Commuinity Development Authority- MINUTES - 10/15/2003
CITY OF MUSKEGO APPROVED 12/1/03
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA)
MINUTES
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
CDA Chairman Frank Waltz called the regular meeting of the Community Development Authority to
order at 7:00 p.m.
Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
The meeting was posted in accordance with the Open Meeting Law.
PRESENT: Commissioners Rob Glazier, David Lidbury, Suzi Link , Gail Miles, Frank Waltz, Ald.
Rick Petfalski and Ald. Nancy Salentine
Also in attendance Finance Director Dawn Gunderson, Mayor Slocomb, Plan Director Brian Turk,
Associate Planner Jeff Muenkel, Dave Anderson of Ehlers & Associates.
GUESTS: Per attached list.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Link moved to approve the minutes of the September 29, 2003 meeting of the CDA.
Ald. Salentine seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion to approve carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
RESOLUTION #CDA 008-2003 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION OF
DEVELOPER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WITH VANDEWALLE & ASSOCIATES (FORMER
PARKLAND MALL SITE)
Secretary Miles read Resolution #CDA 008-2003 by title only. Alderman Petfalski moved to
defeat the resolution. Commissioner Lidbury seconded. Alderman Petfalski said the
consultant has worked with the city in another capacity and recently made comments in the media
that were not appropriate. Ald. Salentine said they had received emails from the consultant and
apology for the way it came out in the paper. Ald. Petfalski stated it was not to rule them out in the
future, but if they need a consultant, to interview other consultants as well as Vandewalle for the
project. Commissioner Link said it wasn’t a problem defeating the resolution, but the wording of
the motion. Ald. Petfalski said he intended for his motion to defeat the resolution. Upon a voice
vote, the motion carried 6-1 with Ald. Salentine voting nay.
PUBLIC INPUT
At 7:13 p.m., Chairman Waltz opened the meeting up for public input. A presentation was made by
Associate Planner Muenkel on how the proposed development plan would look at street level. The
renderings were computer generated from an aerial view and a street standpoint. Also, shown was
a rendering of the approved CDA plan. Mr. Mark Pfaller, project architect and designer, was also
CDA Minutes, October 15, 2003, page 2
called upon to explain the transition from the original plan to the current plan such as more green
space, less surface parking and the density. Mr. Dyer, the developer of the project, addressed the
CDA and those in attendance on the positive side of the development as it will benefit the city’s
image, tax base, retail, office, business district as well as traffic patterns, storm water management,
including water quality and quantity and the overall general development theme and direction for
the downtown. Beacon Square’s plan offers ponds with fountains in summer which will double as
skating rinks in winter, park-like settings for strolling or just sitting and enjoying an ice cream or a
cup of coffee, offering a centrally, located neighborhood gathering place to enjoy activities like
swimming, exercise rooms, meeting rooms, horseshoes, volleyball and not-for-profit bingo.
Beacon Square is offering a centrally located community and activity center that the City of
Muskego so strongly desires at no cost to the city.
Christine Drake (W170S7361 Parkland Drive)—massive amounts of building, massive amounts of
traffic, massive amounts of homes. She would like them toned down to a reasonable level.
Shane Mason (W190S7066 Wentland Drive)—city has no nucleus of where the downtown area is
located, number of mixed units, it is a real, well-thought out plan, property is already zoned, the
look he likes from Lannon Road, the building density was reduced from the first proposal which
gives the feeling the building is stepping back from the road, benefit to road quality and traffic flow.
Mary Steinbauer (W172S7357 Lannon Drive)—concerned about the height, the maintenance of the
property, the increased units, better off to do with less, underground parking, the distance from her
home.
Marie Hansen (W171S7350 Lannon Drive)—one of the three, single family homes along Parkland
Mall; current eyesore of Parkland Mall, height of 8-story building, viewed where her house was on
the rendering, would like a parks area, how close to her property, property needs to be attractive
and appealing to everybody, traffic concern, parking, massive amount of people, sad day when
library was not built on the property.
Ryan Sai (W171S7374 Lannon Drive)—makes sense to go through with this plan, if it gets
developed as the plan, would not be like the area behind Bushy’s Pub, sketches are pretty nice,
right now we have a dump for downtown, no identity, he’s for it.
Shane Mason (W190S7066 Wentland Drive)—zoning in place on the property, pride in ownership
of the condominiums, thousand of dollars spent on the renderings.
Tom O’Laughlin (Freedom Square Condominiums)—what it looks like close up at 80 feet, and 80
feet straight out, don’t mind the proposal, but not an 8-story building, difference in sizes between
Freedom Square Condominiums and Beacon Square buildings.
Gary Strobusch (W171S8050 Lannon Drive)—supports it, activity center, wants to buy condo on
the fifth floor of the new development when he returns to the city in a year, school system excellent
which gives a good base, parking,
CDA Minutes, October 15, 2003, page 3
Sharon Stockinger (W170S7387 Parkland Drive)—quiet community, for the development, her
window faces the empty lot, not in favor of the 8-story building, condos are fine, take in
consideration the height.
