Plan Commission

Meeting Summaries

  • 2025-04-7: Approved a new surface parking lot for a UW-Madison park-and-ride at 2230 Pennsylvania Avenue, and a new electric generator at Greentree Landfill.
  • 2025-03-17: Approved a conditional use for a nightclub at Jay’s, and a demolition permit for 210 Bernard Court.
  • 2025-03-03: Recommended that Council deny a rezoning request for a 74 unit apartment development at 77 Sirloin Strip, and recommended Council reject rezoning and preliminary plat for new Leo Living subdivision at 6303 Portage Road. Approved a conditional use for a drive-through coffee shop at 3915 Lien Road, and a demolition permit for 922 Fair Oaks Avenue.
  • 2025-02-03: Staff discussed the progress report for the Madison comprehensive plan.
  • 2025-01-13: Approved later operating hours for Essen Haus vollyball courts, and denied a demolition permit for two single-family homes on a single parcel at 1007 Edgewood Ave.

Table 1: Housing Approval Counts

Date Single-Family Duplex/Triplex Multi-Family Total
2025-04-07 0 0 0 0
2025-03-17 0 0 60 60
2025-03-03 0 0 0 0
2025-02-03 0 0 0 0
2025-01-20 0 0 0 0
2025-01-13 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 60 60

Meeting Details

April 7, 2025

By Tori Cooper

Also live-tweeted on Bluesky by ZENZ

Tuesday night Madison was treated to another short and sweet Plan Commission meeting, with the ten items being passed with the evening’s consent agenda and three items making it to the floor—two of which were bundled together.

Electric Generator for Green Tree Landfill

Item 11 of the night focused on Legistar 87469: Conditional use in the Conservancy (CN) District to allow for the installation and use of an emergency electric generator at the Greentree Landfill, located at 6802 Hammersley Road in District 20. Staff reviewed the proposal, noting the site is currently supported by one gas generator. The new electric generator is set to be installed on a pad directly next to the current unit, which sits 140 feet from the nearest residence. The emergency generator pad would be roughly five feet closer and is expected to run 20 hours a year total. The run time estimate is based on one hour a month for maintenance on the gas generator (twelve hours total) and power outages that would stop the existing unit’s pump and halt operation (expected eight hours a year, but would be weather dependent).

Jay McLellan, a district resident, voiced concern over the need for the generator and their confusion surrounding communications sent out by City Engineering. McLellan stated they received a postcard last week with notice of tonight’s meeting, but no information on why an additional generator was slated to be installed at the landfill. This was concerning, as the location has a history of danger, with McLellan referencing the explosion of a home on Hammersley Road in the 1980’s as a result of gasses escaping the landfill. They had no issues with views or noise that would be caused by the new unit, but rather safety and how the need was assessed.

Jack Brody, present to answer questions on behalf of the City’s Engineering division, was unable to answer Alder Harrington-McKinny’s follow-up inquiry on improving communications with residents; however, Brody gave further insight to the need for the generator. Going off of Alder Guequierre’s questioning of current City protocol, Brody confirmed the City dispatches mobile generators when needed. This can be problematic, as there are only two units available, which other entities such as the Madison Fire Department often request to use. Shared use is in addition to generators needing to be transported by staff, which can be difficult during flooding and winter storms. Brody acknowledged the safety concerns, and highlighted the Greentree Landfill as having the highest potential for explosion—furthering the need for the electric back-up. Currently, the City will not allow the generator to be down more than four hours at a time due to gas build-up and potential leaks. In the event of an outage, the landfill can be allowed to sit without a running generator for up to 24 hours before becoming a major safety concern, although letting it sit that long is not ideal. Brody clarified the generator would come out of Engineering’s budget, not the City’s.

The item passed with unanimous approval from the plan commission.

Park-and-Ride Lot for the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Legistars 87471 and 87475 both concerned additional parking for UW—the former being for conditional use in an Industrial-Limited (IL) District and the later for approving a certified survey map of a property owned by Madison Square Storage, LLC. in order to make way for a parking lot located at 2230 Pennsylvania Avenue in District 12.

Commissioner Mendez recused themselves from voting, as their employment with the University is ties directly to this project. Alder Field and Commissioner McCahill also disclosed their employment with UW-Madison, but stated it would not impact their votes.

