for providing all the information about Master Hall. It was great to learn more about it and I am sad to hear that it is in such a state that we really can't uh move forward with it as rental units and I just want to speak a little bit about to the affordability question too. I appreciate the developer including the affordable units in the new site. Um, and especially understanding that the current state of some of these units don't even have appliances that are working properly, are running out of parts. Uh, the lowest income people in our city deserve to have housing that actually works for them. And if I take the 2025 housing snapshot and assume 1,300 for median rent and a 40% discount on that, uh, that's a pretty good rent and pretty comparable to what I'm seeing advertised as the current value at Master Hall for rent. So, uh, I just want to applaud the applicant team for finding that partnership and providing those affordable units to replace some of these. >> Thank you, Alder Gear. >> Uh, thank you, chair. I I agree with the statements made by the other commissioners and that uh it's easy now. It's much easier to imagine how we might get into that cascading set of circumstances that would put us in the requirement for code compliance and all of the obstacles to do that. I just point out in addition and certainly part of my thinking that the need for high efficiency HVAC systems and proper insulation for a building is another important goal of this city to achieve its goals for sustainability uh and the kind of energy savings that are going to be important for environment especially as we look today with certain impacts that are happening in the world on the cost of energy and so forth. things like that can be important. And certainly uh from what we heard from on the review of the facilities that the impact of uh taking out from the interior wall surfaces, all of the finishes so that we could properly insulate them would probably in of itself push us into the situation where we had the need to uh to meet the current code. Thank you, Chair. >> Thanks, Alder Year. Alder Oakitz. >> Thank you, Chair. I just I want to thank the uh commission for the discussion and um I won't reiterate everything but in in addition to some of the points that have been brought up um we talk a lot about affordable housing and um in terms of dollar cost but there's also this quality of life issue and and as you mentioned uh Commissioner Sanders people deserve housing that works for them and I I know this isn't easy for for everyone. But um you know, I appreciate the discussion and appreciate considering the quality of the housing that's there right now. >> Thank you. >> I think we're ready to call a vote on this item. I'll start by asking is there objection to unanimous approval for the motion? Right. Seeing none, the motion is passed. on item seven. Um, now we'll move to item eight, uh, which is legisar 91236 relating to 433 West Gilman Street and the demolition permit there. Um, are we ready to make a motion on that? >> Um, Commissioner Shan, thank you. >> Thank you. I'll move that the plan commission find the standards are met for demolition of the building at 433 West Gilman Street. um including standard 2. Uh given the additional information provided on the conditions report as well as the fact that a lot of the um unlike the other building we just discussed um some of the original layouts um have been significantly altered as was mentioned in the prior uh historic report provided on legis. >> Thanks Commissioner Sheim. Commissioner Sanders, thanks for the second um discussion on the motion. All right. I think uh I think the um there's a lot of similarities between the two subject to the the clarification that that Nicole pointed out. Um, so I think we do have a good record on this item and I will call a vote uh if there's no additional discussion and again we'll start. Is there objection to unanimous approval? All right, seeing none um that motion is passed as well and we'll uh move to item nine legisar 900614. This is um again I think we heard a more detailed discussion of this the last time than than uh on the re reopening of the public hearing but that is uh the conditional use for um 411 to 433 West Gilman Street in Alder District 2. Uh is anyone prepared to make a motion on the conditional use? think the Yeah. Oh, Commissioner Soulheim, thank you. >> I'll round things out here. Um, I'll move that the plan commission find that the standards are uh that the standards are met for conditional use for the building at 411 to 433 West Gilman Street subject to the conditions in the staff report. >> Thank you, Commissioner Sanders. Thank you for the second. Um discussion on this motion. I'll call the vote then. Is there objection to unanimous approval for uh the motion on the table? All right, the motion is passed. Thanks. Um we have I think we have two additional projects. I'm gonna if um if anybody desperately wants to take a quick recess, put your hand up. I think we're going to try to plow through. If not, but I want to be sensitive to we've been here for a little while now. All right, we will go to item 10. Um this is legisar 92209 which uh would the 10 11 and 12 are related and will be considered together. Item 10 92209 would create section 28.022 022 to-0000748 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 2066 to 2094 Helina Street from TE Traditional Employment District to TSS Traditional Shopping Street District in Alder District 6. Um item 11 is legisar 91908 um relating to the property at 2066 to 2094 Helina Street in Alder district 6. This is consider consideration of a conditional use in the proposed TSS district and transit oriented development to zoning overlay district for a multif family dwelling with greater than 60 dwelling units to allow construction of a three-story 61 unit multif family dwelling. And then legisar or sorry item 12 is legisar 91912 approving a certified survey map of property owned by Helina Street LLC located at 2066 to 2094 Helina Street in Alder District 6. And we will welcome planner um to give us a project overview for this item. >> Thank you chair. Um so for this project just give a kind of overview of what they'd like to do. Um there is an existing warehouse building that is proposed to be demolished. Um a three-story 61 unit multif family building with underground parking would be built on the site. And there's also the certified survey map which would combine eight existing lots into one. And that CSM would also dedicate an easement for a new storm sewer and a path connection. um between the Capitol City bike path and Helena Street. And that storm sewer is needed to serve the project and it would be relocating um a storm sewer that's currently running through the middle of the site and the new building cannot cross over that. So, they're relocating it to the west side. A note on the demolition. Uh the demolition will be considered by the landmarks commission on May 4th. Uh the plan commission may decide on the conditional use request before the landmarks commission has reviewed the demolition application. Uh building permits for the project cannot be issued until the demolition application is approved. And additionally, if the demolition request is not approved, there would have to be an alteration, a major alteration to the conditional use um because significant redesign would be necessary. Overall, the staff recommendation is for approval of the reszone, the certified survey map, and the conditional use request. Thanks. >> Now, chair, you're muted. >> Thank you. Sorry. Thanks, Lisa. We have registrance for this item. Um, so we'll open the public hearing. Um, again, taking the three items together. And Megan, if you walk us through the list. >> Okay. Uh we are going to hear from Linda Leonards uh district unknown of Madison registered in opposition and wishing to >> Thanks Linda. Welcome. >> Thank you. Um I'm only speaking to one aspect of this proposal. The shared use path from Helena to the bike path. Though this is called the bike path, it is really a shared path just like any sidewalk where people can walk or bike. My primary concern is that this path is not an ADA accessible shared use path. The slope far exceeds what is allowed, 13.4% versus 5%. And all of the slope portion is on the public right ofway. The portion on the private land is flat. The city should not be creating inaccessible shared use paths unless it's absolutely necessary like up a natural hillside. Um the city is also currently updating its pedestrian plan and accessibility is one aspect of that plan. In addition, the shared use path will require regrading. that regrading results in the removal of three mature trees that were originally slated on the plans to remain and could remain but for the regrading. Nor is the connection needed for neighborhood connectivity. In my written statement, I included a map which includes