Commuinity Development Authority - MINUTES - 10/30/2003
CITY OF MUSKEGO APPROVED 12/1/03
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA)
MINUTES
Thursday, October 30, 2003
CDA Chairman Frank Waltz called the special meeting of the Community Development Authority to
order at 7:01 p.m.
Those in attendance recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
The meeting was posted in accordance with the Open Meeting Law.
PRESENT: Commissioners David Lidbury, Suzi Link, Gail Miles, Frank Waltz, and Ald. Nancy
Salentine
Also in attendance were Mayor Slocomb, Plan Director Brian Turk, Associate Planner Jeff
Muenkel.
ABSENT: Commissioner Glazier (excused), Ald. Petfalski (excused)
GUESTS: 50+ (no sign in sheet)
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Presentation and discussion with staff and owner / agents of Parkland Mall property
regarding revisions to former Parkland Mall site proposal.
Mr. Art Dyer presented the revisions made to his plan since the last CDA meeting on October 15.
He has been working with the architect, CDA chairman, Mayor Slocomb and the City of Muskego
planning staff on the revisions of their conceptual plan. Two basic recommendations to get the
CDA approval: (1) to address the density issue with facts, demographics and empirical back up for
their position. They provided the next day updated demographics that were effective 4:00 p.m. that
day. His presentation addressed density with sales comparisons, identification of similar projects,
including a redevelopment project like downtown Muskego, and financials that strongly supported
their density position. This was true regarding economic feasibility of the development. The other
issue they were instructed to address was height. He pointed out that in the CDA plan, their vision,
they were looking for a downtown anchor and landmark. No materials were provided to the CDA
regarding financials.
The architect, Mark Pfaller, explained to the CDA members how the plan was redesign to 1-3-7
stories, remedying the height to technically an average of 5 stories. At the last meeting, they were
asked to (1) reduce the height of the building and (2) identify the density and why the density is
important in the development. They addressed the density more in line with increasing the density
CDA Minutes, October 30, 2003, page 2
of the commercial/office and reducing slightly the density of the residential. He showed a financial
chart describing why they need a higher density in residential. No materials were provided to the
CDA regarding financials. In the revised plan, Scheme G, they created a more intimate and
internally friendlier space. This was similar to the other schemes with the exception of moving the
things toward Janesville Road and Lannon Drive. This was done to identify the landmark. This
scheme also incorporates St. Francis bank property, Ballestreri (post office) property, and Phase 3
of Freedom Square condominiums. They needed to get the buildings closer to the road. This
freed up some of the central space where he was able to widen the internal road by another 40-50
feet and in the center, he created a mall. The mall is between 60-70 feet; one-way traffic set up
with a couple of roundabouts. This will allow for a lot of outdoor activities. He further pointed out
on the scheme the surface parking. The parking is surrounded with what is known as a traditional
neighborhood design; the first floor commercial, the second floor office, and third floor residential.
They also created a new area for outdoor activities—theater, bands, suitable for a festival. The
height of the building was lowered by about 14-15 feet in the back and the average, by about 20
feet.
Mr. Pfaller explained the economics of density, specifically towards the residential units. He could
not identify precise numbers because they did not have an approved concept. They don’t have
signed leases and they have not begun a marketing program. Since the design concept has not
been approved, it is redundant to try and figure all the costs. If you don’t have the cost and the
price firmed up, you can’t identify in dollars and cents exactly what is going to happen from a
standpoint of a performa. The developer has to make money and the city can help do that through
tax increment financing, grants, low interest loans. This helps assure that the project will be a
success. If the project is a success, the developer can sell the condos and rent the spaces; the
city wins, the developer wins. If you lower the height, you have fewer units, and the cost of the
units increase. He went over some numbers that basically reflected the impact that density has on
cost of the units.
Mr. Dyer presented several visuals on the comparisons of development in other communities, land
acquisition costs, and height of buildings in other communities. He reminded the CDA that at last
meeting he told the committee that he was negotiating for the purchase of his land and he had a
non-contingent accepted offer to purchase 5.5 acres for $5,500,000 which is a million an acre. (He
offered to let the CDA see the offer confidentially, it was not for public record) The buyer could
write a check/cash. St. Francis Bank wants a million for ½ acre and then there would be the cost
to demolish it. The condos estimated fair market value ranges from $83,000 to about $103,000
with recent sales in the $105,000 range. Depending on which ones they are, they sell across the
board for $120,000. They sell about 25%-40% above market value sales for the area. This would
allow $2.4 million for 2 acres. That is a $1,200,000 per acre for land acquisition cost. You have
one million per acre, one million per acre, one million two per acre, let’s be conservative at one
million per acre. The total acreage is 15 acres. If your land acquisition cost is $15,000,000, and if
you get a subsidy of $8,000,000, that brings your cost to $7,000,000. If you say 40% for
residential, but he took 50% allowing more green space. This takes up more of the footprint even
though the building doesn’t, the amenities do. The acquisition cost just for the condos of
$3,500,000; if you have 280 units, that brings it to $12,500 which is the area average for Waukesha
County. This is very high for Muskego. Beacon Square units are 108, the parcel to the east is 25,
and any portion of the condos, you could have up to 20 units. Land acquisition costs, if you have
CDA Minutes, October 30, 2003, page 3
153 units on those parcels, is $22,875, well above the normal. It’s almost double the fair market
price and it makes the project economically unfeasible at the lower density.
