[0:01] All right. Uh, it's five.

[0:04] One, and, uh, we have quorum, so we'll call to order this Monday, August 10th, 2026, meeting of the Madison Planning Commission. Um, everybody can hear me. Is that true? Okay. Um, Director Tuttle, if you'll call the roll, we can start as usual. All right.

[0:20] Good evening everyone. Alder field here. Alder fig. Roll call here. Alder, you get here. Commissioner Bazin here. Commissioner heck, here. Commissioner Sanders here. Commissioner Solheim here. Commissioner Wisniewski.

[0:48] I think I see you, but I didn't hear you, so just confirming that. There we go.

[0:53] It must be a delay. Sorry about that.

[0:55] No. No worries. Uh, school district rep check is not here this evening. Chair and chair.

[1:03] Chair.

[1:05] All right. Thank you. Um, we'll start with, uh, technical information from our facilitator, Jesse Pool.

[1:17] All right. Welcome to our virtual planning 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. Steph. 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 or ask questions. Lowering your hand will take you out of the queue. Members of the public who have registered to speak the name you entered in zoom must match the name you entered in registration. You will remain muted until called upon. The clerk will tell you when your time is up. After speaking, a member of the body may ask you a question if you need to share documentation with the commission, please send it to the email listed on today's agenda. Share. The floor is yours.

[2:04] Thank you.

[2:07] Our first agenda item is time for public comment regarding items not on the formal Planning Commission agenda.

[2:18] Director Tuttle, do we have any registrants for public comment tonight? S3:

[2:22] Then we will proceed to, uh, disclosures and recusal as members of the Planning Commission should make any required disclosures or recusal under the city's ethics code.

[2:40] Um, did any commissioners have disclosures or recusal related to tonight's agenda? S2:

[2:57] Are there any additions or corrections to the draft minutes? S2:

[3:09] Any discussion? S2:

[5:32] Any objection to that? S2:

[6:19] Was going to. Okay.

[6:22] I was going to move referral and approve the consent agenda.

[6:25] Okay, great. Um, well, so now would be the time to move referral of the, uh, move referral of item four to our next meeting. So, so for the thanks. Thank you all the field. Is there a second? Um. Thank you, Commissioner Heck. Um, any objection to unanimous approval for referring item four? Seeing none, that item is referred, and we will jump back into our agenda for tonight. Great. Our first regular item is agenda item number two. This is Lisa star 94181, authorizing the city's transfer and conveyance of a certain portion of a 50 foot wide strip of remnant lands to Dane County. This is in Alder District 18. Um, we have Claire Parks here. Welcome. If you would kind of introduce us to this item, and then we'll open the public hearing. Thanks.

[7:29] Sure.

[7:30] Members of the Planning Commission, Tim Parks with planning staff. Uh, just briefly, item number two on your agenda is a request to complete a conveyance of a 50 foot wide strip that runs north south along the westerly side of the Dane County Regional Airport. property that, frankly, we thought had been conveyed to Dane County in 1974 when the city conveyed the airport to Dane County, who has owned and operated it since. Uh, this is being referred to by or as a title omission that somehow the description of what we conveyed to the county in 1974 did not adequately include all of the land that we thought it did. And so the resolution that's on your agenda, 94181 is a request to convey that remaining 50 foot strip to Dane County, uh, at least the portion of it closest to the airport. Uh, there's another section that extends further north all the way up to County Trunk Highway CV that is not proposed for conveyance at this time, the airport has improvements in the strip already. They're seeking to construct additional improvements and are looking for clean title. In order to do so. And so that is the request that's before you. The city has reviewed the requested conveyance and found that there is no city need for the land, nor, frankly, has there been for most of the 52 years that we thought it was already in the county's control. And further, that we find that the proposed conveyance would be consistent with the adopted airport land use recommendation in the Northeast Area plan. And I'd be happy to answer questions after the public hearing. Thank you.

[9:32] Thanks, Tim. Um, we'll open the public hearing and hear from registrants. We'll stick to our three minute rule for public comment.

[9:45] All right, chair, Um, our speaker for this evening is Christopher Young from district 14. Registered neither support nor oppose, but wishing to speak.

[9:55] Thanks.

[9:58] Uh, Chair Christopher Young was in attendance, but is no longer in attendance at this moment.

