Can everybody hear me? All right, we are at time. Um, and we do have a quorum. So, I will call this meeting of the Madison Plan Commission for Monday, April 27th, 2026 to order. Um, we'll start with a roll call. Um, planner FCO FCA. Wait, >> thank you. You got it. >> Almost had it. All right, that's right. If you would do the roll call, that would be great. >> Thank you, chair. Um, Alderfield >> here. Alderfield is present. Alder Yanette Figurel Cole >> here. >> Figuro Cole is present. Alder >> here. >> Alder Gare is present. Uh, Commissioner Soulheim >> here. Commissioner Solheim is present. Commissioner Hec >> here. >> Commissioner Hec is present. Commissioner Sanders >> here. >> Commissioner Sanders is present. Commissioner Wnooki. >> Is it? >> No. Commissioner Wnuski is present. Um, school representative Chihack >> here. >> All right. And Chair Gnam >> here. Thanks. Welcome Alder Figuro Cole um to your first meeting. I'm sorry and Commissioner Bassine. >> Oh, Commissioner B. Sorry. >> Oh, I might have jumped in soon. Sorry about that. >> Nope. >> All right. Um very good. Um I think Commissioner McCill is excused and so alternate Wnooki will be voting tonight. Um so very good. We will um start with technical information from our technical facilitator Jesse P. >> All right. Welcome to our virtual plan commission meeting. If you lose connection at any point during the meeting, you can reconnect by clicking the link or calling the number in your original email. Members, if you are able, please activate your video and keep it on for the duration of the meeting. Staff, if you are able, please activate your video when you are speaking. Panelists, use the raise hand feature when you'd like to be recognized to speak, ask questions, or request a roll call vote. Lowering your hand will take you out of the queue. Members of the public who have registered to speak. To be allowed to speak, the name you entered in Zoom must match the name you entered in registration. You will remain muted until called upon. The clerk will tell you when your time is up. After speaking, a member of the body may ask you a question. If you share documentation, if you need to share documentation with the commission, please send it to the email list in today's agenda. Chair, the floor is yours. >> Was not on the formal plan commission agenda for tonight. Um, planner for cow, do we have any registrance for item one? >> There are no registrants under for agenda item one. >> Okay. Um, then we'll move to disclosures and recusals. Uh, members of the plan commission should make any required disclosures or recusals under the city's ethics code. Um, does anyone have any disclosures or recusals related to tonight's agenda? Thank you. Um, now we will move to we'll move on to minutes um for our April 13, 2026 regular meeting. Um, are there any additions or corrections to the draft minutes? Um, seeing none, um, could I ask for a motion and a second to approve the April 13th minutes? Thanks, Elder Yugare, and thanks, Commissioner Soulheim. Um, any discussion on the minutes? We'll call the vote. Is there any objection to unanimous approval for our last meetings minutes? Um, uh, Commissioner Wnooki, I think I can guess what you're gonna say, but >> I'm going to abstain. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um, noted. All right, we will just review our schedule of upcoming meetings. Our next meeting will be Monday, May 11th, um, at 5:30 p.m. virtually. And then we will have lots of meetings in June. Uh, we'll have meetings on June 1st, 15th, and 29th. um all virtual at 5:30 um at our usual time. And then we also have a special meeting on Thursday, June 11th at 5:00 p.m. and that will be in person um in the Madison Municipal Building, room 2:15. Um so hopefully we'll get a chance to see I know there's a couple of people who are traveling in and around there, but hopefully we'll get a chance to all see each other um on the 11th um because it's nice to have time in person every once in a while. All right. Um, we'll now move to the consent agenda. Um, it's the custom of the plan commission to handle on a consent agenda, excuse me, those items on which staff members believe an application has been sufficiently reviewed to find the relevant standards met to support approval with all the listed conditions placed upon it by the various city departments and where the application accepts all those conditions. and there are no individuals who've registered to speak in opposition to the item. Um the I so all all we also often will have a separate consent agenda for referral items but we don't have any referral items tonight. So we'll have one consent agenda and these are items recommended for approval. Um those are before you on the screen. And um on our agenda, the items recommended for consent are item two, item four, item five, and items 10 and 11. Um, and so I would ask the commissioners if there are any requests for separation um for the items that are um on the screen before you for approval. All right. Um, seeing I'm sorry, seeing no request for separation, I'm going to read into the record the consent items for approval. Um and we'll move those to a vote. So item two is legisar 92344. This is amending various sections of chapter 28 of the Madison general ordinances to add um the term fairground in quotes as an accessory use. The next item is item four which is legisar 91293. This relates to 111 Walter Street in Alder District 15. This is consideration of a conditional use in the traditional residential varied 2 TRV2 district for a residential building complex containing two six-unit townhouse buildings with a shared storage building, parking and open space. Um, next is agenda item five relating to 1010 an street and alder district 14. This is consideration of a conditional use in the commercial center CC district for private parking facility in the transit oriented development to zoning overlay. And then item 10 is legisar 92387 approving the second revised preliminary plat of Hill Valley on property generally addressed as 1050 South High Point Road, 1051 South Pleasant View Road and 902 Landmark Trail in Alder District 1. And then agenda item 11 is legisar 92388 approving the revised final plat of first addition to Hill Valley on land generally addressed as 1051 South Pleasant V Road and 1050 South High Point Road in Alder District 1. >> Great. Um I will open the public hearing and close the public hearing or the consent items. Um and we'll move to a vote. Is there a motion and a second to approve our consent agenda? Commissioner Hec, thank you. And Commissioner Soulheim, thank you. Um, is there any objection to unanimous approval for our consent agenda? Um, and seeing no raised hands, the consent agenda is passed. So, that will um take us back to our regular agenda items. And the next item um for consideration is um agenda item three. This is legisar 900803 relating to 7401 Mineral Point Road in Alder District 9 consideration of a conditional use for major alteration to a planned multi-use site with 40,000 square ft or more of floor area of which 25,000 square ft or more is designed as retail, a hotel or motel and consideration of a conditional use in the regional mixeduse RMX district and transitoriented development. ment to zoning overlay for a drive-through window for a restaurant. We will start with a brief presentation from planning staff and I think we have Mr. Parks with >> and uh >> did we lose Tim or >> Tim is having a technical issue so I will pinch it in and Tim will hopefully be back with us in a moment here. >> Okay. Thanks, Kevin. >> So, uh, well, good evening. Thank you, chair, uh, members of the plan commission. Um, the this item here, the applicant is seeking to construct a two-story multi-tenant commercial building with a two-lane drive-thru, uh, within an existing parking lot at 7401 Mineral Point Road. Um, the approval of a conditional use for a drive-through window is a conditional use in the RMX zoning district. and and this also includes a major alteration to the conditional use for the entire uh planned multi-use site which in uh contains uh most of west town mall area. Um just a little bit of background in terms of the ordinance here. Um, the common council approved an amendment to the zoning code on December 9th, uh, 2025 that required all drive-throughs in the transit overlay, uh, development overlay to be and buildings are at least three stories tall and that cover at least 60% of the lot area. However, uh, prior to, um, that being approved, this proposal was submitted on November 3rd, 2025 and must be considered under the code that was in place at the time of the application. Uh the plans were revised on March 2nd, 2026 after discussion with staff and um the original and the original identified tenant who was raising canes as no longer uh part of the application team, but the ownership remains the same for this development. The applicant team has met with planning, zoning, traffic engineering um and UDC staff on several occasions to develop the site and the traffic layout. And staff notes that the revised proposal is supported by traffic engineering and was recommended for approval by the urban design commission. For this request, staff provide its focus analysis on standards four through six and 8. uh