Trinitas Ventures Initial Renderings

Trinitas Ventures’ request for a change in zoning, from Industrial Light 2 to Detail Plan Development, was recommended for denial by the City Plan Commission at the February 6th, 2012 meeting.  The proposal would allow for the development of a $35 million, 681-bedroom private dormitory to be developed on an existing industrial site, which has sat underutilized for numerous years.  Trinitas Ventures targeted the Milwaukee area and this site in particular, because UWM has seen a 9% enrollment growth since 2005, approximately 26,000 students live off campus today, and UWM can currently only house 15% of their student population.  The project would include 1.1 acres of green space, fully furnished units, tennis courts, a basketball court, a swimming pool, a workout room, shuttle service to campus, and other amenities aimed at attracting college students.

Brian Parish, Vice President of Brokerage Services for The Dickman Company, Inc. spoke in support of the project, and explained that they had been marketing the property since 2009, and that it has been available since 2002, but that we’ve “never concluded a sale or lease in this time”.

Chris Coakley, the property owner, explained that after owning the property for ten years that “at the end of the day, I’ve realized that it’s functionally obsolete”, and that “if this project doesn’t move forward, it will sit empty for another ten years.”

The project was opposed by neighborhood residents and at least two neighboring businesses.  Tulip Corporation was concerned with the potential of receiving complaints from new residents, because Tulip Corporation has operations 24 hours a day and has always been located between industrial uses, not residential uses.  Jonathon Eder, President of In Place Machining Company, spoke at length about the project stating it was critical to “keep it [the site] industrial”, and unless the city commits to its industrial zoning that it will “never attract another business”.  Residents spoke about the impacts on parking, property values, noise, conflict with residents, a potential decrease in property values, and a potential increase in crime that could come about if the project was to move forward.

Alderwoman Coggs explained that despite only having $25 million worth of development in her district in recent years she was “in objection” to this project, and that her “position at this location will not change”.  She listed a variety of reasons including the potential for students to be a target of crime, and that this project was inconsistent with the Northeast Side Area Plan.

Alderman Kovac also spoke in opposition to the project adding that “it’s a very high hurdle to change the zoning, and they haven’t even come close.”

The Commission voted unanimously to recommend denying the change in zoning, despite Trinitas Ventures’ request to hold the file.

The East Library along North Avenue, with the parking lot immediately north of the building.

Wednesday night, Alderman Nik Kovac held a public meeting to allow feedback to be voiced regarding the three proposed alternatives for the redevelopment of the one-story East Library into a mixed-use facility. The meeting was a follow-up to a meeting last November discussing the potential of issuing a request-for-proposal (RFP) for the redevelopment of the East Library site. Attendees at the meeting were provided with an update on the process and allowed to ask questions about the process and proposals. In attendance were officials from the Milwaukee Public Libary, the City of Milwaukee Library board, the Department of City Development, and the Redevelopment Authority. Four public officials were in attendance listening and answering questions, Alderman Ashanti Hamilton (Library Board president), Alderman Nik Kovac (Library Board member), Alderwoman Milele Coggs (Library Board member), and Mayor Tom Barrett.

As a background on the process, the Library Board has proposed transforming the way library services are delivered by introducing three different types of libraries, mixed-use facilities, area libraries, and express libraries designed to expand facility hours and modernize operations. Following the November meeting, a RFP was issued for redevelopment of the East Library located on North Avenue. Gorman and Company, HSI Properties, and Stone House Development all responded to the RFP, offering designs that those answering questions agreed were all fairly similar. Before the questions began, the officials gave a brief overview of the process to-date, highlighting that the mixed-use Villard Avenue Library will open October 5th 15th and that the Library Board may make a decision on which, if any, of the proposals to invite back for individual review on September 27th. Alderman Kovac explained to the audience that for final approval the redevelopment plan would need approved by the Library Board, the full Common Council, the Mayor, and likely the East Side/North Avenue Architectural Review Board (assuming it is approved prior to this project).

Questions

A number of questions were asked of the officials in attendance. I have included summarized versions of many of the questions and answers below in an attempt to provide the most information about the project, but not to require one to read a word-by-word transcript of the meeting. The answers are not mine, but are paraphrased from the officials in the room.