[10:11] Yeah. That's interesting. I just saw them in the attendees list a moment ago myself. Um, I will note that there is one other registrant on this item. Um, Nicholas Davies of District 15, registered in opposition and not wishing to speak. Uh, you did have written comments from Nicholas Davies that were included in your agenda packet for this evening.

[10:38] Chair, if you want to, um, if the commission has any questions for staff, we could pause the public hearing and see if Christopher Young rejoins momentarily.

[10:50] That sounds like a great idea. So, yeah, we'll, um, pause the public hearing for the moment and ask if there are questions for, uh, staff from anyone on the commission.

[11:12] Um, all of you here. Thank you, thank you.

[11:15] Chair.

[11:16] Uh, planner parks up. I'm on the Board of Public Works, and this was discussed at that time. There was a suggestion, I believe, by one of the registrants that, uh, we could use this defeat strip as some sort of leverage to obtain something else the city might desire from the airport authority. But as I recall. And you can refresh my memory that in fact, if for some reason we did not approve this, it really isn't a stop dead impediment for the county to go ahead with their plans for the parking area. I got that recollection correct.

[12:03] You know, that may be I don't actually know that. That's really the question. That's before the Planning Commission. Um, this is I mean, an omission of title, uh, seems like, uh, inappropriate to use as quote unquote leverage. Um, what the county may do with the 50 foot strip, uh, is not really the question. That's before the Planning Commission right now. It's whether we should agree to finish selling to the county. What? The county thought we had sold them 52 years ago when we conveyed the airport to them. Um, and so I think while I can certainly appreciate the comments that were raised, uh, because I believe they were also raised in the written comments that were attached today, uh, that were directed to the Planning Commission. Uh, that the focus should be not what the county is going to do with the land, but whether they should have full ownership of the thing that they thought they had full ownership of in the first place. Thank you.

[13:12] Thank you.

[13:15] The one thing I would add, uh, holder, you care is without the strip of land in the county's ownership. It could impact maybe the extent to which the parking area is redesigned, expanded, etc.. Um, but probably is not a significant strip of enough strip of land that would preclude the project altogether.

[13:40] Thank you.

[13:43] Thanks, Megan. Any other questions for staff? Um.

[13:51] I.

[13:53] Still don't see Christopher Young. Um.

[14:00] No, they have not, rejoined chair.

[14:02] Yeah. Um.

[14:06] Uh, Tim.

[14:09] I was just going to suggest we could place the item on the table, go to number three. See if we can tackle that one and give the participant until after that item to join the meeting.

[14:28] Yeah, I think that would be better than trying to vote without hearing what he has to say. So we could, um. What? Do you have suggestions, Tim or Megan, for what we want to agree to do so that we can pick this back up in a few minutes.

[14:43] How old are you, Gary? Were you going to make a motion?

[14:45] Yes, I was going to move that. We place this on the table and until after we manage item three.

[14:55] Thanks, all of you. Is there a second for that motion?

[15:01] Uh, thanks, Commissioner Wisniewski. Um, any objection to placing item two on the table? Uh, until after and coming back to it after we address item three. All right. Seeing none, we'll, um, we'll do that. And we will move to, uh, item three on our agenda for public hearings. Item three is ledger star 93984. And this would create section 28.

[15:38] 0220755 S2:

[16:04] 02200756 S2:

[16:21] Oh, yes. Again, Tim Parks with planning staff. Uh, Oakwood Village is seeking approval of an amended general development plan and specific implementation plan for its University Woods campus, which is four parcels addressed as 61, 45, 61, 75, 63, oh one Mineral Point Road and 510 Genomic Drive. The main purpose of the proposed amended GDP and CIP is to allow construction of a five storey, 92 unit independent living facility. The location of the current Hebron and Chapel buildings, located near the center of the 35 acre campus, as part of the amended General Development Plan. The applicant is also accounting for three additional demolitions of the 147 unit tower, 50 unit gallery residential buildings, as well as a recreational building located in the northeastern corner of the campus. The demolitions are actually following the A still somewhat recent process for demolitions, where there is a formal review of historic value at the Landmarks Commission, and if the Landmarks Commission finds that the proposed building or buildings do not have historic value, then they may proceed past the Planning Commission and straight to administrative review before raising. Permits are issued by the Building Inspection Division. And that is the case here. All of the buildings that the applicant is seeking approval to demolish were found to have no historic value on July 20th and are therefore bypassing the Planning Commission, with the exception that there are modifications in the proposed General Development Plan and specific implementation plan that speak to the spaces where those buildings currently are. Again, Hebron and the chapel will be redeveloped into the five storey, 92 unit independent living multi-family dwelling. That is before the body tonight and the recreation building along the eastern property line will be repurposed as part of the stormwater management for the campus that will be implemented with the Independent Living Building and then the tower and gallery site, because they're conjoined sort of in the westerly central portion of the campus. When those buildings come down, they'll be graded and seeded pending future applications for redevelopment of that part of the campus in the future. Uh, staff has reviewed the request and find that it is generally consistent with the high residential land use recommended for the site and the West Area Plan, noting that the proposed building is substantially shorter than the up to 16 story height that is allowed in the West area plan for the Oakwood Village campus, as well as many of the other built sites along the south side of Mineral Point Road between Yellowstone Drive and South Rosa or Rosé Road, depending on who you ask. Um, so, uh, we do believe that the Planning Commission can find that the plan development standards are met. I will note, uh, two areas that have been identified that require specific attention by the Planning Commission tonight. Uh, first and foremost, uh, the Oakwood Village University Woods campus is located in the transit oriented development zoning overlay, uh, which prescribes, uh, how close uh, buildings have to be to, uh, in this case, Mineral Point Road, which has the BRT route A on it. Um, the proposed building, which is located, uh, quite a ways away from the Mineral Point Road frontage, In the center of the campus does not meet that staff believes. Based on the historic development pattern of the University Woods campus dating back to 1973, uh, that, um, strived to place the buildings on the rolling terrain heavily wooded. Those those phrases noted in the planned unit development from 1973 as one of the site planning and architectural goals of the Oakwood Village campus originally. That staff feels that because we're following a historic development pattern on a site that has significant grade change, including through the portion of the campus where the proposed building will be located, as well as heavily wooded terrain, uh, largely throughout the campus. That is a good reason to allow a waiver, exception or variance to be granted to the Tod building placement requirements. And if the Planning Commission is so inclined to approve the project as proposed, it should make specific findings to that and make that waiver, exception or variance part of its motion of approval. Secondly, the zoning administrator has determined that the proposed building needs to provide significantly more, uh, bike parking than is currently proposed. Uh, in general, the zoning code requires one bike parking stall to be provided for every dwelling unit in a multifamily dwelling. That would apply here as well. In this case, that would be a total of 107 bike parking stalls based on the number of dwelling units as well as ten visitor stalls that would be required one per dwelling unit, generally rounded up, so 107. Based on the requirements in section 28.1 for one pair and four of the zoning code, they. The applicant is proposing a total of 30 stalls to serve the proposed building, 20 inside the under building parking and then ten at the surface. That requires an exception to be provided to the general requirements, which is allowed with a planned development. Both the requirements of the Transit Oriented Development Zoning Overlay and any general or supplemental regulation in the zoning code can be waived, reduced, or otherwise modified by the Planning Commission as part of its review of a general development plan or specific implementation plan. Um, the applicant speaks to the campus wide approach to bike parking in their letter of intent, and staff has identified the number of stalls that are required. Should the Plan Commission decide to grant an exception. In this case, the number of bike parking stalls are spoken to in condition 46. On page 14 of the staff report, and there's also a synopsis in the zoning summary that is located on pages two and three of the staff report. Bottom of two. Top of three. That provides the Planning Commission the required number as well as the number that are being provided. So if there are questions about that, I'd be happy to answer them after the public hearing. Thank you.

[24:23] Thanks, Tim.

[24:25] We'll open the public hearing on this item. And, um, Megan, would you please walk us through the registration list?

[24:33] All right. Uh, first we'll hear from Jennifer Soto of Chicago. I'm sorry, of Milwaukee. Um, registered in support and wishing to speak. I believe Jennifer may be with the applicant team.

[24:46] Yes. That's great. Welcome, Jennifer. Thank you.

[24:51] Um, Timothy walked through our.

[24:54] Plan, um, quite succinctly.

[24:57] Um, we.

[24:58] Did just include, uh, what we shared with UDC. Um, yeah. Thank you so much for popping that up. If you go to the next slide, I'll just, um, put some visuals to what Tim was speaking to. As you can see, the site here is on Mineral Point Road on the west side of Madison. Um, if you go to the next slide.