when considering the land use recommendations and specific additional recommendations of the comprehensive plan and the west area plan uh the surrounding development context uh the recommendation of the urban design commission and the recommended comments and conditions from reviewing agencies staff believe that the plan commission can find all of the applicable conditional use standards can be met. Um so with that um staff will be available available to answer questions after the public hearing. Thank you. Oh, Cherry, I believe you're muted. >> Thank you. Um, we do have registrance for this item. Is that correct, Kevin? >> Yes, that's correct. I'm going to pivot to to read those now. >> Perfect. So, we'll open the public hearing. Um, those registered wishing to speak will have three minutes to do so. and >> and we'll interrupt with a brief warning uh to help you manage your time. Thanks. >> Yep. And registered on this one, uh we have uh one speaker um and it's with the applicant team. It's Brad Coning um who is with the applicant team. We have one speaker in opposition not wishing to speak, but Brad Coning is our registered speaker uh for this item. >> Thanks. Welcome, Brad. Great. >> Thank you. Welcome. If ever we can hear you and yeah, you're ready to go whenever. >> Okay. Um I believe we have a slide deck. Not seeing that quite yet. >> Ah, that will Tim, are you able to share the slide deck or would >> No, it won't open for me on my machine. >> Okay, Brad, if you can take one. Let me I have the plans that were submitted that I can share, but for whatever reason, one drive won't open the presentation file that was sent earlier. Let me I'll just quickly before we do that, let me just see if I can open up the presentation file on mine. I know it was um One second. Looks like Lisa can share it. So, >> Lisa, please, if you would be able to, that'd be great. Yep. You can see. Is that um Brad, is that what you were expecting? Uh yeah, there's a there should be like an overall map um to start with, I believe, on the first page. Yeah, there we go. Thanks. Thanks, Lisa. >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh well, uh thank you very much. Uh yeah, like I said, my name is Brad Co from SketchWorks Architects. Uh and I'm uh thank you for the opportunity to present this project for you guys to review. Um, as Kevin mentioned, uh, today we are seeking a conditional use for a drive-thru in the RMX zoning, uh, to the proposed two-story multi-tenant commercial building, and that's located at 4701, you know, Mineral Point Road. Uh, the project, as Kevin noted, is uh, adjacent to the Westtown Mall area. Um, and it does sit between Crunch Fitness to the west uh, which was former Shop Co., and the Jason's Deli, which is directly adjacent to the east, uh, also is a former Bonefish Grill uh, restaurant that is east of Jason's Deli there. And if you go to the next slide, uh, there's some existing photos there. Uh, the top photo shows Jason's Deli and then the large vacant um, parking lot uh, where this building would then sit along uh, Mineral Point Road. Um so the existing site is like I said it's largely vacant uh parking lot. Uh it does front Mineral Point Road with access uh just to the west of that in between uh what would be what is Crunch Fitness and this lot. You kind of see from the bottom two photos there. That's the main entrance into this. There's also another entrance further down on the other side of what the former Bonefish Grill uh location. So uh next slide please. Uh the proposed is a two-story uh contemporary design. Um it has a a strong street presence from Mineral Point Road uh along the first floor uh for its commercial tenants and then in the second story steps back a little bit, but that is um uh for a third potential third commercial use. Uh the design draws from contemporary buildings nearby, including the Bonefish Grill and Jason's Deli, as we saw earlier in the slide, as well as Crunch Fitness. Uh the stretch here along Mineral Point Road on the south side is is a number of kind of contemporary looking um architectural um buildings. Um the materials have uh you can go to the next slide. materials are a mix of um a dark masonry uh that identifies at the entries along with canopies um and then it has the woodlook uh fiber cement siding uh that kind of brings the warmth of that in contrast to a stark white uh architectural panel. >> 30 seconds left. >> Oh, sorry. Um okay. Um we'll go to the site plan uh two slides forward. Uh the building is situated uh towards Mineral Point Road uh part the drive-thru uh to the west there and we did that to separate the pedestrian uh traffic and so pedestrians can uh go from the the site from Mineral Point Road around the building to the east and then we are suggesting a connection to Jason's Deli which doesn't typically doesn't exist at this moment uh because there is about a 3 to 4 foot drop in grade between the parking lot of Jason's Deli and Mineral Point Road. So, we're looking to include uh islands uh for uh to break up the parking lot obviously and to uh give this nice pedestrian uh separation from the vehicular traffic. So, >> thanks Brad. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Great. Kevin, are there other registrants? >> The only other registrant we have um is registered in opposition but not wishing to speak. >> Okay. >> The registration list. >> All right. Um are there questions from the commissioners for uh either of the registrants? All right. Um, seeing none, I'll close the public hearing on this item and ask if uh there are questions for staff on this project figure. >> Thank you. Kevin, can you explain the difference between um the rules at the time of application versus the rules today? >> The rules? Yes. the the significant change uh from the the the change in code was that now um for a building to have a drive-thru, it needs to be in a building that's a minimum of three stories. Um and so that and has to have a minimum 65% lot coverage. So essentially this this proposal, the building as being two stories and a smaller footprint are the issues that that this couldn't be built under the current regulations. Will the under the current would it under the current regulation if you had the height would it would with the drive-thru be a problem? >> Uh I would have to run it by zoning but I that you could still have a you could still have a drive-thru if it were a three-story building um and it was at least 60% of the lot coverage. Um however um yeah that's that's the standard if something someone were to apply with that today. But based on the previous version um and one of the just as far as background um one of the technical changes um that happened between the first version and this version uh when at the time of submitt when this was when this application was made the the requirement was that there had to be a minimum 75 a second floor that took up 75% of the ground floor. Um and so the building the original submitt was not meeting that. Uh this proposal does meet that. is a bigger second floor, so it does meet the code um that would be in place when um at the time of the application. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Hec. >> Thanks. Uh Kevin, uh you can probably answer this. We had some public comment about uh the lighting that would accompany this this development. And uh I'm I'm assuming that there are no special considerations. they they would just be required to to follow uh Madison general ordinance on the types of lighting that they could have. Right. >> Correct. There isn't there isn't a specific uh lighting condition above and beyond what code would recommend. But code does recommend or does require um it has to be downcast light. It can't be um it has to be fully shielded and not towards the sky as part of the general ordinance requirements for lighting. >> Great. Thank you, Kevin. Are there questions for staff? Are we If not, maybe we're ready to make a motion on this item. Commissioner Shiman, thank you. Thanks. I'll move Oh, Kevin, do you need to speak first? >> Um, I'm just curious. I don't know if the alder had the alder indicated to me earlier that uh she may want to speak to this item. So, I just I see the alder here. So, I just wanted to make sure that uh we didn't miss a hand in case the alder wanted to speak on this one. >> Thanks, Alder Pritchette. I think you're unmuted. If you have comments to share, please mix standards and requirements have been satisfied, have been met. However, uh when I refer back to the opening words from the agenda and it says, you know, consider who benefits, who is burdened by who is burdened and who does not have a voice at the table. But most importantly for me is that last statement statement statement which reads, you know, how can policymakers mitigate unintended consequences? For me, all too often that statement is considered or not in cooperated or it gets the smallest piece of the pie especially when decisions are made. I tend to look at things holistically and the question for me is when one considers a project considers a project or developing a project the question that remains for me is do we think about or give any consideration to unintended consequences. I have lived in this district now since 1976. I know what the eb and flow of traffic