Contested River Place redevelopment wins PIP approval after parking and height debate

The Monona Plan Commission spent the bulk of its March 24 meeting on a contested redevelopment proposal by DSI Real Estate Group for the River Place area, ultimately approving the Phase 1 Precise Implementation Plan (PIP) with numerous conditions after extended discussion about parking, building height and open space.

DSI presented a phased plan to demolish existing office buildings and construct two new multifamily residential buildings with integrated parking and boardwalk access to the Yahara Cove Riverwalk. The applicant’s draft materials described phase 1 as a seven‑story building with ground‑level activation and wrapped parking and phase 2 as a six‑story U‑shaped building. Staff summarized site constraints including a history of Class C office stock on the parcel, a water table and sloped soils, and the project’s desire to integrate with the Riverwalk. The staff report said the developer reduced unit counts and altered massing and materials after earlier pre‑hearing feedback.

Two of the issues central to the commission’s debate were parking and green‑space coverage. Staff’s analysis showed a combined parking deficit relative to zoning standards (the review counted a net shortfall unless surface stalls and on‑street spaces were counted toward the development). The applicant described design changes to increase parking efficiency and noted a plan to build a shared surface lot and wrapped covered stalls; DSI also proposed to maintain and enhance the adjacent boardwalk and cove in perpetuity. Staff reported the site’s open green space would improve from current conditions but still fall short of the typical 30 percent requirement, rising to about 26.8 percent in the combined proposal; staff and the applicant argued the boardwalk and upgraded landscaping should be considered when weighing that shortfall.

Commissioners split on whether the project’s height and density were appropriate. Commissioner John said he had “strong issues with the project as it’s proposed” and questioned allowing a planned community development on a set of parcels surrounded by other private lots, and he objected to permitting a development that did not meet parking and green space standards. Other commissioners, including Rob and Chris, acknowledged the scale concern but also said the revised architecture, step‑backs and material changes were improvements since the pre‑hearing and could be acceptable in context along the cove and industrial corridor.

Traffic and operational issues also arose. Staff noted public works had asked whether a traffic impact analysis (TIA) was necessary because vehicle access to and from the site uses the River Place curb cut and turning movements onto nearby Monona Drive can be constrained. The applicant and staff said the multifamily use predicts different peak patterns than prior office use and that off‑site parking across the street and staged construction could be used to meet near‑term needs. Commission members asked whether an encumbrance could be attached to the adjacent surface lot to reserve stalls for phase 1 if phase 2 were delayed or not constructed.

City engineering consultant Darren (Vierbeck) told the commission the plans include underground detention to meet peak runoff control and recommended the applicant add sediment‑reduction modeling and oil/grease inlet protection given the adjacent waterbody. "They are proposing some underground detention to deal with peak runoff rate control," Darren said, and recommended inlet oil/grease protection because of the proximity to the Yahara River.

After extended discussion, the commission considered conditions that would allow the project to proceed while retaining oversight. The Phase 1 PIP was approved by voice vote subject to staff’s findings and multiple conditions the commission adopted or modified at the meeting. Key PIP conditions include: recording a certified survey map (CSM) to consolidate lots before the PIP takes effect; maintaining at least a specified number of surface stalls in the adjacent lot for phase 1 use (the commission required the applicant to encumber surface stalls to ensure phase 1 parking needs are met); requirements for stormwater and erosion controls, inlet oil/grease protection, additional photometric cleanup and landscape plantings (including terrace trees), installation of bicycle parking and conduit for future EV charging, protection measures between the drive‑through and the neighboring property (where relevant), enhanced curb/edge protection at the underground parking entry and fences at retaining walls.

Commissioner Chris summarized a condition that the commission may require additional parking or a reduction in units during the review of phase 2 if monitoring shows the initial installation is insufficient to meet demand. The applicant said DSI would be willing to consider cross‑easement arrangements and other legal encumbrances to secure surface stalls in the short term and to work with staff on detailed design. Applicant representatives emphasized financial and operational constraints tied to unit counts and building economics, telling the commission that eliminating additional units reduces project viability.

The approval of the PIP does not close all outstanding technical work. The plan requires final civil engineering detail for grading, stormwater, and site circulation; staff and consultants asked for additional spot grades, clarifications on subgrade and foundation approaches given soil conditions, and detailed phasing plans for construction access and parking during demolition and build‑out.

The commission’s discussion highlighted competing goals: enable redevelopment of aging office stock and add housing while protecting neighborhood circulation, parking availability, and waterfront open space. The PIP approval binds the project to the conditions recorded by the commission; phase 2 will return to the commission for review, with an explicit condition that the commission may require more parking, fewer units or both at that time if operational evidence supports changes.

Votes at a glance: The commission debated the General Development Plan (GDP) at length and recorded substantial disagreement about height and parking; the Phase 1 Precise Implementation Plan (PIP) was approved by the commission with the conditions summarized above.