[25:24] This shows the campus and an aerial perspective. The five buildings that Tim highlighted to be demolished are indicated in red. The Independent Living building as described will be at the center of campus. Where? Hebron and chapel. Yes. Thank you. Next.

[25:46] This plan simply shows the existing conditions of the campus, which is comprised of four different lots. Next slide.

[25:56] The new independent living building footprint is shown here on plan in yellow. It's five stories overall with a one story connector in the middle. So the line of between lots two and three is being redrawn as part of this work. Campus and say connectivity have been big considerations for this whole project. Next.

[26:17] You can see here the first floor plan is rotated with north to the right. The first floor plan includes a handful of apartments, support spaces, and shared amenities that are accessible to all residents. The new building does connect internally to the campus via a corridor on the top right of this plan, which tunnels down across to Tabor Oaks and over to the dining room on the adjacent village N on the site. Then a ramp crosses up and over this tunnel, providing for pedestrian maintenance and fire access to the courtyard from the motor court. Next.

[26:56] And then, as you can see, the lower level parking garage provides one parking space per resident apartment on the north paved right. The parking level connects to the adjacent Heritage Oaks Upper parking level to take advantage of excess supply for second car and visitor parking. Um, and I won't go through the whole exterior design, which is the last four sides in this deck, but essentially we are attempting to provide a transitional aesthetic that continues to move the overall campus from an institutional character to modern and residential. We've been using some natural stone, large windows and metal panel, um, to that effect. Um, yep. You can see a hand view, a handful of the views here. As mentioned, there is some pretty significant topography on the site, so you can see that, well, this is five stories from some portions of the campus. It just simply peeks above the buildings. And with that, I think that's all I really have to say. And if, um, Samantha Farber should be online to speak to the landscape. Thanks, Jennifer.

[28:06] Okay. Next we have I have Samantha Bulger, um, who represents the applicant team.

[28:16] There we go. All right.

[28:19] Yep.

[28:19] That's correct.

[28:22] All right. Welcome.

[28:23] Welcome, Samantha. Thank you.

[28:27] Um, so, looking at the landscape, we have the front door at the north side of the site. Um, landing in this space, we have a porte cochere which creates a covered, uh, entry sequence for both pedestrian and vehicular access. We also have our ten bike spaces right where the mouse is, uh, to allow for a drop off before the front door and then heading in our site. Materials. As Jennifer mentioned, are very naturalistic, connecting to the local aesthetic with limestone and Gambian walls on the eastern side of the site especially important to the site. Sequencing is the stormwater and how we've started to celebrate it and connect it on the campus. Um, on the east side are a series of stormwater ponds that the Gambian walls will frame and there will be three tiers headed down to the local low point on site, which will be the stormwater basin. With that, we'll have a series of native materials supporting that. Um, and then the the stormwater basin is at the lowest point on site specific. Of note, if we flip to the planting plans, we're adding more trees than we're removing on site. We're especially adding oaks to the site to pull into that character and using a mostly native palette. If we flip to the next slide, the stormwater basin at the local low point of the site, um, again has a naturalized aesthetic, and we're making sure to regrade it to honor the existing oaks that are on Mineral Point that are a significant part of what the community sees as they pass along, and is what is known as Oakwood off of Metro Point. The walkway that extends along that stormwater on the east side of the site and then crosses over to the west. Um, just north of Heritage Oaks, will then continue on to the BRT station, which is especially important for the connectivity of campus to the Tod transit oriented district, and to have an accessible path for their walking culture and connecting to nature. Um, with that, I will save the rest of my time to, uh, the next applicant that is on our team. Thanks, Samantha. Thank you.

[30:58] All right. Next, we have Keith Vandal at Van Land at, um, I believe also representing the applicant team.

[31:09] Yes.

[31:09] Good evening everyone.

[31:12] Can you hear me? S2:

[31:12] You. Thanks.

