Brief Madison Plan Commission Recap

Edgewood campus master plan repeal denied, Park St. grocery lot rezoned, Reach Dane Daycare approved, Oscar Mayer Land division, alcohol zoning overlay ordinance approved and more.

FOLLOW ALONG

This is brief.  So you might want to watch for further details (3 hours)

GETTING STARTED

• No public input.
• Alder Lemmer discloses she attended Edgewood but that she and the attorney discussed it and they felt it would not impact her decisions. Michael Rewey says his partner lives in the Vilas neighborhood but won’t impact his decisions on #2 (Edgewood)
• Approval of the minutes.
• Next meetings are Jan 13th and 27th. February dates are wrong on the agenda, they are Feb 10th and 24th.  Brad Cantrell and Michael Rewey won’t be here for Feb 10th meeting.
• February 20th will be the first of their work sessions, its a Thursday.  Heck won’t be able to be there on Feb. 20th, he is double booked with regular standing meetings.

ROUTINE BUSINESS

Amending the 2020 Capital Budget of Engineering-Major Streets and Determining a Public Purpose and Necessity and adopting a Relocation Order for the acquisition of land interests required for the construction and maintenance of improvements for a public street. Being part of NE 1⁄4 of the SE 1⁄4 of Section 17, T 7 N, R 8 E, in the City of Madison. (9th AD)

• Brad Cantrell moves approval, Rewey seconds.  No discussion, passes.

SECRETARY REPORT

• Heather Stauder, Planning Division Director thanks them for their work, says they will be delivering an annual report.
• Upcoming Matters – January 13, 2020
  • 6225 University Avenue – NMX to TR-U2, Demolition Permit and Conditional Use – Demolish two-story office building to construct four-story, 53-unit apartment building in Urban Design Dist. 6
  • 1835 Wright Street – IL to CI and Conditional Use – Convert truck rental facility into daycare center and parking for Madison College
  • 5810 Mineral Point Road – Demolition Permit and Conditional Use – Demolish office building to construct new building on office campus
  • 5802 Raymond Road – Conditional Use – Construct three-story mixed-use building with 2,400 sq. ft. of commercial space and 11 apartments
  • 714 Clark Court – Demolition Permit – Demolish single-family residence to construct new single-family residence
  • 5048 Thorson Road – Extraterritorial Certified Survey Map – Create two residential lots in the Town of Sun Prairie
• Upcoming Matters – January 27, 2020
  • 1212 Huxley Street – Demolition Permit and Conditional Use
  • Demolish credit union to construct four-story mixed-use bldg. with 2,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and 50 apartments and four-story, 62-unit apartment building
  • 4510 Regent Street and 4513 Vernon Boulevard – SE to TR-U2, Demolition Permit and Conditional Use – Demolish two office buildings to construct four-story, 59-unit apartment building
  • 209-261 Junction Road – PD to Amended PD(GDP-SIP) – Construct 8,000 sq. ft. multi-tenant commercial building with vehicle access sales and service window
• Stauder mentions the University Ave, Cuna Mutual Building (5810 Mineral Point) and the Raymond Road Projects for the January 13 meeting
• For January 10th she mentions the first two items of interest.

CONSENT AGENDA

They recess for 7 minutes and wait for public hearings.

Consent agenda (staff thinks there has been sufficient review, the applicant assents and there is no one there to speak and they are approved unless a plan commission member removes it for consideration)

