Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council places rezoning request for 77 Shoreline Strip on file without prejudice after debate
Summary
The Common Council voted 16-2 to place on file without prejudice a request to rezone 77 Shoreline Strip (formerly a restaurant) after public comment and staff questions about height, neighborhood impacts and consistency with the South Madison plan.
The Madison Common Council on March 11 placed on file without prejudice a rezoning request for 77 Shoreline Strip, a property proposed for redevelopment as a multistory affordable housing building.
The council’s action followed public comment from adjacent property owners and tenants, a developer presentation and a staff briefing on how the request relates to the South Madison plan. The motion to place the rezoning on file without prejudice passed 16-2.
The rezoning petition would change the parcel from Traditional Residential Varied 2 (TRV2), which allows up to three stories, to Traditional Residential Urban 1 (TRU1), which can permit up to five stories when measured from the site’s lowest point. The applicant’s preliminary concept presented to the Plan Commission and council was a four‑story building with 74 units described as affordable senior housing; the developer said the use could later pivot to workforce housing depending on financing and community input.
During public comment, owners and operators of the on‑site restaurant described long-standing leases and community ties and urged the council to protect local businesses. Several residents of the adjacent mobile home park and neighborhood speakers said a five‑story building would be disproportionate to surrounding development, would create safety and accessibility concerns for seniors and risked further displacing existing community amenities.
Staff emphasized that the South Madison plan — adopted in 2022 — recommends “low/medium residential” for the site, generally 1–3 stories, though the plan specifically allows up to five stories in select locations if height is measured from the property’s southeast low point (to avoid a building reading as taller from surrounding residential areas). The Plan Commission referred the rezoning application to the council with a recommendation to place it on file without prejudice after finding remaining inconsistencies with the plan’s height guidance.
Council members said they supported the Plan Commission’s cautious approach while noting a city interest in affordable housing. Several alderpersons encouraged the applicant to work with staff and neighbors to revise plans (for example, lowering massing measured from the southeast corner, clarifying amenities such as a storm shelter, and submitting detailed designs that align with the zoning request) and to return when outstanding compatibility questions are resolved.
The council’s action leaves the rezoning unresolved; the Plan Commission retains the conditional‑use and demolition applications contingent on the council’s future decision on zoning.
Votes at a glance: motion to place rezoning on file without prejudice — passed, 16 ayes, 2 noes.
The council recorded the vote and noted that if the applicant revises plans to address the height and compatibility concerns, the matter may return for further review by the Plan Commission and council.
