Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and planners press developer on 5‑story, 128‑unit proposal at 4711 Monona Drive
Summary
Residents told the Planning Commission the revised proposal for 4711 Monona Drive still feels too large and inland‑facing; commissioners asked the applicant to explore ground‑floor commercial, reduce massing on the north side and clarify parking and stormwater mitigation.
Developer Matthew Mertos of Noel Development and JLA Architects presented revised plans for a multifamily general development plan at 4711 Monona Drive, saying the team reduced unit count and added stepbacks on the fifth floor alongside a building height, landscape and shadow study. Planning staff clarified the project footprint is 1.65 acres with a proposed 128 total units and 186 on‑site vehicle stalls (40 ground, 138 underground, plus eight townhome garages).
Residents who live adjacent to the site urged stronger changes. Sherry Irving said the revisions were “relatively minor,” arguing the project “does not appear, in my opinion, to be context sensitive” and that material changes like patios and colors do not address the building’s height and mass. Debbie Reynolds said only four units were removed and called the project “still too tall, still too dense, and still does not blend in or fit with our existing neighborhood.” Adam Russell added that the plan “ignores all the major concerns previously voiced by both the public as well as this commission, namely density, building height, parking, and 1st floor commercial space.”
Planning staff (Henry) summarized the technical package and said the applicant provided open‑space, shadow and tree height studies and that the property lies in the Community Design District (CDD) and Redevelopment Area/TID No. 10, which could allow Tax Increment Financing if pursued. Staff asked the commission for guidance on including ground‑floor commercial space, reducing the front setback to improve street activation, and approaches to tandem parking stalls.
Commissioners reiterated neighborhood concerns: several asked the applicant to minimize massing on the north side to limit shadow impacts, to study including commercial space on the ground floor to activate Monona Drive, and to clarify whether parking will be included with rent or offered for an extra fee — a major community concern because unpaid parking could push cars into adjacent streets. No formal decision was made; the item proceeded as a prehearing conference to give the developer direction on revisions.