• 3 – Creating Section 28.022 – 00410 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 9620 Brader Way, 9th Aldermanic District, from PD (Planned Development) to PD and approving a General Development Plan, and creating Section 28.022 – 00411 to approve a Specific Implementation Plan; creating Section 28.022 – 00412 to change the zoning of property located at 9601, 9701, 9801 and 9802 Brader Way, 9th District, from PD (Planned Development) District to SE (Suburban Employment) District; creating Section 28.022 – 00413 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 9501 Brader Way, 9th District, from PD (Planned Development) District to NMX (Neighborhood Mixed Use) District; and creating Section 28.022-00414 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 128-180 Bear Claw Way, 177 Veritas Drive, and 9502-9514 Brader Way 9th District, from PD (Planned Development) District to TR-U1 (Traditional Residential – Urban 1) District.
  • One registrant, Dan Seeley from Sun Prairie, in support and available to answer questions.
• 5 – 636 W Washington Avenue; 4th Ald. Dist.: Consideration of a demolition permit to demolish an auto service station and mixed-use building; and consideration of a conditional use for a new building in the Urban Mixed-Use (UMX) District greater than 20,000 square feet and more than four (4) stories in height; to construct a new six-story mixed-use building with 7,500 square feet of commercial space and 51 apartments.
  • Two registrants, Kirk Keller & Jeff Lee (Greenway Real Estate LLC) in support and available to answer questions.
• 7 – 1133 Williamson Street; 6th Ald. Dist.: Consideration of a conditional use in the Traditional Shopping Street (TSS) District for an outdoor eating area for a restaurant-tavern.
  • One registrant, (Wenzine?) Chen, in support and available to answer questions

These items are approved on a voice vote without discussion.

EDGEWOOD COLLEGE/HIGH SCHOOL

#2 – Repealing Section 28.022 – 00117 of the Madison General Ordinances adopting the Campus Master Plan for Edgewood College, Edgewood High School and Edgewood Campus School.