[31:13] Great. Thank you. Um. Yeah. Thank you very much. And on behalf of our design partners, Damon Farber Vogel Brothers Building Company. Thanks for the opportunity to be here. I am representing our leadership and management team. We're joined by our our board chair, Kevin Hayden. Other members of our management team, and no doubt a number of residents as well at this meeting. Um, just to kind of close things off. Many of you are familiar with Oakwood, but our organization has been around nearly 80 years. We were established in 1948 on this Mineral Point Road location where faith based, not for profit, locally operated. And we have two campuses in Madison. Um, we are blessed to have a very active and engaged resident population on both of our campuses, and just want to acknowledge how sensitive this project is to our resident population. Um, residents are a big part of our governance. We have residents who serve on our board of directors. We have a resident Senate on our University Woods campus, and we've worked with them in terms of communication regarding this work also met with a number of committees with EOA to try to design this project in a way that both meets current resident needs, but also positions Oakwood for the future. So just want to emphasize the fact that we are working really hard to keep our stakeholders at Oakwood Village and throughout, informed and engaged in this project while doing the right thing for our organization long term. Also, I want to just quickly address the bike issue that Tim had brought up this way as at our request. Um, as you imagine, we have a limited number of older adults who do bike. We have about 5 to 7% of our resident population uses bikes. So that was the request for the waiver. Um, we do have sufficient bike racks throughout campus for both staff and residents. We also have a volunteer program where we have rickshaws, our our power driven that volunteers can help ride give people rides who may not be physically able to weather because of balance or cognition. So we do have a very strong commitment to biking on campus. And that's just a little additional background why we requested that change.

[33:27] Thanks, Keith.

[33:30] Okay. I will note here then that we also have Chris Lenz and Kevin Hayden. I believe both are also representing the applicant team. If they are both registered in support and available to answer questions if there are any. And then we have 11 registrants who are registered in support but not wishing to speak. And that is the end of our registrant list for this item. Chair.

[33:56] Thanks, Megan. Um, are there questions from the commissioners for any of our registrants? Oh, do you dare?

[34:06] Thank you. Chair. I think this would probably be a question for Jennifer Soto. While it might be for Keith and landed and these come from some communications directly to Mia's older from residents or other interested parties, and I think they were answered during public information meetings. But for the record, I just wanted to ask them here. Um, number one, uh, there wasn't will be replacing the chapel with this plan.

[34:49] Do I recall correctly that there is going to be some reserved space in the new building that could be used for communal worship? S2:

[34:51] Go ahead. Jennifer.

[34:52] I'm sorry.

[34:56] Jennifer, I can go. Oh, Keith.

[34:59] I'm sorry. I can go.

[35:01] Uh, you are correct. Order. Um, we do have a spiritual life space designed in the new building. We have a spiritual life committee. We're going to work with to make sure it accommodates all of our programming needs and worship needs. It's not the same as the old chapel, but we will certainly have dedicated space for programming and worship.

[35:22] And thank you. And are there plans for a space that can be used for worship during the construction period?

[35:32] So our Spiritual Life Committee has a task force that's working on that. The short answer is yes. We have common areas throughout campus. They're evaluating and putting a plan together for worship during this construction period.

[35:46] Okay. And then one related question. Um, is there any intent to repurpose the stained glass window in the chapel, which I believe originally came from a different structure and.

[36:04] Yeah. So so there's a number of items that we believe have historical value again. That's being dictated by our Spiritual Life Committee and our residents. But there is a stone arch you may be referring to which is outside of the building. There are some stained glass windows. All those items we are evaluating and if they are deemed necessary to preserve allegiance, either incorporating them into the new design or place them elsewhere on campus. But yes, the intent is to preserve anything of value.

[36:32] Okay. And then one totally different question. There are some concerns about the dwindling number, but some remaining residents in the in the tower. But as I recall, there are plans that demolition won't occur until all of those persons are situated in some way.

[36:56] Certainly. Certainly. So we've engaged with the city of Madison and will be meeting with folks that are currently living in that building. There are ten residents remaining if they're appropriate to receive services at a higher level of care will help with that transition, and if not, will be working with the city to review relocation plans both in a group with residents, as well as then create individual plans for the remaining individuals.

[37:22] Thank you Keith. No further questions.

[37:24] Thank you Commissioner Heck.

[37:27] Thank you. This is probably for Keith also because Keith, you you addressed the the bike parking waiver that you're requesting, and I appreciated your remarks, but I'm I'm wondering if, uh, I don't know, maybe a missed opportunity about, you know, because of the fact that e-bikes have provided, uh, accessibility for a lot of, uh, seniors that in the past haven't been particularly comfortable with biking. And I'm wondering if there's any way you can squeeze, uh, some more interior spots for folks that might have e-bikes.

