Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Verona council approves preliminary plan for 130‑unit senior housing after patio enclosure amendment fails
Loading...
Summary
The Verona Common Council approved a preliminary plan for a 130‑unit senior housing development on the Midland property March 9, granting zoning exemptions including a reduced patio setback and increased height; an amendment to require an enclosed east patio failed and the main motion passed.
The Verona Common Council on March 9 approved Resolution 26‑006, a preliminary plan for a 130‑unit senior housing development (independent living, assisted living and memory care) on the Midland property west of County Highway M, granting multiple exemptions to the zoning ordinance.
The planning commission had recommended the preliminary plan 5–0 after a public hearing; staff and the applicant requested exemptions including removal of a 2,500‑foot buffer requirement, an increase in building height from 45 to 51 feet, and reducing the east‑facing patio setback from 20 feet to 10 feet. Council approval makes the preliminary plan effective subject to conditions and a later final plan review.
The project prompted sustained discussion about safety, resident access to outdoor space and whether the development will meet local affordability needs. Senior services director Erin Zelle told the council she had "mixed feelings" about the proposal, saying it "feels like" the development may primarily serve greater Dane County and noting concerns that units described previously at about "$4,000 a month" would be unaffordable for many local seniors. Zelle said on‑site services do not eliminate calls for police, fire or EMS and urged the city to consider staffing impacts if the project proceeds.
Applicant representative Erin said outdoor amenities would be available to all residents and described a separate memory‑care garden intended for memory‑unit residents. "Everyone would be able to use it if they want," she said, while acknowledging that memory‑care residents are likely to use the locked garden more often.
Council members debated a proposed amendment to the resolution that would have required the east‑side patio adjacent to County Highway M to be enclosed (screened or walled) rather than open. City staff and legal counsel explained that an enclosed patio typically requires a separate zoning exemption and that the council could add a condition linking a future exemption to the final plan. Supporters of the amendment cited safety and noise concerns; opponents said a fully enclosed space would reduce sunlight and defeat the purpose of an outdoor amenity.
The amendment to require an enclosed east patio failed on a council vote. The council then approved the main motion to adopt Resolution 26‑006 with the exemptions and conditions in the packet; the clerk recorded at least one dissenting vote (Alder Helmke voted no) while the resolution otherwise passed. The failure of the amendment means the approved preliminary plan does not require the patio to be enclosed, though council discussion indicated members expect to press the developer to consider the council’s feedback before the final plan comes back.
Next procedural steps: the approval is preliminary. The applicant must submit a final plan that addresses conditions of approval; certain exemptions will need to be either confirmed or granted at that final stage before construction permits move forward.
