Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Neighbors press planning commission over size, parking and density of proposed 5‑story Monona Drive development
Loading...
Summary
Noel Development and JLA Architects presented a general development plan for 4711 Monona Drive proposing a 5‑story, ~125‑unit apartment building plus eight townhomes. Dozens of residents urged reductions in height and density, raised parking and safety concerns, and asked for shade and parking studies; staff flagged a small parking shortfall and requested further design revisions.
Noel Development and JLA Architects presented a general development plan for a proposed demolition of the former BMO bank and construction of a five‑story apartment building with eight two‑story townhomes at 4711 Monona Drive (case 242026). The prehearing conference drew a large turnout and extended public comment that centered on building height, density and parking.
Developer Matt Bertos told the Planning Commission the company acquired the parcel in 2023 and considers the mixed‑use apartment project the ‘‘highest and best use’’ of the BMO site. ‘‘We explored re‑leasing the building, but determined that the project we have proposed is the highest and best use for the site,’’ Bertos said. JLA project manager Tammy McCullough described design moves intended to buffer adjacent homes, including placing townhomes on the west side and orienting the five‑story mass toward Monona Drive.
Residents disagreed. Multiple speakers said a 5‑story building adjacent to one‑ and two‑story homes is out of scale and would reduce property values and neighborhood character. ‘‘The large scale of the building does not reflect our small town character,’’ said Debbie Reynolds, who called for alignment with the city’s Monona Drive urban design guidelines and for a redesign that better integrates commercial uses rather than pure residential density. Other speakers pressed for a shade study, clearer visitor‑parking plans, limits on construction staging, and stronger stepbacks along the north and west edges.
Staff summarized technical constraints and requirements: the site is about 1.65 acres, mixed zoning may require rezoning to a Community Design District and use of a Planned Community Development (PCD) process, and the municipal ordinance requires 30% of the site be open green space. On parking, staff noted code would require about 189 stalls for the proposed unit count and the submitted plan initially showed 187 stalls; later in the meeting the applicant reported reconfiguring the lower level to show 199 stalls in an updated layout. Staff also pointed out that 32 stalls were tandem (shared), a likely operational consideration for residents.
Commissioners and staff asked the applicant to refine massing, consider additional stepbacks or terracing on the north and west elevations, clarify the open‑space calculation (whether the elevated courtyard counts as green space), and provide a plan for deliveries, emergency access and construction staging. The applicant said the team is exploring sustainability items such as green/blue roofs, EV charging and shared‑vehicle options. The commission did not take a vote; staff said the GPD/PCD review will return for further hearings and that formal rezoning and council review would follow if the project proceeds.
Next steps: the applicant will revise materials and staff will post packets ahead of future meetings; the PCD/rezoning process includes legal notice and 200‑foot mailings and typically requires multiple additional hearings before any council action.
