Verona council denies Sugar Creek Commons planned development and event-center conditional use permit over parking concerns

The Verona Common Council on Jan. 13 denied a proposed planned development for 511 West Verona Avenue — a combined 116-unit apartment building and a 14,201-square-foot event center — and separately denied the conditional use permit for the event center, citing insufficient parking and shared-parking agreements the council said do not protect long-term operations.

The council’s action came after public comment from the project applicant and local business groups and an extended council discussion focused primarily on whether shared parking and other conditions would reliably serve both residents and event attendees. Attorney Lucas Kleinmeyer read a motion to deny the zoning plans “because the zoning plans fail to provide adequate parking for the uses, and the proposed shared parking agreements do not contain terms and conditions sufficient to overcome the parking deficiencies.” The motion to deny the preliminary and final plan passed 6–2; the council later followed with a denial of the conditional use permit.

Why it matters: Council members said the city needs housing and would welcome an event space, but they repeatedly flagged incompatibility between a 200-person event center and the number of on-site and committed off-site stalls. Several alderpersons said short-term shared-parking agreements and automatic termination clauses would leave the event center and residents vulnerable; staff had previously recommended denial for the same reasons.

Applicant and supporters: Connor Nett of Ford Development Group told the council he had returned with revised agreements after the plan commission recommended denial. Nett said Sugar River United Methodist Church had agreed to “increase their shared parking agreement to 10 years with no termination” (previously it could terminate after five years), and he asked the council to “conditionally approve[] upon a shared parking agreement with the church that aligns with the the length of time of the operational agreement.” Lee Jordan, executive director of the Verona Area Chamber of Commerce, urged approval, saying the event center would bring weekday and weekend business to hotels, restaurants and retailers and be an asset for local tourism.

Council concerns and staff analysis: Council members and staff repeatedly returned to two points: (1) existing parking shortfalls on the site and nearby properties, and (2) the term and enforceability of off-site shared-parking agreements. City staff and multiple alderpersons said the package before the council did not include recorded easements or long-term agreements covering all parcels the applicant had cited for shared stalls. Staff told the council the application included a 10-year agreement with one property that also contains a five-year termination clause; the other necessary agreements were not in the submission. Staff noted that many local communities require long-term or perpetual recording of shared-parking rights for event centers.

Several alderpersons said they would be open to approval if materially different, longer-term agreements and more complete documentation were submitted. Attorney Kleinmeyer and city staff noted that if applicants returned with material changes — for example, longer-term recorded easements — the developer could resubmit before 12 months elapsed. Some alderpersons said they would prefer that the applicant withdraw and resubmit with the missing agreements rather than prompt repeated hearings.

Motion and vote: Alder Hoekst (motion maker) moved to deny the preliminary and final planned-development plans and the related zoning exemptions on the basis of inadequate parking and insufficient shared-parking terms; Alder Tucker Long seconded. The denial motion passed 6–2. Following that motion, staff recommended denial of the conditional use permit on the same basis; the council approved that denial as well.

What remains: The applicant and staff discussed that the development team could return with recorded easements or longer-term agreements. City staff emphasized that the applicant bears responsibility for providing solutions; staff said it had already provided recommended conditions and requested documents that were not present in the application packet. The council did not adopt any alternative approval conditions at the Jan. 13 meeting.

Ending: With the denials, the council left open the path for a materially revised submission but declined to approve the project as presented. Developers, staff and council members signaled an interest in resolving parking, easement and design issues before future consideration.