Staff once again presented, going over the proposed use for the lot. UW offers park and ride options for employees Monday through Friday, with charter buses running every 20 minutes during peak times and every 30 minutes during off-peak hours. The current plan would be to extend this option to the public on specific weekends for high-traffic events that expect to fill current parking allowances. The proposal includes 229 parking spaces, two motorcycle spots, and several bike slots for cyclists. Overall, Staff recommended approving the plan as they do not believe it will inhibit further development.

William Butcher, representing the developer working with the University to establish the park and ride, was questioned by the Commission on the plan’s inclusion of four electric vehicle spaces. Butcher acknowledged this is the minimum set forth by the City; however, they are currently reworking the plan to increase that number to 20–possibly 23. Butcher says they are more than amenable to exceeding the four spots, it is simply a matter of input and electrical planning. Butcher also took a moment to highlight how the proposal would help alleviate traffic congestion and automobile emissions, all while increasing parking availability downtown due to less use by employees and visitors to the University.

Discussion emerged surrounding how UW decided on the location in question, to which Butcher did not know the specifics. He was able to say he understood UW had done their due diligence, taking into consideration access to public transit, commute time from the lot to campus, and the location falling outside of the primary downtown areas with the highest need for additional housing. Aside from those items, he could not say why or how the University settled on this particular site. Butcher added that several neighborhood associations in the area had been contacted, as well as district Alder Latimer Burris, and based on responses their was no need to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed development.

Commissioner Heck specifically asked if this would be a free or paid parking option. Butcher, being with the developer and not UW Transportation, did not know. Commissioner Mendez did not contribute to the conversation or provide additional information regarding UW-Madison’s planned use of the lot, despite being the Director of Transportation Operations.

This author examined the issue and found there are no free parking options available to University employees. Other park and ride options are available but require a permit can be seen on the UW Transportation website for anyone interested in a more comprehensive answer on expected fees associated with using the lot. Commissioner Heck further questioned why the model is not closer to what we have seen for EPIC employees, with further lots from EPIC’s campus and a central drop-off location. While Butcher is not aware of the logistics, Transportation’s website also shows multiple stops on campus which get employees closer to their office location.

Stemming from questioning from Commissioners McCahill and Heck, Butcher did disclose the University is placing pressure on the developer to have the project complete by the end of the Summer, likely for the start of the Fall semester and football season, and that the lease would be for 15 years. Commissioner Heck asked staff if they were allowed to limit the conditional use to five years and reassess at a later date based on housing needs, which staff responded yes. This prompted Commissioner Wasniewski to ask staff if this proposal fit into the City Plan. Staff drew attention to the location’s current zoning as being industrial and containing a generous amount of warehouses. As such, staff believe it conforms to the current City Plan.

While Commissioners Heck and McCahill did so begrudgingly—finding it difficult to approve a parking lot instead of housing—the items both passed unanimously.

Figure 1: Existing UW-Madison park and ride nearby that the proposed parking lot will replace
Figure 2: UW-Madison private bus service information

Secretary’s Report

Secretary Tuttle corrected a statement from the March 17th, clarifying tonight’s meeting was the final for current sitting Alders, not March 17th. Although Wisconsin just held an election April 1st, which included the Alder race on Madison ballots, the newly elected alders have yet to be sworn in and assigned to their respective committees. Tuttle once again thanked everyone for their participation, preparation, and contributions as members of the Plan Commission.

Tuttle also drew attention to several development highlights from this past year, including the approval of just over three thousand multi family homes, 161 new single family homes, and 134 lots for two-family residences. This is in addition to approving over 700 preliminary lots for further housing developments. While this is a decline from previous years, it is similar to numbers seen in 2021 and the Plan Commission continues to see a promising, steady stream of applications to further housing, plats, and conditional use within the City of Madison.

March 17, 2025

By Tori Cooper

Official Minutes

The March 17th, 2025 Plan Commission Meeting was short and sweet, with most of the items being passed or placed on file without prejudice as part of this week’s consent agenda. Although Alder Field, along with Commissioners McCahill and Mendez, disclosed their affiliation with the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Commissioner Mendez was the only member to abstain from voting on the 210 Bernard Court demolition, as Mendez has direct involvement with the project. Alder Field and Commissioner McCahill stated for the record they are not involved in the request and their employment status at the University would not impact their votes.

The consent agenda consisted of six items total, three of which were passed unanimously and three of which were placed on file without prejudice.