• They reiterate that that the public hearing is closed and they are taking no public input.  Zeller says they have considerable registrants indicating support or opposition, she won’t read them into the record now but they will be available in the record.
• Alder Statement – Plan Commissioner Mike Rewey asks if Alder Tag Evers (not on plan commission, cannot vote) would like to speak.  Alder Evers passes out a packet.  He reads a statement.  He says that the voluntary agreement they entered into can’t just be negated by one party.  He consulted City Attorney and a Land Use Attorney.  The land use attorney says that the “voluntary” agreement is actually a requirement.  Edgewood was grandfathered in and could stay with what they have or they have to enter into the Master Plan process.  It would not make sense to require all new campuses to have a plan but let Edgewood out of their 10 year requirement 4 years early.  The city claimed not to be involved in the previous agreements, but they reaffirmed them in 2013.  Prior to the Master Plan there was opposition to many projects and with the Master Plan they completed more projects.  Evers talks about public health, safety and welfare (gate closure, student housing and neighborhood homes, lake access, transportation, etc) issues.  Edgewood made agreements but are now trying to back out of those agreements without following the agreed upon amendment process.  Edgewood repeatedly did not say they would hold games on their fields.  They said it was for practice and gym classes and that had neighborhood support.  Now they are saying that they have a right to have unlimited use of the fields including for night games.  Evers talks about the sound study where they recommended building a wall around the field because crowd noise was greater than at practice.  Edgewood did not communicate with the Edgewood Liaison Committee – they stated that it was a practice field in their minutes.  There was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Goodman Foundation that the field would be open to the community and available for athletic contests of all sorts in 2015.  3 years later Matt Tucker (Zoning Administrator) and the neighborhoods found out about the MOU.  Evers questions if Tucker would have approved the minor alteration if he had known of the MOU that would lead to the number and intensity of games played on the field and broken trust with the neighborhood.  He says there has been repeated violations of zoning laws that the city decided not to enforce, this behavior should not be rewarded.  He says that the Master Plan has a process to work out disagreements before getting to the Plan Commission.  The master plan has limited architectural review, and is less onerous.  He continues to talk about other reasons the master plan should stay in place, including staff analysis.  He says that repealing the master plan is not what is best for public welfare.
•  Questions of Staff
  • Brad Cantrell asks what standards they are supposed to review the repeal against?  Stouder says the Zoning Map Amendment Standards.
  • Cantrell asks for staff to summarize its position on the proposal, there is no memo in the packet.  Attorney John Strange says there was a memo before the last meeting that is about the standards they should use and he quoted the staff saying the standards had been met and recommending approval of the repeal.  He discussed the voluntary nature of the Master Plan and that the plan was in place for 10 years.  He says in that memo he explained in 2013 when they rezoned Edgewood to the Campus Instutional District, it found that the standards for a map amendment were met without requiring Edgewood to have a Master Plan.  They are not required to have one if they existed prior to the ordinance.  Instead of requiring the Master Plan, they could voluntary have a master plan for 10 years or come in case by case basis on a conditional use basis.  Those are the two options. Several institutions don’t have Master Plans.  After 10 years the master plans expire and they are not required to have a new one.  The notion that not having a Master Plan violates the notion of public welfare is hard to find.  He struggles with this, if the plan commission finds that the public health, safety and welfare is not met here, and we require them to keep the master plan, then what are we saying about all the other institutions in CI districts that don’t have master plans.  Preference might be to keep or amend the master plan, but we need to follow the ordinance.  The council made them voluntary and its still voluntary.  They still would have to go through the conditional use process for future projects.
  • Cantrell asks about the zoning ordinance amendments for the CI (Campus Institutional) zoning.  Strange says that they required conditional use approvals for outdoor uses.  The former ordinance only required conditional uses for 4,000 ground floor area or larger building.  Under that law they could have agricultural uses and others without review if there was no roof.  The ordinance that was passed now requires a conditional use.
  • Eric Sundquist asks if this process is just a formality now.  What is the purpose of this whole process?  Couldn’t they just get out of it at any time.  Strange says no because it also requires a map amendment (ordinance).  They have to go through the process to repeal the ordinance.  Sundquist says that is just a formality, the map amendment process decision wouldn’t have anything to discuss.  Strange says that they have to give up the approvals too and use the conditional use process.  Sundquist says that if the map amendment standard means something, they should be able to discuss if keeping the Master Plan is better for public health, safety and welfare.  Strange says that they still consider that when they give up the voluntary plan and go through the conditional use process.
