Well, it's 5:30 and um I think we definitely have a quorum. So, I'm going to call to order this meeting of the Madison Plan Commission for Monday, December 1st, 2025. [snorts] Um and we'll start with um the roll call. Director Tuttle. >> All right. Thank you. Good evening. Alderfield >> here. >> Alder Glenn >> here. >> Alder Ugare >> here. >> Commissioner Bazine is excused. Commissioner Hec >> here. >> Commissioner Mahill >> here. >> Commissioner Sanders >> here. >> Commissioner Soulheim >> here. >> Alternate Wisnooki. School District Rep. Cheek >> here. >> And Chair Gnam >> here. Thank you. Um we will um Commissioner Wesnooki will be a voting member of the panel tonight in um in Anelie's absence. So all right. Um we'll start with uh technical information from our technical facilitator Jesse Pool. >> 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. Lower, your hand will take you out of the queue. [snorts] Members of the public who have registered to speak, the name you entered in Zoom must match the name you entered in registration. You will remain muted until called upon. The clerk will tell you when your time is up. After speaking, a member of the body may ask you a question. If you need to share documentation with the committee, please send it to the email listed to listed in today's agenda. Chair, the floor is yours. >> Thanks, Jesse. Um, our first agenda item is public comment. um which is time for um public comment regarding items not on our formal plan commission agenda for tonight. Um Megan, do we have registrance for this item tonight? >> We have no registrants wishing to speak this evening. We do have Lauren Searing who was registered in opposition not wishing to speak. Lauren's comments have been posted under this item and also cross-osted under item 10 since that's what they concern. >> Great. All right. Um and then there's a couple as usual sometimes we get general emails to the plan commission. So there are a couple of um written comments for the commission um in the legisar link to this item. If you haven't had a chance to read those, make sure you get it. Make sure you check them out. Um now we'll go to disclosures and recusals. U members of the plan commission should make any required disclosures or recusals under the city's ethics code. Do any commissioners have disclosures or recusals related to tonight's agenda? Um, I wanted to disclose that with respect to item three, um, which relates to the transit oriented development overlay district that I I'm right now sitting in a transit oriented overlay district in in the Hill Farms Historical Association, which is part of one of the pro one of the suggested amendments on the agenda. and that's not going to affect anything else that happens tonight, but I thought it'd be helpful for folks to know that. So, I wanted to disclose that. Um, we will then move to the minutes of our last meeting on November 17th. Um, are there any comments or additions, corrections to last meetings minutes? All right, seeing none, is there a motion and a second to approve the November 17th meeting minutes? Alder Yugare, thank you. Commissioner Soulheim, thank you. Um, for the second, um, any further discussion? Um, Commissioner Wnooki, >> you will abstain since I wasn't present. >> Noted. Thank you. Um, other than that, is there any objection to unanimous approval? Uh, other than Commissioner Wesnooki, um, is there any objection to unanimous approval for the, uh, the minutes from November 17th? Great. We will, um, record those as approved. Um, our schedule of meetings, um, our next two meetings, the next one is two weeks from tonight, Monday, December 15th at 5:30 virtually. And then the next meeting after that will be Monday, January 12th, also at 5:30 virtually. So, we'll do that. All right. We will move on to new business. Actually, we and we'll start as usual with the consent agenda. It's the custom of the plan commission to remove from the agenda those items on which staff members believe an application has been sufficiently reviewed to support approval with all of the conditions placed upon it by the various city departments [clears throat] and where the applicant accepts all those conditions and there are no individuals who have registered to speak in opposition to the item. Um, we only have consent items for approval tonight and sometimes we also use consent for referrals, but we don't have those tonight. Um, the items for consent to or proposed for consent tonight are on our agenda item two and item 10. Um, and those were the only consent items. Are there any uh requests for separation from the commission for either of these two items proposed for cons for consent? Um if not, I will read those items into the record and um we will uh go um take care of the public hearing on those two items. Item two is legisar 90702 authorizing the city's participation in the preparation of a cooperative plan between the cities of Madison and Middleton villages of Deforest and Wanaki and the town of Westport pursuant to Wisconsin statutes section 66.0307. Item 10 is legisar 900124 um relating to uh property at 116 through 124 East Gorm Street in Alder District 2. And this is consideration of a conditional use in the downtown residential one DR1 district for a multif family dwelling with 13 to 24 units and consideration of a conditional use in the DR1 district for residential building complex that will contain a relocated carriage house with four dwelling units. the fourstory 18-unit apartment building and an existing two-story 7UN apartment building. Um, so I will open the public hearing and close the public hearing on our consent items and we'll move to a vote. Is there a motion and a second on our consent items for tonight? Commissioner Soulhan, thank you. Alder Gare, thank you for the second on those. Um, is there any objection to unanimous approval for our consent agenda? Seeing none, those two items will be approved. All right. And we will dig into our regular agenda. We have a lot of items tonight, but they are kind of bunched together. Um and so this first set, the first group of items are um on our agenda as items 3 through 8 relating to zoning map and ordinance amendments to implement adopted plans. And so I think um Megan, would I read all all of those into the record and then start the the staff presentation or do you would we want to >> uh we'll take each one separately. So, if the commission would entertain, um, Planner Punt has a presentation that he'll give on all of those items and then we can read each one into the record and do the hearings individually. >> That sounds perfect. Thanks. Welcome. Welcome, Colin. Um, if you'll walk us through the next few items, that would be great. >> Thank you, chair. Um, I will do that. I'm going to uh share a presentation for everyone. All right, here it is. Uh, so again, thank you, chair. Um, I am um going to do a presentation on the the proposed uh ordinances um for items uh 3 through 8. Um and then the the commission as as you mentioned can take them up individually. Um so [clears throat] uh these are a number of ordinances that are uh intended to uh implement the the housing the city's housing forward plan. Um and you can see at the bottom uh the specific ordinances that are uh addressing uh the strategy to increase housing choice. We're we're pursuing um code and process changes to support the missing middle housing. Um, we're trying to simplify uh zoning standards for infill housing. Um, and we're looking for ways to make uh lot division and subdivision process um simpler uh to create more new lots and more new homes within the city. So, uh the first of these are a group of uh changes to the transit oriented development overlay district. Um the first one would enable three and fourunit buildings in all residentially zoned areas. Um this would expand the ability to construct buildings up to four units. Um at the time uh two-unit buildings are allowed as a permitted use in all residential zoning districts in the to um this would this would extend that to three and four units. It would be relevant to um existing residentially zoned areas. um to uh the west, north, east, and south parts of Madison along those transit oriented development um overlay districts. Uh and then uh as always with with any zoning changes, um redevelopment would would be up to the property owner to initiate. Um this change would not require um or prompt uh redevelopment on any specific parcel. Uh so the map that you have before you uh shows the TOD overlay district in that light tan uh and then the darker orange um shows the properties that would be within the residential residentially zoned districts uh that would be affected by this change. So um you can see again areas on the north side um to the east south side and and along the the west side uh as well. Uh another change to the transit oriented development uh overlay district that's before the commission now is uh updates standards for drive-thru facilities. Um, right now in uh the TOD overlay, uh, drive-throughs are allowed as a conditional use, um, if they are within or under a second story of a building. Um, and that second story has to extend over the entire drive-thru and also take up 75% of the, uh, first floor uh, footprint. Uh this uh potential change would mean that future drive-through facilities in the TOD um could only be in or on buildings that are at least three stories tall uh and buildings that cover at least 60% of the lot area. Uh existing drive-throughs uh within the TOD uh overlay would not be uh impacted. So uh actually I'll go back here. Um, this is an existing building at the corner of Cottage Grove Road and Manona Drive. Um, this is a drive-thru that, uh, I believe serves, uh, two different businesses, uh, within a five-story building. Uh, on the left is a building, um, along uh, Williamson Street that uh, serves a pharmacy. Uh, again, this is on a five-story building. Uh, and then on the right is a building on East Washington Avenue. um with a drive-thru that is uh enclosed entirely within the building. So all three of these types of drive-throughs um would be allowed uh under the change to the to overlay district. Also within to um would be a change to uh limit certain autocentric land uses. Uh so this change would prohibit new standalone surface parking lots, new car washes and new auto sales and rental businesses. Now uh ex again existing facilities and uses um would not be impacted but this would just apply to new uh autooriented uh facilities like this. Um, I do want to note that standalone uh surface parking lots would be uh would be a private parking lot um on an individual parcel that's not associated uh with another use on that parcel. Um, but a a uh parking lot that is accessory to a building or use on a on a parcel um that does meet the uh the zoning standards for uh lot layout um and and design uh would still be allowed. Uh we also have uh before the commission several uh changes to um to zoning designations uh within the tood overlay. Um so this would affect the underlying zoning districts. Uh and the purpose behind this is to encourage um additional mixeduse development um including housing uh and to uh implement the recommendations of our adopted plans um and benefit from the the benefit from and support the high frequency transit in the TOD overlay area. Uh so the first of these is uh what we call area one in uh the staff report to the plan commission. Um this is a reszone uh to regional mixed use as recommended in the west area plan. Um this includes the triangle uh bounded by University Avenue, Whitney Way, and Old Middleton Road. Um as well as the um Red Cross site on Shabboan Avenue. As you can see here, the triangle uh and the Red Cross site immediately adjacent to the Hill Farms State Office Building. Uh area 2A uh is also a reszone to regional mixed use as recommended in the west area plan. Uh you will see on the agenda um that this is uh a substitute before the commission. Uh there was a um misaddressed parcel uh in the original um in the original uh amendment. Um so nothing has changed except the uh clarification of the the appropriate address um for one of those parcels. And so you see uh Mineral Point Road at the top uh Gam Road uh on the left uh and the area to be uh reszoned to RMX uh within the boundary. Uh area 2B also along Mineral Point Road uh is on the northern edge of the university research park uh also proposed to be reszoned to RMX uh as recommended in the west area plan. So you can see that here uh Rosé Road here um the true stage uh Garner Park and then the the property to be reszoned. Uh the uh third area is uh proposed resoning to community corridor transitional CCT uh which is recommended in the northeast area plan. Uh this is the frontage along uh Lean Road uh in front of the shopping center that includes the Target. Um so that would include these parcels uh just on the south side of Lean Road. And then the final uh area uh area [snorts] four is resoning uh to commercial corridor transitional from a uh lower density residential district again as recommended in the northeast area plan. Um this is the uh church at the corner of Lexington um and East Washington Avenue. Finally uh one more uh zoning text change. This is the introduction of cottage courts uh as a new permitted housing type. Uh cottage courts are uh the uh collection of uh small single family homes um oriented around a common open space uh and can be developed either on a single larger lot um or on smaller fee simple lots. under a land division. Um could also be developed as a cond developed and sold as condominiums. Um the text amendment as uh as proposed uh limits this to eight homes uh within a cottage court. Uh and each of those homes would be limited to a footprint of a,000 square ft. Um the cottage courts may include a shared parking area um whether surface parking or uh structured parking uh but would not allow individual garages or driveways um that you would see on on say a culde-sac. Uh the the zoning uh text is uh drafted to allow a v various arrangements of houses um around that central open space. um as well as allowing uh flexible ownership options. Um as I noted before, condominium fee simple ownership um or or the development of a cottage court by a single entity um and then those homes could could be rented as well. Uh this uh particular package of uh of ordinances has made its way through um a number of review steps. There was a community informational meeting um earlier in November. Uh the housing policy committee and the transportation commission have both um reviewed and uh made recommendations on some or all of the uh the ordinances that are before the plan commission. Uh the plan commission is the the lead body on these ordinances and will make a recommendation uh to the common council uh which is scheduled to uh review these later this month. Uh with that I can pause uh and we can uh have any discussions um and staff can answer any questions after the public hearing. Thank you. >> Thanks chair. I'll just add one quick note. Um, as Colin mentioned, these ordinances have been before the housing policy committee and the transportation commission. Um, the housing policy committee recommended your recommendation of approval to the common council on u all of the ordinances that you will see tonight as well as a number of amendments that we'll talk about when we get to the um additional items. We can give you more specific updates about those when we get there. Um, and as far as the transportation commission, they reviewed just the text for the TOD changes. Um, so not the maps associated with that. Uh, and again recommended your recommendation of approval. Um, again recommended one of two amendments that you'll see tonight. So, we can talk about those specifics as we get there. >> Thanks, Megan. Thanks, Colin. Um I think we'll start with uh item three on our agenda which is legisar 90552 um amending sections of chapter 28 of the Madison general ordinances related to housing and autooriented uses in the transit oriented development overlays district. Um we I think we so we had our overview. I think we'll just go right to the public hearing and we do have registrants. Um and we'll as we call on the registrants we'll remind everyone that the registrant will have three minutes to speak. I'll try to interrupt briefly um to give you a warning when you're close to the time limit. And um director Tuttle if you'll walk us through the list. That would be great. >> Okay. Um we have one registrant wishing to speak on this item tonight. Joseph Robert Keys of District 11, registered in opposition and wishing to speak. >> Great. >> All right. I think your mic is uh unmuted. Um Joe, welcome. >> Can you hear me then? >> Yes. Yep. >> Uh thank you. Thank you for letting me speak today. I am opposed to the part of the proposed transit oriented development overlay district ordinance legisar file 90552 allowing four dwelling units to be permitted in the national historic districts like the one that exists in University Hill Farms neighborhood. The change in zoning to allow fourunit buildings on residential parcels will gate the national historic district. The National Historic District allows homeowners access to state tax credits which help to pay for the home's rehabilitation expenses. I have used this credit to help pay for a furnace, roof, and garage door. This credit helps retired homeowners stay in their homes and age in place. The ability of homeowners to age in place was a goal of the University Hill Farms neighborhood plan adopted in 2016 referred to page 70 factors influencing future of land use map aging in place. Even though this plan has been archived, the goal of aging in place is still paramount. I respectfully submit my comments. Thank you. >> Thanks, Joe. >> Okay. Uh the other registrant on this item is Nicholas Davies of district 15 registered in support and not wishing to speak. >> All right. Um are do commissioners have questions for either of the registrants on item three? All right. Um, seeing no raised hands, I'll close the public hearing on this item and um ask the same question if there are questions from the commission for staff. >> Um, Megan, go ahead. >> Would you like us to tee up the amendments that go along with this or go into Okay, let's um I think Colin has those in his slides if you'd like him to go back to that. Yeah, I think that would be helpful since there has been discussion and other related meetings on this. I think it would be good to tee up for the commissioners what um potential amendments have been proposed and then as we take up the as we get closer to making a motion, we can consider what the what what kind of motion we might like to make and whether it would include an amendment or um whether we would start with a a base motion and then add. So, yes, Colin, uh go ahead. But you're muted still. You gota Yeah, [clears throat] >> there we go. Thank you very much. >> Yes. >> Um so, uh there are a couple of uh possible amendments um to legislative item 90552. Uh so first of all uh regarding the three three and four units um residential buildings uh as being permitted uses in all residential districts um a request by Alder Tishler uh is that in the University Hill Farms National Register Historic District um within those residential districts that would allow three and four-unit buildings in to as permitted uses those three and fourunit buildings would be reviewed as conditional uses. is uh the rationale um provided to staff was that this would provide uh more oversight uh of those changes within the University Hill Farms National Register Historic District. Um and the amendment would add uh text and a map um to the TOD overlay uh to identify the areas uh in which those residential uses require um conditional use review instead of allowing them as permitted uses. Um, so this is the uh approximate boundary of the the Hill Farms um National Historic District. It's not the exact, but it's it's in that area. Um, and then the the yellow uh boundary shown here um would be where the uh three and four unit buildings uh would be conditional uses uh instead of permitted uses. Um, so just for reference, uh, Regent Street is right here. Uh, Whitney Way goes up and down on the page and then left to right at the bottom is Mineral Point Road. >> And if, um, I'll just note that today a PDF map that's probably a little bit easier to read than this was posted as the item 7 um, on Legisar under 90552 if anybody would like to look at that. Um there are additional uh possible amendments to 90552. Uh the second one would allow auto rental within the the tood overlay district. As I mentioned earlier um the the ordinance as it stands right now uh would um prohibit auto rental and auto sales um within the overlay district. Uh this request by alders Ohitz and uh Figuroa Cole uh would allow auto rental within the tod overlay um while still prohibiting the auto sales. Uh the rationale provided uh to staff would be that it allows that allowing auto rental um in close proximity to quality uh transit services supports carite living um in situations where uh people do indeed need uh vehicles. So this amendment um would separate uh auto sales and rental into two uses, one for auto sales and one for rental. Um and this change would uh be applicable to all zoning district use tables um throughout the code. Uh and then uh within the the proposed prohibited principal uses um auto sales and rental would just be limited to auto sales. And I can stop on that one. Um, and we will I can answer any questions that the commission may have. >> Oh, I uh Commission Commissioner Wnooki, go ahead. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, uh, Colin, can you remind me is the Hill Farms I know that the Hill Farms District is a national register district. Is it a local um historic district which would then have to go before Landmarks Commission for any changes? >> No, the the um Hill Farms is only a national register district um not a a local district. And I will note that um preservation planner uh Heather Bailey is also um on on the meeting as well uh in case there are specific questions regarding um the historic districts. >> Uh holding you. Thank you, Chair. Um, Colin, I think you've partially answered this. I was not on the council at the time, but I did listen to the discussion on the original approval uh of the TOD zoning overlay, and I do remember that the um aspect of how it would affect the uh historic district was extensively debated. I was just wondering if you could recall any aspects of that because I I believe we did go ahead and did approve the uh that at least with regard to duplexes uh that those were approved notwithstanding the historical district and not requiring a conditional use permit for those. could you just uh or someone who was involved at that time just update us on the nature of the discussion back on the original approval? >> Yeah, I can um I can confirm that that yes, there was a a large amount of discussion um by the plan commission um and and uh alders uh regarding the exact districts or the exact boundary of the district. um that was ultimately uh landed upon. Um there were discussions about um the inclusion of the national register districts um the inclusion of uh the local historic districts as well, whether those should be in or out um other adjustments to um the overlay district boundary as well. It was ultimately uh determined by the elected and appointed officials um that were making those decisions to um to include uh both the national register districts and the local historic districts in the um overlay district boundary. Um so that is that is the you know where we ended up. Um but there was quite a bit of discussion about that specific point. >> Yeah. And then with regard to the concern about whether this change would illegitimize the uh ability of [snorts] current residents to access the federal uh subsidies, if we could call it that, for improvements, would this affect their ability to obtain those? I think I think Heather Bailey might be the um the appropriate staff person to answer that one. >> Sure. Um Oh, thank thank you, chair. Uh Heather Bailey, preservation planner for the city. She her um in terms of National Register uh status, changes in use um do not affect uh a national register historic designation. The preservation tax credits, the standards set up for the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation are about rehabbing historic buildings for new and ongoing uses. So the changes of use um don't impact the historic designation. The standards that are there are for how these uh properties evolve and change. Uh so would it remove the historic designation? No. um preservation tax credits would still be eligible uh for for these properties. >> Thank you. I have no further questions. Chair, >> thanks Yugare. Alder Tishler, welcome. >> Yeah, I can let uh Alder Field go first. He's on the commission. >> Sure. Um Alder Field. >> Sure. Thank you, Chair and Alder. Um, I have a clarifying question about parking facilities and I'm wondering if staff could clarify that the new limits would just apply to standalone surface parking or other forms of service parking as well. >> So, the the the new um prohibition would be standalone private parking facilities. Um, so a a new build a new building could still have an accessory um parking lot that met the uh the standards of the site standards of of TOD and the underlying zoning district. Um but a a new standalone private lot could not be um cannot be constructed or or or uh used. Um, this would not prohibit uh public uh parking lots. Um, so a a park and ride for instance would still be uh an allowed use uh within the tod. >> Thank you. That answers that question. And then just uh more generally and at a higher level, I'm wondering if staff have been discussing as part of this change to to regulations, how they interact with the underlying um comprehensive plan recommendations for L1 where those still live in the to. Um it seems like we're bringing the through this overlay bringing the zoning code ahead of the actual districts that apply. Um, and I know that that's some of what we're getting at with proactive resoning or other shifts in the area plan updates, but yeah, any other kind of intention setting or planning you could share around that would be appreciated. Thank you, >> Megan. Did did would you like to answer that? >> Sure. I I can talk about that um a bit. I think if I'm understanding the question you're asking Alder um in the sort of lower intensity future land use areas is that what you're asking about? >> Yeah, that's exactly right, Megan. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's a great question. And ultimately um while our future land use categories describe the sort of range of housing types that we would anticipate within the future land use categories including in the low residential. Uh we also have policies within our section of the comp plan that talk about housing choice and complete neighborhoods that talk about the incorporation of a range of missing middle housing types that could be appropriate at the scale and intensity of residential neighborhoods. Um so this does help us move the needle in terms of providing housing choice and housing variety within the TOD overlay itself according to its purpose um which is to help support additional homes in close proximity to highfrequency transit um which is also one of our comprehensive plan um policies um and does mean that the LR is evolving a bit in terms of the mix of housing choices that could be allowed within it. Thanks very much, Megan. >> Thanks. Uh, Commissioner Wnooki, >> you thought of a follow-up question. This is for Heather. Um, has the Hill Farms neighborhood ever petitioned, I'm not sure of the process, but petitioned to become a local historic district and particularly following the um I'm really interested in the last uh following the last to um uh >> uh no, we have not received uh a nomination from uh anyone for making the University Hill Farms a local historic district. Um I when we first talked about uh TOD and also uh BRT I'll just throw more uh letters out there. There were community discussions and uh for the concerns about continuing to maintain the uh historic character of the neighborhood. I did bring up that one of the options would be a local historic designation. National Register is an honorary designation that comes with financial incentives like those preservation tax credits. Um, but it doesn't come with any property protections. Um, however, a local historic designation doesn't have anything to do with land uses and it does not control density. So, if the when I talk about the historic character of a neighborhood, I'm talking about the architectural characters. It's still able to convey its historic associations. Um, density doesn't get involved with that. lands commission when they review uh proposals they're looking at additions, demolitions, and new construction, they're not looking at the uses. They're just looking at the design. These are a set of design standards that shape the way development and changes happen, but it does not prevent development. Does that answer your questions, Commissioner? >> Thank you. Um I'm going to assume that Alder Tishler wants to wait um for Commissioner Hec and we'll hear your question, Patrick. >> Uh thank you. Uh Colin, I think you can answer this about uh I'll I'll call them uh if if the the standalone parking lot uh changes to pass. Uh I I want to make sure I understand grandfathering for existing standalone lots because I think there are quite a few of them generally in the campus center city area. Um it as long as they uh don't change the use then I assume they're generally grandfathered in. But I'm also interested in understanding change of ownership. uh [snorts] if the parking lot is uh not accessory and it becomes associated with a different property than the one it's currently associated with. I can think of all sorts of permutations. Generally, [snorts] would those be grandfathered in? >> Yeah. Um definitely a lot of uh wrinkles that that you've identified. Um generally uh as long as the use continues um with a break no less than 12 months um it would be allowed to continue um when uh and I might need to look to my um zoning colleagues but if uh a parcel is is partially redeveloped um there is a threshold um of improvement um and an area of the parcel being disturbed. Uh that would require the entire parcel to be brought up into compliance with the existing code. So that would be um all of the TOD uh site requirements. >> Okay. So that must be analogous to when a certain percentage of a building is is [snorts] uh demolished and reconstructed then it it it can lose its nonconforming [snorts] uh quality I guess. uh a percentage of the lot area, you think? Huh? Okay. Yeah. I >> just Oh, sorry. I was just going to weigh in for for zoning real quick. So, that that Colin is right that there are specific triggers in the TOD ordinance now that um require the site to be brought up to compliance with the site standards for buildings. Um, but a parking lot is a little bit different because in this case there there isn't a building um or there there could be and and that would still be allowed if it was structured parking. But if we're talking about a surface parking lot, there would there isn't a building. So it does get a little bit tricky um as far as the nonconformity is concerned and also as far as what is triggered in the zoning code. um as long so the I think the simplest way to look at the private parking facility use is as a use uh of land not about the building or or any sort of non-conforming structure. Um and so that use can continue unless it is abandoned for a period of 12 months. Um, so but you know, for example, like you mentioned, uh, if it's access an accessory parking lot and then they tear the building down and create it a principal parking facility, that would not be allowed. That would be a new use. Um, so I yeah, just to it's it's very it's a little bit confusing. It touches on a bunch of different parts of our code. Um, but I just wanted to clarify that because it it is it is a little bit confusing, I think, to understand sort of the difference between accessory and principal and then also those those nonconformities. And >> okay, thanks. >> Is it true, Colin, or I'm sorry, Jacob, um, or Katie, that a legally existing nonconformity can be transferred in terms of ownership as long as the use itself is not changed? >> Yes, the ownership can transfer it. It is all about the use and whether the use continues. >> Okay. I'm less confused than I was. I'll say that. Thank you. If I could tag on to Commissioner Heck's question, um, parking facilities that are owned by the university, are those considered public and sort of out of scope for this or how does that work? >> So, in as of right now in the zoning code, the definition is a public parking facility. So, that's a separate use from private parking facility is a facility owned by the city of Madison. Um, so that that is how it is written today. [clears throat] Okay. Thanks. Um, Alder Tishler. >> Well, yeah. Well, thank you, planning uh commission for letting me uh speak to my amendment. I'm going to try to be brief and not go on too long because that's that's really what we have common council meetings for is alder talking at Nazium. But, um, I just want to [clears throat] add that I, you know, I I I'm in support of a lot of the changes that we're making along the the the tood. I'm actually co-sponsoring one of them. The um I also have no no issue with with the uh the cottage courts. I see that not again an opportunity for uh for individuals to uh to [snorts] create higher density and also create opportunities to age in place and also have um have [clears throat] the ability potentially to uh have more more condominiums and home ownership. Um [snorts] but I do want to speak to why I put forth this amendment. Um the the area of the that in my district the is um significant [snorts] uh and the reason why the the the bus rapid transit kind of runs through it is because of the area was was I think in many ways uh designed right and thought through very well back by the uh by by the city and the university um over 70 years ago. The Hill Farms, the University Hill Farms historic district is remarkably intact. It's a fully planned mid-century community um and occupies 620 acre parcel that was once owned by the University of Wisconsin um since the 1890s. This was and used by by experimental farm. I did learn later that it was it was the acquisition of the the farm that the Hill family owns. That's where it got its it its name Hill from. Um [clears throat] but in 1955 in response to the kind of postw world postwar surge in birth rates uh the rapid growth at the university and and kind of the the this was kind of the housing crisis solution at his time. And the university developed a comprehensive plan for this subdivision. And the resulting design features a curved linear streets um shaped kind of a very kind of fitting with the natural topography of the area. [snorts] Um it also included places uh of worship, schools, park, private uh and public uh office buildings. Also included highrises and apartments and a shopping center. Um and unlike a lot of subdivisions at his time, Hill Farms intentionally, you know, integrated commercial properties into this into this design. Um the neighborhood was was planned in close collaboration with the city of Madison um and and the university and uh which which collaboratively laid out the entire district. By 1964, you know, 87% of the houses that you see uh as well as the the apartments um were were put in place and they represent kind of that that mid-century design. Um and they to this day they still if you go through the neighborhood they still uh can still be very visible. Um, but I want to add to that that that um in addition to the the the the large number of single family homes, a lot of which um in our particular case here are along that that stretch of of Whitney Way. Um but they also on the TOD, but they also kind of go definitely go back further into the city into [snorts] the into the into the area. Um, but I do want to add that that that that kind of curve of linear street design, you know, is also what what kind of when this when we when you look at the the TOD map that includes the the uh single family housing, there's a couple odd little sections that get get pulled into it, and that's because of the curve of the street. Um, and I just wanted to point that out that, you know, we're we're we're uh we're adding kind of fragments uh areas of of of [clears throat] housing into the tod um because we're basing it off of where this how the streets are laid out, not necessarily where the uh where the bus stops are to get onto the uh the bus rapid transit. That that's that's a different different story. Um but what I wanted to to to mention is that that in addition to the uh [snorts] uh single family housing, we also have a very large number of um apartment units that were constructed as well as as well as duplexes. Uh which is why you heard no noise from me. Um and uh in fact, nobody ever asked me what I thought about duplexes in the past. Um, I also didn't didn't didn't [clears throat] make any noise about the uh addition of of ADUs. again that uh that was something that uh I I see as another opportunity as we heard the speaker say earlier opportunity for people to to age in place making you know taking a you know a a home that might have been you know used for for for a large family and still making it viable for uh for for more individuals to live in the area. Um we also see in the in the district we have um you know a large uh like two-story apartment complex um that was that's one that was built and u um so I I just wanted to to to add that that I I you know agree with with you know uh Heather Bailey um you know that uh you know while significant alterations you know um you know may not lead to the loss of the historic designation or you know adjustments to the boundaries. we've had to make adjustments to the boundaries of of what the original uh 1950s plan was um because of of changes but but and it's rare but again it's not completely um out of the possibility [clears throat] and um so I I added this because I wanted to to change and make a make people aware that if if we alter too much maybe not now maybe not 10 years from now 20 years from But ultimately we might um run the risk of of of losing uh the historic designation. And one thing I want to point out too that that's unique about this is as I said earlier, this is this is an area that was um that's historic not necessarily because of the buildings that that are that are in the building in in the district. But it's it's the plan. This is this [clears throat] is one of the last of the of the plan communities in America. And I know by saying that that that that that term planned communities carries a lot of lot of baggage. But this is this is a plan community that was built, you know, after 1948. Um and we are we are continuing today to be looking at at at making planned communities, but I don't think we're always looking at planned communities that integrate uh commercial and apartment complexes to the scale that you see in Hill Farms. So uh Hill Farms works. It was designed right back in the 1950s. It's still working very well today. It's one of the reasons why the BRT runs through it because of the high density. There are not many ways to get from the west side, the east side, and back and forth without going through um you know a large uh residential area. And this is this is the only this this section that cuts through Whitney Way is probably the largest residential section along um the BRT that we have right now. As we start to add the B route and others um you know that that will also begin to impact uh other alters will be in the same situation that I am. And then again, as we continue to to extend the the, you know, the uh the the bus rapid transit and start to run buses and have the finances to run buses every uh 15 minutes. Um we will most likely be expanding that uh the the bus routes uh and the to. So I want to make people aware of of of all that. So I just wanted to have rather than by right have conditional use also to bring awareness to the historic uh district and to residents in the area that if we go too far we do run the risk of of of losing what we have and again to to speak to the area of of keeping existing housing affordable. This is already existing vehicle that that allows uh not just homeowners but also those who own commercial property to [snorts] make uh adjustments to add to their uh update their their the existing housing um and then get get some financial um [clears throat] uh credits for that. So I just do not want to lose what what we have not today and not not into the future. So, um, I've gone way beyond and, uh, I just got done filling up a 1 hour radio show, so I'm still all wound up and I could probably go on for another hour, but I'm sure you're going to cut me off. So, so thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. And, uh, yeah, thank you. >> Thanks, Her Tishler. Um, Commissioner Hec, >> thanks. I I I kind of need some clarification about where we are. Uh, I thought we were still in questions and we don't have a motion for the original ordinance change yet before considering amendments. Should we be following that path >> or maybe maybe there are still questions? I don't know. >> Yeah. [snorts] So, I don't I don't know if there are still questions and I think um yeah, I think that's fair, Patrick. I I also think that um we have the option to make a motion to to make a motion and then consider amending the motion or we could make a motion that would incorporate these um kind of [clears throat] amendments that have been included in the record and and shared in in previous meetings. So I think that's a little bit a little bit up to you. Um but certainly if there are other questions for staff, we want to get those out and on the table. Megan, yeah, help us out. >> No, chair, I think what you just said is is correct in terms of how the commission may want to proceed. I had committed earlier to letting you know how the earlier BCC's weighed in on these uh potential amendments. And so I just wanted to share that context for you um as an extension of this question time. Um so the housing policy committee did and um the transportation commission did see this ordinance um and did see both the proposed amendments for making three and four unit buildings a conditional use within the Hill Farms National Register District and to um allow auto rental within to but not auto sales. Ultimately, both bodies, the housing policy committee and the transportation commission recommended uh to you the base ordinance and the amendment that would separate auto rental and auto sales. Um they did not recommend to you the change related to conditional use in Hill Farms. So just wanted to share that information for you for your consideration. And Megan, could you maybe just give a little bit, if I can um indulge a question, could you give a little bit of perspective along the lines of the staff memo about um [clears throat] a an overlay district that would have different that would have two sets of rules depending on where you were in the overlay district and how workable that is. I would actually um welcome Katie Bannon, the zoning administrator, or Jacob's input on this as they're the folks that um particularly when we're talking about permitted and conditional uses within an overlay, they help as the first sort of funnel in looking at those types of uh standards. But I'd say generally the ordinance the overlay requirements within the ordinance apply to all properties that are applicable um to the circumstances that are described. So if a a property is within a district that allows um auto sales for example um the prohibition on auto sales would apply to any district within uh the TOD where auto sales are considered permissible today. Um similarly for allowing three and four unit buildings um within residential areas where they have not been applicable that would apply to any residential district where that use would now be applicable. Um I do think there is it would be abnormal for us to have a specific kind of subset of a zoning district called out um to have a different process for whether use is permitted or conditional. Um, but would defer to Katie and Jacob if they have any other input to weigh in on this. >> Thanks, >> Katie. You're taking none. Maybe there's >> I don't really have anything to add. Um, you can see in legisar kind of the the the chart of, you know, not unlike other uses where we have a P/C. Um, in this case, the C is about this specific area and there' be a map below in the code. Um, in other cases, there's other things that might mean. In some cases, this use is permitted versus conditional. >> So, it's not impossible. It's just different. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Um, are we wanting to make a motion? Do we have other uh points of discussion or questions? Commissioner Hick. Thank you. >> Sorry, a question. No, >> and this is probably for Heather Bailey. Um, we have a number of national historic districts within the TOD overlay. Quite a few as as I can imagine, as as well as portions or all of local historic districts. Um [clears throat] I I I guess that's really my question. I just wanted to verify that that uh uh Hill Farms is not the only one that touches the that the to overlay touches. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks, Commissioner. Alder Tishler. >> Yeah. I just want to point out too that this is a historic district because of the the plan of the of the of the uh community. um not not just not just a a collection of of of the buildings that make up a district. So there are there are some little a few little minor differences >> or actually significant difference which is why I'm bringing this up because you change too much of the uh you change too much of the uh of the district of this the plan and you you take away what what makes it historic. >> Thanks Commissioner Hec. Is that a new hand or Yeah, >> it it's a new hand. I just wondered are we back in discussion or are we where are we? >> Uh we're still in questions for staff, but I think um if the commission is ready, we could pivot to making a motion and um either with or without suggested amendments and we could discuss whether anybody wants to move for amendments. >> [snorts] >> Um, Commissioner Soulheim. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I will move that the plan commission recommend approval of the zoning amendments and legisar item 900552 with um including the proposed alternate to remove rental cars but not including the alternate related to conditional use in Hill Farms. Commissioner Soulheim, Commissioner Oznooki. Is that a second? Thank you. Um, is there discussion now? We have a pending motion. Is there discussion of the motion? Um, and certainly an opportunity to move amendments if anyone wants to. Commissioner H. >> Thanks. Um, I will just say that I'm going to support this motion. Um, I I I understand why the folks some of the folks that live in Hill Farms uh feel it's unique and and it certainly is, but I think all the National Register historic districts are unique and uh I I I I'm also don't uh feel convinced about the aging in place argument. I I really think that uh I mean I think Alder Tishler did have a good point about uh allowing duplexes or ADUs allowing uh aging in place, but I I'd say that more than likely we're talking about a handful of parcels that could eventually take advantage of putting three or four units uh on a parcel and that increases the opportunities for aging in place, I uh in addition to the duplexes. So uh I'll be uh supporting the the motion in its form. Thanks. >> Thanks, Commissioner. Commissioner Wnookski. >> Thank you, Chair. Um like Commissioner Heck, I will also be supporting the motion and again with the argument of aging in place. I was invited into Hill Farms um two summers ago to meet with neighbors uh who were concerned about they love their neighborhood um but they also recognized as they got older their homes just didn't suit them anymore and they were trying to find ways to stay there that worked and and that just stuck with me and resonates with me and and as Commissioner Hick says you know providing opportunities it's not going to be blanket approval of of every parcel that's going to allow the four units but for those that can it does provide those other opportunities for aging in Thank you. >> Great. I will um just take a quick pause um before calling a vote if anybody has additional comments. If not, we'll start with is there any objection to unanimous approval for the motion on the table? All right. Thanks. Seeing none, we'll record that as approved. So, thanks for the good discussion and and uh perspective by by everyone. Um we'll move to item four on our agenda. Um this is legisar 900553 creating section 28.022-00735 022-0000735 of the Madison General ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 659 North Whitney Way and 503 University Avenue alder district 19 from NMX Neighborhood Mixeduse District to RMX Regional Mixed Use District and creating section 28.022-0036 022-0000736 of the Madison General ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 4860 Shabboan Avenue and Alder District 11 from SE Suburban Employment District to RMX Regional Mixed Use District. Um so the this these two properties depending on which side of the street you're on in district 19 and district 11. [snorts] Um I see uh do we have any registrance Megan? >> We have no registrance on this item chair. >> Great. Um so we will open the public hearing and close the public hearing. Um and I think uh I'll ask the commission if you have questions for staff on this item. Think it's pretty well covered in in Colin's presentation. Um would anyone like to um Alder Tishler Thank you. I'll be much briefer this time around. Um I was wondering has anybody reached out to the to Red Cross about this prior to this uh this >> I don't Is this the Red Cross one? >> Yes, this includes Red Cross. >> This is Okay. Yeah, this is the Red Cross. >> Um so the property owners received postcards and um a supplemental letter about the changes. >> Okay. And we have we heard anything back from from them or No. Okay. All right. Um, guess I would ask if uh anyone if I guess I would entertain a motion if anyone would like to make one. Uh, Alder Yugare. Thank you. >> Yeah. Move to uh approve. >> Thank you. Is there a second? Uh, Commissioner Soulheim. Thank you. I'll take that as a second. Any discussion? Um, seeing none, is there objection to unanimous approval on this item four? All right, we will record that as approved. Um, we'll go to item five. [clears throat] Um, the substitute with the corrected address. This is legisar 90554 creating section 28.022-0037 022-0000737 of the Madison General ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 402 to 434 Gam Place, 429 Gamman Place, and 433 South Gam Road from CC Commercial Corridor District to RMX Regional Mixeduse District and creating section 28.022-0038 022- 00738 of the Madison General ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 5701 to 5801 Mineral Point Road and 422 South Rose Road from SE Suburban Employment District to RMX Regional Mixed Use District and these are all in uh alder district 19. Um, Megan, do we have registrance on this item? Okay, see none, we'll open and close the public hearing. Uh, do commissioners have questions for staff on this item? Seeing no questions, is there uh someone prepared to make a motion on this item? >> Alder Gar, >> I will move to approve. Uh, and just note that these are all consistent with the approved west area plan. >> Thanks, Al Gar. Is there a second? >> Uh, Commissioner Solheim, thank you. Any additional discussion on item five? Seeing none, is there any um uh is is anyone opposed to unanimous consent on this item? And if not, we'll record item five as approved. We are halfway through the zoning amendments. We'll get to item six, which is legisar 90555. This would create section 28.022-0039 022-0000739 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 4217 to 4237 Lean Road, the northern 220 [clears throat] ft of 4301 Lean Road and 4325 through 4401 Lean Road from CC Commercial Commercial Center District to CCT commercial quarter transitional district in alder district 17. Um Megan, did we have registrance on this item? Right. We will open and close the public hearing and I would ask if there are questions for staff on this item. And if not, is there a motion in a second uh regarding this one? Um, Alder Yair, you just got in under the wire. [laughter] >> I'll move to approve. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, Alder Field. Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, any objection to unanimous approval for item six. All right. Thank you. Item seven is legisl 90556 creating section 28.022- 022-0000740 of the Madison General ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 3245 East Washington Avenue from TRC1 traditional residential consistent one district to CCT commercial corridor transitional district and this is an alder district 12. Um Megan any registrance? Okay. Yep. No. So we'll open and close the public hearing. Um, any questions for staff from the commission on this item? Seeing none, is um, anyone ready to make a motion on this item? >> Uh, Alder Glenn, thank you. >> Move to approve. >> Thank you, Alder Glenn. Is there a second? Uh, Commissioner Soulheim. Thank you. Um, any discussion? And if not, any objection to unanimous approval for item seven? All right, we'll record that as approved. Um, and then now we're on to item 8 on our agenda, which is legisar 900557, amending sections within chapter 16 and 28 of the Madison General Ordinances to create cottage courts. Um, this is another item with potential amendments. Um, so first, let's pause. Are there registrants on this item, Megan? >> Yes, there are. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, first we will hear from Troy Teal, registered in support and wishing to speak. Uh, Troy is from District 11. >> All right. Um, before we have Troy, let me just say I'm opening the public hearing on this item. And, um, we'll get Troy's microphone unmuted. Troy, you may need to unmute yourself on your end as well. Troy, you might see a prompt or there might be a prompt to unmute yourself behind your window up floating around somewhere if you want to move that. Looks like you're unmuted. >> Oh, you were you're muted again. >> There we go. It shows you being unmuted. D, if you want to speak, >> we're not hearing anything on our end, Troy. >> Yep. >> Um maybe um sometimes I accidentally lock my microphone on the keyboard. So there might want to just check that. >> I just un they can hear you now. >> I am. All right. Welcome. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry about that. So, um I uh want to identify myself. I am have been in real estate and development for the last 33 plus years. Um and I strongly support um the original intent of this um uh amendment uh to zoning as well as uh the amendments to it. Uh I do uh have experience in cottagec court development u in the Seattle market uh Bellingham uh Vancouver British Columbia and Portland. Um and I do have some concerns how it's currently written. The limiting number of units to eight and the limiting number of the size of the lot to one acre is an issue because it's going to be challenging uh for developers to see the the opportunity to help provide the kind of housing that this great ordinance would do and and they'll be less inclined to do that without limiting numbers. I would I would say the the the correlary to that would be how the accessory dwelling unit had to be adjusted multiple times before we started seeing better adoption of it because it was too limiting. I think that's the case with the original intent here. Um I I would take a survey of great projects uh done by the cottage company.com. Ross and Linda have done over 30 projects and not one of them is under 22 units just for example. Uh there's been other great groups. Green Hammer um in Portland does fantastic cottage courts. Um, and so I do really like too the amendment of allowing two units to be connected either vertically uh or side to side or in some cases backto back. Uh, Greenhammer did a project called Going Street Commons uh in the northeast section of Portland that included backto back town homes. So there's some private uh, you know, private space on either side. Um, and then I would also consider allowing for an accessory dwelling unit above like a parking element. We I've seen that before in projects. So, um um there's other other great types of missing middle. This is just one of them. I, you know, keep keep going with things like this. And don't make it too limiting. Otherwise, you're going to have a hard time. There's not that many smaller builders that this size eight and under is going to work for. Uh they're going to look for larger land accumulations and larger projects to make the numbers work, especially in this challenging environment. >> Thanks, Troy. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for coming up. >> Okay, our next speaker is Mike Tarby of District 6, registered in support and wishing to speak. >> Hello, >> Mike. We can hear you. Welcome. >> Okay, great. Thanks so much. Um, so I apologize. I don't have a a statement formally uh prepared for this evening, but um just wanted to share. So I had worked with Alder Ovowitz to introduce the amendment um for the uh cottage court proposal. Um after speaking with some developers, they had raised some concerns about um you know, as the ordinance is currently written, uh any new construction for the cottage courts would have to observe the rear yard setback of the underlying uh zoning district, which is often 25 to 30 ft. Um and in conversations with developers, um it sounded like that would be a challenge, um given sort of the the typical dimensions of the plots uh that they would be building. Um so it was deemed a reasonable change. um or at least in in my mind I thought um sort of introducing some consistency across the zoning districts and bringing that down to eight feet um would allow this this housing type which you know the city is uh introducing because it's something that we want to see more of. Um and so my concern is that if we don't um you know approve this uh amendment that we're sort of kneecapping from the start um a housing type that we're trying to introduce um that that we'd like to see adopted across the city. Um it it really doesn't make sense to me if we've identified a problem with implementing these um and they are something that we'd like to see more of why we would not address that from u sort of from the get-go. I saw in the staff report that it staff's anticipation that this uh amendment will sort of be or that the proposal will be uh modified over time as they, you know, discover uh issues um when folks try to implement that. We're discovering an issue right now. Uh this is something that developers say will be a problem for them. And so I don't understand why we wouldn't want to get ahead of that right out of the gate. From what uh staff expressed in the report, some of the primary concerns were introducing inconsistency in the zoning code and also um at the neighborhood block level um where you know existing homes are already set back the 25 to 30 ft from the rear uh lot line and now we're we'd be introducing uh buildings much closer to the rear lot line. I really don't think, you know, practically there's a difference between uh cottage courts and accessory dwelling units in basically the way anybody would see them from the outside. I understand that accessory dwelling units are a a different use. It's an accessory structure. It's not a primary dwelling. Um but you know, given Alder Martinez Rutherford's amendment, um these cottage courts could also be two units. So they could be just as big as an accessory dwelling unit. are both bound by the same thousand square footprint. So I think functionally we're already allowing those ADUs to be within 3 foot uh 3 ft of the rear lot line. And I don't understand why uh you know we we aren't okay with that same uh essentially the same building form factor um not being allowed within 8 ft or up to 8 ft of the the rear yard setback. Um so just >> Yeah. No, thank you. You're you're I appreciate your comments. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. And then our last speaker is Nicholas Davies of District 15, registered in support but not wishing to speak. >> Thanks, Megan. Um, are there questions for any of our registrants? >> All right. Seeing no hands, we'll close the public hearing and um there'll be time for questions from staff and and Megan, maybe if you or Colin could help us with the help us understand [clears throat] the context of the amendments or Katie as well. Thanks for all of you for being here. >> Yeah, I can certainly um share just a couple slides that we have uh and then um answer questions from there. There we go. Okay. Uh so um the the first uh potential amendment to uh legisar item uh 90557 is a request by Alder Martas uh Rutherford um allowing uh single family 2-unit or a combination of the two types uh up to a maximum of eight dwelling units uh within the cottage court. The rationale provided is that this change would allow flexibility uh for a mix of unit types um generally uh allowed in in all residential districts. Um so the this amendment if adopted uh would define a cottage court as uh eight or fewer units on a single zoning lot including um single family attached uh two unit dwelling twin and two dwelling two units. Um so either a sidebyside or a an up down uh or a combination of those. Um and then that would update references to the dwelling units throughout um those sections of code. Um so this would be an an illustration um one of our colleagues in planning has has put together um just showing uh you know some some up down uh two units integrated into the cottage court uh with a total of of eight dwelling units um in the entire development. Uh the the other uh potential amendment um was uh put forth by housing policy committee member um Mike Tarby who who just spoke um and Alder Ohitz uh to reduce the required rear setback um for the zoning lot to 8 ft for cottage courts in all of the uh residential zoning districts in which cottage courts would be allowed. The rationale here um being that this would maximize the area within the cottage courts to accommodate the the um dwelling units while maintaining the front and side setback require requirements in the underlying zoning district. Um the ordinance as as written would require um without this amendment would require the uh the rear setback um of the underlying zoning district. So, this would modify um this section uh in the supplemental regulations uh to read that front front and side setbacks in yards of the zoning district shall apply only to the perimeter of the zoning lot. Um and that the the rear uh would be uh 8 yard or 8 ft from the um perimeter of the zoning lot. That uh is the end of those potential amendments. >> Thanks, Colin. Other questions for staff? >> Alder, I'm not going to say it right. Can you help me? Ooitz. >> Okovich. Yeah. >> Okovitz. Thank you. >> Uh thank you, chair. Uh thank you, planning commission. Um Colin, well maybe this is a question for you, Colin. So, the staff report was talking about um some of the reasons staff didn't initially support reducing the rear yard setback for cottage courts. And I just wanted to ask some questions on that. So, this isn't your lane. Let me know. But, um are the storm water standards significantly different for cottage courts versus single family neighborhoods or residential development in general? [snorts] Um I I will allow my colleagues to answer as well if they um have additional information, but the stormwater standards would apply um to to any residential development types um the same way. >> Okay. Um, another question. Is there anything in our zoning code or comprehensive plan about maintaining consistent zoning envelopes as a goal of our zoning code, building envelopes? >> Um, not I I'm going to >> ask Megan or or uh Katie if they're aware of an answer for that. Yeah, I mean I'm happy to um let Katie weigh in here too. I don't think we have anything specific to zoning envelopes like the developable envelope on a property. However, we do have recommendations throughout different plans that talk about certain elements of uh built form in neighborhoods or broader areas um and how uh to make sure that certain standards help reinforce those um characteristics as neighborhoods evolve over time. And so a lot of times what you do see is recommendations about things like front setbacks, stepbacks, um some of those uh what ultimately become zoning standards that help either form or reinforce certain build form uh in areas. >> Okay. Thank you, Megan. Thank you, Colin. That's >> yeah, I I can't really, you know, add anything on the plan beyond what Megan said here. It's just kind of a core zoning philosophy or reason behind zoning is that there's consistency. It's law. Um so the same rules apply to everyone in the same way. It's in in law. It's not something that's like discretionary. Um so that's just kind of the basis of why we have different zoning districts with different standards that they're going to kind of have consistency within that district. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks all. Uh, Trisher Hec, >> thank you. Uh, this might be for Katie Bannon. I'm not sure. Uh, I'm thinking about this eight potential 8 foot setback in the in the rear of a single parcel, I guess. And I'm thinking, oh, what if it backs up to an analogous parcel? Uh there'd be maybe a a m a minimum of 16 feet between two structures on different parcels. Uh what what are the what are the uh in a cottage court? What how are the the distances between each structure and the cottage court prescribed? >> Yeah. So, we have answers this. Sorry, just really quick, I was going to suggest that maybe Colin could bring up one of the diagrams because that might be a helpful visual as Katie describes this verbally. >> Yeah, definitely, Megan, as I immediately go to using my hands. Yeah. >> Yeah. You know, so the idea with this use is that it could be allowed as a permitted use in all residential districts other than our highest density zoning districts, which are intended for something higher density than cottage courts. So the idea was that the perimeter of the lot, so you have the the larger lot that includes up to eight in some cases fewer depending on the lot size and how everything works. And this perimeter of this zoning lot is how we kind of what it's called within the zoning code. Um would have the same setbacks as adjacent properties that may be be developed with one and two family houses. Um so they'd have common backyards, common sideyards, but then within the cottage court there'd be a little more flexibility. So there need to be six feet between um each um house basically um whether it's one or two unit. So if you did fe simple lots where each is on its individual lot um which is shown here um with those little dotted white lines um it would be 3 ft to that lot line internally. Um if it was more like a condo or a single ownership um one lot uh it would be six feet between each structure. >> Okay. >> Answer your question. >> Yes. So that it's it's not really a function of h how the ownership works. It's it's six feet essentially. >> Correct. Yep. Six feet either way. And uh uh in other dimensions there aren't really there's you know you there's the idea is to have this kind of courtyard thing in between two sides. That's all uh not dictated really. I mean correct >> the courtyard has a minimum dimension uh no I'm sorry. Yeah a minimum dimension of 20 ft. So um envision yeah that the two homes would have to be at least 20 ft apart or the two rows of homes. >> However, I think we expect that you know it could take different shapes and forms. Um the houses have to be oriented to the courtyard. So depending on how many uh houses are built the courtyard may be diff different shaped or different sized. >> Right. I apologize for not reading the fine details of the of the proposal. >> Thank you. >> There's a lot of detail on this one. So >> that answers my question. Thank you. >> Thanks, Commissioner Heck. Alder Tishliff. >> Yeah, thank you for letting me speak. Um I guess my question is because uh Alder Okovitz brought brought up storm water, but do do each individual cottage require separate utilities to be run or can they share or is it that depend on on who how how it's arranged either as a [clears throat] apartments or or or condominiums? Yeah. What what would most likely happen is a private main um for uh for water and sanitary sewer um would be run into the site. Um and then uh lateral private laterals um would connect to that those private mains um and then the private main would then connect to the the public main in the street. Um but then all of those uh individual units would be um metered separately. >> And then just one other quick follow-up question because I I I I seem to always getting known as as either the alder who supports books and trees and I guess for the the the common courtyard area. Is there any I mean trees are trees are permitted in that? There's no there's no there's no limits how many trees they want to put in in that central courtyard area. >> Yes, trees would be permitted. Um Oh, sorry, Colin. You're already getting answer this. Go. Okay. Uh there there couldn't be um parking or automobile things. Um so driveways and parking areas basically would not be permitted as well as buildings. So trees would probably be a good option to be planted in that area. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks, Alder Okovitz. >> Uh thank you, Chair. I I thought of one other question. Um this is in response to something that one of the registrants brought up, but the the limit of eight units. You could if you had a like 1 acre lot, split it into two halfacre parcels and develop two 8 unit cottage courts on each of those parcels. Is that correct? >> If Go ahead, Con. I I was going to say um if the the densities and the um site layout works um I think we are the the ordinance was written to allow flexibility. Um there there is an existing option for uh a larger um complex of residential buildings which we call a residential building complex um that already exists within the the code. So if um you know the the one of the reasons for this ordinance is to make these smaller cottage courts a an easier um path forward for uh for infill um and kind of some gentle density. Um but if a a developer or a land owner wanted to do something larger or you know do um multiple ones, there's there's a path forward through the residential building complex. But you could also do two standalone cottage courts side by side as long as they are meeting the requirements of this section of the code. >> Okay. [clears throat] Um, and then on that note, for if you had like a I don't know, like an exceptionally large lot and you wanted to do cottage courts and I I forget what city I've seen this in, but I've seen an example of this where essentially they ran a um a driveway from the main road through like in a loop deep into deeper into a lot. Um, would that would you be allowed to split a like a larger lot into separate parcels for the purpose of developing separate cottage courts using like a essentially a driveway attached to a frontage road as your your main access? >> I think Katie Bannon can answer this, but I think what you're describing is a residential building complex. it becomes a residential building complex because you're sharing that access um to a a single or a a development that's developed by a single entity or at a single time. >> Yeah. I mean the other option is it could be a more traditional subdivision, right? When you have a lot of land um and there are various, you know, ways that you can put together missing middle types with more single and two family housing. Um but then there are a lot of standards about what we require for streets and everything else. >> Yeah. I was also going to add to in the sort of scenario that you raised Alder at some point especially if there was an interest in pursuing the simple division of the lots in that sort of double cottage court example. At some point, people are going to run into um requirements that actually exist in state statute for when something becomes a plat rather than more of a simple uh certified survey map kind of lot division. In which case, um there's a whole host of other kind of standards and requirements that would be implicated beyond the simple permitted use kind of small site example that we're trying to um support through the cottage court ordinance itself. I appreciate all that information in context. Thank you. >> Thank you, Kosher. >> Thanks, uh, Megan. I think you you answered part of my question just now, but I'm I'm still thinking what are the advantages of this over a residential building complex uh or even a planned development? And what are the setback requirements? Uh, I'll say ex especially in the rear for both of those. Are they planned development? I think you uh can kind of design your own setbacks. Uh what so what are the I I I guess two parts to that question. >> Sure. Yeah. Yeah. It's a great question. Um and I'll start off and Colin and Katie, Jacob, feel free to jump in if you have anything to add here too. Um first and foremost, I think from a use perspective, we're aiming to make cottage courts a permitted use. And so under a certain threshold, the intent of this is that somebody would not have to pursue reszoning a site and or a conditional use process. Um that said, if there was [snorts] an intent to develop a cottage court with fe simple lots, depending on how many lots are incorporated, it could either be done by a simple certified survey map, which is something that comes um before you and the common council, or if it's larger, it may require some of the plat, which is a more intensive process. But from a land use and and zoning district perspective, we were trying to keep it simple. Um so that's one of the advantages. I think the other advantage is just from a um developable envelope perspective trying to be very clear about what can be built where and then providing otherwise a fair amount of flexibility for how those cottages could be arranged on a lot and the specific details and standards of the buildings themselves. um for a residential building complex kind of switching to that uh mechanism that is a conditional use um is something that would be required to be reviewed by the urban design commission and then ultimately the plan commission on its path to approval. Um it does allow for some flexibility for setbacks if approved by the plan commission. you have an item on your agenda tonight that um is using that standard. Um and so there's really no defined limit on how much those setbacks can be altered. It's up to the application to demonstrate the need for those setbacks to be altered and for your approval as a conditional use review uh to grant them. Um am I missing anything else that you think? Yeah, >> developments developments. >> Same with plan developments. So, this is a specific zoning district. So, that would be a zoning amendment. Um, and that would mean that the allowable kind of buildable standards for um a property under a plan development would be actually prescribed by ordinance specific to the site. Um it would be something that would be subject to a public hearing um in front of the plan commission and ultimately approved by the common council and in staff's opinion is maybe one of the least flexible options in the long term. While it might provide some flexibility upfront for setting sight specific standards for development is the least flexible in the long term because changes and modifications would likely be subject to future zoning changes for that plan development itself. Um, so that's kind of the range of how these things could be implemented. >> I'll also mention that Oh, sorry. I mean, >> go ahead, Jacob. >> I was just also going to mention for the plan development side of it that the code has very high standards, a very high bar to meet for reasonzoning to the plan development uh district. Basically, that you would have to show that there isn't a district that you could do this in. Um, and so I think for a residential building complex that makes it hard because there are districts where a residential building complex is allowed already. So it would be difficult to justify unless there was some extenduating circumstance that not thinking of right now. But um, but then I would also mention that a plan development you'd have to go to the urban design commission as well. It's a reasonzoning. So you get UDC, plan commission, common council, and as Megan said, this cottage court proposal is to kind of streamline that and to allow them by right in residential districts. >> Thanks. That was all super educational and helpful. >> Thanks, Commissioner Soulheim. >> Thank you. Um I was wondering if you could just describe where some of the parameters, you know, the eight units, one acre site, thousand square foot, um units kind of came from or if you look to any other examples or kind of what drove those limits. >> Yeah. Um we we did do a lot of research into um similar uh ordinances and developments uh across the country. Um spoke with with a number of um different communities. Um, we also did quite a few um test fits of actual parcels within the city um uh to to determine uh you know what what works best in in those neighborhoods and and on those parcels um for a development that we would actually see. uh the the footprint um of those of those individual cottages is tied pretty closely to our experience with ADUs um and the the size of those. Um is there anything else that I'm missing uh on that Megan? Yeah, I'd say as far as the test fits go, one of the things that we were exploring was just how all of the different standards that are proposed would work together. And so that was informative. Um, when we, you know, you've asked some questions about setbacks and and lot size, etc. in this conversation. um just thinking about how it all works together and ultimately found that if somebody were pursuing the sort of maximum limit of what could be allowed in terms of number of freestanding cottages as single buildings um probably in the half acre and greater size is what we would see really accommodating the amenities that you would need to make um a full kind of development. Um, we also looked to some other resources, uh, particularly the missing middle housing guide, which is a book that was published by the firm Opticost, um, which provides a lot of the sort of basic zoning standard framework that communities should consider if they are anticipating or trying to legalize more missing middle housing types. And so some of the things related to lot size and some of the standards for composition of the cottage courts uh we drew from that uh advice as well. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Yeah. My follow-up question was going to be if you know for sites just over an acre for more than eight, but it sounds like that would go residential building complex route. Um so that makes sense. Thank you. Commissioner Sanders. Thanks. >> Thank you, Chair. I didn't want to assume that I could read your lips, so [laughter] um and I apologize that this is um a simple question, but I'm definitely not a zoning expert. Um, but if uh this cottage court uh type goes forward and uh would it be possible for us to approve a conditional use to have a more narrow setback than what's defined in the zoning code or would it be strictly held to what we're approving today? >> It's a good question and I think the answer is no. Um unless the ordinance specifically allows for that. Um, so the way that this is drafted right now, it would just be required to meet the underlying setback and any um, ultimately any change to that required setback would have to be considered as a request for a variance before the zoning board of adjustments. And I'll just note that that's a a pretty high bar to receive a a zoning variance. Uh, I just wanted to note um residential building complex. You could do it as a residential building complex. You would have to be in a district that allows residential building residential building complexes and get that conditional use. We've discussed before where you're going to go to uh urban design commission for their recommendation then plan commission for the conditional use. So that option would still be available um in those cases and then plan commission could consider different setbacks. Sorry, Alderfield. >> Thank you, Chair. Just to expand on the um previous commissioner's question a little bit. Is there can staff advise whether there's a reason for us to not amend this proposal to allow for a change in setback um with a request for conditional use as we apparently do for residential building complexes? It would be a little bit weird to have a use only have to be a conditional use if they want a modification to setbacks. Um, and I think there is already a path to that through the residential building complex. So, I think that's really the best path. If there is a developer that that wants to do that, they could do that. Megan, did you have other thoughts? Yeah, I was just trying to think of other examples of what types of things make a project a conditional use. And [snorts] I think we would have to also think about the sort of decision-making process that comes with a conditional use, right? You're looking at all of your standards of approval. Um things like, you know, plan consistency and serviceability. Um I think that it feels like a very big group of questions to ask for um modification of a rear setback. Um only uh in this case we have [snorts] other examples of conditional uses like for additional height for example that allow us to look to plan recommendations where we might have specific plan recommendations about taller buildings that are not necessarily codified within our zoning standards. Uh, but we don't, I think, have specific or similar kinds of plan recommendations related to rear setbacks, for example, that we might look to. So, as Katie noted, we do have the process of a conditional use for an entire residential building complex. And really what that's getting at is those multiple buildings on a lot. Um some of the shared common ownership um common development and the ability to consider modifications or reductions to setbacks are one aspect of approving the overall development as a conditional use. Um it's not just the setback question that is the conditional use in the context of a of a residential building complex. So, I think it'd be it'd be kind of a I can't think of a good parallel example. Um, >> sure. Thanks for your analysis of that, >> Alder Tisher. >> Okay, last question, I promise. Um the court uh and the the parking complex is a is a communal space, but can you does this also allow to have like another communal [clears throat and snorts] space like a something like a like a like a building like a shed or is it or a or like I mean or a tennis course or a sauna or hot tub? >> Yeah. Yes. We um I don't I don't know about the tennis court. Um that that may uh reach into a different conditional use. Um but the uh likely if there was a land division that accom accompanied um the development of a cottage court um there would be an outlot >> [clears throat] >> uh that would have uh a common common ownership that would include the parking um and could include um dumpster enclosures um you know a shed for a [clears throat] shared lawn mower um things like that. Okay. Thank you. And there are not specific standards directly within the cottage court ordinance itself because we're relying on the underlying zoning code to govern those types of accessory structures and their placement. [snorts] All right. Um, there are no other staff questions. Are we ready to move to a motion on this item? >> Commissioner Shan. >> Thank you. Um, I will re I will move that the plan commission recommend approval of the amendment um to create cottage courts for legisar item 90557. I would add that that would include the alternate from Alder Martinez Rutherford related to two families um within cottage courts. I would not include the second proposal and I'll describe that when I have a second which I do. Elderfield, you have a second on um Nicole's motion. Thank you. Um would you like to speak to your motion some more, Nicole? >> Just briefly. Um I just wanted to mention um I understand the the proposal related to the rear yard setback. Um but the discussion was very helpful. I think that it does make it pretty messy to include that and there is a clear path [clears throat] with the residential building complex which if we made [laughter] this a conditional use the residential building complex is already a conditional use so it seems like it would be going down that way um probably regardless. So I think this is a good start and may be further uh adjusted in the future as we see hopefully see proposals. Thanks. Additional discussion. Alder Okovitz. >> Yeah, thank you everyone. Um, I just wanted to speak briefly to the motion. So, I appreciated staff's input. Um, I like Mike Tarby said at the beginning of this, this came out of a discussion with a residential building developer, an architect who works for a residential building developer, and they were talking about how this effectively makes it very difficult for them to fit these sorts of the set of typology on the types of lots that they would like to build on. Um, [clears throat] it is an exception, but the entire cottage court building form is very different from what we're seeing in a lot of new suburban developments. And so, I don't think that concerns about things like the building envelope matter as much. Um because even with a 30 yard uh 30 foot setback, a a new cottage court is going to be looking into somebody's backyard potentially. Um and I think that's one of the main concerns with something like a rear yard building envelope. Um in addition to that, the I don't think it makes sense from an open space requirement to have the 30 yard set back. I keep saying 30 yards, but I mean 30 feet. Uh the 30 foot year rear yard setback. Um because the entire layout of the cottage court is around this shared common open space. And so by having by moving the buildings back, you enhance the central open space by, you know, spreading the buildings out a little bit further. Um, I would also point out I did look up the zoning codes for Seattle and Bellingham, um, based on one of the comments that the commenter made earlier today about how where he had seen other good residential uh, cottage courts. Um, and in Bellingham, the rear yard setback for a uh, cottage court development is, I think it's 8 feet if you're alley loaded and 10 feet otherwise. And in Seattle, I think it's also 10 ft if you have three or [snorts] more units. And it's 15 ft if you have one or more units. So, it's not it's not that strange to have different rear yard setbacks based on the housing typology that you're going to be putting in. Um, I also don't think that a residential building complex makes a lot of sense here. The whole idea is we we haven't seen people use residential building complexes for this sort of development. It's difficult for a lot of the reasons that staff mentioned. You need a resoning. You need to go to UDC. You need to get a conditional use. Um, you might not need a resoning, but you might need to reszone to a residential uh [snorts] a residential zone that allows uh building complexes as a permitted use. And a lot of our small developers and a lot of the people who are doing residential developments are too riskaverse to go through a process like that for something like cottage courts. So, Thank you. >> Thanks, Commissioner Heck. >> Thanks. Uh I appreciate uh the alers's comments. Uh I I am going to support the motion though, but um I think this brings up a bigger topic that I hope policymakers can consider and that is setbacks in general and how that defines it is one of the defining characteristics of of our zoning districts. And I think it's likely that in the future uh this proposed ordinance will change and it may be that rear yard setbacks are part of that. It would be good to have more information. I think before jumping into that, but I also think a a conversation about setbacks in general is worth having uh because of uh you know in in in all zoning districts that have them. Uh it's a limiting factor as as we're learning. Uh we know that already, but I think this has been super instructive. So, I appreciate that it was put forth, but I I think uh it might just be a little too soon to incorporate that into this. Thanks. >> Thanks, Commissioner. Commissioner Wnuski, >> you chair. Um I have a question. I understand the the motion on the floor is for the original cottage court um zoning change plus the the duplexes. Um what is the process if um can I ask for the amendment to the um to the 8 foot se back to be added into this? >> Yeah, you would make a motion to a you would make a motion to amend the underlying motion and if you could get a second, we would then vote on that amendment to decide whether to change the motion that we would then all ultimately vote on. >> Thank you. Then I would like to make a motion to amend the underlying amendment to uh allow for the 8oot setbacks of the the cottage courts. >> Thanks. Um Alder Glenn, is that that's a second to the motion to amend? Um would you would either of you like to speak to the amendment before we call a vote on that? I mean it is definitely one of the things that as I have listens I've experienced um you know I facilitate the discussions with Madison townmakers and understand the challenges faced by small developers um if we're going to say we are for um missing middle development let's stop creating barriers that add this on there um yes you know especially if we're already allowing people to adjust setbacks through other planning means um I think this is a perfect opportunity just to if we know that this is a barrier, uh let's remove it. Now, this is a whole new um concept. So, it's not like we're we're adjusting um some other zoning thing to allow this. I think this is a perfect opportunity to at least come out of the gate without this barrier being a stumbling block um for to go on. >> And I will just second that, too. >> Thanks, Alder Glenn. Um Alder Tishler, your hand is up. Um I don't know if it's on the amendment or if it's on the other on another issue. Um so yeah >> it was on the other issue and I I lied. I am speaking one more time. I was going to talk about the setbacks but I can I can is now the appropriate time? >> Yes. Well there yeah there's a proposed amendment to um to include this the setback changes in the um recommendation. So I think that's appropriate. Yeah. And I I make the point that that whenever I I think of of of cottages and cottage courts, I I always think of of cottages, most of my familiarity is is cottages along lakes. And along lakes, the