Nancy Stenlund (W170S7385 Parkland Drive)—looking at a brick wall from her windows, density
concern, amount of people, noise level, units not be occupied, could not support Parkland Mall
when it was there and it went down the hill, business units and tenants.
Pat Patterson (W131S6519 Kipling Dr.)—concern about the height of the building, volunteer fire
fighters would have to go into the building, need extra training for the fire fighters, different
equipment needed to fight fire, could lose the volunteer units and have to go to a paid fire
department.
John Jewell (W144S7435 Indian Trail)—nothing to do in Muskego, nothing for kids to do, 8-story
building doesn’t look like it is made from concrete, has design, a roof, shingles, it is different
heights.
Carla Lowry (Hales Corners)—phenomenal plan, fabulous, proud to have in her town, it’s 8-story,
but a wonderful job on this, looks fantastic, it would do Muskego good, people would recognize
Muskego’s name.
Donald Knoll (W172S7471 Lannon Drive)—objection to density and height of buildings, concept
looks very nice, people on top will see lake, others will see 8-story building, no other tall buildings,
would have to allow tall buildings to other developers, underground parking and how deep, what’s
going to happen to the wells, will Lannon Drive be widen.
Fran Burgeson (S74W17502 Lake Drive)—used up all the available land, no provision for storm
water runoff, first ½”-inch of rainwater should be retained, captured, stored and treated before it
runs into Little Muskego Lake, should be taken into consider when developments are approved.
Should be on the initial, conceptual plans.
Chris Morgan (S73W1737 Briargate Lane)—a 100% plan, not a 99% plan of the CDA plan,
restaurant with liquor license, increase police force, increase traffic, increase utilities, economic
impact of the development, not go with the proposal.
Annette Dominico (W170S6751 Timber Court)—loves Muskego, positive note, without a vision, you
are going nowhere, you are going forward in the future with a vision, appreciate the vision of Mr.
Dyer.
Christine Drake—too much density, too much height, love the vision.
(CDA members took a brief recess from 8:55 p.m.-9:05 p.m.)
2004 BUDGET
Finance Director Gunderson reviewed the CDA 2004 budget, an expenditure budget of $53,495.
Commissioner Miles questioned the amount allotted for attorney? Finance Director Gunderson
CDA Minutes, October 15, 2003, page 4
stated this was budgeted in anticipation of the need for legal advise as the move forward with
projects, possible with condemnations. It was better to budget now, than approach Common
Council later for funding. Commissioner Rob Glazier moved to accept the Finance Director
Gunderson’s recommendation on financing. Commissioner Link seconded. Upon a voice
vote, the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
TID 8 AMENDMENTS
Mr. Dave Anderson of Ehlers & Associates, Inc. gave possible alternatives on amendments to TID
8 and reviewed the Project Plan for Tax Incremental District No. 8. The document approved in
August of 2000 is the one effective today. Anything that isn’t in the document will require an
amendment to the TID. Members were also in receipt of a letter with a prepared analysis to show
the impact of adding $70 million in value to TIF District 8. They have to determine the area of the
district and then determine the project plan. He referred to page 3 of the project plan that lists the
projects anticipated to be undertaken in the district. The amount to be expended on these projects
is itemized on page 14. You anticipate the amount that may be spent. If an item or an amount is
not listed, you can’t do it, you can’t spend it. On page 7 is the revenue expected based on the
information at that time. Whenever TIF is created you have 7 years to spend the money, the ending
year of this TIF is 2007. In order to amend the TIF district, you have to go through the same
process as creating a new TIF. You need to publish the notice twice of a public hearing either by
the CDA or the Plan Commission, the CDA would have to approve the decision, the Common
Council would have to approve the decision to amend the plan, and approval from the joint review
board consisting of a member from the city, school district, county, technical college and a citizen
at large.
RESOLUTION #CDA 009-2003—DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE
REDEVELOMENT DISTRICT #2 PROJECT PLAN, AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLAN
COMMISSION FOR CONCEPTUAL BUILDING SITE AND OPERATION PLAN REVIEW:BEACON
SQUARE
Chairman Waltz explained the process of acting on the positively stated resolution for the benefit of
those in attendance from the general public.
