Plan Commission delays decision on 74-unit senior apartment at 77 Sirloin Strip, places rezoning on file

The City of Madison Plan Commission on March 3 placed on file without prejudice a rezoning request that would allow a developer to build a 74-unit senior apartment at 77 Sirloin Strip, and referred the related demolition permit and conditional-use application to its March 17 meeting for more study.

The action followed a staff presentation and extended public testimony and questioning. Tim Parks, city planning staff, told the commission the three matters before it were a demolition permit for the existing former hookah lounge/current Pollo Romero restaurant, a zoning change from TRV-2 (Traditional Residential Varied 2) to TRU-1 (Traditional Residential Urban 1), and a conditional-use request for a four-story, 74-unit multifamily building that the applicant says would serve persons 55 and older.

The project team said the building would provide affordable senior housing. "We are proposing a 74-unit development that would house persons 55 plus," said Julian Walters, an applicant representative for Eminent Development Corporation. Walters and Sketchworks Architecture principal Steve Schulfer described amenities they say could include shared community space and a storm-shelter design intended to serve nearby mobile-home-park residents.

Why it matters

The site sits atop a 20–25-foot rock outcropping that the South Madison plan specifically calls out when measuring height for new development on and near the parcel. Staff told commissioners that the comprehensive plan and the South Madison plan recommend a lower height at this location or, when height is considered, that it be measured from the bottom of the outcrop so new buildings do not loom over the adjacent mobile-home park. That recommendation — and how the proposed design measures height relative to the rock outcrop and to the adjacent mobile-home park — was central to debate.

What the commission decided

On the rezoning (Legistar 86990), the commission voted to place the request on file without prejudice. The motion passed by a 5–3 vote; the commission recorded five ayes and three nos. The planning commission then referred the demolition permit (Legistar 86732) and the conditional-use application for the large multifamily building (Legistar 86733) to the March 17 Plan Commission meeting so the items could be considered together at a later date. The referral motions were recorded as unanimous.

Discussion and community concerns

Tenants and business owners who would be directly affected spoke during the public hearing. Araceli Rivera, who said she operates the restaurant at the site, asked the commission to respect a contract she described that gives her a purchase option or continued occupancy rights; she said she and her family invested savings and were surprised by the developer's application. "We have a contract that states that I can buy after five years or continue renting for 10 years," Rivera said through an interpreter.

Tommy Hannah, one of the property owners, told the commission the restaurant tenant has a five-year lease with a right of first refusal. "When the tenants signed, the place was up for sale, knowing that there could be a potential sale, and they did have that in the contract for a first right of refusal," Hannah said.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on neighborhood engagement and operational details. Commissioner Heck asked how the team would engage Spanish-speaking residents about shared services and the proposed storm-shelter function. Walters said the team held a neighborhood meeting on Jan. 28 coordinated by community contacts and provided interpretation at that meeting; he said about three to five mobile-home-park residents attended and that the applicant intends to continue outreach. Walters said the team had not finalized a commercial relocation plan for the restaurant because rezoning has not yet been decided, but that the developers intend to explore relocation or carve out commercial space in the new building.

Staff analysis and conditions

Parks told the commission staff believes the TRU-1 zoning would allow the proposed number of units and the additional story the applicant seeks compared with TRV-2 zoning, but that commissioners should carefully consider whether the "select conditions" in the comprehensive and South Madison plans are sufficiently met — especially the measurement of height relative to the rock outcropping and the relationship to the mobile-home park. Parks said staff would be prepared to find that demolition and conditional-use standards could be met if the commission ultimately finds the rezoning consistent with adopted plans and subject to the conditions in the staff report.

Funding and timing

Walters said the project team has been invited to apply for financing through a major affordable-housing funding program and that financing timelines make delays consequential. Several commissioners acknowledged the funding-cycle concern but said they still had difficulty making the necessary finding that the rezoning is consistent with the South Madison plan as currently written.

What happens next

Because the commission placed the rezoning on file without prejudice, and referred the demolition and conditional-use requests to March 17, the applicants may revise materials and return to the commission; the common council will consider any rezoning recommendation afterward. If the council later approves a rezoning, the conditional-use and demolition requests could be reconsidered by the Plan Commission along with any updated materials.

Votes and formal actions (selected)

- Rezoning (Legistar 86990): Motion to place on file without prejudice; passed 5–3 (five ayes, three nos recorded). The commission recorded the tally but did not enter a complete named roll call in staff minutes.

- Demolition permit (Legistar 86732): Motion to refer to March 17 Plan Commission meeting for further consideration; recorded as unanimously approved.

- Conditional use for 74-unit multifamily (Legistar 86733): Motion to refer to March 17 Plan Commission meeting for further consideration; recorded as unanimously approved.

Details and clarifications

- Proposed units: 74 dwelling units; applicant described the project as targeted to residents age 55 and older. - Building form described by applicant and staff: a four-story building with two partially exposed lower levels in the TRU-1 proposal; staff emphasized the need to resolve how height is measured relative to a 20–25-foot rock outcropping on the site. - Neighborhood engagement: the applicant reported a Jan. 28 community meeting (three to five attendees from the mobile-home park), contact with neighborhood leaders and city staff, and ongoing outreach plans. - Tenant claims: the current restaurant tenant stated she holds a lease with a five-year purchase option or a right to remain for a longer term; the property owner confirmed a five-year lease with a right of first refusal for the tenant. - Financing: the applicant said it has been invited to apply for a major affordable housing funding round; staff and several commissioners noted that funding timelines could affect whether the proposal is practical to delay.

The commission’s referral preserves the record and allows the applicant to return with additional materials addressing height measurement, design, tenant-relocation or commercial-space options, and the public-safety or storm-shelter elements the team described.