  • Alder Patrick Heck asks about “promote” public health, safety, welfare language.  He asks what “promote” means under the purpose.  Heck says it doesn’t say being in a master plan or not isn’t about being better or worse, it says “promote”.  Strange says that when the decision was made to volunteer to create this framework they decided this promoted the public health, safety and welfare.  Heck wants to know if it is still “promoting” if it gets better or worse.
  • Heck asks about existing conditions of approval, would they disappear if they end the Master Plan, do those just go away?  Matt Tucker says that there is a project identified that had a conditions – all projects have a long list of standard approvals, but one of the conditions required a retractable screen on a window and lights to be on timers.  These are items that would not be regulated under the city’s ordinance and that would no longer be applicable if the master plan is not in place.  Tucker says there aren’t many that they can enforce.
  • Heck asks about agreements between Edgewood and neighborhood groups – what happens to those if this is repealed.  The allowable uses in 2013 superseded previous conditions.  There is no way they could enforce what is in those agreements.  They don’t enforce the old agreements through the current master plan.  They can only enforce what is in the master plan.  It would be up to the neighborhood to enforce any agreements they have outside of the master plan with Edgewood.
  • Jason Hagenow asks why they wouldn’t have future Master Plans that enforce the agreements of old master plans.  Strange says they could, but they don’t.
  • Hagenow asks if public health, safety and welfare could be impacted if they repeal the Master Plan if it is detrimental. He says isn’t having 10 years of agreement important? Strange says that is why the plans are encouraged, but not required.  Strange says that if they find that public health safety and welfare is better with a campus plan, but the council didn’t find that, they made them voluntary.  Staff is looking at the law it is given and asking the Plan Commission to follow that law.
  • Alder Marsha Rummel says she is torn.  She says the rest language after “promote” needs to be taken into consideration too.  She says there is a lot more there than just promoting health, safety and welfare.  Rummel looks at Evers handouts that existing conditions based on the Master Plan, like the gate closure agreements, would they go away?  Tucker says they all went away in 2013.  Rummel points out some of the things in the hand out might be unenforceable and already existing ordinance.  However, some will go away.  Strange says that the uses in the master plan are all allowed under ordinance and will be allowed to remain.  Rummel says were are not in the same place today as in 2013, and we passed the ordinance about moving forward, she thinks it all has be looked at in context.
  • Kathleen Spencer asks if a planned development is similar to a master plan because they are voluntary.  Strange says that he used that because the zoning code does not facilitate agreements, it facilitates land use approvals.  You have to start construction within 5 years, and nothing prevents people from asking for different approvals.  He says this is similar.  They just want to go through the conditional use process instead of the Master Plan.  Edgewood could come with new plans and they would look at new requests and apply the standards.
  • Rewey asks about the condition about windows that would go away.  Rewey says there are a number of things in the plan that are more stringent than ordinance.  These things were agreed to by Edgewood, will they all go away if they repeal the plan?  Tucker says they will go away.  He says the master plan is a zoning agreement, and it is only one way to regulate land use, they also have a lighting ordinance.  He looked at the master plan and he found two places where they were more stringent than the ordinance.  One was an acorn design with diffuse frosted glass.  Otherwise what he saw was code, compliance with code.  Rewey asks about foot candles.  Have they tested that?  Tucker says no, that is not what they are talking about, usually they look at new buildings.
  • Heck asks what happens at the end of a 10 year master plan, would all the conditions go away at that point, whether there are 2 or more?  Tucker says yes.
  • Hagenow asks how many conditional uses are out there with the master plan that would go away at the end of the master plan.   Tucker says you are in the weeds to find them written in here.  He says stormwater requirement complies with the stormwater ordinance, the city is contemplating changing it, the master plan doesn’t grandfather them on that, and they would have to comply.  Many of the items in the master plan overlap with other ordinances.  Hagenow says if they agreed to do something more stringent, wouldn’t it be detrimental to go back to only following the ordinance.  Strange says that he says the word “promotion” comes from the state statute that enables the city to zone, now that he had a chance to think about it.  The word promote isn’t in the standard.  The idea of promotion/detraction is a discussion you can have but doesn’t apply to the standard.  He says that if the more stringent restrictions were necessary to meeting the public health, safety and welfare requirements then they should be applied to all master plans.  A well written master plan doesn’t raise the bar for meeting public health, safety and welfare.