Items Passed Unanimously:

  • Consideration of a demolition permit to demolish a three-family residence at 210 Bernard Court in District 8 Legistar 87142.
  • Consideration of a demolition permit to demolish a financial institution located at 6702 Odana Road in District 19 Legistar 87140.
  • Conditional use at 6702 Odana Road in District 19 in a Commercial Center (CC) District for dwelling units in a four-story mixed-use building with approximately 1,973 square feet of commercial space and 60 apartments Legistar 87141.

Items Placed on File without Prejudice:

  • [Placed on file due to being withdrawn:] consideration of conditional use in the Commercial Corridor-Transitional (CC-T) District to convert a restaurant-tavern to a restaurant-nightclub located at 1025 N Sherman Avenue in District 12 Legistar 87144.
  • [Developer has withdrawn demolition application:] consideration of a demolition permit to demolish a mixed-use building, including an apartment and restaurant located at 77 Sirloin Strip in District 14 Legistar 86732.
  • [Proposed conditional use cannot proceed due to demolition application being withdrawn:] Consideration for conditional use in the [proposed] Traditional Residential-Urban 1 (TR-U1) District for a multi-family dwelling with greater than 60 units to allow for construction of a 74-unit apartment building located at 77 Sirloin Strip in District 14 Legistar 86733.

Jay’s, 406 North Frances Street, Conditional Use

Legistar 87143

The only item up for discussion was consideration for conditional use in an Urban Mixed-Use (UMX) District for a nightclub at Jay’s in District 2, located at 406 North Frances Street. Staff Chris Wells presented, reviewing the applicant’s request for approval to operate the proposed nightclub out of an existing tavern. The owner, Jay Wanserski, joined the public hearing via telephone to gain clarity on the closed doors condition and how that impacted the ability for their establishment to utilize garage doors that open sections of the building wall to allow for additional airflow in the warmer months. The public hearing initially closed following Wanserski’s speaking time allotment; however, Commissioner Heck asked staff if the Plan Commission had authority over conditions set in the approval. Staff confirmed the commission could alter conditions, citing the 2022 approval for Red Rock Saloon’s application with a condition allowing Red Rock to keep their similarly styled garage doors open until midnight. In order to gain a better understanding of the owner’s plans for operating the night club, a movement was made to reopen the public hearing.

Commissioner Heck led the discussion with Wanserski, clarifying that live music would end before midnight or the garage doors must be shut. It was agreed Jay’s may keep their garage doors open when music is coming from their jukebox, with Wanserski noting that most performers end their sets before midnight. Wanserski further noted any music played from the jukebox after midnight is typically quieter due to fewer patrons filtering in and out during the hours leading up to bar time. Ultimately, Commissioner Heck moved to amend the conditions to meet Wanserski’s request and the change passed. This was immediately followed by the Plan Commission’s approval of the application for conditional use.

Closing Remarks

Closing out the meeting, Secretary Tuttle mentioned a three week break in meetings and heavier agendas coming next month due to the April 1st election and Alder turnover. Along with providing updates regarding 77 Sirloin Strip from the Common Council Meeting, Secretary Tuttle also noted the Lamp House substitute was adopted by the Madison Alders. The Commission adjourned, with the next meeting scheduled for Monday, April 7th.

March 3, 2025

By Tori Cooper

Also live-tweeted on Bluesky by ZENZ

Official Minutes

The March 3, 2025 Plan Commission Meeting discussed the following actions:

  1. Recommended that Council deny a rezoning request for a 74 unit apartment development at 77 Sirloin Strip be denied.
  2. Recommend that Council amend the Lamp House Report to make it clear that did not adopt its recommended changes to height restrictions around the Lamp House.
  3. Approved conditional use for a drive-through coffee shop in a TOD overlay district at 3915 Lien Road.
  4. Approved demolition single-family homes and recommended rezoning around 922 Fair Oaks, 3222 East Washington for future multi-family.
  5. Recommended Council reject rezoning and preliminary plat for new Leo Living subdivision at 6303 Portage Road.

Before diving in to their key items, the Commission referred discussion of conditional use at 3915 Lien Road in District 3, in which a dive through window for a coffee shop is being requested (Legistar 86523). Additionally, the Committee unanimously passed their consent agenda, which included:

77 Sirloin Strip Development

A new development proposal has been submitted for 77 sirloin strip in district 14 on Madison’s south side. The application covers demolition (legislar 86732), rezoning from Traditional Residential- Varied 2 to Traditional Residential- Urban 1 (TR-V2 to TR-U1 under Legistar 86990), and consideration of conditional use in a TR-U1 zone for a multi-family dwelling to allow for a 74 unit, 55+ Senior Living apartment building (Legistar 86733).

