Verona council denies planned development and event center at 511 West Verona Avenue over parking concerns

The Verona Common Council on Monday denied a planned development that would have added a 116-unit apartment building and a 14,281-square-foot event center for up to 200 people at 511 West Verona Avenue, voting 6–2 to reject the proposal.

Council members and city staff said the project — which relied on shared parking with adjacent properties — did not provide sufficient long-term guarantees that parking would be available for both residents and event attendees. "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," a motion read into the record said and which the council adopted.

Why it matters: The project combined housing and an event venue in Sugar Creek Commons, a pairing backers said would add housing supply and a community-serving event space. Opponents and planning staff said the proposal would leave the development and nearby businesses with insufficient parking at peak event times, harming residents' quality of life and local businesses' operations.

Developer and supporters: Connor Net, representing Ford Development Group, told the council the applicant had revised shared-parking terms after Plan Commission concerns. Net said the Sugar River Methodist Church agreed to increase its shared-parking commitment to a 10-year term without an early termination clause; earlier versions had a five-year terminable provision. "This project's important to them as well as us," Net said during public comment, noting the church would also receive pavement improvements as part of the project.

Plan Commission and staff findings: The Plan Commission held multiple hearings on the project and on Dec. 2, 2024 voted 6–1 to recommend the council deny the preliminary and final plan and the requested zoning exemptions. The staff packet documented that the project's requested exemptions would reduce required parking from an estimated 345 stalls to 170 stalls — a deficit of roughly 175 spaces — and would allow joint parking beyond standards normally permitted, among other variances. The packet and staff testimony noted at least three separate parcels are implicated in the shared-parking arrangement and that not all required agreements had been recorded or provided to staff.

Council debate: Several alderpersons said they supported more housing and an event facility in the abstract but were not convinced the developer had produced legally binding, long-term parking commitments or workable operational safeguards. "I wish parking wasn't as important as it is, but it is really important," Alder Lytle said, describing how event parking could displace residents and customers during peak hours. City Attorney Lucas Kleinmeier and city planning staff urged the council that the packet and the record supported denial based on parking and on the lack of reliable, long-duration shared-parking instruments.

Developer options and next steps: City staff and council members discussed the procedural options if the developer chose to pursue the project further. Staff said material changes — for example, recorded long-term easements or shared-parking agreements that materially changed the parking analysis — could permit resubmission without waiting a full 12 months. Council members suggested that a path to approval would require legally enforceable solutions such as recorded easements or longer-term agreements that guarantee parking for the life of the event center and resident needs.

Votes at Plan Commission and council: The Plan Commission recommended denial 6–1. At council, Alder Hooks moved the denial with the language read by the city attorney; after debate, the council adopted the denial motion 6–2.

Context and background: The project had been before municipal review multiple times since 2018 and was revised repeatedly in response to concerns about parking, building height and other exemptions sought for the SC zoning district. Supporters said the mixed-use development would reduce impervious area and provide commercial and residential synergy; opponents emphasized the practical effects of undersupplied parking during events and the challenge of enforcement over time.

What the denial does not do: The council's action denied the specific preliminary/final plan and conditional use permit as presented. It did not prevent the developer from returning with materially revised agreements or design changes intended to address staff and commission concerns, nor did it adopt new city policy.

Ending: Developers and staff said they would discuss next steps; the council record indicates the applicant may pursue revised agreements or designs and resubmit if the new submission materially addresses the parking and plan deficiencies the council cited.