Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Mixed Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews mixed-use plan for 511 West Verona Ave.; commission urges ground-floor commercial and parking fixes
Summary
Developers presented an initial review for a four‑story mixed-use project at 511 West Verona Ave.; planning commissioners and council members raised concerns about live‑work units, parking, an ATM drive‑through and the project's relationship to an existing TIF agreement.
The Common Council received an initial review of a proposed four‑story mixed‑use development at 511 West Verona Avenue that would include about 116 apartments, approximately 4,200 square feet of commercial space originally proposed as live‑work units, and an ATM drive‑through.
Connor Net of Ford Development Group, speaking for the Sugar Creek Commons Phase 3 applicant, told the council the applicant is "willing to do" an all‑commercial frontage along West Verona Avenue to create roughly 7,900 square feet of commercial space and that the previously proposed maintenance garage is not part of the current plan. "Most importantly, the plan before you as it sits right now shows live work units along West Verona Avenue as well as commercial space. We're willing to do that as all commercial space along the West Verona Avenue frontage," Net said.
Planning Commission feedback—reviewed for the council—favored ground‑floor commercial fronting West Verona Avenue rather than live‑work units, and expressed concerns that live‑work spaces could later convert to apartments. Commissioners also objected to the proposed ATM drive‑through location because of truck turning‑radius issues and the goal of creating a walkable area.
Several council members raised a separate but related financial question: the site is part of a larger property that previously had a TIF agreement tied to a hotel and conference center. Council discussion noted that if the original TIF obligations (a hotel/conference center) are not delivered, the city may have no obligation to make TIF payments for a new project; staff advised further conversation with the applicant and said the planning review should focus on land use, while TIF and financial questions can be addressed separately.
Council members requested clearer parking and traffic analyses, recommended the applicant avoid live‑work units fronting West Verona Avenue, and urged the applicant to resolve the ATM and service‑vehicle access concerns in future submissions.
Ending: The council did not take final action at the meeting; staff and the applicant plan follow‑up submissions addressing parking, circulation, front‑building usage and TIF finance questions before the council's subsequent review.