distances to local streets, none of which are that far. This proposal appears to be of most benefit for the new development, but there is not really any additional convenience even for those new residents. The shared use path is at the far westerly end with the garage access and bike parking about 290 ft further east. When a biker leaves the garage, it's merely 115 feet to get to Division Street, which connects to the bike path. Less than half of the distance along Helena to the proposed path. And just quick few more comments. Um, the slope is not built up very much on the westerly slide, westerly side of this path through the public rightway. Thus, there is a potential for someone stepping off and tumbling off the path down the five feet. In one staff report condition, engineering recognizes that this path could cause drainage issues resulting in culverts or other storm sewer improvements. This could result in more disruption to the public land and potential loss of more trees. Thank you. >> Thanks, Linda. Okay. Um I'll note that we also have Brandon Adler um of Angis Young Architects um who's here available to answer questions and Ethan Schwanker of the applicant team also here and available to answer questions. And finally, Doug Johnson of District 6 representing the Sassy Neighborhood Association is registered in support but not wishing to speak. >> Thank you. Um, are there questions from the commission for any of the registrants? All right, seeing none, I'll close the public hearing on these items and ask if the commission have questions for the staff. Um, Alder or Commissioner Hec, sorry. >> Thank you. Uh Lisa, maybe you can address uh the concerns about the slope of this path if it's a some of it's on public land and some of it's on private land. So I assume is there an easement and if so why does it not need to be ad ADA compliant? I don't know if you have the answers to all of those. >> Yeah, sure. So, um I was able to connect with engineering staff before the meeting uh just to confirm with them about the constructibility of the path and in order they did confirm that in order for it to meet the ADA requirements that the path um I think right now the plans sort of show it as a straight connection between the bike path and Helena Street, but that it would require um the path to kind of um angle I'm thinking to the east instead of being like a straight north south to help with the sloping and that as proposed it wouldn't work. So, um there is a condition of approval recommended by engineering um that says they would, you know, construct the 8 foot that the applicant would construct the 8 foot wide sidewalk um and that it would be a concrete sidewalk um and that it's per plans approved by the city engineer. And so um typically that would require the applicant to meet any of the city specifications for the path which includes the requirements of like ADA accessibility. So um you know I think that that would kind of cover making sure that the path does meet city requirements um as it goes through the kind of final sign off process post a plan commission approval. >> Thanks. And then uh does that mean perhaps that the fate of all of the trees is not entirely decided if the path could also uh change? >> Sorry to interrupt. Um yeah, so I did also speak with um the forestry staff as well um because they had brought that condition to light where they are approving the removal of all the trees along the bike path along the southern side of that bike path. And they believe that it's actually the the storm sewer that's getting installed along the property line that is requiring the regrading and requiring the trees to be removed. Um, and so the the bike path is, you know, located in a portion of that area, but there's a new storm sewer that's going kind of northwest along the property line. Um, and that that, you know, all that work together would require the trees to be removed. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thanks, Commissioner Hec. Other questions for staff? If we're ready to move uh or to uh start motions, I think we I'd like to start with item 10, which is the um resoning recommendation to council. Alder Ugar. >> Thank you, chair. Um, I'll move that the commission finds that the standard for zoning map amendments are met and forward the zoning map amendment ID28.022 uh-748 uh to the common council with a recommendation of approval. >> Thanks Gar. Is there a second? >> Commissioner Soulheim. Thanks. Um any additional discussion for the zoning map amendment? Seeing none, is there objection to unanimous approval for um this item? All right. Item 10 is approved. Um uh uh item 11 is the conditional use uh request. Alder Yair. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Chair. I will move that the uh commission find that the approval standards for conditional uses, particularly referencing uh the staff discussion on uh conditions 2, five, and 8. These are all met. and uh approve the request for a 61 unit multifamily building. >> Thanks, Alderfield. Thanks for the second. Um, any further discussion on the conditional use? >> Alder, you here? >> Uh, I failed to mention that in my motion that subject to all of the conditions in the staff report. >> Thank you. You're making lots of uh hearts sing with that clarification. So, thank you. Um, all right. We have a motion and a second. Um, Derek, I assume your second covers that as well. Thank you. Um, we have a motion and a second. Any objection to unanimous approval uh for the conditional use uh request for this item. Seeing none, that item is approved. Um now we'll move to the certified survey map um which is item 12 you thanks >> we'll finish this off chair I'll move that the plan commission find that the approval standards for certified survey map are met and forward the certified survey map uh for 2066 to 2094 Helena Street to the common council with for a recommendation of approval. >> Thank you. >> Subject to any conditions. >> Yes. Uh Alder Glenn. >> Second. Thank you. Um any additional discussion? Um any objection to unanimous approval for item 12? All right. Seeing none, item 12 is approved. Uh we have one more um project. Uh we'll consider items 13 and 14 together as one public hearing um and then make uh separate findings and motions on each item. Item 13 uh is legisar 92236 relating to 1111 through 1135 Regent Street and 2 South Mill Street in Alder District 13. This is consideration of a conditional use in the traditional shopping street TSS district and transitoriented development TOD overlay district for dwelling units in a mixeduse building with greater than 60 units. Consideration of a conditional use in the TSS district and TOD overlay district for a building taller than four stories and 60 ft in height. Consideration of a conditional use in the TSS district and to overlay district for a mixeduse building with less than 50% of non-residential ground floor frontage facing the primary street, including all frontage at a street corner and consideration of a conditional use in the TSS district to modify the required side yard height transition to a residential district. All to allow construction of a six-story mixeduse building with 1,200 square feet of commercial space and 111 dwelling units. Item 14 is related. That's legisar 92238 which would be approving a certified survey map of property owned by peerless development company located at 1111 through 1135 Regent Street and two South Mill Street again in Alder District 13. All right, I think we'll start with um a planning staff presentation and we still I think we'll turn it back over to Lisa. Thanks. >> Yep. Thank you. All right. So, just summarizing the request again. Um so, for this project, there are two existing commercial buildings that would be demolished. An applicant is proposing to build a six-story mixeduse building with 1,200 square feet of commercial space and 111 units. And a certified survey map would combine three lots into one. Um there are kind of several requests associated with the project including the CSM and then four conditional use requests. Um my overview is going to focus on three of the conditional use requests that are kind of discussed um further in the staff report. So first regarding the request for a building taller than four stories. Um the building is six stories which is consistent with the sixtory height recommendation in the comprehensive plan. However, the Regent Street South Campus plan does recommend setbacks um of the building at the ground floor and then also stepbacks above certain floors of buildings um along streets throughout the planning area. Um so there's stepbacks and stepbacks and the plan recommends that a 15- foot stepback of of the third story um along all street frontages along the Regent Street plan. Um however, given that the height recommendation, the comprehensive plan is for um six stories and that there are properties on the