City Staff Tim Parks presented, covering a plan proposed by Imminent Development Corp. and Sketchworks Architecture that would replace the existing building currently housing Pollo Rumbero and previously Hooka Lounge. Parks highlighted the proposal and the applicants’ desire to measure building height based on an exhausting rock shelf that covers the site, why the conditional use would be needed due to the number of planned units, and how the building height will need further conditional use allowances due to the current design coming to a total of six stories—two partially exposed levels below four stories of residences.

The owner of Pollo Rumbero, Araceli Rivera, spoke during the public meeting, voicing concerns over the termination of her current lease and having received no communication from the developer, only a notice from the current building owner. Rivera noted how not only would relocation cause hardship for their business, but would also impact their community outreach. Currently, Pollo Rumbero offers community space to the neighboring trailer park and overflow parking, in addition to opening their doors as a storm shelter when the weather makes the trailer park unsafe. Additionally, Rivera emphasized their initiatives in feeding the homeless and their educational outreach. Pollo Rumbero offers scholarships to students attending college and regularly donates to local high schools to help students in need.

Julian Walters, a representative from Imminent Development assured the Commission their company had done its due diligence by holding a community meeting to discuss concerns with local residents; however, only “about 3 to 5 people” attended. Although it is unclear if meeting announcements were also posted/provided in Spanish, Walter’s stated a translator was available had Rivera attended the meeting. Walters further claimed Imminent Development was willing to work with Sketchworks and Pollo Rumbero on potentially leasing out a portion of the new building to house the restaurant, as well as incorporate plans for shared community’s spaces and shelters that would be available to the neighboring mobile home residents.

The situation gave the Commission pause, as Commissioner Solheim draw attention to how the plans provided with the application do not include some of the spaces Walters mentioned, in addition to Staff’s concerns over the height of the building and construction in an area of Madison which is already getting a considerable facelift as part of the 2025 Comprehensive Plan. While Commissioner Heck was concerned over WHEDA’s cyclical funding, the Commission ultimately placed all three items on file as the plans seemed “half-baked.” The items will be revisited at the March 17th, 2025 meeting to allow Imminent Development and Sketchworks to create a more holistic plan before the Commission makes a decision.

Amending The Lamp House Report

Legistar 86824

The commission moved on to discuss a potential Amendment to the Report of the Lamp House Block Ad Hoc Plan. Previously, the report cited concerns over further developing the Lamp House, as it is listed on the National Register for Historic Places due to having been designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The report called for the maintenance of several lines of sight both to the Lamp House from the street and from the Lamp House out to Lake Mendota. This is in conflict with the 6 story height limits in the surrounding areas. In 2021, Council considered whether to officially alter nearby height limits to match what was requested in the Lamp House report, but rejected the idea. Nonetheless, staff consider the Lamp House report to be a part of city plans, and so will not allow development that conflicts with it.

Alder Bennett proposed an amendment to the Lamp House report to eliminate recommendations to preserve views that limit development opportunities. This was met with criticism at Landmarks Commission, who in particular were concerned that editing the report itself disrespected the integrity of the original recommendations. Alder Field proposed a substitute ammendment that would place an adendem at the end of the Lamp House report stating that Council chose not to change height limits in response to the report. This is intended to end the conflict between city plans and the Lamp House report that has prevented development.

Bruce Bosben, who currently owns the Lamp House, has previously applied to further develop the building while preserving the design while adding residential space above the existing structure in order to meet the city’s current housing needs in the downtown area. Bosben has no desire to demolish the building, but notes that it is currently not sustainable as a stand-alone tourist attraction, even with its status as a Frank Lloyd Wright structure. As part of his venture, which began in 2014, Bosben has been in contact with the Frank Lloyd Wright Conservancy in Chicago. According to the Chicago office, there is no reason not to add residential space above the Lamp House, so long as the integrity and as much of the original architecture as possible is preserved.