  • Evers says he is troubled by the argument that public welfare is binary, but we understand in real life it is a continuum.  He agrees with Rummel that you need to decide based on the state of being 5 years into a master plan vs removing it.  They aren’t talking about a decision in 2013.  Given all they know, will they have more public welfare?  You can make a judgement about if this will contribute to public welfare or diminish it.
  • Rummel forwarded emails to Strange.  One of them said that there is nothing in the ordinance about creating or amendment, but nothing about appeal.  Strange says a property owner can ask for a change in zoning at any time.  They aren’t asking for a change in zoning classification, just asking not to have a plan.  The map amendment process applies is because they required a map amendment to approve it.  Rummel says just because the ordinance is silent doesn’t mean they have rights?  Strange says that someone else could ask to rezone to a park or planned development, and we wouldn’t require them to wait for 10 years
• Motion – Cantrell moves “to not repeal” the master plan.  I didn’t hear who seconded.
• Discussion
  • Cantrell says this is a tough one, he rarely goes against a staff recommendation.  He thinks that having a master plan here is what enhances the public welfare.  They made the right decision to extend it in 2014.  He understands Edgewood has the right to ask for an appeal, but the plan commission is party to the approval and the master plan has been working. He says that to change it requires a more stringent process.  Edgewood has a way to proceed and he suggests they do that.
  • Sundquist agrees.  He says he’s glad they discussed the purpose and standards.  He says it clearly says we should do what provides “the best advantage”.  If something was ok, we made it better, why would we go back to ok.  Taking it away isn’t the best advantage.  The arguments against it are all around process, no one made the argument that it would be better for health, safety and welfare.  He won’t support the repeal.  This is not a proxy vote about the stadium.  The stadium decision under the master plan is more straightforward than under the conditional use process.  This doesn’t make it harder or easier for the stadium, lights, etc.
  • Hagenow is also in favor of not repealing.  He says for this and future master plans he will have to take a closer look at them to ensure that more stringent standards that are being used to move projects through have some teeth at the end of the agreements.
  • Rummel says she is stuck.  She says the “best advantage of the city” is what she looks at.  When they amended the ordinance about primary and secondary uses, they end up in the same spot.  She doesn’t know why they want to repeal it, its a good plan, its their choice.  If it was us to her, she’d keep the plan, but she has to look at the standards.  She says this is giving up something to repeal this, but she has a dilemma about what to decide.
• Staff question about the motion.  Tim Parks ask if they are denying, placing on file and with or without prejudice.
  • Cantrell says his motion was to  . . . long silence . . . deny, place on file or place on file without prejudice.  Cantrell says place on file.  The seconder agrees.
• Discussion
  • Heck is torn.  He is convinced that any property can at any time ask for a zoning change.  He says this is analagous, it is voluntary.  He says a developer could lose a partner and not go through with a planned development and then ask for a different zoning by backing out.  However, he is worried about conditions of approval that were placed on previous elements of the master plan and that is a big concern.  He is leaning towards Edgewood being able to change their zoning, but he doesn’t think that is a wise decision on their part.
  • Rewey says that owners can request a change in zoning, but we also get to agree or disagree with that change.
  • Alder Paul Skidmore (not on plan commission, cannot vote but can speak as an alder/ex officio member of the committee) is in support of the repeal as a co-sponsor.  He has been on the council 20 years and coming to plan commission for that long.  He agrees with City Attorney Change that public health, safety and welfare is met by this request, its voluntary.  He says its not better or worse than a conditional use and elimination of the master plan will not open the door to approve projects that will diminish the public health, safety and welfare.  He hasn’t seen the plan commission make an irresponsible decision and he doesn’t think they will change the playing field.  Edgewood is not asking for something special, but asking to be treated the same as others.  He urges rejection of the motion and to allow the master plan to be removed.
  • Alder Zach Henak (not on plan commission, cannot vote but can speak as an alder/ex officio member of the committee) says that looking at the ordinances that they passed for Campus Institutional zoning, this won’t be letting Edgewood off the hook.  The district is powerful, other institutions are working in this zoning all across the city.  The message to institutions who are thinking about entering into a master plan this is telling them that they won’t be able to be dynamic in the future.
  • Alder Lindsay Lemmer is not supporting this motion.  It is difficult, she says it boils down to the “voluntary” nature of this.  She says not allowing them to exit the master plan would be a bad precedent.  She understands the years of work and neighborhood involvement, and she would prefer they stay with it, but she doesn’t think they can hold them to that.
• Vote
  • It looks like Cantrell, Spencer, Rewey, Sundquist and Hegnow vote aye on the motion
  • Looks like the alders on Plan Commission – Rummel, Heck and Lemmer vote against.
  • Ledell Zellers, the Plan Commission chair says the motion passes.