north side of Region Street that are recommended for six stories with a step back above the fourth story. Staff believe that the proposed stepback above the fourth story along Regent Street might be appropriate um because it reflects more of like the sixstory building height as opposed to um a four-story building height. And then along South Mill Street, the plan recommends a 10-ft setback and a 15t step back above the third floor. Uh the building has an 8ft setback but does not have a step back. And I will note that um staff did not identify this planning consistency until last week. So the applicant wasn't able to kind of incorporate it into their plans at the direction of staff before submitting. But to ensure that the building implements the adopted plan recommendations, staff are recommending that the building be modified to provide a step back a step back step back or modulation of the facade to better meet the intent of the 15t stepback recommendation. Um, and this could include, but it's not limited to a step back at a portion of the facade or a step back that is less than 15 ft. Um, and the intent of this recommendation is to kind of acknowledge that the that the plan does recommend the setback and the stepback along the entirety of South Mill Street and to work with the applicant uh to find a way to address that. So, for the second conditional use I'll be discussing um is the request to modify the required sideyard height transition to a residential district. And the um right now the building as proposed does not provide a sideyard height transition to the south um which includes portions of the building that front south Charter Street and South Mil Street since this building runs the full length of the block. Um the building intrudes approximately 32 feet the 341 ft length of the building. So 30 approximately 32 feet um extend above that where you would expect to see height transition and this would be the largest intrusion into the required height transition area that plan commission has approved. Uh staff asked that the plan commission carefully consider this request. Um we do note, you know, such sight specific factors like the relatively shallow depth of the site. Um the recommended step back along Region Street, which they're accommodating, um the shadow study impacts which show that um the properties to the south in that transition area would not be negatively impacted by shadows due to the height and then also just kind of the overall modulation of the facade. Um staff does believe that it may be possible to find the approval standards met subject to the recommended conditions of approval. And then third for the conditional use regarding the request for a mixeduse building with less than 50% of non-residential crown floor frontage facing the primary street including all frontage at a street corner. Um so in this portion of the staff report staff focuses on um approval standards 3, four and 8 and believe that you know taken together the plane commission should consider how the proposed amount of commercial space is compatible with the surrounding properties as they are used today and how they how they are intended to be used in the future per the city zoning districts as well as the adopted plans. on this case will highlight that the Regent Street plan does identify this as being located in the Regent Street shopping district which is intended to provide um neighborhood serving retail for residents in the area or in the neighborhood. And the Regent Street shopping district extends from South Randall Avenue to South Mil Street just the boundary of the site. Um, and then we'll also note that in the comprehensive plan, the property and other properties in this area are recommended for community mixeduse development. And just to provide some context for kind of what exists there now, and the staff report provides us some more detail is that there's like a mix of one-story commercial buildings as well as multi-story mixeduse buildings. Um recently there have been some newer mixeduse buildings including two adaptive re um reuse projects where the ground floor commercial was maintained and residential units were built above and then a five-story mixeduse building with 50 units and 1500 square ft of commercial space um that was approved in 2023. And that project, just for reference, um, a conditional use was approved to reduce the required commercial frontage from 50 to 21.6%. So, bringing it back to this site, um, by demolishing the two existing buildings on the site, this project would remove about um, 7,000 ft of ground floor commercial space. um that include that would include 136 feet of commercial frontage which currently occupies approximately 40% of the street frontage of these of these lots. So for this project as proposed there's approximately um 11% of the building along Regent Street has commercial frontage and this would be the 1200 square ft of commercial space at the corner of South Charter and Regent. Altogether the building has about 339 ft of frontage. 36 ft of that being commercial space. And as for the rest of the building, you know, there's about 36 ft of commercial frontage. Then there's about 245 ft of residential units. And then the building is capped on the other end with an amenity space and a residential lobby for those multif family units. And there are no residential unit entry entries in between. So no like uh entries for just individual units. So staff recommend um that the project provide a minimum of 35% commercial frontage along Region Street on at least one corner. Uh this would require approximately 82 ft of additional commercial frontage for a total of 118 ft. Um staff believe that this would um allow the plan commission to find standards 3, 4, and 8 met. The additional commercial frontage would be more consistent with the recommendations in the region street south campus plan which establishes the region street um shopping district as well as the comprehensive plan which states um that residential gap should be avoided along streets that otherwise have commercial tenants and ground floor level and additional commercial frontage would reduce this gap and provide more ground floor activation along Regent Street. Thank you. you're muted. >> Sorry that that's the third time. Um, so we do Thanks, Lisa. We do have registrance for this item. So, we'll open the public hearing and um Megan, if you could lead us through the registrant list. >> We're going to start with a presentation by our applicant team for this project. Um the applicants have requested to pull their time for a maximum of 9 minutes. Uh this will include Matt Tills uh representing the applicant team from Kenothy and Bruce Architects. Uh Joseph Patrick uh representing the team from Peerless Development and Chris Carr representing the team from Sigma Group. I think Matt will begin the presentation. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Yep, we can hear you. All right, thanks Alway um the presentation here. Uh my name is uh uh Matt Tills. I'm the design architect with KBA on the project. I'm leading the presentation with with Joe Patrick uh from the peerless group, the development group, as well as Chris Carr who can answer questions uh regarding civil or landscape. Uh next slide, please. I'm going to kind of move through these slides uh quickly here so we can get to the final slides to address some of the conditional uses and we can come back to them. Next slide please. Just wanted to comment on this too. The the comment about the shallowess of the site I think is going to kind of play into some of our conversation later on. Next slide please. So the building plan and the access points um the I just want to quickly point out the residential entrance off of the uh the South Mil Street side is primarily for the residents. the commercial side on um South Charter Street coming off of the north uh northwest corner would be for the commercial and then we have one garage entrance that's coming out of South Charter Street um uh for uh for the use of the of the residence only. Uh next slide please. Wide variety of unit types ranging from studio to five bedroomedroom. Next slide please. Here's a view from South Mil Street. Um this is one of the elevations that I guess that we'll be looking at as we're considering some of those conditions that we'll be talking about. Uh this is the primary entrance for the residents um and how it kind of engages the the street corner. One thing I do want to point out here is the um the raised elevation of the building which is a prescribed requirement um from engineering where we needed to raise the building approximately 24 in uh through the entire length of it. Um which does pre present some challenges for accessible accessibility. Uh we have accessible ramps on both of the two ends and that will play into some of what we talked about in the um the commercial frontage. Next slide