Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Monona council sends ‘The Bloom’ exterior siding dispute back to planning commission
Loading...
Summary
The Monona City Council voted Nov. 3 to deny the Bloom developer’s requested exterior siding revision and sent the application back to the Planning Commission, citing concerns about precedent, waste from removing installed material and the lack of a like‑for‑like hardy product.
The Monona City Council voted Nov. 3 to deny the developer’s request to approve exterior siding that city staff and the Planning Commission had judged a substantive deviation from the project’s approved precise implementation plan (PIP), and to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for the applicant to present alternative solutions.
Council action came during the second reading of a PIP revision for the Bloom, a 98‑unit mixed‑use building at West Dean and Monona Drive. City staff said the installed siding color and finish differed from the PIP, and that the Planning Commission had concluded the change was substantive and recommended council review of options including repainting, replacing, or leaving the siding in place.
Developer representatives outlined five possible responses: 1) leave the siding as installed (the developer’s stated preference); 2) paint the existing hardy siding to match the approved color (noting texture will differ); 3) remove and replace with an alternate hardy color; 4) remove and replace with a hardy product with a different finish and warranty; and 5) leave the current siding in place through its warranty and, at warranty expiration (15 years, per the developer), replace it with a product that matches the originally approved PIP. The developer estimated “It’s approximately 6,500 pounds that we would be sending” to landfill if the material were removed, a figure that includes trim and fasteners.
Council discussion centered on three tensions: (1) precedent and code enforcement—whether allowing the change now would weaken future compliance with PIPs; (2) environmental and material‑waste concerns about demolition and landfill disposal; and (3) technical limitations—staff said there is no readily available hardy product in the same color and texture that exactly matches the originally approved material.
Some alderpersons expressed that while they were dissatisfied that the PIP was not followed, forcing the developer to remove existing material would generate significant waste and cost; others said the council should not set a precedent of approving unapproved deviations. After debate and a motion to deny the revision and refer the application back to the Planning Commission so the applicant could present one or two alternative options, the council voted in favor and sent the item back for further review and applicant proposals.
What’s next: The Planning Commission will receive the matter again at its next meeting; staff and the applicant will prepare alternative options for the commission’s consideration. The council’s vote preserved its authority to accept the status quo, but referred decision‑making to the Planning Commission for potential alternative approvals.