While Bosben aims to maintain the property and keep it true to its original architecture, aside from the proposed additions, the Madison Historical Trust is highly against further development. Opponents such as Jack Holzhueter went as far as to request a vote be passed “to put [the proposal] on file with prejudice [because] this is a self-serving act on the part of individuals.” This led Alder Bennett to further inquire into Bosben’s conversations with the Frank Lloyd Wright Conservancy. Bosben reiterated the Conservancy feels they “must advocate for the protection of Wright resources;” however, they are in favor of the project because it would allow for redevelopment while placing Wright’s work as a key, functioning competent in the new structure. Bosben clarified the Lamp House is not falling apart, taking credit for being a “good custodian” despite how harsh student renters can be on this and similar properties he owns, and stated he did not want this to be a fight with the City, but would like to find some sort of middle ground in order to help address the housing crisis.

Lein Road Coffee Shop

Legistar 86523

Further discussion occurred regarding the Consideration of a conditional use in the Commercial Corridor-Transitional (CC-T) District and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay District for a drive-through window to allow construction a coffee shop with drive-through window (legistar 86523). The proposed coffee shop, which would be located at 3915 Lien Road in District 3, aims to offer two drive through lanes, as well as a walk-up window option for pedestrians. City Staff believe the conditional use conditions have been met, as there is ample, safe space for pedestrian use and cyclists would be able to use the lanes just as a vehicle would. The only notable concerns brought to the commission were grading surrounding the build site, as the flat is lower than the neighboring streets of East Washington Avenue and Lein Road.

Subsequently, Alder Field requested more information regarding accessibility. Malena Olivera, a representative in attendance on behalf of the developers, Plaza Street Partners, provided clarification on how they are currently looking to how to add additional access points that will be both handi-capable and ADA compliant, depending on how many they can add and where they will be able to get approval for the access points’ locations while taking into consideration the grade and safety of existing retaining walls. Alder Field also inquired as to whether or not the Plan Commission could request additional signage requirements in order to make access points easier to locate and navigate. City Staff member Parks clarified they cannot control signage, but they could advise and/or advocate for additional postings. Field made a motion to request language on signage to be added, to which Commissioner Tuttle weighed in and the Plan Commission was agreeable with. Ultimately, the request was approved before moving on to the next topic of the evening.

Demolitions and rezoning around 922 Fair Oaks, 3222 East Washington

The Commission quickly reviewed demolition and future use for two locations. The first parcel, located at 922-926 N Fair Oaks Avenue in District 12, included Legistars 86734 and 86991. Consideration calls for the demolition of two single-family homes and rezoning from a TR-C1 (Traditional Residential-Consistent 1) District to a CC-T (Commercial Corridor-Transitional) District. The second concerned 3222, 3230, and 3238 E Washington Avenue, also in District 12, regarding the consideration of a demolition permit to demolish three single-family residences.This is in conjunction with legistar 86992, which changes the zoning of property located at 3222-3238 East Washington Avenue and 3229 Ridgeway Avenue from a TR-C1 (Traditional Residential-Consistent 1) district and a TR-C4 (Traditional Residential-Consistent 4) district to TR-U2 (Traditional Residential-Urban 2) district. All four items passed, allowing for further development to take place within District 12. These changes make way for two future apartment developments.

LEO Living Subdivision Plat at 6303 Portage Road

The final item of the night included legistars 86993 and 86736, which focus on development proposals at 6303 Portage Road and 4821 Hoepker Road in District 17. The first component was comprised of changing the zoning of the property located at 6303 Portage Road and 4821 Hoepker Road from a Temp. A (Temporary Agricultural) District to an A (Agricultural) District, as well as changing the zoning of the property located at 6303 Portage Road and 4821 Hoepker Road from a Temp. A (Temporary Agricultural) District to a TR-P (Traditional Residential-Planned) District. The second consisted of approving the preliminary plat of the LEO Living on property addressed as 6303 Portage Road and 4821 Hoepker Road.

Staff immediately proposed denying the requests, stating they do not believe the proposal fits their city plans for the site due topographical concerns within the 6303 parcel. Namely, the intermittent stream located on the property and floodplains and other topographical issues led city plans (Pumpkin Hollow Neighborhood Plan and Rattman Neighborhood Plan) to not call for housing on the developed portion of the land. Due to this, Staff referenced the likelihood of future structural issues due to erosion, even with the plan’s inclusion of retaining walls.