Is the land being sold? Yes, for $20,000 as well as the provision that a white-box, first-floor condominium be provided for the East Library in return.

Who is the architect? The developer will have their own architect for the exterior of the building, as well as their privately-owned areas. The Milwaukee Public Library will contract with an architect to design their space.

Criteria for picking the best proposal? A number of things were mentioned including the size of the library condominium, parking, architectural design, compliance with design guidelines, prominence of library, articulated facades, green space, quality of materials, economic sustainability, and what the additional uses provide to the neighborhood.

A comment was made that many new apartments are targeted towards “new urban professionals”. The commenter noted that she would love to live above the library and that the developments could be targeted to “old urban professionals” as well.

Temporary library? The temporary library would need to be within walking distance and would likely be within a half-mile and not west of the Milwaukee River. Gorman was the only developer to propose a specific solution that involved a phased construction process with a temporary library on the north end of the lot similar to what is currently done in post-Katrina New Orleans.

Free parking? Yes, the same number if not more stalls. One proposal has surface parking, two have underground parking. All have at least 40 stalls. These stalls are in addition to any parking necessary for residents of the proposed apartments.

A comment was offered stating that the commenter was “not impressed” about the proposals. This drew applause from the audience. The commenter offered up that the designs looked too much like other new apartments in the area. This was repeated a few times.

The Urban Ecology Center is financing a new location through donations, could the library do the same? No, estimates have new single-story, 20,000 square-feet library costing $11.7 million to build. There are significant cost savings through building a mixed-use library, including the financial relief provided by the property taxes from the rest of the development. Alderman Nik Kovac noted that it has been shown that density on North Ave. is in demand.

Are we stuck with the designs presented? Can developer cheapen designs during construction? Alderman Kovac answered that no, we are not stuck with the designs as is, and that no the developers can not cheapen the designs during construction. At this point Mayor Barrett jumped in to note that we need to collectively decide if the designs meet our expectations, and that he, as well as others, expected more applicants.

In the only explicit endorsement of the night, one commenter stated they liked the HSI proposal the most, but merely because it was the one they disliked the least.

Historic Preservation Commissioner Sandra McSweeney asked about what happens if financing from WHEDA falls through for the selected developer (provided it was one of the two seeking low-income housing tax credits – Gorman, Stone House), noting that being awarded WHEDA financing is not always dependable (likely intended, in particular, as a reference to the failure of the Mercy Housing proposal to be awarded credits). Alderman Kovac remarked that similar to what happened at Garden Park, it would likely kill the project and require it to be restarted.

Is the condition of the library causing this? Not yet, but that at least one million dollars in maintenance would be required soon. Both Alderman Kovac and Mayor Barrett encouraged those in attendance to visit Villard Avenue Library.

Is a TIF available for the site? Alderman Kovac said that it was definitively not.

Ownership structure? The library would be in a condo owned by the Milwaukee Public Library, and that the library would hold a 50% share of the condo association.

One commenter noted that Milwaukee has many distinct neighborhoods, and that the mixed-use Villard Avenue Library appears great for that neighborhood, but in regards to the proposals the commenter stated “that’s the best they can do?”

Only one question was about height (compared to 5 at the first meeting). Alderman Kovac noted that all of the proposals were below the zoning height limit of 60 feet.

Blair Williams, part of the HSI Properties proposal and the only developer publicly in the room, noted that as it is in Milwaukee, density is driven by parking and the site is only so large (and underground parking is prohibitively expense below one floor). Answering to Alderman Hamilton’s question of him on design, Williams discussed that land costs are actually $1.5 million when the costs of the library condominium are considered. To those asking for an iconic building (a term that came up over and over), the cost of the building can’t exceed the revenue it generates. He noted that various forms of tax credits could help, similar to what was achieved when he developed The Cornerstone in Shorewood. Williams also noted the struggles from the timeline of the RFP, which resulted in a rendering that only reflects the massing and layout of the building, and not the end design.