1402 S. PARK STREET – GROCERY STORE REZONING

Creating Section 28.022-00412 of the Madison General Ordinances to change the zoning of property located at 1402 S. Park Street, 13th Aldermanic District, from CC-T (Commercial Corridor-Transitional) District to TSS (Traditional Shopping Street) District.

Registrants/Public Comment

• Helen Kitchel (sp?) is concerned about green space and open space requirements.  None of the developers could meet the open space, they just want to make sure there is not complete elimination of ground level open spaces and that open space is only balconies and roof tops.  Kids need a place to play on the ground.  They could ask for a variance or they could do a Planned Unit Development that would start with the existing zoning.  They will need conditional use permits for the height, density and the grocery store.  All of that could be packaged into the Planned Development.  They could lose some parking or stormwater requirements or create a recreational space in the building.  They understand the need for high density but want to make sure there is green space for the people living there.
• Jesse – not support or oppose.  He seconds the previous speakers comments.  He is concerned that there is no at grade green space is required, that becomes the a possibility and he wants to preserve the requirement for green space.
• Matt Loman – opposed not wishing to speak.

Staff Presentation/Questions

• Tim Parks, Planning Staff says this was on the consent agenda, he can answer questions or do a presentation.
• Cantrell asks if the development moves forward under TSS, will it be a conditional use?  Parks says yes – all of the proposals would require some number of conditional uses.  That would be the case in the CTT zoning or the proposed TSS.
• Cantrell asks if any developments met the 25% at ground open or green space requirements.  Parks says not, he doesn’t recall all the various consistencies with the requirements.
• Rummel is glad it got pulled from the consent agenda.  She says we usually try to find the best zoning that will work before going to a planned development.  She says neither work the TSS with no at grade green space is not the best, the two zoning categories are at extremes, could they do a planned development?  Parks says no existing zoning would support the projects as proposed (wihtout conditional uses?), in this case the TSS district would support any of the responses (with conditional uses?) without need for the Planned Development.  Rummel asks if the underlying and proposed zoning districts are the only ways to zone it or is there something different.  Parks says this would be a good time to talk about amending the zoning code.  Rummel says she would amend TSS in a hot second.  Parks says that they have a lot to talk about in the working sessions.  He says they need a more intensive district similar to dowtown urban districts but outside of the downtown area.  He talks about other recommendations they have had that encouraged higher density.  The questions about if the CC-T or TSS are robust enough for a regional mixed use.  The TSS district is the best they can do for this site at this time given the land use recommendation and the present proposals for the Truman Olson RFP and intention of plans.  She says TSS limitation is that there is no at grade green space that is impervious.  If there are kids, are we really going to push this developer to have more at grade space?  Heather Stouder says that they will have to have the stormwater requirements and they will have to have separate usable open spaces that they will look at.  She says in the proposals they had small areas of at grade open space.  We have lofty goals for the site – affordable housing, grocery store – and they know the current zoning won’t work, but TSS will for all 4 proposals.  Parks says they are not talking maximum lot coverage of 85%, we shouldn’t confuse that with usable open space and green space.  Open space doesn’t mean green space, it could be all paved.  Tucker interrupts and says pools and basketball courts that are impervious.  Parks says not to confuse green space with open space and there is still a maximum lot coverage requirement.
• Rewey says he was looking at the surrounding properties and they are all CC-T and they have a lot of open space, will they come to us as TSS in the future.  Stouder says that the city doesn’t own those properties, but they would not be surprised if they sought rezoning to TSS or something else they might create.
• Heck asks about negotiating with chosen developer about at grade or not at grade open space, how would that work?  Stouder says the city owns the property at this point, with any conditional use the plan commission would review the open space, but in this case they would be working with them in advance.  Heck says the city can negotiate for something better than the minimum requirement in the code?  Stauder agrees.
• Tag Evers (not on plan commission, cannot vote but can speak as an alder/ex officio member of the committee) says that both CC-T and TSS conform with the comprehensive plan.  Staff agrees.  He says he understands that open and at grade green space are the same.  Staff are negotiating for a park in this area.  He is concerned about holding up this project, they don’t want a gap in the grocery store.  This zoning change allows flexibility and that is what is needed here.  He isn’t in favor of the current zoning.  They have TSS on other areas of Park St. and Atwood Ave, he asks for approval.  if you need to put conditions on the developer at a different point “so be it”.
• Rummel asks if they kept it CC-T and they couldn’t meet the 25%, is there room to tweak it?  He says it couldn’t be altered through a variance because its not clear what the hardship would be.  He says the main reason is about open space, not the heights and density.  The one thing they cannot change in a conditional use is the usable open space.

Motion

• Cantrell moves approval, Hagenow seconds.

Discussion

• Cantrell says that staff can negotiate for usable open space, we want a lot of things for this site.  He says they have the flexibility in the conditional use process to require open space for quality of life.
• Rewey also in favor, he challenges staff to think about development that is yet to come, he says that they could have a wider terrace for trees, wider sidewalks and maybe a bigger set back.  All the amenities that make Park Street a great place can be enhanced by setting a good standard here.