is like. That area is has become increasingly more um frightful primarily because of the BRT. There's a station right at Westfield and Mineral Point Road. There is no traffic light, you know, that would encourage traffic flow, which the next traffic light would would be uh that would be Randolph at Middle Randolph, Diono, and Middle Point Road. I also know too that there there businesses back there. There's Barnes & Noble bookstore. It's six o'clock in the morning. You know, people are trying to go to a fitness to go to crunch. Once they finish, they want to leave. There's a cemetery across the street. Granted, they're not affected by it. Only when they there is a procession heading into the cemetery. There is also a an urgent care which is within 100 yards of the new proposed project. And there you will find occasionally because I too was affected by it. The traffic gets so heavy because of the traffic flow. I can't say whether or not traffic engineering can increase the flow or whatever. I can't say that. But I do know that there are times because I was in an ambulance once and we couldn't get through because of the traffic. So I'm asking then when we think about a project, we got to give a little bit more attention to how can policymakers really really mitigate mitigate unintended consequences. Traffic in that area is heavy and I do mean heavy. So I do, as I said before, I know all of the requirements and regulations have been satisfied, but I also know too that we have to at some point in time look at unintended consequences. Thank you. >> Thanks, Alder. Commissioner Shawhead. >> Thank you. Um, I'll move that the plan commission find that the standards for for conditional use are met, including standards 45, five, six, and 8 and approve the conditional use for a drive-thru and alteration to a planned multi-use site at 7401 Mineral Point Road subject to the conditions in the staff report, including the UDC conditions. >> Second. >> Uh, Alder Cole, I heard your second. Um, >> yep. >> I We'll go with that. Usually we do that with the hand button, so >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Then it's easy for me to tell It's easier for me to tell who was first, but I definitely heard you before I saw anybody else's hand go up. So, we're >> Yes. Thank you. Um, all good. So, we have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on this item um from Yes. Uh, Commissioner Soul? Thanks. I'll just note I I'm I'm not going to, you know, go to bat for drive-throughs, but it's pretty clear that this meets the standards of approval um under the ordinance at the time of submission. Um I also um can understand there are traffic concerns, but traffic lights are not really in our purview. >> Thanks, Commissioner. Um, I will any other discussion. All right, we'll call a vote and we'll start with is there objection to unanimous approval for this item. All right, seeing none, the item is approved. So, thank you. We'll um next we'll move to items six and seven which are related and will be considered as one public hearing. Um and we'll do separate findings and motions on each item after the public hearing. Item six is legisar 92236 relating to 1111 through 1135 Regent Street and two South Mills Street in Alder District 13. This is consideration of a conditional use in the traditional shopping street TSS district and transit oriented development overlay district for dwelling units in a mixeduse building with greater than 60 units. Consideration of a conditional use in the TSS district and to overlay district for a building taller than four stories and 60 ft in height. Consideration of a conditional use in the TSS district and to overlay district for a mixeduse building with less than 50% of non-residential ground floor frontage facing the primary street, including all frontage at a street corner and consideration of a conditional use in the TSS district to modify the required sideyard height transition to a residential district. All to allow construction of a six-story mixeduse building with 1,200 square feet of commercial space and 111 dwelling units. And then item seven is legisar 92238 approving a certified survey map of property owned by peerless development company located at 11-11 through 1135 Regent Street and 2 South Mill Street in Alder District 13. And I would just remind the commission that um when we um heard about this uh these two items at our last meeting, we moved to refer and we also moved to reopen the public hearing at tonight's hearing. And so um this we're we're now in our public hearing based on reopening the public hearing um two weeks ago. So we will start though with a brief presentation um from staff just to update us on where we are. planner Ernst, welcome. >> Thank you. Yeah, so I'm going to provide an overview of the addendum to the April 13th staff report that was provided. So I'll just note that um at the April 13th, 2026 meeting, the plan commission referred this project to today's meeting. And during the discussion of that motion, um, the plan commission advised the applicant to consider the following, which includes increasing the amount of commercial frontage along Regent Street, providing a step back along South Mil Street, and providing a sideyard rear or sorry, a sideyard height transition along the south property line. So, first, the amount of commercial frontage has increased from approximately 10.6% 6% to 35.1% which is consistent with the re the staff recommendation in the staff report. Um there is 119 ft of commercial frontage and about 3100 square ft of commercial space and that commercial space is located at the corner of Regent Street and South Charter and kind of extends um that commercial space that was originally proposed. Uh, regarding the step back along South Mill Street, the rooftop amenity deck on the sixth floor that was located at the corner with South Charter Street has been relocated to the corner of South Mil Street. Um, the deck is L-shaped and wraps around the corner and u because of that kind of L-shaped, the step back varies from about 10 1/2 ft to 36 1/2 ft. and staff believe that this addresses the recommended condition of approval in the staff report as well. And then finally, regarding the sideyard height transition, the applicant did not update the plans to provide the transition along the south property line. And uh staff will just note again that this would be the largest intrusion into the required height transition area that plan commission has approved and that staff recommend that plan commission um carefully consider the information in the original staff report and the updated information that was provided um as it relates to questions raised during their previous discussion of this item. And there are no changes to conditions and comments in that April 13th uh staff report recommended at this time. Thanks. >> Thanks, Burners. Uh, we do have registrants for this item. So, we'll open the public hearing and provo if you could walk us through the register list. >> Yes, we have three speakers who I believe uh will be pooling their time. Uh, we have Joseph Patrick, Matthew Tills, and Ryan Cohen are three speakers. Uh we have Kevin Burrow who's available to answer question um in support and um I guess and Ryan Cohen was originally available to answer questions uh but he's also now in the speaking queue. >> Thanks. >> We have Oh, yep. That that those are the speakers for this one. >> Okay. Um great. So Matt, I see that you're unmuted. I don't know if you would want to go first with the team. >> Sure. Thank you. I'll just wait for the presentation here. Um, my name is Matt Tills. I'm with Kenothy and Bruce Architects. Um, I am joined by Joe Patrick and and Ryan as as was mentioned there, both from the peerless development group available to answer questions and, uh, contribute here as well. Um, just wanted to first of all just say thank you to the plan commission and to Alder Evers for their comments uh, at the last meeting here and for the opportunity for us to come back and um, with some modifications. Um we feel confident that the the changes that we've we've put together here um uh hopefully will will address uh the concerns um and that we can then I guess further kind of explain uh that height transition on the on the sideyard as well. So uh next slide please. Overall site locator map. I'm going to zip through a couple of these slides. Next slide please. Existing site plan. Next slide. Here's the updated site plan. Um really the notable feature on this is what's occurring on the northwest corner there. So you can see the yeah the additional commercial space there. We've ended up um um basically raising up the first floor of um what was this this the corner element that was coming all the way down to grade and creating a a sort of a walkway colonade um that allowed us to have you know more contiguous uh I guess access to that commercial space uh which you'll see in some of these um these upcoming slides. Next slide please. floor plans which we can certainly come back to and speak to um if there are further questions. Next slide. So these are the the principal you know project statistics that have changed um in this revised proposal. Um so from the unit count uh previously at at 111 units with that um uh additional commercial