Tax revenue? Earlier in the questioning, Williams had also jumped in to a question about the tax revenue from the site. Noting, contrary to what the officials estimated, the construction cost of the site would exceed the assessed value of the site, and therefore the tax revenue from the site would likely be in the ballpark of $200,000/year.

Moving Forward

It will be interesting to see what the outcome is given the feedback offered tonight. The pulse of the room didn’t seem warm to the designs, but it also didn’t appear overall hostile to the idea. Would those in attendance be happy with any design short of the quality of City Hall or the Central Library (two buildings that Alderman Kovac noted no RFP could cause to be built today in Milwaukee)? Is using the design as the central point of disagreement merely a way of attempting to reject the project as a whole? The panel of five (Alderwoman Coggs, Vaneesa Koster of DCD, Jim Plaisted of the East Side BID, Library Director Paula Kiely, area resident and Legacy Redevelopment Corporation founder Sally Peltz, and UWM SARUP Dean Robert Greenstreet, Ph.D) that is tasked with selecting which proposals to move forward has their work cut out for them.

If all three of the proposals are ultimately rejected and another RFP is issued, it would be interesting to see if the design quality improves with a longer window to respond and a reduction in the parking requirements for the library portion of the project from 40 stalls to 20.

Which proposal do you like? Vote in our latest poll in the sidebar. In addition there is an official form to offer your feedback in.

Renderings

Corrections – Alderman Kovac thankfully corrected two factual errors in my reporting. One, the Villard Avenue Library opens October 15th. Still please go visit. Two, Alderwoman Milele Coggs is not on the selection committee, but UWM School of Architecture and Urban Planning Dean Robert Greenstreet, Ph.D is.

MSOE Soccer Parking Facility

Talks between M&I, MSOE, and Milwaukee County regarding MSOE’s proposed parking garage in the Park East have dragged on for months, and it is likely because of a new detail that makes a marginal project into a bad project.  Apparently, the deal would be contingent on an additional parking lot for M&I to replace the lot they would sell to MSOE.  This surface parking lot, which would be located across the street from another M&I parking lot along Water St., would essentially lock up a vast section of the Park East land to never see significant development.

This project was marginal from the beginning as it had an assortment of drawbacks.  For example, it is sited incorrectly in that the park would not have allowed it to enhanced future developments.   Another issue was that the 700 car parking garage was not large enough to help other developments offset their parking ‘needs’.  The design shows little inspiration, in that it failed to wrap much of the building with active uses, and failed to capitalize on an opportunity to create a point of focus where the building comes to ground.  Further, the soccer field wasn’t the public park intended by the Park East plan, and it is a real question as to whether this will become a public amenity or a MSOE-only facility.  And now M&I is pushing for control of the land along Water St. to potentially create a new surface parking lot.

Hopefully this part of the deal can be resolved, because in this form this deal has more of a chance of stopping any development, rather than encouraging any development as it will turn much of the Park East land into a single-use, low-utilization, low tax-base sea of parking.

One improvement that is being negotiated is for M&I, at least in the short run, to lease their parking slots inside the new garage.  This would be a significant improvement, though apparently M&I is still pushing for long-term control of the lot along Water St., so this may not be a good long-term solution.  As Alderman Kovac explained to me “if the lot west of there eventually becomes a surface lot it is a failure,” but that he hoped a long-term solution could be worked out to resolve the issues.  Better yet, MSOE could build a larger garage that would not only meet the long-term needs of M&I, but also the needs of future developments in the Park East.  A larger garage could be accomplished with some sort of City of Milwaukee involvement and could include an upgraded first-floor design to insure tax revenue and street activation.

Although the project is still questionable as to its long-term benefits to Milwaukee, the deal breaker is if parking garage comes with a surface parking lot, as that would be a failure.

The proposed district would establish rules for new development within this corridor.  Specifically, it would restrict development within 50 feet of the top of the bluff, so as to protect tree roots and bluff stability.  Though, there are measures that would allow buildings to encroach into this area, but additional requirements such as enhanced storm water management practices, and additional landscape screening would need to be met.  The proposed legislation also includes height limitations to protect the scenic quality of the river corridor.  For example, in areas where the corridor crosses commercial districts building height limitations would force a step back configuration to hide the buildings from being viewed from within the river corridor.  Additionally, it includes, new green building requirements, the restriction of some building materials and designs, which would exclude blank walls or vinyl siding along the river.  Surface parking lots would have additional landscape requirements, and any signage along the corridor would have to be of the city’s Type A style.  Existing single family homes and duplexes are exempted from the new requirements as it is particularly targeted at new multi-family developments along the corridor.