please. Here's the overall uh presentation of the the totality I guess of the of the north side from an elevated perspective. Next slide. The commercial uh corner here as it engages uh South Charter Street. Uh and then there's a raised plaza space. Uh that would be uh a really nice sort of engagement of that corner. Um and that would be uh adjacent to that commercial space. So that is that commercial space wraps around um and gives some additional frontage as it really relates to the south charter street side. And then you can see the garage entrance um that's tucked away on the south uh southwest side. Next slide. Next few are just some um some requested views um as we kind of work our way around and look at it from the um from the south. And this is that uh residential uh side uh along the uh bow bow court side. Uh next slide please. And we're working our way up that um that street and you can see how the massing and the contrasting materials um really are intended to address some of that massing in the presentation of the of the building. Next slide please. and wrapping around the corner back to essentially where we started. Next slide. And here you can see the corner. This is the this is the corner at uh Mil Street. Uh we do have commercial space uh commercial uh looking space here. This is amenity space. This would be the fitness side um uh that wraps around um on the the Mill Street side providing some additional frontage um for that uh that commercial presence. Next slide, please. material board. Uh just kind of noting the sort of the classic warm uh timeless uh palette of of dark bronze. Um some contrasting uh light panels and some accents of simulated wood. Next slide, please. And a requested view of some Juliet balconies uh which are present throughout the project here. These are images from the from another project that the developer uh developed. Um and um we we can come back and speak to those if that becomes a talking point. Next slide, please. Okay, so the two uh conditional uses to really sort of focus in on this is the the the reduction of that 50% of non-residential ground floor frontage. Um we are we're presenting this as three different basically use zones. Um so starting on the left side of that light green uh is what we're calling the active amenity space. This is um this is all of the sort of lounge space and the the lobby which would be both active from a sort of a visual perspective as well as having an occupied uh roof plaza space there that the residents would come out and have seating there really engaging the the um uh the sidewalk as well as the street corner there. Then kind of moving into the blue area which is the residential units traditional ground floor residential units. However, they are elevated and raised and and pushed back um due to that uh 24-in high um uh grade change that I referenced earlier. And then finally, the commercial space as it was submitted here with that 11% commercial space. Those two anchoring the two sides. What we're proposing here is the consideration of these two really looking at those as the function and the sort of spirit of those um particularly that active amenity space and how it engages the street um really kind of contributing to that non-residential frontage in this case that would be roughly 32% plus an 11% for that commercial. Next slide please. in response to to the staff report and um and what we think are legitimate questions and concerns about um the that commercial space and trying to increase that um we are proposing uh this as an as as maybe a compromise um to the full 35% and when we look at these pieces together what we've considered is that commercial space and the architecture of the building and where that transition um logically takes place uh for that additional commercial. So we've increased the commercial space on that what is the southwest side which is the right side there. Uh left the active amenity space the same and reduced the amount of residential units in the middle. That brings the total of what we would again kind of consider as that um residential or non-residential frontage um closer to that 50%. Knowing that this is you know this is kind of a gray area u we just wanted to kind of use this as a consideration as we're looking at that. The other consideration for this that is really critical is that that height of that additional 24 in. And the further that we push this commercial space into the center of the building um the more challenging it is to provide accessibility um to that that space just due to sort of the shallowess of the site. Um that will be sort of another consideration that we'd like to certainly talk about a little bit more. But we'll move on to the next slide please. Thanks. The second conditional use is the height transition um that uh that Lisa Ernest was referring to here. Um in this case, if you look at the site plan, really what we're considering is that south property line and the two items that she referred to um I think are also sort of our two um I guess arguments if you will of of rationale for the reduction of this requirement. uh which is the shallowess of the site and the fact that all everything is pushed further to the south just due to the additional requirements of that step back. Um and then if you go to the next slide, this is that um solar impact study that we looked at there too. And the the blue the blue um indicates the shadows. Um the particularity of the um orientation on this site is our site is completely to the north of the what would be the impacted um residential area to the south. And so um feel that this really demonstrates that at no point through the year would there be any shadow casting on these um these affected properties. So both of those two pieces together we hope really does again make that argument um for reduced impact on those prop on the uh the adjacent residential properties. Next slide please. And this is our final slide. And this is um what we did is we pulled the three of these conditions um from the staff report and we'd like you to consider um as as you make your motion here um some modifications potentially to these or at least that discussion thereof. The first one being what we talked about which is the commercial frontage um uh lessening the amount of that commercial frontage for the reasons that we discussed earlier and then the second uh relates to the step back along Mil Street. Our I guess our opening position here is we do feel like the project design um is strong um and the way that it was it is currently designed. Um we understand the um the intent of the stepback um in that uh in the the neighborhood plan. However, this is right at the corner of Regent Street, Major Street here, and um and and South Mills. We feel that the full height of that building does stand up um and is appropriate massing for for that uh intersection. So, that would be our our our preference would be to that the plan commission would be would find that the design as is shown uh is strong enough and could justify um a waiver of this requirement. >> Matt, you're you are at time. If you could wrap up. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Just one quick. However, if if that is found to be a requirement, um we are we are comfortable working within the language of this. Um and we do appreciate uh some flexibility on that as well that was presented. And then finally, the number three item there. Um there's a 6ft fence in our pro project currently. Um 8T require 8T request. Um we do understand that. Again, we prefer the 6T, but we do understand the 8ft uh fence height and um would be willing to to certainly to um work with that as well. So, um with that, I'll go to the final slide. >> Thanks, Matt. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um on this item, we also have Ryan Cohen of Peerless Development and Kevin Burrow. um of KB of Kenothy and Bruce Architects also rep representing the applicant team who are available to answer questions. Um we have then a number of speakers who have registered in support but are not wishing to speak. Those include Douglas Carlson of district 13, Nicholas Davies of district 15, Wenheu of district 19, uh Marina Bellia, um also representing Kenothy and Bruce Architects. Um and then we have two registrants registered in opposition and not wishing to speak. Those include Bill Hanss of District 5 and James Lurman of district 13. Thanks, Megan. Um, are there questions from the commission for any of the registrants? >> Alder Evers, welcome. >> I I don't have a question for any of the registrants, but when the time is appropriate, I'd like to share my thoughts. >> Sounds good. Um, Kushk, >> thanks. Uh, maybe this is for Matt if I I'd like to look at the corner of Mills with you with that displayed and hear your explanation again for why you think the design is appropriate as it is. I don't know if Lisa, were you driving those slides? >> Yep. That would just be basically that last slide would probably be the fern one to look at on that. Yeah, it kind of disappeared as I was thinking about it. >> Okay, thanks. Yeah, if you can say again why you think this is appropriate. >> Well, we feel like um this I I do understand that, you know, as Mil Street, you know, kind of works its way down and um as is more residential in nature, I can understand that that step back. this feels um this the way that this is presented and this um this intersection feels more urban. Um and I guess I would point out also the property that is directly to the east of this sort of on the same side, the south side um is um is zoned for um and and in the comprehensive plan has the allowance for much higher um height there too. So, we do anticipate, you know, likely in some um near future potentially um that the property that's the project that goes up next to this um could have some um some significant height to it as well. Um so, just looking at that and kind of thinking about the sort of urban nature of this and the way that it sort of stands up um uh and it presents itself, not necessarily from the pedestrian perspective, but from kind of where we're we're sort of positioned in this view. um that it that additional height and the full height um seems appropriate. >> Okay. And and you're referring to the eye clinic across mills, I guess, as being zoned for something taller than this, >> correct? >> Uh-huh. Uh okay. and and the requirement that that you're being asked to meet is uh the a setback on the uh in addition to what's there now? Huh? >> There is one how big is that setback now above above the fourth floor? >> Well, along the region street side it is >> no along along uh along Mills. Oh, on mills. Um it's really there is is no setback that's currently shown. Um those are just minor sort of plane shifts and uh and changes of materials. >> Okay. And and the entire mill side on five and six is being requested to have some form of of setback step back. >> Correct. In the in the in the neighborhood plan. Um the language that that planning staff kind of included in this leaves you know some additional sort of uh knowing that we you know there is you know kind of working within this design here that there would be some challenges. One of the challenges we have here is the the um the stair which is the sort of the vertical area the the white sort of whiter vertical there that's the the rear of the stair. um shifting that back and then the elevator bay is basically kind of 7 ft beyond that would shove all of that um further back into the to the building would be um very significant I think in terms of the design implications that would have for from all the way down from the basement all the way up here. Um and so it's not as simple as just sort of stepping stepping it back. Um the other challenge we have with this is the the construction type being what they call type 3A. Um we've already the the way that the the structural system on this um is laid out. It's kind of particular to allow even the stepbacks that you're seeing there too on the fourth floor. Um and the orientation of the way that the the demising walls and the structural walls are kind of laid out. Um, all of this kind of plays in to what would be what could be some significant challenges um, you know, to allow for that additional sort of stepping back. >> All right. Well, perhaps you have I mean, I was fooled by this rendering on the fourth floor thinking it was a a setback. I mean, a step back, but uh, maybe you have other tricks up your sleeve. Thanks, >> Ol. >> Thank you, Chair. Yes. Another question for the applicant team on one of the points of your presentation. You mentioned at some point and I think I just must have missed a critical detail and understanding that you have concerns about accessibility of some of the frontage space if the um stretch of commercial is widened to be more in the middle of the building. Can you please repeat that part of your of your comment? >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Absolutely. So again, the whole building raised up 24 in um and that is really prescribed to us by engineering for they they prescribe a minimum flood protection um elevation which just means that we can't have any entrances into this building that are below a certain threshold which ends up being about 24 in above the the sidewalk. This is a relatively new um uh as they've been doing further studies on flood protection in this area here. This is relatively new um particularly for this site. Um the challenge there is it's easy it's it's much easier on the two ends. We need to provide accessible ramps. So we have on the two ends we've got you know and that ends up being for 24 in ends up being roughly 30 linear feet of ramping um depending on kind of how we have if we need to to do a switch back or something like that. We can achieve that on the two sides. It's if we start to have you know commercial space that is long um that we logically would then subdivide into you know to spaces you know so it's more than just a single tenant you know commercial tenant um might be two or three each of those would need to have um would have its own you know exterior entrance um and therein lies the challenge because we do have then then we have um ramping that needs to occur further and further in um the shallowess of the site where we've got our sort of undulating facade. All of that kind of plays into these considerations here. Um, which on the surface may seem trivial, but when you start to look at kind of the implications of them, we do have we've got parking that sort of slides underneath and goes, you know, um is sort of underneath these plaza levels. um all of it plays in to some significant challenges if we start to get you know need require um basically sort of an accessible path from the center of the of the property. >> So to make sure I'm hearing that concern then this is about providing public access at some point in the middle of the building and building the accessible infrastructure and the space that that would need in order to make a commercial entrance at the middle of the building accessible from the street. >> Yeah, that is correct. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make that clear. >> Yeah, >> sure. >> Thanks. Just uh thinking about this similarly, uh I I realize your lobby is on the on the east side of the building. Uh and it seems, oh, you could just put commercial space there, uh and not have to worry about the middle of the building. put the amenity space in the middle of the building or some portion thereof because it doesn't really need uh street access, but you're then you're stuck with no lobby. Uh and I can't think of a way that you can squeeze a lobby in somewhere and a commercial space on either side. Uh have any ideas? >> Um no, that's a great question. Um uh it is it is challenging because kind of the separation of these uses and and is is part of this as well. Um I guess I um so short answer would be no. And we've looked we've looked at this you know kind of in all different ways you know as even in the early design um part of this. I will just put a quick answer there. We really want this corner um of that um lobby entrance um to to feel like a you know very much like a sort of engaged like a commercial space. Um it'd be a very warm um active space. Um and so that's kind of the way we've been that's the way we've been discussing it internally as well as the way we've been talking about it you know as we present this to neighborhoods um over the past several months here too is really you know the vision for this space is that you know that it it it feels very much like a like it engages the street and in the spirit of that sort of uh sort of commercial um sort of uh projection you know at the end of the building there. >> Okay thanks that was my question. Other questions for registrants? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and we'll offer time for questions for staff. Um, all there ever >> would this be an appropriate time for me to share or or do you want to go to questions to staff? I um I think it's okay for you to share. That seems fine. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks, chair, and thanks, commission members. I have a long history in this city of supporting residential development projects. I was an early supporter of the mayor's housing forward initiative. I remain so to this day. And since first getting elected in 2019, I've been a firm advocate for more housing in District 13 with eight different projects completed or currently under construction. It pains me in some ways for the because of my pro housing track record to to uh sit here today and speak up in opposition to this project. Planning efforts dating back to the region street south campus neighborhood plan in 2008 have identified regent as a commercial corridor. Neighborhood participation in these efforts continued in 2015 under the ages of the green bush vio partnership which reinforced the local interests in seeing future projects on region adhere to mixeduse development. My own participation in these efforts began in 2022 as the region street group formed to elevate and amplify the priorities established in the region street south campus neighborhood plan and the green green bush vio partnership. The region street group consists of 40 to 50 local stakeholders including participants from longtime Region Street businesses, the UW, the nearby hospitals, area residents in VIS, Greenbush and Manona Bay, planning staff and elected officials with a big boost of help from uh DMI. Our efforts coalesed around the idea that region street should evolve beyond its current dependence on camp Randall with more non- studentent yearround housing and conccommittent retail serving a diverse customer base. It's fair to say that the shared goal for region is that it would become more like Monroe Street with more variety, more engagement, and more programmed activities. It's noteworthy that the preferred alternative that engineering staff have profered for the reconstruction of Region Street allows for wider sidewalks and easier pedestrian access. All of which is necessary if Regent is to grow into its full potential as a healthy retail district. The peerless project would take up the entire block. Consider that more than the length of a football field. Now they've offered to increase their uh frontage from 10% to 18% which I had asked them to consider offering more. I was told at the time that it that this project would not be financable if they increased. I'm glad to see that they've willing to make a modest change. But the 35% firstf flooror retail the staff have recommended is the compromise that I accept. losing Hong Kong Cafe and Cole's Flourish would be compensated. That's about 35% of that street and those two businesses. And so we need we need activated retail space to make up the difference to compensate for the loss of those two businesses. Now uh Matt Telis from Kenotei Bruce speaks about he offered with all due respect a slide of hand said talking about a commercial appearance and I'd asked you to consider the commercial exper appearance does not equate with commercial reality. The activity active amenity space is not open to the public only to the residents. It's a slight of hand. It's a it's a mirage. It gives the appearance of commercial engagement without doing anything of the sort. So in summary, there are legitimate concerns on the part of multiple stakeholders in the community regarding this project's relative lack of first floor retail. Regent is a commercial corridor and for the better part of two decades, planning efforts have called for that element to be enhanced. the scheduled reconstruction of the street is aligned with these planning efforts and I'm deeply concerned that approving a project with so little retail would set us back and not move us forward in terms of um reaching and and experiencing it and grasping and accomplishing the vision that we have for a healthy and thriving region street. And I'll close by also uh speaking about standards 4 and standards 8 which I know that you all know very well but I want to just point out why I think these are important to underscore. Standard four the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for us is permitted in the district. I'm concerned that we set a precedent if we approve this at less than 50% that makes it more difficult for us to be able to speak to to the vision that we have for region street. And then standard 8. When applying the above standards to any new construction of a building or in addition to an existing building, the plan commission shall find that the project creates an environment of sustained aesthetic desiraability compatible with the existing or intended character of the area in the statement of purpose for the zoning district. Please keep that in mind. the intended character of Regent Street. We need to have an engaged commercial corridor, not one that's gives the mere appearance. We need the real thing. I ask that you would insist upon 35%. Or um better yet, if they can't do any better than 18%, then we should start over. There are some engineering challenges with these 24 in. This is the first time it's been brought up to me. I assume it's we, the city and developers will be able to overcome that challenge and be able to provide accessible frontage and retail spaces along this corridor. That should not hold us back. And if if this development cannot accomplish that, someone else will. Thank you. >> Thanks. Are there other questions from the commission uh for staff? Commissioner Soulhead. Thanks. >> Thank you. I was just wondering if you could clarify again the the step back particularly to the Mills Street side. I can really understand it on the region street side, but just where that um setback is set back is coming from like where the um requirement is coming from. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So the regent street um south campus plan basically outlines crosssections for most of the streets within the planning area. So like mills, charter, orchard and it establishes a building setback which is the measurement from like the ground floor to the building and then the step back which is usually like three to four stories above where the building steps back um from that point. And so, you know, for all of South Mills going north to south, it has the same recommendation of the 10-ft step back and a 15t step back above the third floor. Um, which I mean, traditionally um the like idea of stepbacks, right, is about like um creating a sense of enclosure. It's like more about how you experience the environment as a pedestrian and rather than having long kinds of canyons of walls, the step back creates kind of a more pedestrian scale experience. Um, so it's a plan recommendation um that each street in the region street plan has and in this case it's the 10-ft step back and the 15oot step back above the third story. >> Thank you. That's very helpful. Lisa, just to follow up on that, is there any requirement on the back side of the building for a step back? >> Um, in this case, not in the region street plan. So, it's really for the street frontages for that one. It's the zoning code height transition that would traditionally require that step back um but through the zoning code. >> Okay. And so there and there's nothing that everything is met from that regard I guess with this plan. Is that true or is that an exception as well >> for the height transition? >> Yeah. >> Um yes that would be um it would be an exception from the zoning code um because the if you think of it as like the comprehensive plan recommends six stories and it's a six-story building. Um, if you look to that height recommendation, then it would be, you know, a six-story building is consistent with that, but it's the zoning code that has regulations about the building form um that require the step back. >> Yeah. So, that is the um one of the conditional uses that the applicant team is requesting is not to meet that uh height transition requirement of the zoning code, which the plan commission has authority to approve waiverss of. Um, and I know there was a diagram in the staff report that showed and was part of the applicant presentation that showed how the building setbacks and setbacks on the region street side and then the height transition on the um, south side of the building kind of how they start to almost intersect with each other at the upper stories of this proposed project. Um, there was not a similar diagram for the required stepback on the upper stories of mills as Lisa mentioned. um just given the the later uh breaking aspect of that, but you can imagine how that starts to bring that corner of the building um in a similar direction. >> Alderfield. Thanks. >> Thank you, chair. Yes, I wanted to ask about um some of the discussion we were having a minute ago with the developer team about the accessibility of midblock entrances because that's an interesting thought that I did not that didn't occur to me when I read condition 17. Um I'm on the board of park commissioners and we've been seeing some of the watershed study scenarios um which shows significant uh flood concerns on regions. So I fully understand why engineering is requiring the higher entrances. Um, I'm wondering if this is a typical scenario in a wider block redevelopment project and if um or if this is unusual for us to require enough of an increase in height right there that a large ramp is necessary midblock which would pose space constraints. Well, I guess I can't speak to this exactly just because the end, you know, engineering staff are the experts, but typically the minimum like opening elevation, I'm saying that correct, is kind