Commissioner Secretary Miles read Resolution #CDA 009-2003 in its entirety. Ald. Salentine
moved to accept Resolution #CDA 009-2003. Ald. Petfalski seconded. Mr. Glazier
commented that the CDAs primary focus is to build a nucleus downtown. He did not feel you could
adequately compare the two plans by the depicted renderings. He said Beacon Square was the
new urbanism concept of building up and not out. Areas he had compared the proposal with the
CDA plan was lake views, density, variable roof designs, height of the buildings, proximity to the
road. He also shared with them his analytics on households and income within five minutes drive
of Beacon Square as well as the traffic impact. Commissioner Lidbury stated that they had done a
very good job of giving a vision for the community. Some ingenious ways of handling parking,
giving more green space to the development. His opinion was that the bulk of it was too big. He
would like to see it downsized. The concept of the retail space and residences above is in the spirit
of what the CDA plan. Commissioner Link voiced several concerns. She reviewed it with the CDA
CDA Minutes, October 15, 2003, page 5
plan to determine if Beacon Square plan compared to the intent of the CDA plan. Her concerns
were expressed on the concept of the town center, the theme, and the density. She survey
municipalities on height of buildings and the highest was five-story. Ald. Salentine took the plans
around the city and people said it was beautiful. They did not like the 8-story building. She felt the
members had chosen concept C because of the layout of the building, the traffic pattern, not the 8-
story building. It is a beautiful concept. The density is there. She would like them to scale it down.
Commissioner Miles issue was if they trust the process and let the process work. The two issues
seem to be to have a five-story structure and add more green space. Ald. Petfalski said the
concept presented matches the plan, meaning a bigger building, residential, office and the retail
component. The specifics are where the disagreement begins. It’s rough to make a comparison
between the two looking at the plan renderings. He believed the financial should have come with
the design aspects of the plan. He had a problem with the density and getting that density by
purchasing those rights from other areas. Some of those properties with reconstruction of
Janesville Road may need those density rights in the future. Chairman Waltz shared many of the
same feelings. He liked that something is going to be done. At a concept level, he liked the plan
for the center city. Some things needed to be addressed to fit into the city and be consistent with
the thoughts and ideas expressed by the citizens. He flagged the massive scale of the building,
the height and density. The transition into the neighborhood is different than in the CDA plan and
this affects those that live near by. The other issues, to accommodate the density, would be the
transferring of rights to this property.
Plan Director Turk stated he heard five words that were repeated consistently through everyone of
the commissioners’ statements—scale, mass, transition, height and density. Scale is a condition of
height and could be treated as one item. As far as transition goes, there were two areas. One was
the Freedom Square condominium and the other was the single-family neighborhood on Lannon.
By letter, Mr. Dyer was apprised of the density issue, what the permitted density was and what was
allowed as a bonus by the Plan Commission if the Common Council believes he met the objectives
and if the CDA bought into the TDR, what the ultimate density was. CDA need to focus on what
issues they still needed to address with the developer.
Mr. Dyer proposed to do the traditional neighborhood design, to go four stories instead of three
stories. They could do that, but the aesthetics would not be as nice but it will comply. They had
one investor walk out tonight already and a person with five stores coming here walk out tonight
based upon the things that were discussed. You talk about time is of the essence. Mr. Dyer stated
he was trying to work with the CDA. If the CDA had given him direction, at the beginning when he
presented the height, to change the 8 stories, he would have. He would have done something
different. There is nowhere in the plan that it says five stories. He talked to the person that
authored the plan and he did not say five stories. Plan Director Turk stated on page 41 of the
CDA plan specifically says 5-story structure and the authors of the plan were Dustin Wolff and
Brian Turk. Greg Flisram of Vandewalle & Associates was a consultant to the Mayor’s Task Force.
He occasionally gave presentations but he was not the author of the plan.
Ald. Petfalski called for the question. Upon a roll call vote with all members voting no, the
motion to accept the resolution was defeated. The related issues were height, which was,
stated in the plan of 5 stories, consistent with that is scale and mass, the transition to the
neighborhood, the transfer of the residential units so the future development is not compromised in
the area. No direction on finances at this time.
CDA Minutes, October 15, 2003, page 6
Mr. Dyer informed the CDA that he was not going to do anything else. He spent $50,000 in the last
few months. He would let the city do the rest. They could present the plan to him and he would
price it. He indicated they were getting at an impasse. He did not think the city would pay $8-$10
million which is the appraisal they have for the property just to buy the land. A copy of the
appraisal was not provided. He already has an MAI appraisal, which is the highest designation
from an underwriter, and it is a very qualified appraiser that wins all the time in court. He did not
want to waste $8 million on the acquisition. Mr. Pfaller offered to do a narrative of possible plan
revision if that was okay. Plan Director Turk was not in favor of a narrative. Visuals are required.
PUBLIC INPUT
Ron Sai said he did not understand how everybody is getting hung up on five, six, seven eight
stories. Is it really that much? There is always going to be something we don’t like. It may be
significant or it may not. To let this slip away because of the one issue is not good.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN STATUS
Mayor Slocomb shared with the members that the corrections are being incorporated into the
development plan document by the Planning Department staff. Council has reviewed the draft.
Sometime next week, they will be going back to Vandewalle and then will be scheduling a public
hearing for the development plan.
NEXT MEETING: There will be a meeting on Friday, October 17, at 2:30 p.m. between the city,
chairman, director and developer.
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 12, at 7:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, Commissioner Link moved to adjourn. Commissioner Glazier
seconded. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11:06 p.m.
Stella Dunahee, CPS
Recording Secretary