Joann Rubio, a member of the development team proposing future housing on the parcels, stated they believe their team would be meeting the Pumpkin Hollow development objectives by constructing a mixed-use building which would be available to families, seniors, and community resources. Rubio further argued the Department of Natural Resources does not include the intermittent stream in their 1988 assessment as an environmental corridor—noting the DNR has not issue with the proposed building plans so long as the developer recognizes and utilized the natural drain-off. Rubio also mentioned retaining walls were only included in the proposal due to the developer’s haste in getting their paperwork submitted to the City, but that they were open to modifications and suggestions on how to best address both the flood plains and grading of the parcels. Commissioner Solheim asked Staff Tim Parks to review the DNR’s assessment, to which Parks responded, noting the City is aware of the stream’s impact on the parcel. Parks emphasized its importance, noting is is protected by both “law and environmental ethos,” and clarifying its not being included in the DNR’s assessment does not negate its importance to local waterways. According to City records and the Staff report, the intermittent stream begins on the property before joining other tributaries that ultimately flow into Starkwater Creek.

Solheim moved to put the rezoning request on file without prejudice due to inconsistencies with Rattman’s and Pumpkin Hollow’s development objectives, as well as zoning incompatibility/failure to meet future use requirements and was passed by the Plan Commission. Solheim then moved to deny the approval of the preliminary plat due to concerns over stormwater and street recommendations. The Commission agreed and legistar 86736 was denied before the meeting adjourned.

February 3, 2025

By Tori Cooper

Official Minutes

2025 Progress Update - City of Madison Comprehensive Plan

Legistar 86656

City Staff members Brian Grady and Breana Collins reviewed the new comprehensive plan, spotlighting some of the City’s most ambitious goals and important objectives. Grady emphasized how the plan is used to help guide the City’s budget and planning requests, adding the plan is also important for private sector planning regarding framework, growth, and future land use.

This year’s plan is made up of 7 elements, which include 14 goals, 59 strategies, and 209 actions for implementation. After receiving feedback from roughly 15,000 community members, affordable housing and Madison’s very own BRT have once again been noted as the city’s hottest topics.

The plan includes its own Neighborhood and Housing element, which Collin’s drew much attention to. Noteworthy items included the rehabilitation of the Tree Lane public housing units, the addition of 639 housing units throughout Madison, and redevelopment at the Triangle—primarily, the replacement of old public housing with mixed income apartments and complexes such as Bayview, revamping their properties to include more colorful and vibrant housing. Secretary Tuttle later commented on the City’s approval of over 5,600 permits for new homes between 2023 and 2024–commending the Plan Commission for its involvement in the approval of many of those requests and aiding in the City’s housing development efforts.

Figure 3: Planning Process

Madison Metro’s BRT is once again on everyone’s mind, as the City strives to keep improving the newly introduced system. Collins focused on the Comprehensive Plan’s use of federal funds to aid in the procurement of larger buses and the City’s implementation of a new fare system, citing the BRT as being the backbone of Madison’s public transportation due to its “Point A to Point B design.” Towards the end of the meeting, Commissioner Heck requested additional details regarding Strategy 7.D, (“Develop and implement a park-and-ride plan to increase accessibility to downtown and the UW–Madison campus.”). City staff responded by noting how other communities with public transportation tend to have more park and ride options with larger lots in addition to greater access with less restrictive routes. If the City is able to implement the plan successfully, public transportation will be available to a larger part of the Madison Metropolitan population, effectively decreasing automobile traffic and congestion in the downtown area while creating safer spaces for pedestrians and cyclists.

Madison’s public spaces also gained an honorable mention at Tuesday’s meeting. The Commission drew further attention to accessible playgrounds being installed at both Rennebohm and Elver Park on Madison’s east and west sides, respectively, both of which boast inclusive features such as braille on their equipment. There was also discussion surrounding the intention to redesign a stretch of John Nolen Drive’s lakefront with the upcoming Lake Monona Waterfront Master Plan. Changes are expected to take decades; however, the city aims to have more usable public space in addition to its mission to expand safe cyclist and pedestrian routes while improving driveability. This led into a later discussion on State Street’s current battle between bikers and pedestrians now that it is a designated pedestrian area with limited auto access. Secretary Tuttle admitted prior to the Comprehensive Plan the city should have done more testing to better understand the transition, an error which has ultimately caused people to disregard cyclists and call into question who has the right-of-way when using the pedestrian zone.