Vote – passes on a voice vote.

DEMOLITION AND NEW HOUSE ON LAKE FRONT PROPERTY

Staff presentation

Reach Dane proposal with indoor and outdoor play areas.  They recommend that they may find conditions met but they wanted to clarify that it is in a very industrial area of the city – existing use and has an intensive use.  It’s the most intensive allowed uses.  They are concerned about what the uses could be in the future that might not be there now.  They would be allowed without review.  They are merely disclosing this for the future.  The standards can be met.  Fitchburg has houses in this area and some of those buildings are new.

Registrants

• Todd Gindra (Reach Dane) in support and available to answer questions.
  • Sundquist asks about the potential industrial uses.  Gindra says he is aware and they are not concerned.  He says that Fitchburg has new housing and he thinks that is the direction the area is going.  Sundquist says that they would have no recourse if other uses interfere.  They understand.
  • Sundquist says the current facility is substandard, but its right by the Metro transfer point, but here the nearest bus stop is a half mile, have you thought about that?  They have been in contact with engineering and traffic and there is a bus stop 200 yards by Latham and Steward St.   Sundquist says google maps dropped him off at farther away.  They have been talking with Metro and engineering and they are ok with relocating the stop to the east side of Latham.  They would have to install sidewalk from the bus stop.  Sundquist asks which route it is and how often it comes.  He does not know.
  • Heck asks about outdoor play areas.  He says they are on the side of the building that is adjacent to more heavy industrial use than the north side.  Are you concerned about that?  Gindra says on the south side is an office building for sale, and to the east is a security company.  At present its not industrial use.  Heck says he is concerned about the future.  Gindra says the northside says it is a larger parking lot which will allow traffic flow for drop off rather than putting the playground on that side.
  • Rewey asks if parents would be employees in the area?  He doesn’t know, but asks Jen from Reach Dane.  Rewey says he can wait.
  • Rewey asks about sidewalks leading to the entrance from the street instead of having to walk through the parking lot.  They say it would be required.
  • Cantrell asks about the size compared to Park Street.  He defers to staff of Head Start as well.
  • Rummel asks about air quality and what else is there now.  He says they haven’t done that test yet, its early in the process, but they can do that.  The businesses around them is retail or distributor, Habitat for Humanity.  They aren’t concerned with the current uses.
• Jen Bailey (Reach Dane) in support and available to answer questions
  • Rewey asks if parents will be employed in the area.  She says it is possible.  The current facility is owned by the city and its beyond its useful life.  They were informed several years ago that they needed to relocate.  They have been looking for 5 years.  The facility serves 125 children from low-income families, they have Head Start services and infant/toddler services.  It has been hard to find a site that would meet all the Head Start and state childcare standards.  She doesn’t know who all would work there, but she thinks it will be an asset.  She also says that most families are bussed to schools, only a few drive or take the bus.  She also says that they got a grant and they have until 2021 to spend the money on rehab or the grant will be gone, they are on a critical time line.
  • Cantrell asks about the size compared to the Villager.  Right now they have 14,000 sq ft – this will be considerably larger.  They go half day.  At the new facility they will go for a full school day.
  • Cantrell asks about parking – will there be adequate parking for the employees.  She says yes.
  • Sundquist asks about bussing.  They have their own busses.  What hours?  6:30 am to 5:30 pm M-F. They have occasional weekend events.

Questions of staff

• Heck asks Tucker differences in uses in IG and IL?  It is uses or size of facilities that are different.  Tucker says that zoning does talk to incompatability, but he would look to the Health Department to determine if there are concerns.  Industrial uses are noisier and have more traffic.