space uh we're now at 108 units. uh that commercial space increased from 1,200 to 3,124 square ft uh and and as uh as um the planner Ernest mentioned there too the increased frontage went to 35% which was kind of the the target number that really became kind of the I guess the the recommended um length there um in the last meeting. Next meeting. Next slide please. Just a couple of uh indications here. What you see on the right side is that commercial. This was the original layout um with that 11% commercial space. Next slide. And here you can see as as it increased uh fairly significantly uh we have a fairly balanced I feel kind of bookending of the two sides of this project now with the pure commercial on the right and the active amenity space on the left. Next slide please. Here's an updated view of that um that corner. You can see that more activated um commercial space along the corner of Region Street. Next slide. Getting a little closer. Great opportunity here for some outdoor seating and activation of that uh that area. This is that it's just as a reminder, it's raised 24 in up above the sidewalk um due to some flood protection um requirements. Next slide. Just a view kind of at that main entrance. Here you can see that colonade and kind of how the relationship between the spaces is. Next slide. And the last view here of that commercial space looking at it from a little bit further down the block. Um, so all in all, we feel like this is a could is has a very viable and sort of an I guess a really nice sort of setback off the street, but still remain that really engaged uh commercial presence that really I think is is what region street um um is is calling for. So next slide. So the second uh item was the step back along Mil Street. Um these are two just different views. on the left was was the previous submitt. On the right is the the modification here. Um and in conversation with um uh with planner Ernest and and as we looked at the the plan there, we felt that this was a was a really reasonable proposal here. Kind of activates this corner, steps that down um and um satisfies the intent of that step back. Next slide, please. Here you can see along the whole street frontage um the region street side and you can see that we've now basically kind of mirrored that that feature from which was on the right side there on this on the charter street side over to the mills. Next slide. And one more sort of view of that. And then kind of moving back around here you can see um as we kind of come back and and look at the south facade of the building. Next slide please. So that takes us to the third um item that that was the discussion. Uh here we um we did carefully consider you know and really looked back at um at at this uh this condition here. Um you know based off the information that we heard from the plan commission. Um we did uh ultimately could feel that we could kind of stand by sort of the original intent here of our request for this conditional use uh waiver here. Um, and really this really highlights to the the challenge that we have with the site. The narrowness of the site, the required stepbacks off of the region street side really do create a very challenging uh environment for to really comply with that um that height transition here. Um, and you can kind of see that what that hardship would be. Um, if you were to comply with it, it's really more like a three-story building would be kind of what you max out at. So, um, that is one of the conditions uh that we'd like you to consider here. And the next slide please. The second being um the positioning of this building to the north of the what would be the affected um or that adjacent uh residential neighborhood. So really the what this shows too uh which I think is notable is that at no time through the year would the the the properties um that are to the south of this be subjected to any sort of a shadow casting from this project. Next slide please. And then finally, what I think is really important here too is is um the consideration on the just the design and the layout of the materials and kind of the consideration for that um knowing that you know that we had a fairly high massing here. We really did carefully look at, you know, a strong heavier base and then the further articulation as it kind of moved up and then creating some of the sort of stepping of the of the materials really giving sort of more of that illusion to and that sort of stepping back and that reduction of that massing uh with that light um sort of siding along the top there. Next slide please. You can see views of this um from that adjacent street. So this would be from the bound cord side um uh looking back toward the building. Next slide. And one more from that street side perspective. And then a final view here. And next slide. We did put in a couple of extra views here just for reference as well. This would be the main entrance um coming off of uh Mil Street side. Next slide. And then just a a view of the sort of activation and sort of the pedestrian experience along Regent Street. Uh this is kind of further up. Um and what you're seeing on to the left there would be some uh outdoor seating area as an amenity space for the residents there, but it would be an activated space. And then as you move down further along, you'd have that commercial space that would really bookend that. And then finally, I just brought back a couple of these other slides here just in case they wanted to be spoken to. the Juliet balcony president and the next slide material board. Thank you. And next slide. And that finishes um our presentation. So thank you very much. >> Thanks Matt. >> All right, Kevin. Um those are all the registrants wishing to speak. Is that true? >> Yes, that's I I just looked again and that's all the people registered to speak for this item. >> Great. Um so we would this would be time in our public hearing for questions for the registrants and Alder Evers if you can do that or if you want to share other comments that's fine too or if you want to appear as a reg registrant that's fine too. So welcome. >> Well thank you and I have another meeting I need to get to. So, if you could bear with me just briefly to say that I'm pleased >> pleased that the applicant here um went along with the staff recommendation and um the recommended compromise of 35%. I'm also very pleased by the way that all of you agreed to that and held the line and referred the item back to this meeting. And I en encourage you then to approve this project as is. I um I will say I'm not particularly worried about the setbacks on uh the rear setbacks. It's my belief that over time and we'll get into this more in the near west area plan that the homes along the northern side of Bowen Court, those are they're not in great shape. These are all rental properties that are rather dilapidated and run down. I anticipate over time they will give way to say threetory row houses and I think the impact of this development against that height and that massing will not be severe. At any rate, I rather than speaking to that specifically, I do want to encourage you to once we ask a developer to accommodate a a shared value in our city and they and they agree to do so, I believe that that's a good reason to approve the project and and accordingly I ask that you would say yes, good job, and approve it. Thank you. >> Thanks, Alder. Any other questions from the commission for our registrants tonight? Uh, Commissioner Hec. >> Thanks. U, this is for Matt Tills. Uh, Matt, can can you just uh give a little more detail about the activation along Regent? And and one of the reasons I'm asking is because when this project was shown at the the the previous iteration was shown at the joint campus area committee, there were some questions about uh whether or not folks would be able to uh access uh some of the amenity space outside via the sidewalks. And I I think at that time several of the areas were were just going to be landscaping I think with fencing so that people wouldn't be uh accessing those open areas. Can you can you just kind of describe again where I I see there's a new amenity space maybe in front of the fitness facilities and is there still some that would be landscaped? >> Yeah. Um, absolutely. And if you want to, if it's possible to bring the slides back up there, I think we can jump to one of the one of those last probably the the second to the last um slide that was a rendering there. >> Thanks, Lisa. Um, and I guess a quick answer to that too is the the functionality and the use of these spaces here has been was has been kind of shifting a little bit or was initially as we were kind of going through and programming the space and kind of looking at you know the the how this space would be used. Also working with civil our civil engineer and kind of on structural and how these potentially could or could not be accessed. Um and where we've landed here too is is that um what you're seeing here now which is the sort of closest to the Mill Street side um uh it also is stepped back up. So there's a twoft height difference there. There is landscaping all the way. So there's basically a 4ft wide bed um of of landscaping that is running kind of the right behind that um that fence that you see there. Um so that would