the front of the of cottages are always aimed at at at the lake. And the setback the back is is where the road is. And I guess I'm just wondering um since we have a city that that's surrounded by lakes in the event that somebody builds the cottage court um you know on on a lake is you know do we consider the the lake the front of the building or the or the the road the the back of the of the back of the building for setbacks? >> Thanks. Um I think let's hold on that for Yeah. for just one minute. Alder Okovich. Yeah. >> Yeah. I was just going to I mean, we're past staff questions, but there are separate lakefront ordinance um requirements that prevent you from building close to a lake. So, even if there's a even if your rear yard setback is 10 feet, you can't build 10 ft from the lake. Um I just wanted to quickly mention that. >> Yeah. No, I appreciate it. Um great. Is there any dis any additional discussion on the uh uh Commissioner Winski's motion to amend our underlying recommendation to include um the setback changes? And if not, I'll I'll call that to a vote. And I would ask if is um I think I'll ask if there's objection to unanimous approval for the amendment. Um, and yeah, if you just want to put up your hand, then I think maybe we could do a roll call vote, but I'll just start there. So, Patrick, is that that's an objection? So, let's do a roll call vote on the um motion to amend. >> Okay. On the motion to amend, Alder Field, >> I >> Alder Glenn. >> So, this is the second amendment, the one I second, right? Or is this the Yes. Hi. >> Yeah. >> Alder Ugare. >> I >> uh Commissioner Hec. >> No. >> Commissioner Mahill. >> No. >> Commissioner Sanders. >> I. >> Commissioner Soulheim. >> All I You guys convinced me against my original motion. [laughter] >> Commissioner Wnooki. All right. So that is uh six eyes and two nos. The amendment passes. >> Thank you. So now we have um now we have on the table a recommendation to council to amend the uh ordinance sections as proposed with the both of the um amendments contained in our materials um related to um duplex units and related to uh setback requirements. So um I'll pause and ask if there's any further discussion on the motion and I will call a vote and again we'll start is there any objection to unanimous approval for the motion as amended. >> All right. Um seeing none we will record the the motion to recommend approval as passed. So, thank you. Thanks for the Thank you staff for the deep discussion and and helping us through all this. It's a lot of complexity. So, thank you. All right, we will I think we'll I think we'll move to item nine. I think we might take a Does anybody would anybody like to take a fivem minute break now? If not, I think we'll do take item. Um, I see one nod and so let's um Could we do we need a motion to recess? >> You do not need a motion to recess, but let's just make sure we recess instead of adjourn. >> Yes, I'm not adjourning. We're just going to recess for 5 minutes. We'll come back at 7:36 um and take up the next item on our agenda. So, thanks. Thanks, um field a little maybe we'll um dive back in. Can everybody hear me? Yeah. Okay. You guys are all very focused and still so um so I think we'll move to item nine on our agenda which is the next item. chair. Um, >> if I might just quickly interject. Um, >> yeah. >> One of the registrants is raising their hand and I just wanted to make sure to clarify um that we do not have a back and forth at this point in the plan commission's meeting and um appreciate your participation and sharing your perspectives with the commission. Um, but the uh commission has voted on this item and we'll be recommending it to council for adoption. >> Thanks. >> I see they keep raising their hand chair up and down. Um, >> yep. So I see that that's a registrant for items 11. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, you're right. >> Um, which will take I was thinking that was the name of somebody who just spoke at the last item. >> Oh, yeah. So, >> we'll So, if you're if you can hear us, we will get to 11 through 14 after uh item nine, but I think we're going to proceed for item nine. >> Yeah, sorry about that. I was mixing that name up with somebody who spoke um at an earlier item. >> No worry at all. Um Yes. All right. Um so our so we're I think we're prepared to take up uh this is um a referral from a prior meeting. This is legisar item 89236 relating to 139 West Wilson Street in Alder District 4. Consideration of a conditional use in the UMX urban mixeduse district for a new building with greater than six stories and consideration of a conditional use pursuant to Madison general ordinances section 28.134 per 3 for projections into the capital view preservation limit to allow construction of a 16story apartment building with 320 units. Um and this item um again we uh referred this from a prior meeting. I think we do have sorry let's start with a staff presentation just to kind of sum up where we are on this item and uh we still have Colin with us. Thanks. >> Thank you very much chair. Uh so uh at the November 3 meeting, the plan commission uh reviewed this particular proposal and voted to refer the item uh out to a future meeting with direction to the applicant to submit um certain materials and changes to their original plans um as identified by the commission that were needed for the proposal to meet conditional use standards three and five. Uh so these changes included minor revisions to the first floor to improve the loading area and accommodate a management office near the um loading area in the front entry of the building and then submission of a management plan uh that provided sufficient detail regarding those issues uh identified by the plan commission um including resident move in and move out arrangements um management of vehicles parked in the loading areas um delivery and ride share accommodation and then refu uh pickup. The applicant has submitted the requested materials um which have been posted to legisar and were accompanied by an addendum to the staff report. Um and staff does believe that the changes to the site plan and floor plans as require as requested by plan commission um do sufficiently address the the second part of that motion um from from November 3. Uh staff further staff believe that the applicant has addressed the resident move in and move out arrangements, management of vehicles in the loading areas and accommodations for short-term delivery and ride share. Um, property management and refuge pickup were partially addressed in the in the management plan. And staff suggests that if the conditional use uh requests are approved um that additional uh in clarification and information regarding refuge pickup, property management, contact um and uh and and management of those short-term delivery spaces. uh be be uh addressed uh to a greater degree in the management plan. Um if the plan commission does find that the applicable standards for conditional uses, including standards three and five, which were identified earlier, um are met, it should approve the request. However, if the commission um does not find that either or both of those approval standards or any other approval standards are met, um it should clearly communicate its findings uh with regards to that decision. In the staff report addendum, uh staff has provided uh one recommend one recommended new condition of approval um in addition to those listed in the staff report dated November 3. Uh as well as a revised condition to replace condition two um which pertains to the management plan. Uh after the public hearing, I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission may have. >> Thanks, Colin. Um we will um open the public hearing on this item and uh Megan if you could walk us through the the list. Thanks. >> Great. Thank you chair. Um we will first hear from Doug Paul and Randy Alexander. This um these two registrants represent the applicant team and have requested to pull their time for a total of six minutes. >> Welcome. >> Hi. >> Hey Doug. We can Yep. Okay. Um, I'm not sure if our materials are being going to be presented or if you've got them in front of you. Um, however, I can talk you through all of our changes. Um, I think the best file to share is the updated floor plans file, Colin. Um, which shows the the main floor here. And if you wanted to zoom in, there we go. That'd be great. Um, as we discussed in the last meeting, uh, we moved the manager's office to the first floor. So, at the very front entrance of the building, we've placed the manager's office and which displaced the fitness room. Um, the remaining space is left for a lounge. So, we're still trying to activate the street frontage. So, we created kind of just a hangout space for residents or guests that have are here to wait for or meet up with a resident. Um, that manager's office would have direct line of sight to one of the short-term loading areas and then they would have closed circuit camera um visibility of the covered area under that portion of the building there. During this uh process of moving things around, I also took some of the bike parking that was located under there. There's eight spots there, and I moved them out to kind of the garden courtyard area. Um, and one of those groups of 14 will still be a covered bike parking group, which will have a canopy. Um, which is kind of an illustration of the particular making model is shown here on the plan. And we [clears throat] also reconfigured the garbage room. This garbage room stacks straight up through the building. So there's a trash shoot and all the garbage will come down here into a compactor that then kind of maximizes the efficiency of the dumpsters. Um, and I was going back through some of the original um, documents that describe trash collection procedures. And I think the work that we did with the trash collection company suggested that there this would probably get us to a point where we would need trash collection only twice a week. Um, so the building manager would swap out an empty dumpster for a full one. And then that would give them a lot more time between pickups and allow for, you know, just being able to manage trash within the building. And then there was some other nuances to this floor plan that I've improved by getting rid of some steps that were in there and replacing them with a ramp and things like that. So overall, we got the floor plan working well. We got the office down here and I got all of the required bike parking to fit. Um, the other floor plans that I include just show what happened to the other levels. So, the second level, you can see where the fitness room went between column lines two and five. And [clears throat] the rest of the floors are minorly changed just to accommodate the shift of the trash room. So nothing else has changed. Um even our unit counts haven't changed. So besides the management plan, those are the changes to our submitt. And I'm happy to hand it over to Randy to talk through the management plan piece. >> Thanks, Doug. >> Thank you. Randy, there we go. Uh, you might need to unmute yourself. >> How's that? >> Oh, we can hear you now. >> Okay. Good evening. Um, I think our correspondence uh speaks for itself. We're open to, you know, add additional information that city staff would request. Um, and [clears throat] u I'd be happy to answer any questions, but the sake of not taking any more of the commission's time than I need to, um, I'm just available to answer questions if somebody has some particulars. >> Thanks, Randy. >> Okay, our next registrants are uh, also requesting to pull their time. Um, Peter Oland and Jonathan Cooper representing the Basset District of Capital Neighborhoods are registered in opposition and wishing to pull their time and speak for six minutes. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> That's fine. Welcome, Peter. >> Uh, the most recent layout for the drive area provided by the applicant does not include any significant modifications. The dimensions remain unchanged. The number of short-term parking and loading areas has not changed. In a meeting with the neighborhood a week ago, the applicant stated that all vehicles other than refuge trucks will be able to turn around and exit in a forward direction. This includes standard UPS and FedEx trucks, Amazon vans, and even the dump trucks that'll be used to haul haul snow from the site. That's what they state. What what they have not provided is any documentation or drawings that show that these turnarounds are actually physically possible in the limited space that they are providing. And Colin, if you could, you've got the item that I was looking to have there. Thank you. This is the plan sheet from a prior submitt from the applicant. The plan shows the maneuvers that a vehicle would need to make to turn around. The thin lines on the drawing represent the path of the wheels. The vehicle used for this exercise is a Mercedes Sprinter van, comparable to an an Amazon van. If we could zoom in on the driveway portion here. Now, the turning maneuvers shown are for the vehicle parked just in from the sidewalk in the driveway loading zone. The the vehicle first turns to the right and into the turnaround zone. The vehicle then backs up tight along a far curb while extending out past the end of the driveway. Then on exiting to the street, the vehicle cannot stay within the drive apron and actually ends up crossing the terrace. Note that to accomplish this maneuver maneuver, no other vehicles can be in the driveway. One single turnaround requires all of the driveway to be able to execute the maneuver to turn around and exit driving forward. And remember this was the Mercedes Sprinter standard UPS and FedEx trucks are larger. The applicant has not shown what they say will h what they say will actually happen. In fact, they have provided documentation demonstrating that the drive area is simply not functional. State statutes providing for conditional uses state that the applicant must demonstrate quote subst substantive evidence unquote that all conditional use standards are satisfied. The neighborhood has been interacting with the development team on this proposal for three years. The proposal has been before UDC five to six times. Numerous staff reports have been written noting the concerns with the driveway. The applicant could not provide any examples where a similar situation has been constructed and effectively managed. No significant changes have been made to the driveway and loading areas this whole process. It's time to put this proposal to rest. We urge that you find that the conditional use standards three and five are not met and denied this request. And Jonathan will speak to the management plan. >> Uh yes, thank you. This is Jonathan. Um the management plan the development team has submitted is long on promises and short on detail as to how the activities and responsibilities outlined in that plan will be affected. For instance, staff will need to monitor the multitude of vehicles delivery, ride share, food delivery, trash, recycling, moveins and moveouts, maintenance and service that a 320 unit building will generate if the drive and short-term parking space is to function efficiently or even at all. Although [snorts] the property manager's [clears throat] office has been moved to the first floor, it is unclear how and when the manager and assistant manager will staff this office. Monitoring the drive area cannot be done on a 9-to-five basis 5 days a week. A twoerson management team seems inadequate for the staffing that will be required, especially considering that managing the drive area will be but one of their responsibilities. The de development team suggested to the neighborhood in our recent steering committee meeting that maintenance staff would assist in monitoring the drive area, but this seems unrealistic giving their other responsibilities. I live on Henry Street with a view of the Adriel on the corner of Wilson and Henry next to the site of this proposed development and I see the cycle track blocked by delivery vehicles on a regular basis. This occurs at a building that has two driveways, one on South Henry, which services the building's refuse and recycling pickups, as well as a devoted delivery zone on South Henry, immediately outside the door to the building's package room. The proposed building at 139 with a significantly larger residential population than the Adria and has only one driveway and with only one driveway will generate a level of residential population that the Adria that will will generate a level of traffic that will regularly create a level of congestion in the drive area that will spill out into the public ride ofway with a busy sidewalk, a single lane of vehicular traffic and a two-way cycle track on Wilson. street in front of this property. Traffic issues and safety concerns are inevitable. The neighborhood >> have a little less than a minute left just to let you know. >> Okay. Thank you. The neighborhood was told at our last meeting with the development team that they could not manage any traffic concerns in the rideway. Um, as the neighborhood noted in the written comments we submitted for your consideration, it would be far better to design a site that inherently creates effective operation and to rely on manager intervention and unread signage. The development team has consistently resisted the neighborhood's encouragement to create a functional design. I urge you to find the conditional use standards three and five are not met by the proposal before I and to deny this request. Thank you. >> Thanks, John. Okay. Uh, our next speaker is Ann Monk of District 4 registered in opposition and wishing to speak and we'll have three minutes. >> Hello, this is an >> welcome. >> Pardon? >> Oh, just welcome. Thanks. Oh, the management plan submitted by the developer uh simply does not address the project's irreversible impacts on the safety and function of the only transportation corridor on the south side of the cap that serves bicycles and westbound traffic. Under any management plan, the owners of this building will legally be unable to stop vehicles from using the cycle track or the street. As the developer has recently said last week to us, [snorts] common sense [clears throat] would say it will be close to impossible to manage what happens within the project's narrow driveway and small loading areas much of the time. Limited gateway access might be the only way to have reliable parking and loading, even for essential services like trash and maintenance. Most important for the conditional use decision when vehicles cannot or do not use the building's driveway, such as for moveins, which can happen at any time regardless of requirements for that driveway. They will most often use the rightway blocking the cycle track andor the roadway or use nearby private private property. And it won't be possible to sign or regulate that behavior away because the city will not be able to provide anything better. Along Wilson Street from Broom to Blair, the opportunities for solutions are disappearing. This project all by itself makes the problem much worse. Much worse at a high, very high public cost. This is the new reality of Wilson's two-way cycle track and a narrower street serving many important purposes. Please consider it's hard to estimate how many trips will be made uh needing this location. 320 units of housing. I live in a uh 64 unit condo. We get four trash and recycling deliveries a week. Uh last week the developer told us there will they think there's going to be garbage and recycling eight times a week that have to back in. Um, though the estimates are are hard to imagine, please do not make a decision that will place new limits on this area for the foreseeable future, making the downtown less accessible on this important corridor for [snorts] people in any future projects along the lake shore, including the Amtrak station that has recently been discussed. I submitted longer written comments which include a question about whether or not using a compactor for recycling to fit the squeeze space uh that's typical of this building in every aspect of how it's designed would even effectively allow for recycling. Um >> you have about 20 minutes left just so you know. >> Okay. Um >> good wrap up. So you just I think many people will require rides from vans or buses from this. You can't assume just because there isn't parking uh that there won't be a wide variety of people's needs here. There could be requirements for daily delivery that I see happening in other units. We've had people who have some kinds of disabilities. How often will plumbing, HVAC cleaning, and other services be needed for the building itself? Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, Han. Thank you. Okay, we have Phil Hees from District 4 registered in support and available to answer questions and Nicholas Davies of District 15 registered in support and not wishing to speak. And that's all we have for this item. >> Thanks, Megan. Um, we uh I guess the as we're in our public hearing um do members of the commission have questions for any of the registrants at this time? Um, Commissioner Schheim, thank you. >> Thank you. Um, for Randy and Doug, um, I was wondering if you could describe a little bit more the the trash pickup plan and how often you anticipate that being. [clears throat] I went back to some of the submittal materials that we had submitted for the first application and those had been de developed with the assistance of I think waste management and at that time they were predicting pickups twice a week. um that time that time frame in that original [clears throat] middle was early in the morning pickup which I think is being discouraged um for the reasons of it makes noise but currently based on the best advice we could get from a professional waste management company I think they were telling us that we could we could um anticipate twice a week based on the trash room that's designed here. >> Okay. Um and just a followup question um unrelated but in the management plan there's a section about in the bike and service parking um where it talks about building service needs by thirdparty contractors and move and move out parking needs will be controlled as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. So the preceding paragraph is about move in move out. So can you describe um if there's any way a special way you anticipate handling the normal you know maintenance someone coming for repairs someone coming for cleaning if that will be handled in any particular way. >> Jeremiah yeah >> we can hear you. >> Sure. So for vendors that we do not have on staff, um so technical maintenance items, um they would follow the same procedure that we would use for a move in move out uh on a residence where it would be a special permit they were given with a limited amount of time and it would be a scheduled time. So it did conflict with peak delivery times of services or it did conflict with move in and move outs and they would be allowed to use one of those service dolls for over the limit that's posted. Um normal cleaning and normal maintenance would be for staff that is on site. Um so that would not be required. It would only be required for special um technical maintenance items um that would either be an emergency or would be scheduled by staff. >> Okay. And when you say for normal staff on site, the management and maintenance staff, are you saying they would not need a special permit to park in that area or they would not park in that area altogether? >> They would they would not park in that area at all. um they would park park park offsite if they had a vehicle and um they will be on site to provide those maintenance duties uh typically uh from 8 to 5. >> Okay, thank you. That's all I have right now. >> Okay, Commissioner Hec, >> thank you. Just a couple of random questions for the the applicants. Uh I I guess I'm thinking of all the people that come to my building. Uh there are an infinite variety. Um I'm thinking of people who hire somebody to clean their apartment. Uh you know, we have crews of cleaners coming in that uh we don't know anything about. They certainly don't make appointments. Can you imagine how somebody like that might be handled? Yes. I mean, it's um that is not a maintenance item. It's not um it would be subject to the uh limit on service uh limit times on service. They'd have to park off site or be dropped off if they're providing service for a resident there. >> And so the manager would have to uh corral those people, I guess. Well, if they're parked, if they're not parked and are not the limited time service for the building, yes, they would that would be in violation and um they would be asked to move if we know exactly who they are or they'd be towed off site. >> Okay. Thank you. >> There'd be no tolerance for it. >> Okay. A couple other uh analogous questions. Uh uh we did hear that uh your trash and recycling plan was uh I think hinging on being able to to compact the trash and and if that's correct uh there was concern also that you can't really compact the recycling. So that might need to be on a different schedule. Uh my I know that my building generates more recycling than it does trash. Yeah, I think for trash we have a 2yard dumpster that gets compacted and for recycling that's a threeyard dumpster that doesn't get compacted. So there's a little bit of extra capacity built in for that. >> Okay. >> But but predicting that is as you would guess somewhat difficult. >> It is. Yes, it varies a lot too. Um, I I guess I kind of a a question about your management plan in general. Did Did you look at ma other management plans that other uh buildings in Madison have submitted to planning for approval? Yes, we looked at a couple things that had been submitted to planning, but we really took our we used really used our experience in managing, you know, dense inner city buildings um that we've done around the country and also, you know, buildings that we've done right in the neighborhood um that aren't this dense but are dense, you know, for the lot that they are on. Um and um that's where we take our experience from and that's how we um decided that the management should be set up for this building. >> Okay. Thank you. That's those are my questions for now. >> Thanks, Commissioner Sen. >> Thank you. Sorry, I had one more. Um uh as you know, there's a lot of concerns about blocking the the cycle track, and that's something I think we're learning as we've seen a lot of development in this corridor. And I appreciate you moving the manager's office to the first floor. Um, and it does appear to have a sight line to the short-term loading zone in the driveway. I was wondering if you would be amendable, and this may be on there, and perhaps I don't I don't see it, but I was wondering if you'd be amendable to a glass um opening on the the wall of the manager's office that faces the front so that there would be a direct sight line to the cycle track as well. >> Yeah. Tony um I think the manager's office was drawn in conceptually without a lot of detail given to but I think that they would appreciate that access visual [clears throat] access too. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I I did notice too I guess it's not my turn to comment so I'll just withhold that. >> Thanks. >> Yep. Um, Commissioner Pec. >> Thanks. I'd like to ask Doug to uh give us his latest comment. >> Thanks. >> Um, am I am I unmuted? >> You are. Yep, we can. Um, I've I thought that there were um barricades between the drive lane and the cycle way that would keep people from pulling off the traffic lane and into the cycle way um between driveways. And so I'm just wondering if the concern is that people will partly pull into the driveway and block the cycle way that way or if they'll just pull off the road and block the cycle way. And I'm just wondering if there's like another if there's like a solution like the barricades that I've seen out there that would help solve some of those traffic problems. That was my comment. Yeah, we can maybe we might be able to follow up on that just to get a better understanding. Are there other questions for our registrants um as part of our public hearing? Right. If not, I will um close the public hearing and then invite questions for staff. Maybe an easy place to start and maybe I'll get in front of Patrick this time is um is there a what are the what are the options if I'm coming if anyway? What are the what are the I guess threats to the cycle track from a a delivering car? what are their options to um stop near this building if they can't pull in? >> So, um I think at the at the moment there are some barricades there. Um but I I as I understand it or I'm not not 100% sure, but I believe that they are there um just because of the construction in the area. In other portions of the uh the Wilson Street cycle track, um there is a curb. Um but if there is not parking there, I I don't see that curb as being a [sighs] uh something that would stop an Amazon truck um a UPS truck uh from from driving up on there to get out of the uh roadway. >> Thanks, Colin. Um Kosher Heck. Thanks. Uh Colin, I think maybe you'd be the best person for this. Uh in the uh last I don't know what it is, five, six years, maybe more that we've been requiring uh management plans in the in the first year's uh plan commission did see those plans. they were they were a new thing. And then we've evolved to uh generally uh staff looks at the plans and that's a condition of approval that uh that staff will agrees that you know the the plan is sufficient. Uh in your judgment uh is this do you see this plan as uh I guess I'll say thin? Uh, I'm thinking back to several years ago because I haven't seen one in in recent years, but I I remember plans that were many pages long that described in great detail how uh it was often student related concerns, but how things would be handled uh exactly who would be on site when uh how complaints would be handled and uh I don't I don't really see any of those details. Is that kind of where these have been heading? The ones that you've seen in recent years? >> Yeah, I would I would say over the past couple years um we have more or less standardized this format for management plans. Um and and you're exactly right that uh a a more or less standard condition um becomes that the planning director um and zoning administrator or their um their assigns review and approve those. Um and again you are correct that most of the older management plans were very oriented towards those student projects. um and really took into account the issues that that those sorts of housing developments [snorts] uh had. Uh I think with this one specifically, um if you look at the uh the staff report addendum um that I put together, especially that uh revised condition two to the um the original list of of conditions from November 3, um that I think there were a few areas that were um probably not addressed to the level that the the plan commission was looking for. Um and so while there were uh some changes that that the applicant addressed the concerns, uh there were a few more um related to um you know, intrusions onto the the cycle path um and [snorts] things like that that I thought probably needed additional details um before uh the plan commission would be comfortable with those. uh you know whether that's something that uh the plan commission would like to see yet again um you know is up to the commission but um I identified the the topics that from the plan commission discussion I felt were were the ones that the commission believed were the most important ones um that were not covered in in the management plan um and recommended uh inclusion of those in the next iteration. >> Okay. Thank you. Those that was my question. >> Al G. >> Thank you, Chair. Um Colin or anyone else. Uh both on November 3rd and then again tonight, we heard skepticism about whether the dimensions in the driveway and uh the pull-in point would be adequate for all of the types of vehicles that would come in here. uh staff take a look with the tweaks to uh the down the first floor areas to uh whether it was realistic for uh the turning radius that are involved in making this happen. >> Uh yes, uh traffic engineering staff um was provided the updated plans uh as soon as they came in. Um they did not have it. [snorts] They acknowledged that it is it is some tight turns there. Um but they uh did not believe that it was not a workable solution. >> Okay. Thank you. >> If you'll forgive my double negative. >> Understood. Thank you very much. >> Thanks, Commissioner SH. >> Thank you. Um, Colin, this may not be something you know off hand, but Doug's mentioning of those barricades, which are now there for construction, made me think though about those streets we have um with a bike lane in between the parking and and they have those little ballards um for lack of a better word to protect it. And I'm I was wondering if there's any consideration. There is the curb, you know, in the completed area of W Street with the but trucks just go over that. Was there ever any consideration do you know of to add those or something like that on top of the curb to prevent trucks from going over it? >> I I cannot say that I know the answer to that. Um unfortunately >> I was thinking that you know there are times when we have conditions for pedestrian safety improvements um around a development and there may be an opportunity to consider that is that because that area that curb has not been developed if that may be something to consider that's done. Um >> I yeah I I think because that is in the right of way um I don't know if the plan commission would be able to put make a a binding condition there. >> Um certainly uh a [clears throat] comment oriented toward the the engineering division and traffic engineering division to um you know consider installation of those after the the project is completed. may be in order. Um, but I I don't know if it would be able to uh tie that directly to the um the applicant. >> Got it. Thank you. So, if there are no other staff questions, um, Commissioner Hec, >> just just one related question. And I'm thinking about the previous question and what Colin had to say and I'm reminded that sometimes we do require uh a deposit for instance for traffic future potential traffic safety installation. Couldn't this be analogous to that? >> I appreciate that question, Commissioner Hecen. I was just looking back at the original conditions from the staff report from your November 3rd meeting and it does look like traffic engineering included um condition number 40 related to posting of a security deposit um in the event that traffic signal, street lighting, signing, pavement marking or condo and manholes might be required to be modified related to the development um which I believe is one of their standard conditions >> and that that seems to include bike path infrastructure appro uh I wasn't sure about the wording. >> Yeah, I think that's a great question. Um we also have in uh the engineering divisions uh standards for 18 that the sidewalk, terrace, curb, gutter, pavement and pavement markings will need to be constructed to a plan approved by the city engineering um by city the city engineer I'm sorry. Um, so I think probably with those two together, if there were identified issues that could be specifically tied to this development itself and not to the broader condition and usage of the street, that those conditions could allow for um work with the developer to address those specific site specific concerns. >> Okay. Thanks, Are other questions? Um, are we uh are we ready to make a motion on this item? >> I'll do you G. Thank you. >> If if only for discussion, let me try to make a motion. >> Okay. You don't actually have to vote for it even if you may. >> Understood. >> Yeah. >> Move that the commission finds that the standards for conditional uses are met, including but not excluding exclusively standards three and five and approve conditional uses for a 16story multifamily use uh building at 139 West Wilson Street. uh subject to the conditions included in the staff report for November 3rd uh as well as those uh additional conditions for December 1st plus one more condition that the glazing for the management office on the first floor have a clear view of the uh bicycle path And uh following up on uh comments just from uh director Tuttle that the I believe it was item 40 in the uh original conditional uses with regard to uh requirements for engineering review of plans and so forth. and that specifically they look at the conditions for the bicycle path. That would be the motion. >> All right. Thanks, Audia Garrett. Commissioner Soulheim has seconded the motion. So, we have a motion and a second on the table. Um, uh, would either of the movements like to speak to the motion or, um, or would others on the commission like to make comments or discussion? I'll just say a few more things. Um, uh, I'm inclined to support this just because I think it's so novel to have a totally autofree, uh, multif family structure right downtown. Uh, it's a worthy experiment in sense. The the key, I think, for us here is to make sure that the, uh, particular issues with this site do not overwhelm its opportunity for success. And uh I would like to believe that uh the additional conditions proposed by staff as well as those several that we've just added based on the discussion that we've been having this evening would be adequate to provide reasonable expectation that uh uh the management clan can be successful. Thank you. Thanks all you care. Uh Colin, >> yes. >> Yep. Sorry. Uh just a a quick question regarding the motion. I I just want to make sure that um we're clear. Um item 40 was with regard was regarding the um the security deposit uh and and Alder or Commissioner Soulheim's questions about whether that would be used for um for Ballards or or something like that along the path. And then uh and then item 18 was the um the design, the city engineers design for um paths, curbs, and and the right of way. I just wanted to clarify in in Alder Yugare's um uh motion uh that he was that he was emphasizing item 18 regarding construction in the rightway rather than than item 40 which he he had mentioned or both. Um, I think it would be helpful to I couldn't remember the earlier number, but it was 18 uh as I remember. I think it'd be helpful to include both. >> Okay. >> And 18 is a plan approved by the city engineer, which I Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Got it. >> Yeah. >> Provided my my our second is also comfortable with that. >> She's giving a thumbs up. So, we will count that as comfortable. All right. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Hec, >> thank you. Uh, I'll, uh, repeat a little bit of what I had to say at the last meeting that I, I do find, uh, many good things about this project. Uh, I'm not in the least bit concerned that it doesn't have parking. I think the the plan to offer lower rents and a large number of smaller units is just fine. It's what downtown needs. But I'm I'm still not convinced that this isn't going to be a parking delivery loading disaster for not just the cycle track, but everything around there. I don't think they've uh responded appropriately to uh what we asked for uh in terms of placating our concerns about conditional use standards three and five. Uh I I I feel like uh they are kind of asking us just to hope for the best and that and that's not good enough. Um, I I think that perhaps if they put the an all glass uh manager's office in adjacent to the parking spaces and the cycle track uh not removed from it at all and and that it was staffed uh almost 24/7, I might be uh feel better about it, but I think it's going to take a tremendous amount of active management uh even inside and outside. And I've seen no indication that they're interested in doing that. Uh and and they've certainly had, as we've heard, years to to address some of these concerns. And I don't I don't know as if they're going to. Uh so I I'm not going to be supporting the motion because I don't think conditional use standards three and five are met. >> Thanks, Commissioner Hick. Um, Alder Verdier. >> Thank you very much, Chair. Uh, I just wanted to weigh in as I did at your last um meeting where this agenda item was discussed uh with some thoughts as the alder of the district. Uh, I uh concur wholeheartedly with the criticism of Commissioner Hec. I hate to say it, but I have to agree that um the progression that we've seen in the last few weeks to me u I still very much struggle with uh seeing standards three and five met uh in our zoning code um for conditional uses. Um, I attended the most recent neighborhood association steering committee a week ago with the applicants and uh, unfortunately u those of us that were in attendance and it's not just those you heard from again tonight from the neighborhood um, are all very remain very skeptical and we're disappointed that the representations um, in the management plan do not address all of the concerns that we have as neighbors. >> [snorts] >> Uh, I want to make it clear because I think there's been some confusion in the community, including in some media accounts, that the neighborhood is in no way, shape, or form opposed to increased density. Uh, in all the years I've had the honor of being in the position I'm in in city hall, uh, I personally and and my constituents have largely, uh, wholeheartedly supported any and all increased density downtown. And I, as I said last time I I joined all of you, uh I personally have no concerns and have had very few uh heard very few concerns from my constituents about the lack of any uh parking spaces for the tenants of this uh building if it is approved and built. So I just wanted to get that clear again at the outfront that the issue is not the density per se or the lack of parking provided per se. The issue is all about how do we service the building. This is a a case study in curb management in so many respects. As I shared with you last time, there is substantial evidence that we have significant issues with curb management and the functioning of the cycle track in the 100 block of West Wilson uh street today. uh including 179 West Wilson Street, the neighboring Adria building, not to mention the proposal that's been approved by this body previously for 131 West Wilson Street, the former Pyons building. So we today, every day still have blockage of the cycle track even with the fl plastic flex posts that we have continued to add along the cycle track corridor at um at touch points. So I I think that I know where the vote is going tonight clearly. Uh and I just hope that uh again uh if this uh proposal is built that the applicants do everything they can to prove us wrong and allay our concerns about how their tenants will be serviced here because I am very concerned how how this will work. Uh [snorts] I appreciate that you as a commission have continuing jurisdiction over conditional use permits. Uh and I have a a feeling that we might have to lean on that contin continuing jurisdiction, but once the building is built, particularly the narrow service aisle and uh space there, including for the turning radius, I don't know what all the city can do to try to mitigate the adverse impacts again as it relates to the servicing of the vehicles. So, uh I do appreciate the very um thoughtful um nature that that the commission has approached this application uh in your previous u meeting and again tonight. I just wish that the management plan uh would ended had ended up more robust. I of course appreciate the fact that the first floor has been reconfigured at least slightly with the inclusion of the management office on the first floor. I hope that that makes a a significant difference. I though have to admit I do remain skeptical of that as well. So it's just the fact the bottom line is that that there is such a high concentration of pedestrians, bicyclists and other vehicular traffic um currently and it's already such a challenging balancing act on this block. I just am so worried that that this isn't going to work out. I'm especially worried that um if the current um applicants no longer retain ownership of the building if it is approved and built uh that future managers uh won't do the job that that have been you know promised um that will be done here by by uh Mr. Alexander and Mr. Heath. Uh I do think that they that they have good track records. uh appreciate um McBride Company's current management of this property and other properties in the neighborhood. Um but I worry that that McBride won't be won't necessarily be managing this property in the long term again if it's approved and built. Uh, and so for those reasons, if I had a vote tonight, I obviously do not, but if I had a vote tonight, I would I would certainly um struggle uh with seeing that conditional use standards three and five are met and uh would hope that the commission uh would would uh find the same. Thank you. >> Thanks, Alder River. Any further discussion on the motion or should we are we ready to call the vote? I think um I think a roll call votes probably appropriate. Megan >> Y. Okay. Um Alderfield >> I. >> Alder Glenn. No. >> Alder Ugar. >> Hi. >> Uh, Commissioner Hec. >> No. >> Commissioner McCill. >> I. >> Commissioner Sanders. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Solheim. >> I. >> Uh, Commissioner Wnuski. >> I'm sorry. I didn't hear your vote. I >> Okay. All right. Um that is one, two, three, four, five, six eyes and two nos. Uh the motion passes. >> Thanks, Megan. Thanks everybody um for the thoughtful work on this one. U we will now um move on in our agenda. We have uh items 11 through 14 are related and are going to be considered together as a public hearing. Um I think Megan should I read them or read the or do we want to do Okay, I'm going to read all four of them. Um and then we'll proceed to our staff presentation. Um all right. So item 11 is legisar 900470 relating to 450 West Gilman Street. This is consideration of a demolition permit to demolish a commercial building. Item N legislar 90538 would create section 28.022-0033 022-0000733 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 450 West Gilman Street and 425 North Francis Street from UMX Urban Mixed Use District to DC Downtown Core District in Alder District 2. Item 13 is legisar 90381. This is again related to 425 North Francis Street and 450 West Gilman Street in Alder District 2. Consideration of a conditional use in the proposed downtown core district for a new building with greater than six stories and consideration of a conditional use in the downtown core district for outdoor recreation to allow construction of a 16story mixeduse building with 700 square ft of commercial space and 118 apartments. And then item 14 is legisar 903 93 approving the certified survey map of property owned by Bella Gardina LLC and Ridge View Apartments LLP located at 425 North Francis Street and 450 West Gilman Street in Alder District 2. So we'll the public hear we'll have one public hearing for these four items and we um but first we will start with our staff report from planner parks. Welcome. >> Thank yes. Nice to still be here. Uh chair, members of the plan commission, uh the four items before you uh pertain to the redevelopment of 425 North Francis and 450 West Gilman Street. Uh beginning with the demolition of 450 West Gilman Street. Uh moving on to reszoning of both parcels from UMX to downtown core, urban mixed juice to downtown core. Conditional uses for a building with greater than six stories and accessory outdoor recreation. And to tie the whole thing together, a one lot certified survey map. Uh the proposal calls for uh demolition of the two existing buildings to allow construction of a 16story 170 ft tall mixeduse building that will contain 700 square ft of firstf flooror commercial space along Gilman Street and 188 multifamily dwelling units. I'm sorry, 118 multifamily dwelling units. uh on the site. Uh the residential lobby will be located on the Francis Street side of the building. Uh the urban mixeduse zoning district has a 10-ft rear yard setback. Uh the proposed building will not meet that setback setback. Uh I haven't talked for hours, so now my mouth doesn't work. Um uh does not meet the UMX yard setback. So a resoning to the downtown core district which does not have a rear yard setback requirement is requested. Uh and then uh as mentioned the conditional uses or the height of the building and the accessory outdoor recreation uh conditional use uh which is for a pool and deck that will be located on the 16th floor of the proposed building. Uh the building uh is recommended for downtown mixed use uh by the uh comprehensive plan uh and is recommended for uh mixeduse development uh in up to a 12story building uh from the 2012 downtown plan. The staff believes that uh the reasonzoning to DC is consistent with those land use recommendations and that similarly the conditionally standards uh can be met subject to the conditions of approval uh that are outlined in the staff report. uh including but not limited to the submittal of a management plan for approval by zoning, planning, and traffic engineering staff prior to issuance of permits for the new building. Uh the demolition of 450 West Gilman Street will require plan commission approval. Uh during its review of the demolition uh of the six unit three-story multifamily building uh which was constructed in 1890, the landmarks commission uh gave the demolition a category B finding uh noting that the building has historic value but that the building itself is not historically, architecturally, or culturally significant. Uh in order for the plan commission to approve the demolition, it must find that the uh standards in section 28.185 parent C parent C are met. Parent six parent C are met. Uh and in this case, uh staff believes that the construction of the proposed building and its 118 dwelling units uh can be found to outweigh the public interest in preserving the historic resource. uh due to the significant increase in dwelling units proposed compared to the six existing in a scale and intensity that is consistent with the city's adopted plans. Uh lastly, uh the proposed development is adjacent to the landmark Grim Book Binder, which is located at 454 West Gilman Street, uh to the southwest of the proposed building. Uh and uh the zoning code requires that uh whenever a new development uh is adjacent to a local landmark or landmark site that the landmarks commission review and provide a recommendation to the urban design commission uh and/or plan commission as to whether the proposed development is so large or visually intrusive as to adversely impact the character and integrity of the adjoining landmark or landmark site. The landmarks commission uh reviewed uh the proposed development in its November 10th meeting and found that it was not so large uh as to adversely impact the grim book bindary due to the stepbacks and step and setbacks of the proposed building. Uh however, it did uh note that the composition of the Gilman Street facade facade uh might be visually intrusive uh to the uh adjacent grim book boundary and recommended uh adjustments to the uh architecture on the lower portions of the building uh to make it less visually intrusive. Um, the project has also been reviewed by the Urban Design Commission at their November 19th meeting as part of its recommendation on the proposed uh greater than sixstory building. Uh, it uh proposed conditions uh that it feels will make the building less visually intrusive. Uh those uh conditions as first recommended by landmarks and now uh by the urban design commission are part of the conditions of approval uh that are recommended beginning on page 11 of the staff report. So in conclusion, uh staff believes that the various standards for approval can be met for the demolition, resoning, conditional uses, and one lot certified survey map subject to the comments and conditions in the staff report. I'd be happy to answer questions after the public hearing. Thank you. >> Thanks, Tim. Uh we have registrance for this item, so we will open the public hearing. And I will again remind folks that uh the speaking the time limit for speaking on uh during the public hearing is 3 minutes um that I unless we have a group that's pulled and I think I can't remember Megan we do. Yeah. So we'll have um a couple of speakers on the uh have asked to pull their time. So >> and we will start with that group. Um, we'll start with Brian Mson representing Villa Student Housing and Robert Tate, I believe, of the same uh replic representing the applicant team and have requested to pull their time for a total of six minutes. >> All right. Well, thank you everyone uh for staying staying on the line here tonight. Again, Brian Mson with Vanderwal and Associates here on behalf of Villa's student housing design team. Um Tim [snorts] did an excellent job of going through a lot of the statistics. So yes, if you could jump to page two, I'll just talk a little bit about how we got here. Uh as always, we started with our homework. Uh we reviewed the adopted plans and really took to heart the existing and emerging context of the area and designed a building to meet the downtown core zoning standards, adopted plans and landmark guidelines for this site. A couple key components to note. Uh, you know, this property utilizes the downtown height ordinance to unlock an additional four floors of housing through the delivery of 34 beds of affordable student housing set at a 45% discount versus the market rate for the comparable bed within the building. Uh, and that land use restriction was actually in front of the finance committee uh this evening uh with a recommendation to approve uh or to the council. I'd [snorts] also note that this building is designed to be entirely below the 172 ft height requirement along with the capital view preservation limit with all HVAC and elevator overruns designed to be within the main uh proposed mass of the building rather than on top of what you see. So, this was designed consciously to try to keep that height limit to mind uh and make sure that we're respecting those. So, this project's been diligently moving through the process uh has been made better through the numerous discussions with city staff, alders, neighborhood stakeholders, and commissions. And as Tim noted, uh the November 10th landmarks finding the project was not visually intrusive to the Grim Book binder and that the existing building did not have historic value in and of themselves. coupled with the November 19th Urban Design Commission final approval recommendation. Uh, you know, we really also would note that we appreciate the the committee's uh inputs and we'll work with staff to resolve the garage door and pool deck configurations as part of the site plan review submitt. So [snorts] tonight, in the interest of time, uh again, we're here uh requesting plan commission uh build on the staff recommendation for approval and grant approval for the conditional use permit and demolition request and forward a recommendation of approval for the CSM and resoning request to next week's common council. So with that, I will hand it over to Bobby Tate to talk through some of the design discussions. >> Yes, thank you Brian. Uh Bobby Tate, Rodie Partners here. We are the architects on the project. Um and if you'll flip back to slide two for me very quickly. Um I would like to touch on you know just the site planning aspects and and some of the um design approaches we took specifically at the ground level here. So you know being wedged in this this kind of tightlyk knit site um between Francis Street, Gilman Street, the Grim Book Binder and the hub adjacent to us. um we found that, you know, we wanted the main building lobby um building entrance to be located off of Francis Street. So there we've we've run it as much of Francis Street as we could with that um pedestrian oriented function. And then knowing that we do have some back of house functions, but yet we wanted to again bring that same commercial, you know, real pedestrian friendly approach to to Gilman Street. We've located a a commercial retail space off of Gilman Street and tried to tuck as much of the um the back of house functions within the the heart of the building um nonvisual from the Gilman Street side using that that retail um frontage as a liner to shield the parking the trash uh collection rooms things of that that nature and really minimizing the back house function such as the um the drive entry and some ventilation that we have to have off front of Gilman Street. Uh so if you'll please advance to the next slide. Um, as previously mentioned, you know, one of the most important aspects of designing the building from a massing standpoint was really giving that relief and and giving the space to the grim book boundary um by stepping the building back away, locating the bulk of the height and the mass towards the hub where it felt a lot more appropriate and then gradually stepping down both um from the Grim Book Bindary building but also So, you know, adhering to the required uh street setbacks at Gilman Street and Francis Street. Um, and if you'll advance, one more slide, please. >> Um, about a minute and a half left, just so you know, just >> Okay. Um, so, you know, we we wanted to create a really strong base of the building that ties into the context of both street frontages. Here you're looking at Francis Street. um how you know we're looking at alignments of cornises um and articulation of the adjacent hub building. If you advance two more slides please then going back to um I'll talk about this slide just in the interest of time. Um so you know the we had the strong base with the lighter um top where we've located you know a much more modern top to the building with some amenity spaces um for the residences at the [clears throat] top of the building and then if you go one more slide please. Yes, this is the slide. So going back to the Gilman Street frontage, we've got the Grim Book binder there to the left showing how this slide specifically shows how we how made a conscious effort stepping up and away from the building creating this space very transparent, very light, tying that pedestrian level into the building. And as Brian mentioned, you know, we've we've heard the comments and um conditions from historic landmarks and we're we're more than open to working with staff to make a more transparent um garage entry that feels more like a storefront as well if you're advanced. >> Yep. Thanks, Robert. There may be time for questions. So, >> okay. I'll also note that Jonathan Lily from Verbecker as part of the applicant team is available to answer questions as well. Um, our next registrant is John Rowling. Um, I think John is registered both neither support nor opposition and opposed. Um, but wishing to speak to you this evening. >> I'll make it clear. >> Yep. I'll make it clear that I am I registered as opposed simply in order to hold a place. I accept as given that the building at 450 West Gilman will be demolished, but I'm here to suggest a way to preserve the history of this building and its role in the development of our community. Landmarks Commission designated the building as having quote historic value related to the vernacular context of medicine's built environment as an intact building constructed circa 1890. Now one definition of vernacular architecture reads the architecture of the people the practical functional response to a specific environment. So what was the vernacular context or specific environment for the construction of the building at 450 West Gilman? The [clears throat] building was originally designed and used as the university hotel in about 1890. The 1890s was a seminal period for the relationship between the UW and the surrounding community. This was an era when the University of Wisconsin became one of the leading US state universities. Between 1887 and 1900, the UW student population surged from 500 to 2,000. In 1890, UW chemist Steven Baptcock developed the Babcock Butter Fat Test, the standard for grading milk still used today. It was in 1893 that W professor Frederick Jackson Turner annunciated his frontier thesis of American history, a concept still cited today. And it was in 1994 that the board of regions adopted the principle, the great University of Wisconsin shall ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth may be found. August and Dorata Reiter and their son August Jr. migrated from Germany in 1865 to farm in the town of Blooming Grove. By 1880, August Jr. had moved to Madison, advancing from working as a laborer to operating a cafe on State Street by 1890. The Madison City Directory for 1892 shows August Jr. as proprietor of the University Hotel at 450 West Gilman. Also living at the hotel were his widowed mother, his wife, and children. Over the next 20ome years, members of the Reutder family operated the hotel themselves or with hired staff. By 1917, however, the hotel had been converted to apartments, renamed the Arlington, the building has been a campus area housing staple for over 100 years. Like most social history, the facts are simple, but the meaning is more complex. The story of the Reuter family in the University Hotel Arlington Apartments is a story of the intersection of town and gown in Madison's experience. I ask you to preserve a documentary record of this building. I propose the same condition that you adopted recently uh for city water well number 12. That is quote, "Prior to issuance of permits to raise the existing building, the applicant shall submit documentation of existing conditions to meet historic survey standards. The documentation submitted shall be acceptable to the city's preservation planner. >> I believe it's a modder's request. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um with my apologies to Jeff Ranki. We'll hear from Jeff next of District 6 registered in opposition and wishing to speak. >> Hi. Can you hear me? >> We can. Welcome, Jeff. >> Oh, hi. Thank you very much. I'm um I I started explaining first why I was so pesty at 7:30. Um cuz [snorts] I'm in the city library to watch this meeting. Um and they close in 8 [clears throat] minutes and um the reason I'm in the library, I was trying to get your attention at 7:30 to see if we could move up to item 11, 12, 13, 14, and skip nine so I could get time to talk. Uh the reason I'm in the library is because uh I'm not a real techy guy and um the email I got from the plan commission is in black type and I had to have a librarian help me put that into blue type so I could get to the meeting tonight. Is that clear? >> Thanks. Thanks Jeff. Yeah, but you are going to um run out of time. So maybe you want to get to your points on the project. >> Right. Right. So I only have two points. I have more than than I have time for, but let me just type a few high points here. So on number 11 on page three, it says the downtown 2012 downtown plan keeps the area unique, vibrant, special, intimate character of the state street district. Um, Portella and Port certainly do that. Uh they are very much in alignment with um the Grim book binder. I knew Bill Grim. He was a friend of mine. Um and then on page eight number 11 says um all autos leaving the site will be directed to the intersection of State and Gilman and North Broom Street, a historically busy pedestrian crossing crossing along State Street. It really is. Right. And um I spent most of my life down either as a student at the UW or working on W campus as staff. I've done been on State Street a zillion times. That intersection is wild for a lot of reasons. And uh I go on here that in the intent letter uh from Vanderwall and Associates Incorporated, it states there are 188 units in this building. Now, if you look closely, there's the final warning. Um, if you look 188 units, you break it down. They have the numbers on paper. 188 units. Break it down to 441 residents. 441 residents. And they're all going to be trying to get out that intersection of State Gilman and um Henry uh Broom. I >> Jeff, I [clears throat] we do need you to wrap up in about 30 seconds, please. >> Okay. So, I'll just wrap up one last second here and then I have to and then I'll be leaving. Uh the applicant is Brad A. Kak student housing located in Austin, Texas. That's his business address. He went to the University of Oklahoma. His address is in Oklahoma and his area code for a cell phone is Oklahoma. This is another out oftowner who want to make lots of money. He has no idea what the local environment is. Please save the downtown. Please save. You should just all safety should be kind of like a historical district, but just save um Portella and 450 Gilman and along with Bill Grim bookstore because that's so much a part of Madison just historically. Thank you very much for Thanks. Thanks for your patience tonight. >> Thank you. All right. Okay, I think our next speaker is Rebecca Anderson of District 2, registered in opposition and wishing to speak. >> Rebecca, we might need you to unmute yourself. Uh, Rebecca, you're unmuted on our end. You may see a prompt or a popup window behind something uh asking you to unmute, or you may have a headset or a uh uh button um that's keeping you muted right now on your device, but you are unmuted and allowed to speak on our end. You will have to unmute on your end. Oh, there we that that looks good. Rebecca, >> can you can you hear me? See me? >> Yes, we can. >> We can hear you. Yes. Yeah. The camera will be off, so we're not going to we won't see you, but we can hear you clearly. >> Okay, that's fine. Um Okay. I am uh the owner of 454 West Gilman, the book bindary. Um I've been in this business since uh the early 70s, so I'm not a newbie by any means. And the um it's kind of ironical that I bought it from Randy Alexander. Um, so my concern is for the building, the um the fact that you build this big high-rise next to this little tiny building and you saw the pictures and they're saying it's unobtrusive. It is obtrusive. It's it doesn't that does not fit with the historic flavor of the corner. I own 405 North Francis. Also, the Eleanor, which is on the other side of the courtyard. There will be no sunshine coming into that building. It was going to uh have mold. The weeds are going to grow. It's It's And now with just the Arlington there, these kids, they throw everything off their balconies and it lands on the roof of this property. So, they're going to get more uh anyway. Um, and I agree with Alderman Tishler on his assessment of landmarks. Why have a landmark if you're not going to protect it so that it stays in good condition? um people aren't going to want to even have a land a building designated as a landmark. Even with the tax benefits, they're not going to. Um the other thing is um the construction next to that building, it's it's old. The construction is going to compromise the building itself. It's old. It's got one of those lantern stone basements and it's it it could destroy the building if with the pounding and the jackhammers and and all of that. Um >> Rebecca, about 30 seconds. >> Okay. I just wanted to let you >> I think that the landmark committee should have investigated the Porttoella 425 North Francis. It has a history that is unbelievable. And um I listened to that and the the hotel was not there. The hotel was the Arlington, not the Porttoella. and uh Rose Troya ran a bakery out of there and all the Troyas came from Greenbush. There is a an amazing history connected with it. Um Sicilian heritage and the rumor is that uh that was the Sicilian Italian mafia that uh was around Madison at in the 30s. >> Becca, thanks for coming out. We appreciate your comments. You're welcome. Thank you. >> All right. Um I believe that's all of our speakers wishing to comment this evening. So I'll read the rest of our registrants briefly. Um the following registrants are registered in opposition and not wishing to speak. Uh, Joseph Cororb of District 2, Alexis Maynberg of District 2, James Rapich of District 2, um, Sophia Cororb of District 2, Sarah Ze of District 2, Emily Cross of District 13, and Dan Frolic district unknown. Uh, and I'm just skimming the list one more time to make sure. And then um the following registrant is registered in support and not wishing to speak. Uh Nicholas Davies of district 15. That's everyone chair. >> All right. Thank you. Are there questions for any of our from the commission for any of our registrants tonight? >> Uh Commissioner Heck. Thanks. >> Thanks. This is probably for Brian. Uh Mson, uh Brian, can you tell us about uh