[38:14] Yeah, certainly. Um, not sure the best way to directly answer that. I mean, again, we want to support biking. We want to support our residents remaining active and independent. We do have a number of people both on recumbent bikes, bikes and e-bikes. Um, we just felt the requirements were far beyond what we would realistically need. So we wanted absolutely make it a priority to make sure there's convenient space for bikes. Um, we just felt like it really wasn't necessary to have as much as what was requested. So what? Maybe maybe you can briefly, very briefly, just give give us an idea of where additional bike parking is on campus. You mentioned, I think it was mentioned that you do have some parking in other buildings too. We do. Yep. So, uh, below two of our independent living buildings. We have underground parking levels. We have bike racks located in those levels for residents, and then a couple of locations outside of our buildings, outside our skilled nursing building, outside one of our independent living buildings. We have additional racks. And do you feel those are even not fully utilized now? Correct, correct. Uh, okay.

[39:30] Uh.

[39:30] Okay. I guess I would just, uh, uh, express the hope that you can, uh, continue to encourage use of e-bikes by your residents because I think there's some potential there. Thank you.

[39:46] Thank you.

[39:48] Thanks. Alder. Phil.

[39:50] Thank you. Chair. Um, I'll.

[39:52] Ask Keith.

[39:53] But perhaps Keith can let us know if Jennifer is a better person for the question. Also parking. Um, you mentioned that the the 92 to 92 units to cars. Is a 1 to 1 ratio with some overflow parking.

[40:17] I'm wondering how that car per household ratio compares to the existing residents at other parts of the campus now? S4:

[40:38] Being potentially staff parking. So we do luckily thought ahead and had ample parking. And so the idea would be underneath Heritage Oaks or existing building to connect that P1, we call it parking level to the parking level here because we do have additional parking. So this would allow for second vehicles for the new building, for guest parking, staff parking as well, without needing to construct another level of parking.

[41:05] So are you a question? Kind of. Are you saying that the the number of cars that your residents and households have is greater than one car per unit, and then that excess would be absorbed elsewhere in the campus?

[41:21] That that's correct. So, um, you know, of 92 apartments, we may have 20 or so, potentially 30, where there are more than one driver in the household. Um, and so we do have enough, uh, sufficient underground parking for second vehicles.

[41:36] Do you have a guess of what the average cars to household ratio.

[41:43] Um, I don't have a guess. I know our parking is 1 to 1, and oftentimes, if residents no longer drive, they will allow an adult child or a caregiver to use that spot. Um, I couldn't tell you offhand the number of residents still driving.

[42:01] Okay. Yeah. I'm interested in the parking in this area of the city. Of course, but thank you for answering.

[42:05] Certainly, certainly.

[42:18] Thanks. Um, I maybe just have one question. Keith. Um, a follow up on the bike. And that is, is there significant, uh, biking by staff who come, uh, who come to Oakwood throughout the week? And is that something that could increase or decrease over time, in your opinion?

[42:41] Sure. Uh, I would say not currently significant biking. We do have a handful of staff that certainly do bike to work. Obviously when the weather accommodates, um, you know, because this building will be independent living and we already have skilled nursing, assisted living memory care on campus. There will not be a large additional number of staff members, so we don't anticipate a lot of increased demand from employees for bike spaces either.

[43:10] That that makes sense. Thank you.

[43:12] You bet.

[43:16] Maybe one more call for questions for our registrants on this item.

[43:24] Um.

[43:27] So seeing none, we'll close the public hearing at this time, and we'll open, uh, time for questions for staff from the commission.

[43:52] We may. Well, um, maybe I'll ask one question and see if that provokes other thoughts or discussion. Um, Tim, if we were to approve the, um, kind of waiver from the Tod requirements as far as the frontage goes, um, is there any um, obviously we'd make specific fact findings about why the waiver would be granted, but is there any risk for creating precedent? Um, that would make it harder to, to implement the Tod overlay kind of philosophically, um, that we should be thoughtful about. Thanks.

[44:33] That's a great question. Uh, chair.

[44:35] I.