Motion/Discussion/Vote

• Cantrell moves approval, Rewey seconds.  Cantrell says that he drove around the area and finds the Fitchburg housing developments interesting.  Montessori school is a block away, Habitat for Humanity is north of the site.  The uses that are there, some of which are for sale, are small.  He understands staff’s comments on compatability and concerns about future use, but he thinks the small lots might have less uses than what might be allowed and they may see some change in zoning based on use over time.
• Rewey adds a condition that a sidewalk should go to north and south entrances from the Latham Drive sidewalk.  Approved by unanimous consent.
• Motion passes on a voice vote.

OSCAR MAYER

#9 – Approving a Certified Survey Map of property owned by 910 Mayer, LLC located at 910 Oscar Avenue; 12th Ald. Dist.

No staff presentation planned, member of the public here to speak.

Registrants

• Beth Shays (sp?) with the Northside Planning Council.  She talks about a public hearing process they had, people were excited about the opportunities.  35 people attended and they handed out the comments from that meeting.  Major threads were no through road for Coolidge to Sherman, encourage walkability.  Preserve the 35 acres as a natural area, no roundabouts.  Connect bike routes, multimodal station is a plus.  They want less density and smaller missing middle housing options.  They want the economic development to work with the economic development plans.  They want the brownfield contamination cleaned up.  She wants them to push for the environmental assessment.
• Nathan Waddier (910 Mayer LLC) in support not wishing to speak

Questions of Staff

• Cantrell asks if lot 4 for the bus facility?  Parks says that is lot 1.
• Cantrell asks if lot 1 has a building or is it all parking lot.  Parks says its over 90% surface parking.
• Rewey asks if other approvals will be needed.  Parks says that future connections for the Special Area Plan would be part of future requests.  Parks says they are not approving future projects at this point.  However once the 49.5 acres is split into 4 lots, they may not be back for additional approvals, depending upon the nature of those requests in the future.
• Cantrell asks about the parking lot between Packers Ave and the service road, is that not part of the Oscar Mayer site.  Is that private property?  Parks says that the CSM doesn’t include the approval 6 months ago, that is a separate property.  The 49.5 acres here in the land division, but there are 72 acres in the area.
• Heck asks about lot 4 and the building with contaminants beneath it and that if we split these properties into 4 lots that an environmental impact statement would not be needed?  Parks says that’s not his area of expertise.  He says there is a condition of approval under engineering that may relate to that concern.  There is a requirement to coordinate with the DNR.
• Rewey asks about the utilities.  Parks says that is in the engineering comments

Motion/Discussion/Vote

• Cantrell moves approval with all the conditions proposed by staff, Rummel seconds
• Passes on a voice vote.

ALCOHOL OVERLAY DISTRICT

#10 – Amending Sections 28.127(1)(a) and (2), repealing Sections 28.127(3) and (4) of the Madison General Ordinances to expand the Alcohol Overlay District, remove the requirement that there be an annual review, and remove the previous sunset provision.

Staff Presentation

Matt Tucker, Zoning Administrator says that in 2014 the city changed its zoning code in relations to alcohol licenses.  It brought uses in the zoning code more than previous.  It originally was going to sunset in 2019, and it was extended to end of the year.  It will be at the council on July 7th.  The proposal is to eliminate the sunset.  The person who is supposed to do the annual report no longer has a position with the city so the report isn’t being done and then allows incidental alochol sales and extends the map area that is covered by this zoning.

Some of the property in this area aren’t even zoned for commercial.  There are existing establishments that are pulled in now.  The map is a result of the sponsoring alders and the police department.

Questions/Registrants

• Rummel says that it seems circular that if we don’t have a Alcohol Policy Coordinator to do the report, what would we report.  What were they supposed to report?  Tucker says he doesn’t know, he says the UW did a report that covers much more than they would have done.  Rummel says the finance report disappoints her, this disappoints her and she will start thinking more about what should be done.
• Mike Verveer registered and is in support and available to answer questions, but he isn’t there.

Motion/Discussion/Vote

• Cantrell moves approval, Rewey seconds
• Heck says that there are things in the broader study by finance that could result in further study but also additional ordinance changes and policy decisions.  There is an awful lot of data and interesting findings.  He is comfortable going this far at this point.
• Motion passes.

ADJOURNMENT