Heck also the City of Madison plans to address the new Comprehensive Plan planning process in 2028, inquiring as to whether the plan will be based off of the 2025 proposal or if the City will start from scratch. Staff responded this will likely be dependent on several factors and the efficacy of their 2025 Comprehensive plan, which they expect to begin evaluating some time in late 2025 or 2026

Commissioner Solheim requested clarification on how the City anticipates advertising the 2025 Comprehensive Plan update and getting the word out. Grady mentioned the availability of Plan materials in several languages, including Spanish and Hmong, as well as an upcoming press release to gain more media coverage. Secretary Tuttle also encouraged Madisonians to spread awareness, either by word of mouth or by sending information to businesses, boards, and community members who may find it of interest.

January 13, 2025

By Tori Cooper

Also live-tweeted on Bluesky by ZENZ

Official Minutes

Tuesday night’s Plan Commission Committee Meeting ran almost two and a half hours—primarily focusing on two key items:

  1. Conditional use for the Essen Haus to expand its hours of outside operation.
  2. The proposed demolition of two homes in the Wingra Neighborhood, with plans to build one single-family residence in their place.

Before diving into the issues, the committee voted to unanimously pass consent items such as:

Essen Haus, 506-518 E Wilson Street, Conditional Use

Legistar 86417

Prior to re-zoning from PD to UMX, Essen Haus operated later into the evening and ran their Volleyball league two hours past the allowed hours stipulated by their approvals. Last year Plan Commission gave them conditional use approval for these outside events, but for an earlier end time, including for Volleyball. This application includes requests for live music events, later volleyball league end times, use of an outdoor eating patio, and later closing time requirements. Essen Haus and Come Back In owner, Robert Worm, spoke to the committee regarding the benefits of expanding events and hours at Essen Haus, arguing later hours made for a more active neighborhood. In his argument, which was echoed by some other members or the public, Worm referenced a decline in undesirable behavior. The previous red-light take-over of the area in the ’70s and ’80s declined, and “vice type” behavior prevalent in the ’90s faded out as the Essen Haus and Come Back In supported a more active nightlife in the area; however, neighbors in the area were not enthusiastic about the proposed changes to the agreement. Bob J. and Stephen O’Neal, two nearby residents, argued against Worm’s appeal, both citing the noise as a primary reason for their concerns. While O’Neal made it clear he is not opposed to the activities themselves, the concern lies in disturbing what has become a dense residential neighborhood. Worm blames the disagreement on the change in management and residents in the condo he built in 1985 and later sold. Plan Commission ultimately allowed conditional use for later Volleyball hours in a unanimous vote; however, the approval was contingent on the operating under the similar conditions as the 2024 approval, meaning continuing to end serving at 9pm, limiting special live music events to two instead of three, and having doors to the patio area remain closed to prevent excess noise.

1007 Edgewood Ave., Demolition

Legistar 86419

The Committee also addressed reapplication to demolish two adjacent single-family homes on a single lot in the Wingra neighborhood. While the intended use for the lot is to create one, single-family residence, City Staff member Megan Tuttle noted that the intended use could not be considered as part of the proposal. John Collins, who holds the homes under Edgewood Park LLC., was represented at the meeting by Chris Nelson and Robert Procter. Nelson and Proctor argued the home should not be considered historical due to ‘unsympathetic alterations,’ which include the addition of vinyl siding on both homes and vinyl windows at 1007 Edgewood Ave. Several residents, some of which have experience rehabbing historical homes or with their certification, raised the question of the original wood siding being hidden underneath the vinyl. Bonnie Gruber, who shared a similar argument as other speakers in opposition of the demolition, stated a single residence replacing the two goes against Madison’s housing initiatives. Further stating each property should remain “a simple home for ordinary people and Madison cares about ordinary people.” Bob Klebba, expanded on Gruber’s statement, saying the reports submitted to the city supporting demolition read more like realtor’s evaluations—highlighting the applicants’ lack of official reports from the fire department, city, or similar certified entities. Ultimately, the demolition was denied by the committee for a second time, despite the attendance of attorneys representing John Collin’s and Edgewood Park, LLC.

6201 Old Middleton Rd., Certified Survey Map

Legistar 86415

After spending over an hour hearing speakers in support and opposition of the demolition application, the committee wrapped up their meeting with a brief review and vote towards approving an official survey map for a parcel located at 6201 Old Middleton Road on Madison’s west side. While questions were raised about the accuracy of an aerial survey that had been conducted, City staff Chris Wells confirmed the discrepancy, noting that aerial surveys are often only estimates whereas physical surveys yield actual square footage of the area in question. The intended use for the lot(s) in question would include one or multiple deep end residences. The movement for an official survey passed unanimously, and intended use will be determined at a later time, pending the survey’s findings.