[44:35] Think that, uh, if you're contemplating or one of the members is contemplating a motion more particularly, uh, I think it would be appropriate to cite, uh, the placement of the building, uh, in the center of campus, replacing an existing building. Um, I think the the circumstances would be very different if we were talking about, uh, Oakwood Village being developed. You know, from scratch any time in the last 25 years, as opposed to over 50 years ago. Uh, because some of the the site dates back before the planned unit development that was approved in 1973. Um, that, you know, given the topography. Yes. I believe that's also a factor, but I think that there's an existing development pattern that they're following suit on with this, uh, that was intended to conform to the rolling, heavily wooded terrain, you know, kind of conjuring thoughts from the the statement of purpose from 1973. So I think that, you know, if we were doing it new today, I think the circumstances would be very different. And I think the Planning Commission just needs to be mindful of why they would be granting a waiver exception or variance in this case, because those are the things that would set this request apart from a future request in terms of questions of precedence. Um, so I think, you know, someone has to, you know, come back to the body and chances are probably fair that it'll be Oakwood Village, but that someone would have to come back with a site that has 60ft of grade change, you know, established, uh, oak trees and, you know, a nine acre conservation area on the site. I mean, you'd have to make a lot of things equal in order to to point to this approval and say, but you did it for them. And so I think that any motions to approve the project with the waiver exception or variance would want to point to the specific circumstances in place as to why that's being considered here and why, therefore it may not also be appropriate somewhere else.

[47:00] One thing that I would add to what Tim said, which is spot on, is maybe to summarize, is the uniqueness of the factors that you're considering at the site level. You have previously approved of a waiver from the Tod standards for another planned development project. Again, given the site circumstances and the arrangement of another large institutional user. Um, I think for both of these, there were unique factors at play that led to your decision about, uh, approving those exceptions. Um, the other thing about both of these circumstances is that they're both planned developments and, uh, we generally, um, try to guide applicants into conventional zoning districts. Um, unless the circumstances really, really, truly warrant a planned development. So variations or exceptions from the Tod standards are only considered in a planned development and not in a conventional district. And so I think it's just relevant to understand that this kind of question really only comes before the Commission in these circumstances that we've deemed to be unique from the outset.

[48:18] Thank you both.

[48:32] Absent questions, we could consider a motion if if folks are ready for that, I'll.

[48:41] Do you hear? S8:

[49:01] Approving an amended Plan development General Development Plan for Oakwood Village University Woods at 6145 to 6301 Mineral Point Road and 510 Genomic Drive and ID 28.02200756.

[49:22] Approving a specific implementation plan to construct a five story, 92 unit multifamily dwelling on the campus to the Common Council with a recommendation of approval, subject to the recommendations of the Urban Design Commission and the conditions of reviewing agencies and the staff report, Including specifically a waiver of Tod frontage requirements as a result of the well-established historical development plan at the center of the building. Noting that the new building is replacing existing buildings and taking due notice or unique topography of the area, as well as a waiver of the total number of otherwise required biking stalls. Given the unique characteristic of the population here and the availability of overflow biking should that become necessary.

[50:32] Thanks all to you. Um, I, um, just one quick clarification. I think you said the center of the building, and I think you meant the center of the site, um, as the location for the new building. So just with that, a tiny, Hany tweak. Um, I think that, uh, we have a motion on the table.

[50:55] Is there a second? S10:

[51:09] Thank you. I'm going to support the motion as is, but I just want to reiterate, uh, kind of my line of questioning about bike parking and combined with alder fields, questions about the parking ratios. I feel like they're a little bit on the edge of being over parked, and that they could easily convert some number, a small number of spaces to indoor bike parking. Uh, I perhaps I'll just say I hope they, uh, remain flexible and that if there's the possibility of including some conduits and things that for future use or whatever they might need, it would be helpful. But I'll support the motion as it is.

[51:57] Thanks, Commissioner.

[52:00] Sure.

[52:03] Sure.

[52:04] I, I struggle with this one again with the deviations from from the Tod plan. I understand the site, and that helps me there. The bike parking. Um, I think it discounts any potential future residents. You know, current residents might not bike that much right now. Um, but I know, um, research from my employer shows, um.

[52:31] People at this stage, you know, at 55 and under, aren't necessarily looking for a place like this and still want to live in it in a detached home. So, um, that is, uh, you know, a little bit kind of help in my decision there, but I am struggling with that deviation from from the biking. I think it discounts any potential future residents that that might live there.

[52:54] Thanks.

[53:02] All right. Um, any further discussion? Um, I think we're ready to call a vote on this. So I'll start by asking if there's objection to unanimous approval for the motion on the table.

[53:19] All right. Seeing none, the motion is passed. Um, and this recommendation will go to council for. This is a zoning change. Right, Megan. So the recommendation will go to council. Thank you. Um, let's go back to Alder Garrett.

