Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mixed Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission raises concerns about live-work units, limited ground-floor commercial and ATM drive-through in revised 511 West Verona proposal
Summary
Staff presented an initial review of a revised mixed-use proposal at 511 West Verona Avenue. Commissioners generally favored more commercial frontage, questioned live-work viability, and objected to an ATM drive-through and lighting exemptions; no final action was taken because this was an initial review.
Get email alerts on the Mixed Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City planning staff returned an updated concept plan for 511 West Verona Avenue — a revised mixed-use application related to the Sugar Creek Commons project — for initial review on April 7. The applicant earlier provided public comment that evening; Connor Net said the revised plan includes 4,200 square feet of commercial space fronting West Verona Avenue, two live-work units (including about 1,300 square feet of space fronting West Rowan Avenue) and 14 multifamily units (public comment statement).
In the staff presentation, Mr. Severson said the property was previously before the commission and council and that because the earlier application had been denied, the applicant returned with a substantial change. Staff summarized the revised concept as proposing residential units at-grade in a suburban commercial zoning district via a planned development/use exemption and noted the proposal would require height and lighting exemptions and potentially other variances once a complete submittal is provided. Staff also said the proposal lists 4,200 square feet of frontage commercial but expressed concerns that the amount of commercial floor area was small relative to the lot size (roughly 90,000 square feet) and that live-work spaces historically approved in Verona had tended to convert to residential and not operate as commercial uses.
Staff identified three primary questions for the commission: whether a land-use exemption allowing ground-floor residential would be supported; whether the proposed amount of ground-floor commercial along West Verona Avenue is sufficient; and whether live-work units on the ground floor would be supported in place of permitted commercial units. Staff also flagged circulation and pedestrian conflict concerns with the proposed ATM drive-through design.
Commissioner feedback was strongly skeptical of permitting a high share of ground-floor residential on West Verona. Multiple commissioners, including Wood, Harrison, Powers and others, recommended that West Verona frontage be retained or expanded as commercial and said live-work units were unlikely to function as durable commercial space in this location. Commissioner Wood said, “I like the idea of live work. I don't like it in this capacity,” and added that he prefers more traditional retail on West Verona and thought the ATM layout was poorly configured. Commissioner Harrison said he “absolutely” supports commercial on West Verona and did not support live-work units on the frontage. Commissioner Powers and others suggested some ground-floor residential further back in the building might be tolerable, but not at the proposed proportions.
Several commissioners and Alder Posey also opposed the ATM drive-through. Commissioner Anker and Mayor Luke Diaz (speaking as a commissioner-level participant in the meeting) questioned whether the market would support additional ground-floor commercial in the area; Mr. Severson and other staff noted that commercial spaces can take longer to lease and that visibility, signage and design features matter for retail success. Alder Posey asked about the status of a previously-discussed maintenance facility; the applicant said the maintenance facility is not shown on the current concept and that if it returns it would likely be placed underground.
Other issues raised: commissioners urged clearer, more complete submittals rather than conceptual piecemeal changes; several commissioners expressed concern about lighting exemptions and light pollution; parking and circulation questioned by commissioners including Posey and Wood; and potential TIF implications were noted by at least one commissioner who said the proposal differs from the TIF agreement assumptions. No formal vote was taken — the item was an initial review — and staff asked the applicant to consider commission comments about greater commercial frontage, rethinking the drive-through, and clarifying parking, circulation and any maintenance facility plans.