be that sort of landscape buffer would remain and that really just sort of continue all the way down along um that we've really wanted to keep that landscaping p piece. Um and so in this case you hear you see here this would actually be accessed the one that's in the center the smallest one um which is just a little further down the street here. We don't have a good view I guess of that. Um that would be the only one that right now is not anticipated to be occupied. So we would still have the landscape screening as part of that. Um there would be basically pavers in there. Um but it would not be it would not be um occupied at all. And then then when you go all the way down to the new commercial space that is all occupied space there. And um the just because of the sort of access and the pedestrian access that we needed along there. Uh the the actual landscaping portion of that is going to be a little bit more limited. So we would we still have pockets of landscaping but it's it's not as contiguous as you see kind of right here in this view. >> Thanks Matt. And then this area on the quarter of charter is accessed uh either from the corner and or from the interior of the of the amenity space and not from the street. Is that correct? >> Correct. Yep. This one that you're looking at right now which is the Mil Street side um is accessed from from the basically the lobby space on the inside. And so just to be clear, yeah, this area here is anticipated to be an amenity space for the for the tenants. So this would not be there would not be a gate or access directly off of that. You'd access it from interior of the space. >> Yeah, that that makes sense. Uh and I'm I'm sure you remember there were some questions about direct access from the street at joint campus area committee. So uh thanks. I appreciate the the work on that. Thanks, Commissioner Hack. Other questions for registrants? Um, are we ready to If not, we're ready to close the public hearing. Um, so I will close the public hearing and ask if there are questions from the commissioners for uh staff from the planning staff. Hank, >> thank you. Uh, this this may be for Kevin or Lisa. Uh, I'm I'm not sure. I I'm I'm interested in precedents uh regarding the the large uh you know backside of the building for which we'd be potentially determining is a is an exception to uh our our typical requirements. Um I I I guess I I want to know do you feel that every project is unique and uh we need to consider the context in all and it isn't necessarily a a precedent. >> Oh >> Kevin, do you want to go? >> No, no, go ahead, Lisa. I was waiting for you to go. You go first. Yeah, I mean I think that in in general, yeah, we do feel like every project is unique because every site is going to have like its own context and features and every building will be different. So I think we do often refer to like other projects to create some context for like understanding like what are they asking for. But, you know, ultimately it's the conditional use standard that kind of outlines like what the what the plan commission should be considering like the shadow, the architecture, how it relates to the street. And so those are the kinds of things that become kind of project specific and unique to the project. Um, so I think in general, yeah, they're all different, but Kevin, I don't know if you have something to add to that. I was just going to to note that uh as far as uh in the original staff report there was a summary table that summarized some of the recent uh ones where the plan commission granted some level of exception. Uh this being the largest of the ones that um that we had found, but um certainly the plan commission has granted exceptions in other cases. But as a conditional use, um, if it was an outright prohibition, it would just be written into the code and there wouldn't be the allowance as a conditional use for the plan commission to consider something. >> Okay, thanks. That was helpful. Um, there are no other questions. It might be time to form a motion. There's a lot of conditional uses on item six, so it's going to be quite a motion. All of you, Gary, thanks. Thank you, chair. Let me try to do this. Uh, so I'll move that uh we find the approval standards particularly uh standards three, four, and 8 are satisfied with these latest changes. And uh we approve the following conditional use requests in the traditional shopping street TSS district and transit oriented development uh overlay district uh to it. A conditional use for dwelling units in a mixeduse building with greater than 60 units. a conditional use for a mixeduse building with less than 50% to with 35% uh of non-residential uh ground floor footage facing the primary street which is Regent Street including all frontage at a street corner. a conditional use for a building taller than four stories and 60 ft in height and a conditional use to modify the required sideyard height transition to a residential district. Uh all subject to the conditions in the uh updated staff report and the original staff report. Thanks Gar. Is there a second? Um, thanks Commissioner Soulheim. Um, any discussion, uh, Alder Gare, thanks. >> I'll just say that I was very doubtful about this project at the last meeting in particular, whether the developer would be able to turn around and by the next meeting. But uh I had a chance to discuss this at great length with uh uh Alder Evers last Friday and uh found that I could be comfortable provided we saw something come back with this 35% rather than 10% adjustment on Region Street and urge our approval. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Soulheim. >> Thank you. Um, going back to Commissioner Hec's prior question about precedent, I just want to add a few comments for reference for when this inevitably shows up as a project and a future staff report to remember. Um, I think I I'm comfortable with the um the the rear of the building for a couple reasons. Um, one, the front of elevation has a lot of modulation in it. It's not just a flat building and it has that significant step back as required by Regent Street. Um it is a shallow lot um which creates some challenges as was described by the applicant team. Um the presence of commercial space and meaningful commercial space on the ground floor. And then lastly, the lack of shadow impacts on the rear users are all sort of um components of this this design that I think makes a good case for the exception to that policy. >> Thanks, Commissioner Soulheim. Commissioner Hec, >> thanks. Just adding one brief thought to Commissioner Soulheim's uh rationale about the the transition exception. Uh, I guess I'd also add that the design of the building in the rear is uh a factor in that for me. Uh, the the change of colors and materials I think is a a reasonable uh visual approach to to providing uh an exception for that. Thanks, >> Commissioner. Commissioner Sanders, >> I'll get a hand on the ball, too, and just add one more piece to the comments from Commissioner Soulheim and Commissioner Hec. Um, but also just understanding the comprehensive plan recommendations for the surrounding area that would recommend up to eight stories, uh, also gives me some comfort in approving this height exception here. >> Well, those are good points. Other comments? Um, we'll call a vote. We'll start as usual. Is there objection to unanimous approval for this item? All right. I'm sorry. For item six based on Alder UAR's motion. Um, all right. So, item six, the conditional use, um, the conditional uses are approved. Um, and now I'm looking for a motion on item seven, which is the CSM. Alder Yugare. Thank you. >> Thank you, chair. I'm going to move that the plan commission finds that the approval standards for a certified survey map are met and that we forward the certified survey map for 1111 to 1135 Regent Street and two South Mills Street to the common council with the recommendation of approval. >> Alder Figuro Cole. Thank you for the second. Um any discussion on the motion for the to recommend approval for the CF CSM certified survey Mer Figuro Cole I think that's a residual hand up. Um thank you. Um if there's no uh no discussion I will no additional discussion I will call the vote. Is there objection to unanimous approval for uh the motion on item seven? Great. Item seven is approved and we'll now move to items eight and nine which are related and will be considered as one public hearing with separate findings and motions on each item. Um item 8 is legisar 92348 um creating section 28.022-0000750 022-0000750 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 822 Pulley Drive from SRC1 suburban residential consistent one district to SRC2 suburban residential consistent 2 district. This is in alder district 3. And then item nine is legisar 92239 approving a certified survey map of property owned by Worth Company LLC located at 822 Pulley Drive in Alder District 3. Um we would start with a brief staff presentation. See player parks. >> Yes. Thank you uh chair members of the plan commission 822 Pulley Drive. Uh the applicant is requesting to reszone the 15,150 ft uh parcel into uh two lots in SRC2 zoning. Uh the site is currently occupied by a one-story single family home located on the northern roughly half of the property. Uh the surrounding