how uh the management of this building or the design of the building might prevent what has been a problem in other uh student highrises? Uh things going overboard. >> Oh, yes. Uh the bottles on the rooftop discussion that that seems to come up a lot. Um, >> yes. >> And it's a couple of things. Uh, one is the on-site management uh on the building, keeping an eye on things and operations. The other is the design of the building. Uh, you have in this building, uh, really limited opportunities for exterior balconies. Uh so I don't know Tim if you can pull back up the the perspectives on page uh I think page four would be the best one to show it but you know this was designed uh with a common open space located up on the 16th floor uh which will be administered by and and of course have oversight from the operations uh group for the management group for the the property. Then what you don't see are a lot of other balconies. Uh and that was an intentional design uh decision on this to have uh more of a a common element. So page three of the of the um the packet really highlights that uh in that this building design was intentional to do two things. One, as you heard earlier, step the building back in a way, bring the mass in closer to the hub. But the second piece was to round off this edge, you know, this end of the block to give kind of a front of the building all the way around. And there's not a lot of balconies. Uh there's a few spots uh lower down uh where there's rooftops that might that have the opportunity, but really the the outdoor open space for this project is a communal outdoor open space up on the 16th floor uh which the management uh will oversee uh during while that portion of the building is open. >> Okay. Thanks. Just just one more question. Uh I'm not sure if you if you know about this, but uh how will uh the let's say foundation of the adjacent historic building be protected during uh both demolition and construction. >> So [clears throat] that'll be something that'll be part of the um earth retention system and monitoring construction. That's that's typical of any urban site. Uh regardless of the age of the next door buildings is, you know, as you're building a building, don't damage the buildings next door. Uh and so there's numerous examples. You know, the hub right next door butts right up against historic structures along State Street. Uh but anywhere you look throughout this area, you are building next to an existing structure. Uh and so that's something that that whoever builds this uh will have to take to heart. It's also something that'll be looked at uh with the city engineering uh very closely as part of the building permit review uh and the site plan review submitt. So there'll be a lot of steps left after this approval moves forward uh where that will get finalized, but it's fairly common practice to have construction adjacent to u you know buildings next door. So it it's not something that's um unique to this site. And would would uh your team do you think be amendable to helping the book bindary uh document the current condition particularly of their foundation. So there could be uh a before and after assessment. >> Uh that has been done in other buildings. So I'm I'm sure that's something that they would consider. Yes. >> Okay. Great. Thanks. Those were my questions. >> Thanks Commissioner. Other questions for registrants? Um, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing on this item and uh invite questions from the commission for staff. >> Sure. >> Thanks. related to my my last question. I'm just wondering if you have advice for uh perhaps a a condition of approval that uh asks for a a a an assessment of the foundation of the adjacent historic building if there's precedent for that in conditions of approval or uh is a a handshake on that sufficient. >> I would recommend uh that you not make it a condition of approval. Uh this is a matter between private parties and uh while I certainly appreciate the intent and would strongly encourage all of the nearby property owners to document their current conditions uh right before the start of construction. any anything that might you know be born of that study uh the city does not want to be you know dragged into uh because it is a matter between private properties and uh so unfortunately I I would not encourage that condition. >> Okay. Thanks Tim. Other questions? >> Um if not um I would invite a motion >> on Well, sorry that this is my job. Let's start with item 11, which is the demolition per permit. Would anyone like to um make a motion on the demolition permit? >> Commissioner Soulheim. Thanks. >> Thank you. I will uh move approval of the demolition permit for 450 West Gilman Street. >> Thank you, Commissioner or Alder Glenn. Second. Thank you. Um any discussion, further further explication on the motion? Um seeing none, I think we're ready to call a vote. Is there objection to unanimous approval for um the motion on the demolition permit? Seeing none, we will record that as approved. Um and next we'll go to um item 12 uh legisar 90538 which would change the zoning of the property from district to DC district. Uh Alder Fields. >> Thank you chair. I'll move that the plan commission forward the this resoning item to the common council with a recommendation for approval. >> Thank you, Alder Glenn. You got in there on the second. Thank you. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, any objection to unanimous approval on the resoning. Thank you. That is approved. Um next is item 13. This is the legisar 90381 the conditional use for new building greater than six stories um in the DC district and with outdoor recreation. Um, Alder Year move that uh the commission finds that the standards for conditional use are met and approve uh uh allowing construction of a 16story mixeduse building with 700 square ft of commercial space uh and 118 apartments and rooftop outdoor recreation at 425 North Francis Street and 450 West Gilman Street subject to the conditions in the staff report. >> Thanks Alder Yair. Alder Glenn got a second. Good. Um any further discussion explication on the motion? Seeing none, is there objection to unanimous approval um for item 13. That item is approved. Um and now we go to item 14, legisard 90393. And that is the certified survey map of um the subject property. Um Alder Glenn, thank you. >> Move to approve. >> Thanks, Alder Glenn. Alderfield. Second. Thank you. Um any objection to unanimous approval for this item? Um Megan, thanks. I just want to make a a quick clarification um that this would be uh recommend for council approval. >> Recommendation for council approval. >> Yes. Thanks. Um all right. Any objection to unanimous approval for the recommendation to council on this certified survey map. Right. See none. Item 14 is approved. Um we have one more project. This is items 15 through 17 and we'll do this uh consolidated as one public hearing. Um I'll read the three items. Item 15 is legisar 900539 creating section 28.022-0000734 022-0000734 of the Madison General Ordinances to change [snorts] the zoning of property located at 501 North Whitney Way from NMX Neighborhood Mixeduse District to TSS Traditional [snorts] Shopping Street District in Alder District 11. Um item 16 is legisar 900391 again related to 501 North Whitney Way and alder district 11 consideration of a conditional use in the proposed traditional shopping street TSS district and transit oriented development overlay district for a multif family dwelling with greater than 36 units and consideration of a conditional use in the TSS district for a building taller than four stories and [snorts] 60 ft in the TOD overlay district. All to allow construction of a fivestory 42 unit multif family dwelling and followed by item 17 which is legisar 9 0394 approving a certified survey map of property owned by 8 and 8 partnership located at 501 North Whitney Way in Alder District 11. Um so we will start with a staff presentation and Tim you have the floor. Yes. Thank you, chair, and members of the plan commission. Just briefly, items 15, 16, and 17 uh involve the redevelopment of a roughly halfacre parcel at the northeastern corner of North Whitney Way and Shabboan Avenue, uh currently occupied by a three-story, 15-unit multifamily dwelling, uh which will be demolished to make way for a five-story 42-unit multifamily dwelling. Uh the site is currently occupied by that uh 15-unit building on the eastern half of the site and uh surface parking lot on the western half adjacent to Whitney Way. Uh the applicant uh is requesting reszoning from neighborhood mixeduse to traditional shopping street because uh the neighborhood mixeduse zoning district uh does not allow multifamily dwellings with more than 36 dwelling units in them. Uh so in order to be able to construct the 42 units proposed uh resoning is necessary. And then in addition to the conditional use for the number of units in the proposed building, uh there is also a request for conditional use approval uh for one additional story more uh than the height that would be allowed by Wright in the TSS district and transit oriented development overlay. Uh staff has reviewed the resoning request and feels that it will implement the community mixeduse recommendations for the site in the west area plan uh and generally believes that the standards for conditional use approval can be met uh including standard 11 which pertains to buildings uh that are proposing height that are that is greater than what is permitted in the uh underlying zoning. Uh in this case, uh staff feels that the proposed height can be uh approved subject to conditions uh requiring that the height of the fifth floor uh be revisited to uh see if there's any slight reduction that can be uh gained there uh to bring the fifth floor into better uh proportion uh relative to the rest of the building. [snorts and clears throat] And then also staff believes that uh the height of the building is particularly uh significant along North Whitney Way and secondarily along the northern property line and staff is uh proposing uh condition number one on page 8. uh that the applicant work with planning staff to study other facade treatments along those northern and western facades that would soften their appearance and reduce what we feel is a certain massiveness of the proposed building. [snorts] Uh so that uh we feel that the conditional use or the height can be met with those two conditions. uh and are recommending approval of the entire project subject to the conditions uh for the conditional uses beginning on page 8 of the staff report and for the certified survey map to combine uh the property into one lot for the new building uh that are on page 14 of the staff report. And I'll be happy to answer questions after the public hearing. Thank you. >> Thanks, Tim. Megan, will you lead us through the registrance for this item? >> Yes, chair. Um, our first registrant on this item will be Kevin Burrow, uh, reg I'm sorry, representing Kenothy and Bruce Architects, um, representing the applicant team. >> Kevin, welcome. >> Good evening. This is Kevin Burl. Tim, if you could pull up our presentation slides, please. [clears throat] I do want to thank everyone for your extended time this evening. It is getting rather late and I appreciate your dedication on this commission very much so. Unfortunately, I do not have a 16story building to present to you. Um, so we're going to break the theme a little bit, but just simply a five-story building located at the intersection of Whitney Way and Shabban Avenue. If you go to the next slide, please, you can see our site locator map here where we've highlighted the site in the center. There it is on a prominent street corner here and we have chosen to remove this existing building to provide better uh density at this location and build a building right up against the street to help anchor that corner. If you go to the next slide, you can see in the site layout where we are proposing this locating the building directly on the corner. Our main entry would be off of Shabboan Avenue to the south, but all vehicular entrance would be combined to one driveway off of Whitney Way on the northern side of the site. And if you're familiar with this property, there's quite a bit of topography on this site. So, we actually have exposure on two different floor levels that we can achieve on the northern side to provide access to two levels of totally enclosed parking. So, there will not be any surface parking on this property, but simply enclosed parking for all residents. If you go to the next slide, please, you can see the floor plan layouts. Starting in the upper leftand corner, it's our lowest level of parking, which has direct grade access. Then adjacent to that is the first floor level which has additional first floor parking again at great access. And then we have a units above the lower level parking. And then the building does transition into an L-shaped building. We have a roof plaza available at the second floor level and then a mixture of studios, one to two bedrooms um scattered out throughout the entire building. And as you might notice on the fifth floor, the building does step inward and all exposed sides to reduce the overall mass and scale along the street. And then our um we're utilizing the fifth floor level for the roof of the fifth floor for green roof elements as well. If you go to the next slide, please. We have a number of perspective views and in regards to the comments that Tim just shared with you in regards to the staff report, we will happily work with staff to work on the design of the space. We have a strong masonry base element which helps anchor it to the site. But in looking at this perspective view, we can appreciate the sentiment that perhaps a softer consideration could be made for that exposed first floor level above the lowest level of parking to really provide more scale and character to this exposure here. But you can see both garage door entries, one at the lowest level and then ramping up the site at the first level as well. And above that is that outdoor plaza area. Next slide, please. >> About 30 seconds left. Sure. We just have a series of exterior renderings here. You can see the uh images here on this screen is the um secondary entrance for residents along Whitney Way. If you go to the next slide, uh you can see the main entry here coming off of Shboan Avenue right in the center of the image. Next slide, please. And then the main facade facing along Shbboen where we also have a secondary entrance into the stair uh well for all residents. As I mentioned earlier, the building does step back and we also consider reproportions of the top parapit on the fifth floor to better bring that into scale and proportion. >> Thanks, Kevin. Stick around in case there's questions. >> We'll do. Thank you. >> I'll note that we also have uh Sarah Church representing Verbucker as part of the applicant team and Adam Coyle representing the property ownership. Uh both are here available to answer questions if there are any. Um, our next speaker is Toby Betau Bhauser of District 11, registered neither support nor opposition but wishing to speak. >> Okay. Can you hear me? >> You can. Welcome. >> Great. Thanks. Yeah, I'm uh Toby. I live right across the the uh street from the proposed um development. I'm would say we're not opposed at all to having an apartment. We uh bought our house with an adjacent uh four-story apartment, so we're quite used to having many neighbors and are happy to have um many neighbors. Um my chief concerns for it are just um somewhat aesthetic but also functional. Um if I understand correctly, there's not really anything um pertaining to like lighting and um our bedrooms do back up to what would be the front of this property along Whitney. So, um, if it's possible to have some kind of, um, condition or if the developers are willing to, um, you know, not have a bunch of really bright lighting facing our bedrooms, we would appreciate it. Um, and I think the my only other real concern is just, um, a lot of the apartments along that uh, Chbuan area um, are I'm a professor at WMadison, but I'm speaking on my my own behalf today. Um, a lot of the the students that we deal with at the med campus um do have housing along there. Um, and primarily because the rents are more affordable there. Um, I do have some concerns that uh if these existing uh apartments are going to continue to get redeveloped um that it's going to not exactly help uh in terms of affordable housing. Um the the current rents at that property are are a bit affordable yet um although still getting somewhat expensive in my opinion. Um and for example across the road the Whitney reserve was about 500 to 600 more a month um for similar properties. So um yeah and I I also just want to um say that I appreciate the staff comments regarding the facade as well um and I would um support those um proposed amendments. And that's it. Thanks, Toby. Thank you for coming out. >> Okay. Um, our next speaker is Kelly Kuransza of District 11, registered in opposition and wishing to speak. >> Chair, there's no person in attendance by that name. >> Okay. I >> um our last registrant then is Nicholas Davies of district 15 registered in support and not wishing to speak. >> Thanks Megan. >> Um are there questions from the commission for any of the registrants? All right. Um seeing none, we'll close the public hearing at this time. >> Chair, I'm sorry. Uh, Commissioner Hec has his hand up. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Thanks. I spoke too soon. Go ahead. >> Well, I was I was late in getting my hand up, too, so apologies. >> Um, I guess I I would just ask Kevin what he can tell us about the the lighting that that uh on the facade or that that or the grounds that might impact the neighbors across Whitney Way. >> Sure. Happy to answer that question. Uh we will not have any amount of substantial exterior lighting. We will have to provide um down lights over the egress doors and any entry doors for safety reasons only. But it is not not our intent to have any glaring lights. And we will be following Madison's dark ordinance as well. So any fixtures have to be downcast and not outward facing uh luminaries as well. So we will comply with those ordinances. >> Great. Thank you. That was my question. Thanks. Thanks, Patrick. Thanks, Ken. All right, we will close the public hearing. I I'm It's getting late and I don't remember if I said we opened the public hearing, but we had a public hearing and we're now going to close it. And we'll see if the commission have questions for staff on this project. All right. Um, seeing none, would anyone like to Well, we'll start with the um reszoning from of this site from NMX to TSS district, traditional shopping street district. Um, and Alder Yugare. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I'll move that the plan commission forward zoning map amendment ID 28.022-0000734 022-0000734 reszoning 501 North Whitney Way from NMX to TSS to the common council with a recommendation of approval. >> Thanks Alder Glenn. Thanks for that second. Um any further discussion on this motion on the resoning? Seeing none, is there any objection to unanimous approval for this item? That item is approved. Um now we'll go to um item 16 legisar 9 0391. This is the conditional use uh application uh for multif family dwelling with greater than 36 units and a building taller than four stories and 60 ft in the to overlay district um to allow four fivetory 42 unit multif family dwelling. Alder you g. Thank you, chair. Um, I'll move that the plan commission finds that the standards for conditional uses are met uh to approve a fivestory 42 [snorts] unit multifamily building uh subject to the uh conditions in the staff report. >> Thanks, Aler Glenn. Thanks for the second. Um, any further discussion? Seeing none, is there any objection to unanimous approval for the conditional use? All right, that item is approved. Um, and then last but not least, >> [snorts] >> um, this would be legisar 90394, a recommendation to approve a certified survey map, um, of this subject property. Uh, Alder Glenn, >> quick question before I say approval. Is this to send to council for approval? I approve that. >> All right. So, recommendation for council to approve. Thank you. Is there Alder Yugare? We'll take the second on that. Thank you. Uh, any discussion? And seeing none, any objection to unanimous approval for uh the certified survey map? That item is also approved. So, thank you. This is a big agenda, so thanks for hanging in there. Um, are there any member announcements, communications, or business items folks would like to share? Um, seeing none, um, we'll, uh, give Megan the floor for secretary's report. >> All right. Thank you. Um, I wanted to just share a few updates in terms of the list of upcoming matters for the December 15th meeting. Um, I think many of you know that we began sharing draft recommendations for the southeast and southwest area plans back in October and those have been available for public review since. The teams will be coming to your meeting on December 15th to share those draft recommendations with you and to discuss them with you as a commission. I don't think that was on previous list of upcoming matters for you. Um, I also wanted to note that several of the projects that are listed here are actually going to be referred to a future meeting. So, specifically the projects at 33 West Johnson, 411 to 433 West Gilman, uh 5015 Shabboan Avenue, and 3205 Steven Street. Those are all um still working their way through prior BCC reviews and um assembling materials that are needed for them to be ready for the commission. So those will not be on your agenda on December 15th. Um I want to make sure everybody saw that they received an email from our office last week with our special meeting dates for 2026. Um, so those include March 31st, June 11th, and September 29th. If you have any major conflicts with any of those dates, please let us know and we can work on finding some alternates. But so far, it seems like those have worked for the majority of people we've heard from. And just a reminder as well, if you have not already done it, um you should have received an email from uh the city asking you to complete your required um financial disclosure uh as part of your service as a plan commissioner. So, please make sure to fill that out uh and submit that for this year. That's all I have for this evening, chair. >> Thanks, Megan. Any questions from the commission for Megan? All right, seeing none, I'd ask for a motion and a second to adjurnn. Um, thanks Alderfield. Um, Nicole, thanks Commissioner Soulheim. You got it in there. Uh, any objection to unanimous approval on our motion to adjourn? Seeing none, um, we'll see you in a couple weeks. Thanks everybody. Have a good night. Stand adjourned. >> Thank you. Have a good night.