He also addressed the issue of CDA being a recommending body as concerns condemnation. He
wanted the commission to understand what the steps were if they don’t work together to make it
not lie fallow. First the CDA is only a recommending body for condemnation. When the CDA
recommends condemnation, then it must be approved by the common council. He was convinced
from his contact with council members that option would never pass the current council. Four
people have told him that under no circumstances would they ever take somebody’s property away
other than for a different public use. Even if they did, he believed the actual acquisition price would
be over $10 million and that would require a referendum according to city ordinance. He was
confident that such a referendum would never pass. He shared with the CDA members that he
had talked to the fire department representatives addressing the concerns that Mr. Patterson
raised at the October 15 meeting. He assured the chiefs that they would be part of the design
team. The chiefs requested that the height of the building not be taller than their ladder could
reach which is 102 feet. The tallest building in the project plan is 90 feet. The chiefs also
requested larger elevators to accommodate a mobile stretcher. They requested additional smoke
vents. In regard to extra equipment, the fire chiefs said they would need one-hour, re-breathers.
Additional training and equipment and education would be roughly an additional $25,000. He
proposed giving the fire departments $150,000 in grants generated by the increased taxes Beacon
Square would be paying on the development through the TIF.
Mr. Don Pionek addressed water detention, water retention, filtration, flooding, ponds, and how
they were going to make Little Muskego Lake better and more than what they would be required to
do. He said the project would take care of a lot of the problems that exist with Schubring Bay and
the Freedom Square condos with regard to water flooding and water quality. If this project goes
ahead, the monies for the storm water projects will be provided by the TIF funds at no expense to
the taxpayer. The development will not cost the taxpayers, but will provide many benefits for the
taxpayers from this development.
Mr. Dyer provided the demographics for the city. The study was for the 3, 5, and 7-mile radius of
the area. In this area, it was $82,000 for household income. He brought to the CDA member’s
attention the Oconomowoc redevelopment and that it is working. He asked that the city not ignore
the developer’s needs, wants and recommendations. Beacon Square is a conceptual plan.
Ald. Salentine inquired how the condo association works? Freedom Square condo owners need
the permission of the association and in regard to the Phase III, need okay from all the owners for
selling. She commented on the height being equivalent to a 5-story building, the building now
being 7-5-3 stories. The St. Francis parcel and how it fitted into the design. Mr. Pfaller said the
development is working around the parcel. She mentioned that she like the layout of Scheme C,
but clarified it was the density and height issues that concerned the members. She clarified that
the fire department is consulted regarding the building designs. Developers must meet the
guidelines. She shared that the dredging of the ponds and creating of another pond was held up
by the WDNR and the charge will be to the TID.
Commissioner Lidbury commented also that it was the layout of Scheme C that he liked and he
had concerns on the height. The CDA members preferred Scheme C, they did not reject Scheme
CDA Minutes, October 30, 2003, page 4
A and B. He did not understand the economic numbers that were presented. Mr. Pfaller will
provide a copy of those numbers. He voiced his concern about the developer planning for
properties that he does not own. …St Francis, Blockbuster, Sherwin Williams, post office.
Chairman Waltz added that concepts brought forth do involve properties that aren’t presently
owned by the developer. Mr. Dyer had spoken of phases of development in the event that one or
more of these property owners would not elect to participate in the project. In the concept, how
would that work given the variables of not knowing which property owners may choose to
participate? Mr Pfaller explained basically from a design concept, concept G is basically the same
as concept C The roads are in the exact same place, the centerline is in the same place. All he
did was take the centerline and move things out. From a design standpoint, he thought it worked
better. They want to develop the basic schematic concept to deal with these properties. They
have the master plan and should the properties become available, the plan allows them to be
worked into the project. Mr. Lidbury was looking for a concept by what is owned by the developer.
Mr. Phaller colored over the rendering of the properties and pointed out the property lines of the
owned property showing what the development looked like without the unowned properties. It was
obvious that consideration was made. The development stands on its own. He would recommend
to the Plan Commission that this be used as a master plan if any of the other pieces of property are
developed. He noted that he had observed parking above in Washington =, D. C. and it does work
and works very nicely. He liked the concept. His concern is that the developer deal with what he
has to work with and not the properties he doesn’t own.
