New Berlin Rejects "Workforce Housing"

Last night's outcome was not unexpected as New Berlin's Plan Commission, led by Mayor Chiovatero rejected MSP's proposal for City Center workforce housing & senior apartments.

What did surprise me was how...cowardly the Plan Commission acted.  First, they prohibited non-residents from speaking during their self-styled "Privilege of the Floor" so that advocates such as myself (I work for an organization serving people with disabilities, and our service area includes New Berlin) were denied an opportunity to speak.

Then they didn't even give MSP a chance to respond to the letter the city staff sent.  If you read my previous post on it, you'll know that there were some dubious items in the letter, and I speculated that some of those items were sprung at the last minute.  MSP has confirmed that some of those issues were not brought up previously.

The issues addressed during tonight's meeting are new points that were just recently brought to MSP's attention.  Tonight's decision leaves no opportunity for the developer to revise the project plans based on these new points.

Essentially, New Berlin brought up some new concerns after MSP submitted their revised plans, but then gave MSP no opportunity to respond to those concerns.  But some of those concerns would've applied to previous versions of the project, so if they have not brought up those concerns in the past, they'll be on very, very shaky ground and wide-open to a lawsuit.

MSP City Center issues in New Berlin

In light of tonight's Plan Commission meeting in New Berlin, I thought it'd be helpful to review what exactly the parking requirements are since that's what has drawn the most attention (At the link, do a search for parking spaces and select the first result).  Keep in mind that city staff has recommended that MSP's revisions be rejected. Below, listing only the relevant items in city codes:

Elderly housing One space per dwelling unit. Plan Commission may reduce the parking requirement when assisted care is provided. Plan Commission may require an additional 10% of the parking requirement for guest parking.


Multiple-family dwellings Two spaces per dwelling unit plus 1/10 of a space per dwelling unit shall be provided for guest parking. A minimum of one space per dwelling unit shall be provided in an attached or underground garage.

In the City Center PUD, we see that they have similar parking requirements as outlined above, but they add the underground requirement to the elderly housing.  There is nothing about carports (that I can see) in the PUD codes.

Also, in the accessory uses section of the city codes, we see that

Carports, provided that the following provisions are met:

     [a] The carport is a supplement to a required attached or detached garage; and

     [b] The carport does not extend into the front yard.

    
 
The first thing we need to figure out is what the MSP Development is.  There are two components to it-a "workforce housing" of 80 units in three buildings and a "elderly housing" of 100 units in a building that will be built in two phases.  I'm told that MSP has dropped the second phase of 24 market-rate senior housing in order to meet the parking requirements, which would make it 76 units now, not 100.  I think this is significant, as I'll explain later.

In the letter recommending denial, they list nine points, of which three (#2, #3 & #9) has to do with parking. To summarize;

• Carports are not allowed in this context since they are being used to replace the underground parking that MSP allegedly did not provide in enough numbers.
• They claim that the workforce housing is six short on parking spaces. They claim that the senior housing component has six extra spaces, but that they only have 76 underground spaces (100 is required).  
• They also point to the need for an updated water management plan due to the greater size of the parking lot. 

It should be noted that if MSP has dropped the 2nd phase of the development, the parking calculations change.  They now have more than enough parking for senior housing, and given that a chunk of the senior housing is gone, the surface parking for workforce housing can be extended, which is probably what MSP was counting. 

But even if Phase II is still on track, I think it's rather petty of them to say MSP does not meet the total parking requirements when it's basically the same lot. The update of the water management plan may be valid, but the question is, did they say that up front, or did they wait until the last minute to bring that up?

Of the other six points:

#1 has to do with the zoning permit.  Apparently the City is saying that MSP has to request that the first zoning permit be dropped before they'll approve a new zoning request with the changes.  I don't know about you, but asking the City to drop the request is the last thing I'd do given their behavior in this process.

#4 isn't even a real point, it's a paragraph saying the next points were concerns of the City staff.

#5 reflects some confusion about the status of Phase II, with the City understandably being concerned about the facade of the side of the building where Phase II would adjoin Phase I.  The City would like to see the facade finished in an appropriate manner. 

#6 is the desire of city to see more bricks/stones used in the building for better long-term maintenance.  Point to me where they say this to single-family home developers. 

#7 has to do with more landscaping.

#8 is concern over the lack of "real defined public space" in the plans. Quite frankly, given that the basic layout of the MSP plan has been the same throughout the process, I find it curious that they're now bringing this up.  If they have brought this up in the past, how did the MSP plan get so far in the process?

I'm not an expert in th permit process, but given that the MSP proposal apparently was pretty far along before the uproar, it seems as if the City now is intentionally throwing barriers in the way, trying to drag out the process.

Transportation & Housing/Economic Development

I came across two things today that, although coming from different sources, had a common theme:  mass (rail) transportation  and development.  First, via The Political Environment, the Wisconsin Technology Council has a post about mass transportation and the economic development that is sure to follow in its path:

In communities such as Brookfield, Oconomowoc and Watertown, which are proposed stops along the Milwaukee-to-Madison route, public and private leaders are hustling to persuade planners to build stations in their towns. Why? They expect a mix of commercial, retail and residential development to follow the trains like a caboose.

Tom Still notes the absurdity of raging against a mild $7.5 million per year subsidy over the proposed high-speed train when "Milwaukee’s Zoo interchange, the mix-master for I-94, I-894 and Highway 45, could cost $2.3 billion to rebuild once work begins in 2012."

And then in my mailbox I found a paper by an attorney, Robert Voelker, that discusses transit-oriented development (TOD).  It notes the economic growth that follows (rail) transit stops, and the risk of gentrification pushing out low-income people who, because they least can afford car ownership, often need access to mass transportation.  He suggests that communities ensure a mixed-income neighborhood by ensuring that there are affordable units created within the new developments.

Though there may be fears that market-rate apartment residents will not want to live near lower income people, Generation Y—a vast majority of the current apartment rental market—is much more open to multiculturalism and urban lifestyles and find mixed-income communities to be more interesting and less homogeneous places to live.

Waukesha County Housing bits

I have to attend a meeting soon, but before I do, here's some housing happenings in Waukesha County for your review.

First, a new proposal in Delafield.

The proposed development is intended to promote a more pedestrian-friendly and neighborly urban atmosphere than the more traditional Lake Country homes often built in less-densely planned developments usually featuring larger lots and a more-open environment.

Newly appointed Plan Commissioner Matthew Katz questioned the appropriateness of the design.

"It reminds me of something you might see on the East Side (of Milwaukee). Is that something we want in Delafield? Delafield is a rural community where people are used to houses on large lots," he added.

I'm seeing this again and again-people want a pedestrian-friendly environment, but are unwilling to increase the density and reduce the number of parking required that would create that environment. 

Speaking of parking, things didn't go so well for MSP as their parking changes were reviewed by staff in New Belin. It remains to be seen if MSP simply didn't add up the slots correctly, or if New Berlin moved the goal posts.  But this bit was puzzling:

There are also problems with the type of parking for the senior housing apartments. MSP plans show that some of the required 112 spaces would be provided by a carport. But city regulations do not permit the use of carports

The senior housing apartments would require 112 spaces. Of those, 100 would have to be underground or attached garage parking spaces, but MSP is proposing only 76 such spaces, city planners say.

Additionally, MSP would use a carport for the remainder of the required parking. However, carports aren't allowed to be used to meet the required parking spaces; they are only permitted for extra parking, city planners say.

Underground parking or attached garage parking is required to meet part of New Berlin's parking requirements, but carports cannot count toward that requirement?!?

Note: Minor spelling & grammar mistakes corrected after initial posting.