of consistent in general areas. Um, is my understanding. I mean, I don't think it goes like foot by foot. Um, so I mean, they're based off the watershed studies which cover large areas. So, I think it would be, you know, we see it in in many projects. Usually, I see it for like the garage openings more so than anything else cuz those tend to be very, you know, open, low to the ground. Um, but yeah, I mean, I think ultimately um the building can be designed to provide accessible entrances. It's just that the building that is they designed was not designed to accommodate addition additional commercial entrances. Um even though you know staff mentioned this early on before the application was submitted as well as like following the application about the expectation that there would be additional commercial space in the building. Um, so I think it's more about trying to retrofit the design to accommodate accessible entrances rather than designing a building around providing accessible commercial space. I would just um offer Alderfield. We don't have the plans necessarily in front of us right now, but I do know that this concern about the the height of the um finished floor of the buildings on the ISM, particularly some of the newer developments along East Washington has been um affected by this requirement. And so if you look at some of the newer developments um such as the building where Fetch is uh located, a couple of the uh buildings just to the east of Breeze Stevens, you can see that the buildings have a a sort of terrace where at one end of the project, some ramping um brings the ADA accessibility up to the building's facade and then continues parallel to the building along the front. There are steps that allow for some breaks in that wall in that terracing to allow for some access midblock and at other locations, but there's kind of a continuous uh platform, I guess, for lack of a better word, that's created from just one ramp. So, I do I think to Lisa's point, there's ways that that could be accommodated. It would require some alterations to some of the um the massing of the facade the way that it's currently proposed, but I think that it could be addressed. >> Sure, I hear that and that was extremely helpful for me. Thank you, Megan. And thank you, Lisa. So, if there are no other questions for staff, I think we'd be ready to move for move to a motion on item 13, which is the the multiple conditional uses uh requested. Uh, Commissioner Hec, >> thank you. Uh, I'm going to give this a try. Uh, got to make sure I get the right item numbers. Uh, I'm going to move that plan commission refer item 92236, the conditional use uh, for 1 1111 to 11:35 Regent Street and 2 South Mill Street. Refer it to the next meeting. Uh and I can uh give some rationale if I get a second. >> Uh Alderfield is providing a second. >> So thank you. >> Thanks. Uh this is a complicated discussion. Uh I I uh I think we need to work on the on the commercial space problem and I I I I I understand why the developers don't want to uh in their mind ruin what is kind of a lovely front to the building. I think uh but I I I think the commercial space requirement is a is important enough to to reconsider uh how you can address this. I'm I'm sure you've been trying, but I'd like to give them a couple of weeks if that's what it is between our meetings to to see if they can come up with some form of solution. I I uh am am not addressing the standards of approval related to this or uh to the other two issues uh brought up about uh about stepbacks. Uh but uh I I think I mostly want to hear about the commercial space. >> Thanks, Commissioner Hec. Uh Alder Gear. >> Thank you, Chair. I'm I'm almost wondering if it isn't more appropriate to put these on file without prejudice because I question whether referring this to a meeting uh let's say the next meeting whether it gives adequate time for the applicant team to determine whether uh there's financial feasibility here. I think I think commissioner heck is probably right. I think uh establishing that architecturally interesting front facade with all of its features and indentations and so forth uh limited what could be considered here structurally uh all of the other conditions that we talked about here. But if we were to say that we needed something closer to that 50% that we wanted to see it closer right here. And probably thing that's been playing on my mind for two days after looking at uh at the staff report, I'm just not eager to set the new record for uh side elevations that don't meet our zoning requirements as far as setbacks. And maybe that all means if we were looking for closer adherence to our standards, uh maybe it wouldn't be. But I think uh probably what it would mean would be a a really major redesign if they applicant team could really come up with an approach that was financially feasible but got closer there or they might conclude nope we can't do it on such a narrow lot. I don't know. Uh I suspect looking at it and playing around with moving some of the masses around that that it might be possible if we if the design team applicant team were not wedded to that particular front facade. But uh that's just a thought that maybe we ought to consider something other than a short-term referral. maybe give an approach that gives the applicant team enough time to come back with something that would actually work financially for them and get us somewhat closer to our standards. Thank you, >> Commissioner Soulheim. >> Thank you. I guess maybe I'll start with a question uh following that by Alder Yugare just for staff um kind of the differences between those two. we could refer um and then I suppose if the applicant decided it was large enough changes they could pull the application or if we place on file without prejudice my understanding would be they would have to fully resubmit the land use package it would be a much longer time frame um if you could just walk through that that would be really helpful >> yeah Commissioner Soulheim you've um highlighted a lot of the details about the difference in those two actions um The commission could refer to the next meeting, which could give the applicant team time to talk about this and consider if this is an option they want to pursue. If they want to pursue it but aren't ready, they could also ask us to refer it again. And so we could include it on another upcoming agenda for referral to another future date. Um, they could also come back to the next meeting and and kind of discuss their initial findings. Um if we did place it on file tonight, the uh commissioner Soulheim is correct that that would require a new application to be submitted. Um and I believe, you know, we we don't um specifically require that applications are are totally different, but it would need we would be looking for, you know, a new application. >> Got it. Megan, just to tack on to that, if we place it on file, we also have to make a finding that at least some standards are not >> that it can't be approved. Yes. That the standards can't be met. Um so we would need to make findings on the conditional use request tonight related to those standards. Um whereas if you refer and you're specific about what it is that you're looking for in a referral, um you can continue your discussion of the standards to a future meeting. Thank you. That was really helpful. Um, personally, I'm um on on board with referral just to give a little more flexibility to the applicant. I do um agree with what's been stated. I think the commercial space is really important here. We've seen some cool new commercial space on Regent Street in activation and it would be a shame to kind of lose that momentum by, you know, redeveloping a whole block that doesn't have that activation. Um, and I personally also could go without the set, the step back, my gosh, on Mil Street. Um, given the design has shown that it's not particularly important to me in the grand scheme of things. The commercial is, I would like to see maybe some additional work on the rear yard um, transition just so we're not so out of line and setting a precedent going forward. Those are my uh, notions. Thanks, Commissioner Soulheim. Alder Evers. >> Yeah, thanks Shar and thank you commissioners and uh for the obvious concern about the commercial viability of Regent Street um moving forward. uh whether you uh refer it to the next meeting or decide that the uh conditions particularly standards four and eight cannot be met. I do ask just humbly that you would hold the line on the 35% as a minimum. Um the city has held the line on mixed retail for uh Williamson Street. The city has held mixed use, excuse me, mixeduse development, ensuring that there is activated retail first floor uh and and that kind of engagement on on Willie Street, on East Washington. We've done it on uh Monroe Street. It's important for the future of region that we not approve something that um runs