Plan Director Turk stated that every time the developer comes before the CDA there is additional
refinement, additional direction given. He thought to some extent they were rushing the process
with the meeting two weeks ago and meetings with the parties recently. With the CDA members
first seeing the revised plan tonight; he did not expect too much specific input and reaction or that
they would hone in the things that really strike them.
Commissioner Link commented on the total square footage of the plan, primarily commercial and
retail with some mixed use residential, not a residential density center. She thought there were a
lot of changes regarding the density units.
Chairman Waltz recapped a few of the issues that were discussed concerning the proposed
redevelopment of the former Parkland Mall property. (See attachment to these minutes.)
Plan Director Turk informed the CDA members that until they have a concept that is approved, it is
hard to do sources and uses of funds and a cash flow analysis. The steps are concept, sources
and uses of funds and cash flow analysis and when you get through these steps, you can see
where gap is and then you can discuss the subsidy. They needed to continue to work to refine the
concept, get to the concept they like, get the density, transition, mass and scale addressed. These
were issues after the last meeting.
Commissioner Miles commented on the density and relying on the transfer of other density rights to
make the project happen. If you can’t get the density, you need another solution. Mr. Dyer
indicated that he would rather tell them what will work in regard to density than have the CDA give
him a number and then figure out if it is economically feasible.
(CDA recessed from 9:20 p.m.-9:25 p.m.)
CDA Minutes, October 30, 2003, page 5
PUBLIC INPUT
Donna Munkwitz concerns were rumors about condemnation and sale of the condo units at
Freedom Square, rather a cornfield than a high rise, clarifying her property line. She said he had
shown some terrible pictures of the ponds; she was on the board six years ago and knew those
pictures were taken 4 years ago. At that time the big grates were not being cleaned out, getting
clogged from debris during the rains and there was a lot of rain that year Tom O’Loughlin and she
went to Mayor DeAngelis and he saw that they were cleaned out and the problem with the ponds
was corrected. Later commented that she liked Muskego and would stay in Muskego.
Frank Kerzick informed the CDA that all condo members would have to agree to sell Phase III of
Freedom Square, only people who are concerned are those that live nearby.
Don Munkwitz concern was being condemned under eminent domain.
Aaron Dekarske concern was in the last ten years, never had as much frost as the last year, and
maybe this is a reason to delay the dredging. There is a lot of putting this project off that could be
personal issues. Need to do something with the downtown because it is ugly. Wanted to see his
property value go up. Focal point, a start is being proposed, to bring development back to
downtown. Give us something decent to be proud of in downtown.
Scott Garland stated the plan would broaden the tax base and bring in jobs. This is positive of the
project. The CDA should consider the image impact and the economic image. They should look
past the height issue as that perception can be overcome. Hopes the CDA approves the project.
Don Knolle wanted the developer to live within the limits prescribed. He should take the density
units and figure out the economic costs.
Therese Baker commented she wanted it developed but didn’t want to look at a five-story building.
Bought for the view she had on a one-story. Concerned about the traffic impact and the speed of
the vehicles.
Nancy Stenlund addressed that Freedom Square residents would not move to the condos. She did
not object to the concept as a concept, but the high building facing her windows. They do need
something to happen. He changed the plan, but still feels she will be looking at 7 stories. Later
mentioned the letter she had received regarding her property.
Marie Hansen concerns were the height of the building, location of the intersection, traffic flow, it
must be beautiful and appealing. She’s for a vision too, but up to a point.
Linda Keller stated she lives in Freedom Square Phase II and likes it. Seven stories are too tall,
but the plan looks nice.
Russell Moeller stated it was an eyesore and now they need to get the job done.
CDA Minutes, October 30, 2003, page 6
Mr. Dyer shared with the CDA members the history of when he took the project on and the cost
incurred in buying out the leases. Also, the difficulty they are having in setting up a meeting with
the Freedom Square condo association regarding the project plan. On the density issue, he
indicated he would give numbers that work and hopefully come to an agreement on them. He
thought all the issues could be resolved. He welcomed the Freedom Square condo residents to
call him and discuss the plan. He thought they could work together to make the project happen.
Shirley Turner said that Dave had advised her that he had received a phone call from Art Dyer
because Art was in need of density space and asked Dave if he could bring it up at a meeting to
see if the owners at Freedom Square would transfer density rights. Dave had requested it in
writing so he could take it to the board. They have not received anything in writing.
Chairman Waltz thanked them for their comments.
NEXT MEETING: 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. Ald. Salentine seconded.
Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:39 p.m.
Stella Dunahee, CPS
Recording Secretary