Plan commission approves 62‑unit infill at 3205 Stevens Street after path, ADA and condition clarifications

The Madison Plan Commission on Jan. 12 approved a conditional‑use application for an infill project at 3205 Stevens Street (Legistar 25079) that adds four buildings and an outdoor pool to an existing apartment complex, creating 62 new dwelling units. Staff found the request generally consistent with plan recommendations but noted concerns about building heights and an existing informal pedestrian path on the eastern property line.

Glenna Ernst (staff) reviewed recommended conditions including traffic‑engineering language to require ADA‑compliant new walkways, additional landscaping recommended by the Urban Design Commission and a staff encouragement that the applicant work with the city on granting an easement for the long‑used path. The legal office advised the city cannot force an applicant to grant an easement as a condition of a conditional use.

Applicant representatives said they aim to retain sound existing buildings rather than demolish the whole site and proposed two three‑story (lofted) buildings and two two‑story carriage‑house buildings. The development team explained the east path’s grade changes (9–18 feet across the site) and stormwater/utility conflicts make an ADA‑accessible route through the middle of the property infeasible; they proposed an alternate north–south ADA route and a secondary stepped connection toward McKinley Street.

Neighborhood speakers urged preserving the path as a natural connector to Quarry Hill and White Park. "My apartment overlooks the path — people use it day‑long," said Mary Sheehan, who urged the city to keep it unpaved. Another neighbor, Nicholas Davies, argued internal circulation and parking layout (a high ratio and garages with shared doors) undercut pedestrian connectivity. Alex Saludos urged the commission to require stronger evidence that the proposed development meets conditional‑use standards and warned the plan’s density assumptions might lock in piecemeal development.

Commissioners probed the ADA requirement and whether it applies only to public access easements. Staff clarified that new public walkways subject to a public access easement would have to be ADA‑accessible, but private walkways that remain on private property without a recorded easement are not automatically public and thus would not be subject to the city’s public‑path ADA requirement. To address that nuance the commission amended the motion to clarify that condition 20 (all new public walkways) would be "subject to condition 19" (the easement/TE condition), ensuring ADA triggers apply only to new public access walkways.

Alder Uyehr moved to approve the conditional use subject to the reviewing agencies’ conditions and the clarified linkage of condition 20 to condition 19; Commissioner Wisniewski seconded. The commission approved the application unanimously.

The conditional‑use approval includes recommended conditions from reviewing agencies; staff said they will continue discussions with the applicant about preserving pedestrian connections where feasible and about site grading and stormwater constraints.