Plan Commission recommends PD rezoning for Common Grace site to allow community center and 26-unit workforce housing

The Madison Plan Commission on July 28 recommended that the Common Council approve a Planned Development (PD) zoning map amendment and a certified survey map to enable redevelopment of the Common Grace Church site at 3565 Tulane Avenue. The proposal would replace the aging church building with a 7,000‑square‑foot community center and a three‑story, 26‑unit workforce housing building with a central public plaza.

Staff presentation and plan consistency: Staff noted the comprehensive plan currently designates the block as “Special Institutional” but allows residential redevelopment with certain conditions. Planning staff said the proposed residential density of about 31 units per acre slightly exceeds the Low‑Medium Residential (LMR) guidance of 7–30 units per acre but pointed to a comp‑plan provision that permits larger multifamily forms in LMR locations under select conditions (relationships to surroundings, access to transit and amenities, lot/block characteristics). Staff found the proposed building heights would be consistent with guidance and recommended that, with conditions, the PD and specific implementation plan could be found consistent with applicable standards. Staff also circulated an addendum addressing an Urban Design Commission comment about mural placement on a blank wall and noted mural location could be finalized as a minor alteration approved by the Urban Design Commission secretary.

Project description and financing: Developer representatives said the project includes two buildings arranged around a public plaza: a 3‑story “missing‑middle” housing building with ground floor unit entries and bicycle parking, and a community center with flexible meeting space, classrooms, art room and other uses. Project team members said Common Grace will own the development; funding includes a community facilities loan already approved by the city, an impact investment from a nonprofit lender, contributions from local foundations and donors. Mark Elsden, speaking for the sponsor, said the existing church building “has reached the end of its life” and summarized community outreach and demand: “Eastmoreland needs more affordable housing and more flexible low cost space for local groups, nonprofits, and community organizations.” The project team said they are targeting rents at or below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI).

Unit mix and parking: The design team said the housing would include 18 studio units, one one‑bedroom unit, four two‑bedroom units, two two‑bedroom‑plus‑den units and one three‑bedroom unit for a total of 26 units. The site plan shows about 19 vehicle parking stalls, about 38 exterior bicycle racks and additional interior bicycle parking. Staff and the design team emphasized multiple on‑site gathering spaces, native landscaping, and storm‑water features.

Public comment and concerns: A number of neighbors and community members spoke in support, citing neighborhood need for more affordable housing and the community center’s role as a “third space.” Several speakers noted the project is organized by the church and intends to keep the housing permanently affordable without relying on Section 42 tax credit timing. Opponents raised concerns about unit sizes (noting 18 studios), the limited number of vehicle parking stalls and potential impacts on school drop‑off and pick‑up congestion adjacent to Schenck Elementary and Whitehorse Middle School. One nearby resident described limited advance notice and said the building’s size and bulk would be out of scale with nearby two‑story homes.

Outcome: Alder Yeager (motion) moved that the commission find the PD and rezoning standards met and recommend approval to council; Alder Glenn seconded. The Plan Commission recorded no objections and forwarded the PD rezoning recommendation to council. Commissioner Solheim moved that the commission find the land‑division standards met and forward the CSM with recommendation of approval; Alder Glenn seconded and the commission approved the CSM.

Next steps: The matter will go to the Common Council for final action. Staff noted that final mural placement and other minor exterior details would be resolved through Urban Design Commission review or as minor alterations authorized by the UDC secretary.