context are single family homes uh with the exception of Sycamore Park which is located north of the site across Nusa Trail. Uh the applicant proposes to place the single family home on an 8,255 foot lot uh with the remaining uh 6,895 ft of the uh property to comprise lot two on which a new home uh can be built. Uh the applicant is seeking SRC2 zoning uh for the site uh which has a 50-ft minimum lot width requirement. The uh current SRC1 zoning uh has a 55 foot uh lot width requirement. Uh the SRC2 district uh only requires 5,000 square ft of lot area versus the 6,000 in SRC1 zoning. Although staff will note that both proposed lots uh shown on the certified survey map would comply with the existing zoning district's lot area requirements. Uh the purpose in other words for the SRC2 zoning uh is to seek relief from the lot width requirement which in this case will be measured along Pulley Drive. Uh the site is recommended for low residential in the northeast area plan. Uh both the current SRC1 zoning and proposed SRC2 zoning are consistent with low uh residential uh which uh is a uh low density uh land use category uh with density up to uh 15 units an acre predominantly comprised of single and two family structures although smaller uh 2, three and four unit apartments uh may be compatible in certain circumstances. Uh in this case, the SRC1 and SRC2 districts are both uh districts that allow single and two family dwellings. Uh they have the same bulk requirements. So your front side and rear yard setbacks as well as lot coverage. The main difference uh being uh the 5T difference uh 5T difference in lot width and the 1,000 square ft of lot area. Uh so uh again uh looking in this case to divide the property into two roughly rectangular lots. Uh early in the conversations with the applicant uh they proposed to divide the lot in a way uh that would provide the 55- ft lot width required in the existing zoning. However, it created a side lot line uh that was not at right angles uh to the uh front street lot line as required by the subdivision regulations. Uh and so the SRC2 zoning allows for two uh roughly rectangular lots to be created from the existing uh roughly rectangular uh lot that uh comprises the site. Now, uh staff believes that the plan commission may find that the resoning and proposed land division, uh can meet the applicable standards for approval. As noted, uh the proposed SRC2 zoning is consistent with the low residential recommendation for the site and surrounding properties. Uh and while the SRC2 zoning would be somewhat of an outlier on the zoning map given how the other parcels nearby are zoned, staff feels that the land division and resulting infill development of the property can be found compatible with the existing neighborhood scale uh as recommended in LR areas. Uh that concludes the staff report and I'm happy to answer any questions after the public hearing. Thank you. >> Thanks. Thanks, Tim. Um we have registrance for this item. So I'll open the public hearing and um ask for Cal to lead us through the list. Thanks. >> Yes. Uh for this item um for items um eight and nine. We have only one registered speaker and that is in opposition. That's Deborah Dewald. Um registered on item eight in opposition. Uh the applicant uh Gregory Worth is recommended in support. available to answer questions and we have Peter Buckner, Peter C. Buckner in opposition available to answer question along with other speakers um who are registered um in opposition but not wishing to speak whose names will be on the registration report. So our first speaker or the only registered speaker at this time is Deborah Dewald um for this item. Uh >> chair, there is no person by that name in attendance. >> Yeah. I don't >> Yeah, >> I don't see her on the attendees list either. Um maybe we'll uh maybe we'll go ahead and ask the commissioners if you have questions for any of the registrants if anyone has questions on this item and give her maybe a quick minute to jump back in. Um otherwise I would just note that there were there was written um public comment in the legisar item for this project as well. So I think maybe we understand some of the issues. Alder field. Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you chair. Uh hopefully this gives some time for Deborah to hop on if she wants but I had a question for Greg. Mr. Worth. Um Greg thanks for joining us tonight. I'm wondering if you can tell us a little more about the future appearance of whatever your plans are for the subdivided new lot to the south. What what are you planning on doing with that? Can you share? >> Yeah. Um so the new lot uh that would be created from this um I'm just planning on building a kind of a small conforming uh home there that kind of looks like all the other small conforming homes in the neighborhood. Uh, sure. Yeah. >> So, does that mean you're generally making any design decisions based on how the other homes look or are you trying to do anything that stands out? >> Uh, no. Um, no, it'll be it'll be a fairly standard house and I haven't I haven't given I I haven't hired an architect or anything like that. Um, but I kind of look up and down the street and put a virtual measuring tape on a few houses on the street and they all would actually fit perfectly on this lot meeting setbacks. So, it's kind of a it would really the house that I would put here would at the end of the day almost have to look similar to a lot of the other houses on the block. Um, it would be a little narrower because most people have a garage on the side of their uh of their single family home, but I think I'd have to incorporate it into the facade of my house. Um, but uh again, it would all be conforming and uh yeah, >> sure. And I can understand that you haven't heard an architect until at this point in the project not knowing if you have approval. Um, that was my last question. Thank you. Thanks. I don't I still don't see um >> our registrant. Um so I but we'll the public hearing will remain open until you guys tell me you don't have any more questions for the registrants. So does anyone have any more questions for the registrants? All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing at this time and I'll ask if uh the commission have questions for um the staff on this on these two items or if we're ready to move toward a motion. Um Alderfield, thanks. >> Thank you, chair. Perhaps just a quick question. Um Tim, thank you for the great memo. A lot of good info. You mentioned already and then described in here the consistency of the requested zoning district with lowmedium residential as laid out in the northeast area plan. I'm wondering if you could describe for us what scale of housing types either building forms or density per acre um whatever makes more sense to you would expect to see in a typical lowmedium residential recommendation area. What what types of density reforms are consistent? Uh this area, just to clarify, is recommended for low residential. There is low medium residential further south on Pulley Drive at Commercial Avenue. But >> low residential uh the text in the 2023 comprehensive plan uh really kind of speaks to houselike structures. Uh single and two family homes primarily. Uh the density maximum in LR would generally be up to 15 units an acre. Uh typically that's uh hard to achieve in single and two family homes only. The the category does allow in limited circumstances for there to be uh three and four unit uh structures as well. Um but really uh the both the SRC1 zoning that's there now and the SRC2 zoning uh the the they have more in common than they have differences. Uh the big differences being five more feet of lot width in SRC1 and 1,000 square ft of additional lot area. Uh but you know if you're you know back of the napkin uh you're not getting if you did eight uh if you did 5,000 square foot lots in SRC2 the maximum that you would get out of a net acre uh would be eight. And so uh you know and that number drops to seven uh with uh SRC1 zoning. So, you're going to get basically the same uh mass uh because your lot coverage is going to be about the same in those districts. Uh but one is just requiring a bigger lot to start with by a you know relatively small margin. Recalling for uh many of the members of the plan commission who were on the body last year that uh one of the changes that was made to the zoning code in 2025 was reducing the lot areas and lot minim uh lot width uh that was required in a lot of our zoning classifications including both SRC1 and SRC2. >> Thank you. I didn't have other questions. other finger on a call. >> Thank you. Um Tim, just to clarify for the for the request that we have in front of us, which is the CSM and zoning zoning changes, does the applicant need to know or what is do we need to know or the applicant needs to be ready to present what the land use will be for us to support these or deny this um this request? No, if I understand the question correctly, once the if the resoning is approved and the certified survey map is approved, uh the applicant will be required to meet the conditions of approval that are outlined in the staff report as well as any other conditions that the plan commission may wish to uh recommend uh on the certified survey map. And once the certified survey map