Galloway Companies previews 682‑unit mixed‑use plan in Monona; commissioners press on parking, traffic and park design

Galloway Companies presented an early General Development Plan to the Monona Planning Commission for a 12.42‑acre site between Gisholt Drive and West Broadway that proposes four buildings framing a public square of just over one acre and, in total, roughly 682 residential units.

Developer Steve said the project would include a mix of market‑rate apartments and a 55+ independent active‑adult building, retail along the park edge and a large green space the company expects to donate to the city. "This is the last, in my mind, really large piece of developable land in Monona," he said, and described the park as a central gathering space intended to draw both residents and the broader community.

Why it matters: The site sits adjacent to an under‑used office campus and the recently approved Topgolf project. Commissioners said the proposal presents an opportunity to restructure a key corridor, but they urged staff and the applicant to resolve questions about parking, circulation, and public‑safety impacts before the GDP advances to council.

Staff and applicant details: Staff told the commission the concept is being considered under the Community Design District/Planned Community Development process. Doug, the planning staff lead, said materials in the packet show 33.4% open space (which includes the circa‑1 acre public park) and that the current concept proposes about 55 units per acre for a total of 682 units across the 12.42 acres. Doug also noted police and fire comments included in the packet and said more technical items (stormwater, lighting, landscaping) will be worked out in later phases.

Commissioners pressed the developer on several points. Commissioner John questioned the parking math in the staff table, saying his read indicated the residential component could be roughly 93 parking spaces short; staff and the applicant said some surface stalls and garage stalls are intended to be allocated to resident needs but agreed the allocation deserves more clarity. "I'm a little confused by the table that was created," John said, describing specific allocation concerns.

Several commissioners recommended a traffic or service‑level analysis to quantify potential impacts to police, fire and public works as the scale of the project could add a substantial number of new residents. Commissioner Susan said she was concerned about service impacts and called for a traffic study: "I think there should be a traffic analysis and maybe an overall service analysis," she said.

Design and park programming: Commissioners and the applicant discussed massing and materials. The architect, Peter, described strategies to reduce perceived mass (recessed corridors, material changes and setbacks) and noted the A1 building includes about 12,000 square feet of ground‑floor retail. Commissioners asked for massing and street‑level perspectives for both phases and for additional material boards before the next design review. The developer said the company would donate the park but that final programming would be the city's decision: "We're intending to donate it to the city," he said.

Public comment: Nearby residents raised concerns about notice, lighting, noise and traffic. Michelle Michalak, who said she lives across from the site, told the commission she had not received notice and worried the development would remove green space and increase nighttime lighting and calls for service. "I'm concerned about the lighting. I'm concerned about the increased traffic," Michalak said.

Next steps: Staff described the PCD/GDP schedule and noticing requirements; the packet materials will return with additional exhibits and responses to staff comments. Staff said the GDP and the initial phase implementation plan will be updated and will return to planning commission and later to the city council for formal decisions.

Provenance: The planning commission heard the Galloway Companies presentation and public comments during the meeting's public hearing; staff summarized the project's high‑level metrics and asked the commission for feedback during the pre‑hearing conference. The commission did not take a final vote on the GDP; it directed additional information and exhibits for a future hearing.