[53:35] You're just going to move that. We take item two off the table.

[53:41] Um, is there a second for that motion? Thanks, Commissioner Wisniewski. Any objection to picking up item two? All right. Seeing none, we'll go back to item two, which is ledger star nine for 181. We had open the public hearing. Um, and one of the registrants, we had a late registrant who seemed to have joined the meeting and then seemed to have left the meeting, but I don't see him in the attendee list.

[54:15] No, chair. We've kept an eye out. Um, there is someone online, uh, whose name appears as iPhone 33. If you are Christopher Young joining on iPhone 33, please raise your hand and we'll, um, acknowledge you.

[54:43] Okay. Not seeing a reaction there, chair. I believe that Christopher has probably left the meeting.

[54:50] Okay, so, um, I think then we what we can do is. Well, I'll just ask. We did have one. Registrants. Oh. Not wishing to speak. So I think we don't need to.

[55:02] And I will note to I'm sorry to interrupt. We did have one other late registrant. Um, after we put this item on the table, Charles Napier of District 13 registered neither in opposition nor support and not wishing to speak. So they also did not appear in the registrant list tonight.

[55:21] All right. I think what I would like to do then is close the public hearing absent objection to that. So the public hearing will be closed and we'll have time for commissioners to ask questions of staff if they have them. And otherwise, we could move to a motion on this item, which is related to the conveyance of a 50 foot wide strip of land to the county for airport use.

[55:51] Right. If there are no questions, we could move. We could look for a motion on this item.

[56:00] Commissioner Solheim, thank you.

[56:02] Thank you. I will move approval of item nine for 181, authorizing the city's transfer and conveyance of a certain portion of a 50 foot wide strip of remnant lands to Dane County.

[56:15] Thanks, Commissioner. Solheim. Um, Alder, thanks for the second. Um.

[56:25] Any discussion? S10:

[56:32] Great. Seeing on that item will be approved. Um, Great. That is, uh. I had a short agenda tonight, so that's the end of our, uh, formal items. We now have time for member announcements, communications or business items, if anyone has any.

[56:57] Does anyone have anything they wanted to share or discuss? S10:

[57:04] All right. Thank you. Chair. Um, as you look ahead, the chair mentioned at the top of the agenda that we have just one more regular meeting in August, and then we have a pause on regular meetings until early October. Um, you can see the list of items that we are anticipating for your next meeting in a couple of weeks. Um, I've mentioned before that that agenda does include, uh, some updates to some of the outdoor amenities associated with the Edgewater Hotel. That's the 1001 Wisconsin place item. We will also see projects related to Toki and Orchard Ridge Ridge schools as well as Senate that was referred tonight. There are a few other items that are listed under the upcoming matters for August 31st. And as always, please reach out to us if you have any questions that you'd like to discuss in advance. I would expect that as we get closer to that October 5th meeting, we will probably have some other items that will appear on that list. Um, and we'll keep you updated. Uh, we'll also be working on finalizing our plan for your special meeting in late September. Um, I would expect that you will get an agenda from us sometime the week prior to that meeting. Um, we had currently talked. We have currently talked about some of the items that we reviewed at your work planning session this spring. Um, including an opportunity to give you an overview of the Neighborhood Indicators project, which is something that was requested for us to do a little bit of a demo. Um, and we also had some questions from Alder Field, uh, to brief you on what we know currently about the, uh, the implications for Madison from act 173 that was adopted by the legislature earlier this year, which includes new requirements for comprehensive plans, content and projections around housing needs. Uh, that has some implications for how zoning requests need to be treated and potentially approved, if they're consistent with the comprehensive plan. Um, so we will we're working on some analysis of our current policies and our current comp plan, and anticipate that we should be able to give you a bit of an overview of what we think that that act will mean for us. Um, at that meeting. Uh, we have a couple other topics that we've talked about in recent meetings that will probably also make their way onto that agenda. But those are some of the items that we're tracking for now. I also finally just want to mention that the August 31st meeting is another meeting that I will not be in attendance for. That will be one that Kevin's handling. So if you have any questions for me ahead of that meeting, please feel free to reach out. Otherwise, you'll be in good hands with Kevin and any of the planners that will be there that night.

[1:00:01] Thanks, Megan.

[1:00:07] Um, any questions for Megan? S10:

[1:00:28] Thanks, everyone.

Plan Commission: Meeting of August 10, 2026

Transcript