is recorded, uh then the property owner uh whomever it is uh would then go to get building permits. Uh they would be allowed by right to do a single or two family home. Uh and they would have to meet the front side and rear yard setbacks and maximum lot coverage required in the SRC2 zoning district. >> Thank you. So, as long as the applicant um follows the no suning code regulation, they will they will need additional conditional uses. They will just build like anybody else. Um as long as they follow the code, >> right? There's we don't anticipate there being a conditional use request uh and nor uh an interesting uh turn of events. Uh they're reszoning the property to SRC2. They're proposing to divide the property. they have basically foreclosed many avenues they would be able to ask for a zoning variance because there is effectively no hardship here. Uh not wanting to speak for the zoning board of appeals or my colleagues in the zoning section, but uh there this is the the rectangle within which they can build their home. Uh and they'll be expected to comply with the SRC2 zoning in terms of use and bulk. Thank you. Thanks, Kosher. >> Thank you. Uh Tim, uh correct me if I'm wrong, but uh wouldn't uh probably most of the lots other than these two, if they are created, uh have sufficient space to build an accessory dwelling unit. And wouldn't that be permitted a permitted use? they if they uh meet the bulk requirements for an ADU. Uh and likewise, now that we don't have uh an exclusive single family residential district in the conventional code, any one of the homes on any one of the lots uh really anywhere that's zoned SRC1 or SRC2 could convert their home into a two family dwelling uh by right, provided that they comply with the bulk requirements in that zoning district >> or those zoning districts. Yeah, >> thanks. That was what I was looking for. Thanks. >> Thanks, Commissioner Heck. Um, uh, Kevin, >> uh, chair, I just wanted to know that I believe, uh, the speaker has joined via phone. Um, uh, that's Deborah Dewald. I believe the the the public hearing was closed. you'd have to reopen that to to take that test. >> Is there any objection to reopening our public hearing? Um, seeing none, we'll reopen the public hearing um so we can hear from our regist. Thank you. Jesse, do we know how to help Deborah? unmute. >> Oh, we've got another Deborah. Let's try this. >> Oh, it looks like you might be unmuted now, Deborah. Uh, Deborah, you have you should have a on phone. You should have a uh prompt to unmute. Um I saw another one. Yeah, you and you're unmuted on the uh the other account that's logged in as well. So, um you should be able to speak. Um if but we are not hearing you. So, uh if you have a headset or something like that that has a mute activated, you want to look for either a mute button or an unmute um prompt. Still not hearing. Um, what's that? How do you unmute the phone, Jesse? Is there a pound something that you I don't remember. >> Is that star sex? >> Oh, maybe I believe that's correct. B. I'm going to send you a couple more prompts uh to unmute. again on the phone if you uh press star six um that should unmute you. Uh, >> it looks like on the computer account you may be unmuted if you want to try >> your microphone. Yeah. again. Uh Deborah, you are unmuted on our end. Um you may have a a physical button or a button on on on screen. Um just need to mute your uh your microphone or your device that you're using. Looks like uh there's some troubleshooting going on because the microphone just disappeared. So I see your microphone is once again active. Deborah, if you want to give it a try again. You are unmuted on our end. Yeah. The only additional advice I could give is that if you um exited the meeting and rejoined um sometimes that helps Yeah, we still can't hear you. It looks like you did exit and come back. Um but uh you are unmuted and once again we cannot hear you. So, you don't have a uh physical mute button or something to that um to check for uh we cannot we cannot hear you Yeah, it's still not coming through. Deborah, I don't I think maybe if we can't get you on in the next minute or so, we may need to um return to the the um commission discussion. And yeah. Jesse, is there any other way to get in touch with her that you can think of? >> No, I don't think that there's uh a whole lot of options other than that. >> Okay, you are unmuted on our end. So it's still there's still an opportunity to come True. So, the only other item on our agenda besides this one is our secretar's report. I don't know if there's if we want to maybe pause this uh I don't I'm not even sure I don't know that Roberts has a way to pause an item and then go to the other items and try to come back to it. Um but I think I think I think at this point um the best option Oh yeah, Park stinks. Yeah, just briefly, someone with the same last name provided written comments. Uh earlier today, uh certainly may not be the exact same person. Uh Deborah may have different opinions about the request than Mike does, but I just thought I would point that out for the plan commission given the technical issues we seem to be experiencing hearing from Deborah. Thanks, Tim. That's helpful. And I'll just note that the comment is attached to both the resoning and land division files and legisar if members wanted to review them. Uh now that the share has been stopped. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um I think given the opportunity to log in Oh, Kevin, we do you want to help us out? I I I don't have a a technical solution here. I guess charity your your question a minute ago. planning commission could uh table this item uh move to the secretar's report or go into recess for a couple of minutes I guess would be the only other options from a procedural standpoint if we wanted to see if we could sort out the the technical issue here and give a little bit more time. >> Yeah. Well, why don't we um maybe if I could have a a motion and a second to table this item for 5 minutes and we'll do the rest of our business for the meeting and then um come back to it with the hearing still open and see if we can get Deborah's testimony that way. Um I don't know if um if Alderfield or one of the staff could email her and let her know that's what we're going to do. Alderfield, thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. I got a text from someone else in the neighborhood who's following the meeting. I'm wondering if I can get in touch with Deborah by phone. If it would be okay for me to like share her voice through my phone. >> Yeah. >> Before those three minutes in 5 minutes though, I I need to confirm this work. >> Thank you. >> Um we could also just recess for five minutes. Um why don't we just do that and then we don't have to, you know, play musical chairs if that's all right. Um, could I see a mo? Do I need a motion to recess, Kevin? Okay, if I could get a motion in a session in a second for a fivem minute recess. >> I'll move a fivem minute recess. >> Thanks, Alderfield. Thanks, Commissioner Hec. Um, we'll take a break for and we'll come back. Let's go back at 702. Elder field success. All right, get everybody back. >> Kevin, should we have a motion to reconvene? >> We should. I think Alderfield might have been saying that he was muted. I think he might have been >> oh starting that process. >> Yeah. >> All right. It is 7:02. So I think we could reconvene if I could get a motion in a second. Thanks uh Commissioner Sanders. Thanks Commissioner Hec. Um we do we have our quorum back. Um and um I think we'll have a full roster momentarily. Um any objection to resuming the public hearing on items 8 and nine. Seeing none, um we'll resume the public hearing at this time. And I think Alderfield was going to um well, I see Deborah's phone is connected, but I think um Alderfield, you're muted now. >> All right, Deborah, go ahead whenever you're ready. >> Great. My name is Deb Dewald and I live in 22 Fully Drive and I have um in totally in agreement with all my neighbors who are opposed to this zoning variant at 822 Pulley Drive. Um, this is a neighborhood of homes that are owned by by by by homeowners. It's this is not a rental neighborhood. This home next door was purchased by an LLC. And in addition, it's really a heartbreaking situation because I as I understand it, this home was sold because of medical debt of the family that had lived there already for generations. The family that lived there, the parents of that woman raised their family there. She inherited that house or they gave it to her because her parents were still alive and visiting when they were living there and raising their two children. And unfortunately, he developed medical issues and her husband passed away. And one of their children was vulnerable. And when she passed away in January, the house was sold even though a vulnerable individual was still dwelling there and was summarily dumped at a homeless shelter. My knowledge has not been allowed entry to that home even to gather his belongings of a lifetime. We moved into our home in 1995 and uh this family lived next door. So this person is the ages of our own children. And so it just breaks my heart. I just think that there's a just a in addition to all the other reasons, valid reasons, I just feel