It was apparent that some compromises had been made in regards to property south of North Ave. which made this legislation palatable to property owners and developers in this area, as there was minimal opposition to the legislation.  It was also pointed out that an Planned Development would trump the overlay district so Mandel Group’s property on the west side of the river south of North Ave. could still be developed according to its existing plan.

A large group appeared to support the project, with only some minor opposition.  During the presentation the topic of the height limitations came up as an issue that the Department of City Development had a philosophical issue with, so some members of the audience spoke in support of the “viewshed” restrictions.  Ann Brummitt, of the Milwaukee River Work Group, argued that the “urban hardscape” had crept up the river and that is was infringing on the scenic beauty of the corridor.  In fact she argued that the “public trust doctrine” supported the “viewshed.”  Linda Keen, Architect from Studio 1032, argued that even Frederick Olmsted would recognize the “viewshed” as vital to the corridor, though this seems contrary to the evidence as one of his most famous works, Central Park in New York City, is surrounded by high-rise development.  Alderman Kovac wrapped up explain that “there have been several compromises,” and that he felt “that makes this a win win for everyone.”  This was approved at the City Plan Commission and will now go before the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee.

Clearly, there is a time, and a place for a recall.  For example when Alderman McGee was recalled, the list of complaints against him was long and included the likes of resisting arrest, threatening a woman, possibly perjury, and the improper use of an alias.  A recall certainly was warranted, but simply disagreeing with a policy or position of an elected official is not or should not be grounds for a recall.

If we disagree with Alderman Kovac, or any politician we will certainly write about it here at UrbanMilwaukee.com.  Further, I’d suggest if you disagree with an elected official, attend public meetings to have your voice heard, get out and work on the next campaign to have them ousted, or run yourself, but recalls because we disagree with a single position or policy?  No.

UPDATE: Despite the press release from CRG/Matthew Davis stating “The committee will study all statutory options available to citizens including removal via recall and general elections.” they ended up not filing a recall committee which is good.

New Land Enterprises’ has held three meetings with local stakeholders, including the East Side BID, and faced no opposition at the City Plan Commission.  Jim Plaisted, East Side BID Executive Director, lent his support to the project stating “we feel this is a quality infill development.”

Despite those efforts and overwhelming support by the committee, Alderman Kovac made an unusual move and asked for the file to be held for one cycle.  He stated, “I would like the general residents of the 3rd District to have a chance to see this plan,” and added  that “it’s going to be the policy of the 3rd District going forward” to have public meetings for all development projects.  New Land Enterprises agreed to an “informational meeting” to be held but requested no changes be made to the design due this additional meeting as that would delay the project significantly.  Responding to Alderman Kovac’s request to hold the file, Alderman Witkowiak seemed exasperated as multiple times during the discussion he said “again with all due to respect, I don’t get it.”  Alderman Bauman added that “I don’t want to screw up the financing,” and Alderman Murphy followed up saying that “the worst thing is to have a meeting, and to already know the conclusion of the meeting.”

The committee held the file allowing Alderman Kovac to hold the “informational meeting,” but they clearly indicated that it will be moved forward at the next committee meeting.  Specifically, Alderman Zielinski ended the discussion by stating “when this comes before the committee next cycle we are approving it.”

Last Thursday night, residents of Milwaukee’s lower east side gathered at Holy Rosary Church to discuss the final of three proposals selected by the UWM Real Estate Foundation. The meeting began much like the two previous had, with the developer (Phelan Development) making a presentation on the plan, followed by a short bit by the architect (Jim Shields in this case), and representatives from UWM talking over some basic logistics and facts. After which Vice Chancellor for University Relations and Communications Tom Luljak straps on his bullet proof vest, and questions from the audience are allowed.

