Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadway Height Taxbase topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates taller buildings on West Broadway to boost tax base, members raise cost and context questions
Summary
Committee members and staff discussed using Broadway as Monona’s primary redevelopment area to increase tax revenue, trading off construction costs, service demands and neighborhood character; presenters said recommended heights would be advisory and zoning would require later approvals.
Discussion turned to corridor specifics, and staff described West Broadway as a regionally oriented mixed‑use opportunity combining retail, housing and potential employment uses. Staff said concept alternatives would show a range of mixes and scales and explained the plan would recommend corridor maximums that could later be translated into zoning.
Committee members argued over appropriate heights and the trade‑offs involved. One member urged concentrating taller buildings on Broadway to increase municipal revenue, saying, “Monona Drive feels like our soul. Broadway feels like our wallet.” Staff and other members countered that taller structures raise construction costs and service demands that must be measured against revenue gains. A member noted construction limits—wood frame generally caps out around six stories—while heavier concrete construction is necessary for taller buildings; as one participant warned, “Affordable housing does not go with post tension housing.”
Speakers also cited market and fiscal context. A committee member referenced a local median home price of $471,500 and ran illustrative per‑acre tax estimates to show how density choices change revenue potential; staff agreed to produce development projections and fiscal analyses as part of the corridor concept work. Several members recommended design tools—stepbacks, varied heights and incentive programs (bonus stories for public benefits)—to avoid monotonous massing and to provide trade‑offs between maximizing revenue and protecting neighborhood character.
The committee did not set final height limits; staff said the plan could recommend maximums and that the zoning code would be amended later if the council and plan commission approved changes. Members asked staff to return with conceptual visuals and fiscal impact estimates to better evaluate trade‑offs.