like what has happened to us when a vulnerable individual is merily just dumped out on the street from the home that he lived in since birth. That really bothers me. And uh so I can't really add anything to the much more um articulate arguments that others have made against this building variant. But I really feel in my soul that um there's been harm done to a vulnerable individual through the school transaction. And it just makes me feel opposed to anything. >> Mhm. I just our world. It's just too many people who care more about money than humanity. Welcome. And so that's what I have to say. And you can think I'm a crack, but that's just how I feel about the whole thing. >> Let's see if anyone has a question. Deb. >> Yep. Thanks, Deborah. Are there questions for Deborah from the commission? >> Deborah has hung up, so I think Okay. Yeah, I think we're done, but thanks, Deborah. >> Yeah, thanks Elderfield for facilitating that. Um I'm glad we were able to hear from her and get that perspective. Um, I will um reclose the public hearing and uh there I don't I'm not sure that we wrapped up all the questions for staff. Um there is still time for questions for staff if folks have any or if not maybe we're um ready to move to a motion um on item eight which is the um recommended reszoning heck >> thanks uh I'll move that Let's make sure I've got the right uh we've we've got to first change the do number eight the zoning right. Yes. Uh correct. I'll move that the the plan commission recommend the zoning change at 822 Pulley Drive from SRC1 to SRC2 and uh that all standards are met to proceed with that reszoning subject to any comments and conditions in the staff report. >> Great. And that would that goes to council Kevin, right? My Yeah. So that's a recommendation to council. Thanks, Commissioner Hec. Commissioner Wnooki. There's a second. Thanks. Um, any discussion? >> Go ahead, Commissioner Head. >> Thanks. I'll just uh address uh some of the the public comment that we had, including Deborah's heartfelt comment about her former neighbor. Uh, I I appreciate her concern. uh but uh that that's really a a a sale between two entities that the city does not really get involved with and you know it sounds like one of the results was was unfortunate and and I feel for you as for the the other uh uh aspects of the public comment as as I mentioned in questioning any of your neighbors ers could either rent their house out tomorrow or build an accessory dwelling unit in their on their property, inviting more neighbors to enjoy your beautiful neighborhood. So, I I really think not not that that's necessarily going to happen, but it could. and and this is really uh not uh a huge problem in in my mind in that and because the standards are met for reasonzoning I I I think we'll I hope it moves forward. Thanks. >> Thanks Commissioner Heckerfield. >> Thank you chair. I also want to thank Deborah for sharing that perspective. I um it sounds like a pretty tragic set of circumstances that led to the property sale and now we're considering a land use approval request after that transaction. So that's unfortunately that's not really something that we can consider as part of this process where we have an owner, a new owner in this case with a request that we're reviewing under our standards and ordinances. Um, I wanted to acknowledge the additional public comments that came in from neighbors of the site that Deborah described as well, coming from folks who don't like the idea of houses closer together or smaller lots in this part of their neighborhood. Um, I walked through there over the weekend and I can see what they mean by pointing out that these homes would noticeably be closer together than what we see there today and other homes nearby. Um, so I think it's fair to characterize those as a a perception of crowding by this proposal. Um, but I want to compare those concerns to um, given that they are about a house scale structure, so not necessarily something that's going to be much bigger. I don't think that the concerns overall outweigh the opportunity that a brand new house here could offer to another family or two who could move into this great neighborhood. This house is really close to Sycamore Park where this neighborhood association recently organized to secure a neighborhood grant. They plan to install a welcoming wayside area to bring more people to Sycamore Park and enjoy that beautiful space. And this is where the city has also expanded the single track bike course recently in a corner of Sycamore Park there um to support more park users. And this is the corner of the city where we've recently expanded the Autumn Ridge path and bridge over a highway to reconnect this neighborhood to another nearby and to the network of paths throughout the city. Um, I know that in the future the path is planned to expand further north along some route to be determined, which is exciting, but I think that that means this area is an opportunity and a great place for people to live and that hosting a few more families here presents a benefit to the community as a whole. Um, I want to acknowledge that most proposals we see for adding infill housing in existing neighborhoods in Madison, they tend to be for quite a bit larger of buildings with more units where I think we begin to see more of those consequences, the crowding impacts like parking, etc. Um, but I just don't see from adding a structure or a lot division for a pretty small lot in low residential zoning. I don't see those concerns stacking up to that level that we see happening elsewhere where we need to add more conditions to account for those or be a little more worried. Um so I feel that taken all together and on balance across these I find that the proposal is consistent with the city's goals and with the northeast area plan and I plan to vote for the motion. Thanks everybody and thanks for uh the extra steps we took to hear from one of my constituents. >> Thanks Ol. >> There's no other discussion. I'll call the vote on this item. Um is there any objection to unanimous approval for um Alder Hack's motion? Seeing none, uh, item eight is approved. Um, and I would be looking for a motion on item nine, which is the, um, updated certify survey map. >> Commissioner Hec, >> I can do that, too. Um, I would uh move that uh plan commission recommend approval of the certified survey map for the property at 822 Pulley Drive and that all uh conditions of approval are met subject to any comments and conditions in the staff report. >> Um you thanks for the second. Um any discussion on this item? Seeing none, any uh objection to unanimous approval for Commissioner X motion. All right, that item is also approved. Um and we would move to the part of our agenda for member announcements, communications, and business items. If anyone has any of those to share, seeing none, then we'll move to the secretar's Oh, go ahead. Um, go ahead, Commissioner Wesnki. >> Uh, just to share that, uh, next Sunday begins Madison Housing Week, uh, week-long session of inperson or virtual events. So, you can find it at madisonousingweek.com. >> Thanks. Thanks, >> All right. Um, Kevin, I think you're up for the secretar's report. >> Sure. Uh, thank you, chair. I'll do a a quick version. Uh the items in the secretar's report are the ones that are noted on the the agenda uh which notes uh some approvals of items that the plan commission recommended approval of um and were later approved by the common council um at their last meeting in April. And then just highlight a couple of upcoming matters for uh your your next two meetings. Um your next meeting following tonight is May 11th. A few items on there. Uh it includes uh revised approval of uh senior housing development um out in Grand View Commons on Halley Way. Uh that was one that the plan commission's approved a couple of times and um there's some revisions. Um that's back before the plan commission. Also, there is uh scheduled an item that's been in referral for several items. Um and that's for at the corner of Pennsylvania and East Johnson. Um it's a large residential development. the plan commission is actually only seeing the outdoor uh recreation component of that development. Um and so uh that is scheduled for your next meeting. That's been referred several times. A few other items for that meeting as well. I did want to note for June 1st uh it is the election of chair and vice chair. Uh that's the tenatively scheduled for the first meeting in June. So June 1st. Um and also um tenatively scheduled to be plan commission appointments to the joint campus area committee on that night. Um at this point uh one larger residential development um at Roth and Huxley Street. Um there's a reasonzoning and a conditional use for a residential building complex for a two building development um with uh approximately 163 units. Um and so that's at among the items that you'll be considering on June 1st. Uh, chair, that's what I have for this evening. SE >> Thanks, Kevin. Any questions for Kevin? >> Seeing none. Um, is there a motion and a second to adjurnn? Uh, Alder Field, Commissioner Hec. Thank you. Any objection to unanimous approval for adjourning. All right, we will stand adjourned and we'll see you in a couple weeks. >> Good night, everyone. >> Good night, everyone.