counter to that. So, thank you for your concerns. Whatever you decide moving forward, please stick with the minimum of 35%. Thanks. >> Thanks, Rivers. >> Uh, Commissioner Hec, >> thanks. Uh, I'm I'm going to, uh, go through with my original motion despite the concerns of Alder Yugare, which I totally appreciate. Uh, I I I think we should give them a chance. And I I'm in agreement with uh Commissioner Soulheim that my biggest concerns are the commercial uh space and uh you know I'm I'm thinking gosh couldn't they take one of those push outs in the front? Can't lever it and then then you can do what they did on East Washington at the Lyric in the Ardan that you could utilize the same access plus some stairs. I don't know. I'm not an architect but good luck to them if we if this motion passes. holder, you >> uh I appreciate the um uh differences here in process between referral and the fact that that's still flexible and we can do something further. So, uh, although I brought up the issue of potentially putting these on file, I'm perfectly happy to support a referral to give us time to look at this more thoroughly and give a chance to get a reaction from the developer. >> Thanks, Clear. >> Um, I think so. We have a motion and a second to refer this item to our next meeting which is April 27th. Um and I think we'll call the vote and start with is there objection to unanimous approval for the motion. Right. Seeing none, the motion to refer is passed. Um we do need to deal with the certified survey map. Um and Megan maybe you have some suggestions for us on that. Um, as far as dealing with the certified survey map, you can choose to deal with it tonight, uh, if you'd like or not. Um, approving the, um, changes and the mergers to the underlying properties can happen independently of the CU. So, that's ultimately up to the commission on how you'd like to proceed with that. What I was actually going to suggest uh chair is for the for item 13 for the conditional use um that before we move on, we may consider making um a motion to reopen and continue the hearing to that April 27th meeting. Um we'll just do that at the end of this discussion so that we don't have to do it at the beginning of the next one. So that way if you uh wish to take more public comment or hear from the applicant team about the work they're doing, you don't need to reopen it at that time. >> Y >> I appreciate that. Um I think that's a good idea. Uh would anyone like to make a motion to um reopen the hearing uh at our next meeting? Alderfield, >> I will make that motion. Thank you. >> Um Alder Hec or Commissioner Heck, that's twice tonight. Commissioner, thank you for the second. Um, any objection to unanimous approval for reopening the hearing when we reconvene on this item? Seeing none, um, we that's what we'll plan to do. So, we'll definitely be able to take new testimony and public comment. All right. So, I think we'll that allows us to move on to item 14, which is the certified survey map. Um, and this would be a recommendation to council to approve. Uh, if if that's what the commission would like to do, you can also refer it along with the conditional use to the next meeting. Um, I think those are probably the two best options. Um, Commissioner Heck, >> thanks. For uh, simplicity sake, I'm going to move that we refer this item to to the next meeting also. >> Alder second. Thanks. Um any discussion? Um any objection to unanimous approval to refer item 14 to our next meeting? Um seeing none, um that item is also referred and we'll take them up together in a in a reconvening public hearing as well. So all right, that is uh end of our um formal agenda. We now have time for member announcements, communications or business items. Um, I appreciated the chance to get together a couple weeks ago and I thought that that was a good discussion and good topics and would commend Megan and the staff for pulling all of that together. So, thank you. Um, there does anybody else have any items to share? Seeing none, we'll move to time for secretar's report. Oh, Alder Glenn, thanks. I just wanted to say um I I Oh, I just stuck. Hold on. Um I just wanted to say that this will be my last meeting. I Well, I think um it's the end. Um I just wanted to thank everybody for patience. I know you guys have people rotate all the time. Um but the commissioners were so kind also to as I'm learning. And just when you think you have it all, then this one this this last one that we had just comes and you're like step back, step back, you know. So it it's a learning. I just want to thank um my mentor Alderfields for patience as I learned about planning. I had no idea what I was doing and I enjoyed every minute of it. I think I know more than when I started. Um uh we'll see if uh I might see you the year after the next one. But thanks everyone. I just wanted to say I appreciate all of you. >> Thanks Alder Glenn. We yeah we I think that it's mutual. I'll speak on for myself and perhaps for others. So I appreciate your time with us. So all right now I think we can go to the secretar's report. Megan, thanks. >> Great. Thank you. Um, and also just was planning to pick up actually where Alder Glenn left off. So, thank you, Alder Glenn, for serving on the commission this past year. Um, I it's been really a pleasure to work with you on the plan commission and appreciate the hard work that you put into um just learning about what we do and participating in the robust discussions that we have. So, thank you for that. Um, I did reach out to the three alders last week and just clarified and corrected what I stated at our special meeting when Alder Glenn asked about this um to confirm that this was in fact the last meeting of their terms which end next week when the new council is sworn in and we expect um appointments to be made for alder members. Uh for the commissioners that have been on for a while, um this was the first year that alder terms were just one-year appointments. And so we will be seeing alder appointments to BCC's every year as half the council is up for election every year. Um so we look forward to hearing about um plan commission appointments when those are made. Um we also have a couple other members whose terms are up this spring. um commissioners Hecen Solheim, alternate Wnooki, and our school district rep. Um all of those terms are ending. Um and so we are waiting to hear about appointments to those roles. Um thank you to all of you for all of your work and for your interest in continuing to serve. So we look forward to hearing uh what comes next as those appointments are made. Um so we'll have more to come and as you see in the upcoming matters we have tenatively uh slated for our annual election of chair and vice chair as well as our nomination of a PC member to the joint campus area committee to happen on our May 11th meeting. So we'll keep you updated if those appointments are not made in time for us to do that. We'll do them at the first meeting after appointments are made. Um, Chair Gnam also mentioned our discussion from our special meeting and just wanted to also thank you all for that discussion. Um, I did share the updated version of the simple plan commission work plan that we talked about at that meeting. Um, I know we didn't take a formal vote. I'm happy to bring it to a future meeting if you'd like to. Um, but did just want to share that that was circulated for you um, in an email as a follow-up and was also posted on Legistar uh, with that meeting's materials. Um, I will not be at your next meeting on April 27th. So, Kevin will be attending um along with whichever staff um we think have the most appropriate participation based on the agenda. So, we will have at least potentially one referral of projects from tonight's meeting. Um, I did also want to note that one interesting thing that will be on that agenda is a proposed reszoning and CSM for properties at 822 Pulley Drive. Um this is one of a small number of inquiries that we've seen um in the past few months related to some of the resoning work that we've done or I should say the zoning code changes that we've done uh to help facilitate and support um smaller lot divisions to support um creation of homes within existing neighborhoods. So this will be one of the first of those that you'll see uh related to some of that work. Um, and as usual, if you have questions about anything else that are on the list for either the April 20th, 27th, or May 11th meetings, feel free to reach out to the staff. Um, and we're happy to answer questions in advance of the meeting. >> Thanks, Megan. Any questions for Megan? >> All right. Uh, seeing none, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn and second. Alder Glenn, thank you. Um, Commissioner Scholheim, thank you. Um, any objection to unanimous approval? Um, seeing none, we'll stand adjourned. And thanks again everybody for good meeting. >> Thank you all. Have a great night.