Plan Commission backs rezoning and lot consolidation for Common Grace project on Tulane Avenue — 26 workforce units and a new community center

MADISON, Wis. — The Madison Plan Commission on July 28 recommended approval of a zoning map amendment to Planned Development (PD‑GDP) and approved a certified survey map that consolidates parcels at 3565 Tulane Avenue, allowing a developer affiliated with Common Grace Church to build a new 7,000‑square‑foot community center and a 26‑unit workforce housing building.

The proposal would replace the existing church building with two new structures arranged around a public plaza: a three‑story, 26‑unit residential building containing a majority of studio units and a separate community center intended for nonprofit, arts and school‑partnership programming. Common Grace told the commission the project is financed through an impact investment from a nonprofit lender, local donors and a community facilities loan already approved by the city; the development team said Common Grace will retain ownership of the property.

City planning staff noted the comprehensive‑plan future land‑use designation for the block is “Special Institutional” (a category used for schools, colleges and places of assembly) and said the requested development form more closely aligns with Low‑Medium Residential (LMR) guidance; staff found the proposal generally consistent with select conditions in the comprehensive plan that allow more intensive development on certain institutional sites (the proposed density is about 31 units per acre, slightly above the LMR recommended range of 7–30 units per acre). Staff also noted the Urban Design Commission’s comment about blank walls and murals; staff and the applicant agreed minor mural‑location changes can be handled as a minor alteration with UDC secretary approval.

Project details and affordability: The applicant described unit mix and affordability targets. The development team said the 26 units will include 18 studio apartments, four two‑bedrooms, two two‑bedrooms with den and one three‑bedroom unit (plans also show one 1‑bedroom unit in early materials; the team explained a two‑unit revision had been made during design). The project will provide roughly 19 on‑site vehicle parking stalls and about 38 bicycle parking spaces; the development team said it is targeting rents at or below 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) for Dane County.

Public comment and response: Dozens of speakers and written registrants were listed; several neighbors and organizational representatives spoke in support, describing the neighborhood need for affordable housing and for a larger, modern community‑use space that would host school programs and food distribution. Common Grace and Eastmoreland Community Center staff described long partnerships with nearby Schenk Elementary and Whitehorse Middle School and said the community center programming includes bilingual preschool, school support and food pantry work. One nearby resident voiced opposition, citing unit sizes—particularly the predominance of studios—and concerns about parking demand spilling into school drop‑off areas; commissioners asked about outreach and confirmed the development team conducted multiple public meetings and mailed/posted notices.

Votes and actions: The commission found that the PD rezoning standards were met and voted to forward the zoning map amendment to the Common Council with a recommendation of approval (Legistar 88718). The commission then found land‑division standards met and forwarded the certified survey map (Legistar 88559) to the council with a recommendation of approval. Both items were recorded as approved by the commission (no objection to unanimous approval was recorded at the meeting).

Next steps: The rezoning and CSM recommendations will be considered by the Common Council. If Council approves, the project team said it will proceed with final design, site work and permitting. The applicant emphasized Common Grace’s stated intent to keep long‑term ownership and to operate the community center for neighborhood use.

Ending — notable context: Staff and commissioners noted the project as an example of redeveloping institutional properties for housing and community services. The project’s use of philanthropy, an impact loan and a community‑facilities loan — rather than conventional 4% or 9% tax‑credit subsidies — was emphasized by the applicant as a strategy to achieve long‑term affordability.