Council puts developer's rezoning request for 77 Shoreline Strip on file without prejudice after months of debate

The Common Council on March 11 placed on file without prejudice a rezoning request for 77 Shoreline Strip, a property along Badger Road, after public testimony and questions from council members about height, neighborhood impacts and outreach. The motion related to Legistar 86,990, the council's final action on the rezoning application, passed in a roll-call vote recorded as 16 ayes and 2 noes.

The rezoning petition, filed by Julian Walters of Eminent Development Corporation, asked the council to change the site from TRV2 (traditional residential varied 2) to TRU1 (traditional residential urban 1). The developer and his design team said the rezoning is needed for a proposed redevelopment that currently indicates a four-story, 74-unit building targeting affordable senior housing; Sketchworks Architecture's Ross Treichel told the council, "We're proposing 74 units of affordable senior housing." Staff said the rezoning would also allow up to five stories if measured at the plan'designated grade point.

Why it matters: The site is referenced in the 2022 South Madison plan, which generally recommends low-to-medium residential uses and a maximum of five stories only under site-specific conditions. Director Megan Tuttle told the council the plan recommended a five-story maximum measured from the southeast corner of the lot because grade drops at a rock outcrop; the property was proactively rezoned TRV2 when it was annexed into the city. Tuttle said the existing TRV2 zoning would allow a three-story building and up to about 45 units, while the requested TRU1 would enable greater height and density.

Public testimony was mixed but tilted toward opposition. Residents including Claudia Castillo and Araceli Rivera said the proposed scale is out of character and raised concerns about displacement, safety on hilly terrain and the loss of a long-standing restaurant tenant. Owner Tommy Hanna described a multi-year, interrupted effort to redevelop the site and asked the council to support a rezoning to allow redevelopment. Julian Walters said the team had held a neighborhood meeting and that they were "more than prepared to do that, you know, with translators and things like that," and that "we're not going to be moving or displacing anyone for years to come." Walters and Treichel also said elements discussed publicly (storm shelter, other tenant accommodations) are not yet fully reflected in submitted plans and would be developed if the rezoning moves ahead.

Council discussion focused on consistency with the South Madison plan and neighborhood outreach. Alder Evers said the plan is recent and urged caution; alder colleagues urged the applicant to refine building height and to clarify any amenities or community benefits in revised plans. Staff and the applicant confirmed additional conditional-use approvals would be required for demolition and for a large multifamily building if the rezoning were approved.

Outcome and next steps: The council's final action was to place the rezoning request on file without prejudice; the Plan Commission had earlier referred the application to the council with the same disposition after finding the proposed height inconsistent with the plan'recommended measurement. Because the file was placed without prejudice, the applicant may revise the proposal and return for further consideration. The Plan Commission retained the applications for demolition and conditional use and indicated it could resume those matters if and when a rezoning decision allows.

Key details and clarifications: The applicant said it held a neighborhood meeting on Jan. 29; staff said the South Madison plan (2022) recommended a five-story maximum only when measured from the property's lowest southeast corner to avoid creating a taller face toward adjacent mobile-home lots. The developer said a tax-credit financing timetable and construction would be years away if the project proceeds.

Votes at a glance: Rezoning request (Legistar 86,990) ' placed on file without prejudice (council action). Recorded roll-call vote: 16 ayes, 2 noes.

Ending: The application remains on file; the developer and city staff said further design work and neighborhood conversations would follow before any demolition or conditional-use approvals were revisited.