The presentation went smoothly and the developer and architect had clearly thought a lot about making the building fit in with the neighborhood. Shields explained that it was two separate buildings connected by a glass lobby on each floor that mimic the height and size of nearby buildings. There was discussion of how underground parking would be used for the move-in days, so that the streets would not be clogged (unlike what happens on a lot of the east side at the end of August). Also, the fact was pointed out that the location for this dorm is far denser (in terms of population) than the rest of the east side by several orders of magnitude. This is a good indicator that this site would be able to absorb the 690 proposed students with much greater ease than a lower density neighborhood. After the initial presentations, questions began.

Unlike the meeting regarding the Prospect Mall parking lot site, there clearly wasn’t coordinated neighborhood opposition. There wasn’t any radical feedback to start the meeting, and an extremely civil tone was used for almost every question. A strong number of the same faces were in the crowd from previous nights, but they were quieter. Were they quieter because they were simply burned out from three meetings in three nights or did they simply have less objections to this design and location? That question never really was answered.

Concerns were raised over parking. Unlike previous nights which revolved around student parking, concerns from the Brady/Farwell site meeting were about displaced resident parking. The site is being built on a combination of lots, to which no one seemed totally sure who exactly parked in them and how full the lots are. It was clear that area apartment dwellers park there, but no one knew how many or what buildings utilized the lots. A quick drive-by on a weekday reveals decently full lots, but not ones that are packed to the brim.

The developer had no clear plan on how to deal with the issue. Which isn’t to say there isn’t a solution, just that the market, because of the low cost of parking in Milwaukee, doesn’t bear one out immediately. Replacement parking would almost certainly be built at a loss, unless homes were demolished for a surface lot (a terrible idea).

Other concerns involved the use of the alley on the east side of the site off of Royall and that it may be congested. Access to the student parking garage along with any deliveries would be through the alley (allowing traffic to flow on Farwell without interruption). Residents weren’t concerned about sound because of that, but aired concerned that it may get congested. Neither the developer or area residents seemed to understand how much this alley is currently used. My perception of the issue is that something could easily be worked out for a semi-trailer not to be blocking the alley, and that it might actually be a non-issue if a lot of the traffic was coming from the parking lot that is the site for the proposed dorm. At the end of the day, this appeared to be an issue that could be overcome with simple planning and good design.

The final large concern of the night centered around crime. The tone wasn’t as much that the students were the criminals (although a few individuals when pressed on the issue, declined to comment further on if they were or not), but that they were the victims. The crowd appeared to hold a general belief that Pizza Shuttle is a rather crime-ridden establishment past midnight, as is the Fedex/Kinkos parking lot. There were a considerable number of comments that the students would fall victim to this. No one suggested that filling in the corridor (replacing surface parking with a building full of residents) might actually deter crime and the loitering that appears to plague the area late at night.

There was also a few comments that the first floor retail in the proposal would not be occupied because the nearby Sterling Condominiums retail space is still vacant. I was pleased to see Alderman Kovac step forward and say that placing the mixed-use dorm on Farwell may actually encourage both stalls to be filled. The obvious principle that on-top of adding potential customers in the form of students, you’re also building the corridor and making the entire area more attractive.

If this meeting had to be compared to one of the previous ones, I would say it was similar to the Hometown site meeting. The only large difference was that Sean Phelan and Jim Shields didn’t have the coordinated team support that the Mandel Group had. Sean Phelan seemed as if he was a one-man army, while characterizing Barry Mandel as such would be akin to saying Bill Gates is the only person that works at Microsoft. The group approach seems to work, at least in terms of making people not ask questions at the meeting.

If you put a gun to my head and made me build a dorm based on the reaction from the meetings, I would go with the Hometown site first, this site second, and the Prospect Mall site last.

Kovac was opposed to this kind of deal making by former Alderman Mike D’Amato and made mention of this during his successful campaign for alderman.

What has Kovac done so far? To his credit he’s already pushing the Riverwest Neighborhood Association to participate in a more open process than they may be looking for. Should be interesting to see what happens going forward, and how true Kovac will stick to his campaign promises.