Village BID, Neighbors Weigh In on Old Firehouse Plan

Business association and Church Street householders tell city development panel they want a successful mixed-use project but – in the case of the neighbors – not at any price, and not in conflict with city's own master plan.

Calling it a classic "missing teeth" project opportunity, the Village Business Improvement District board has weighed in in favor of a development proposal currently on the table for the iconic Wauwatosa neighborhood.

A city lot left vacant and in the city's hands after the new Fire Station No. 1 replaced its aged predecessor should be redeveloped along with a key privately owned neighboring parcel on the corner of Harmonee and Underwood avenues, the BID said in a letter to city officials.

That letter, along with testimony from neighbors, was presented Thursday to the Community Development Authority, which took no action to approve or deny any proposals.

The Village BID did not go so far as to take a position on the height of the proposed development nor on whether the city should make any investment of public funds in it through tax-incremental financing.

Owners of neighboring properties in the 1400-1600 blocks of Church Street made it clear they do not want to see a four-story development out their back windows — which was the scale of the proposed developer's first plan submission.

In fact, in their own joint statement, those neighbor concurred that they want to see the city take a position that "restricts height to two stories with appropriate setbacks to avoid a structure that 'looms' over the site and neighboring properties."

The preferred developers, Sean Phelan of Phelan Development and Blair Williams of WiRED Properties, proposed a mixed-use complex covering both parcels, with 36 apartment units and about 6,000 square feet of retail space.

That proposal did call for four stories reaching a maximum height of 52 feet above grade on Underwood Avenue, which due to slope would have put it about 47 feet above the back yard lines of the Church Street neighbors.

After a sometimes rancorous neighborhood meeting called by Phelan and Williams in January, the CDA directed city staff to continue negotiations with the developers for a project preferred to be no more than three stories and with limited or no public spending.

Neighbors form a united – and informed – front

In the meantime, the Church Street neighbors — 10 households — organized and developed a "you catch more flies with honey" approach that is thoroughly researched and professionally presented.

Their joint statement begins by saying the neighbors are "pleased to offer our perspective and input regarding development of the fire station remnant property located at 1463 Underwood Avenue in Wauwatosa.

"We are excited by the development’s potential to enhance the attractiveness and vibrancy of the Wauwatosa Village and surrounding neighborhoods."

Rather than complaints, their letter offers "highlights," "recommendations" and "suggestions" – and makes numerous references to matters of density, compatibilty and scale contained in the city's own Comprehensive Plan for 2008 through 2030.

That plan, the neighbors say, supports their positions almost point for point.

The neighbors note that the plan states that, concerning neighborhood in-fill and redevelopment projects, "the City will take measures to ensure preservation of the long-term integrity and character of these neighborhoods...," that "Within this future land use category, further land divisions, increases in density, or the establishment of more intensive land uses are not permitted...," and that the city will "Ensure that redevelopment and infill development in Neighborhood Conservation areas complements the character and scale of existing homes and maintains the neighborhood’s established land uses, densities, and lot configurations while still allowing for neighborhood reinvestment."

As they see it, the Village Development Plan, adopted in 2011 and incorporated into the city's master plan, conflicts with it specifically in reference to the Firehouse Lot – where it suggests that a development of three stories would be acceptable and preferred.

That, the neighbors say, is not in fact in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, as the longstanding old firehouse did not rise to such scale.

Property owner caught in the middle

Complicating the whole question is the fact that the private lot at Harmonee and Underwood is occupied by an active business, Cody and Company, owned by Linda Craite of Menomonee Falls.

Craite has signed a contract to sell to Phelan, who had offered to her and budgeted in its development proposal to buy the property, relocate her to temporary business quarters, and then move her back into a retail space in the finished new building.

Craite is unwilling to accept less because the business is her sole source of support and she has said that if she couldn't re-establish her business without loss, she would be uninterested in selling at all.

But in part, though not wholly, because of costs associated with keeping Craite whole, Phelan said initially that he would have to build to four stories to make the project economically viable – and even then would have a $1.4 million financing gap that he would need the city's help to make up.

The Village Plan and master plan have identified Craite's property for redevelopment – something she says she was never consulted on during the planning process.

Phelan said after the CDA's January action that he would work toward finding a way to make three-story project doable, but not at the expense of abandoning his promise to Craite to keep her in business.

Craite, for her part, has said that she has been unfairly villified as either or both an impediment to progress and some kind of gold-digger, holding the city hostage to her needs.

“I just want to keep my salon, my business,” Craite told Wauwatosa Patch in January. “I want to stay in the Village. I love what I do, I love where I am, I love Tosa. There is no place I’d rather be.”

But, she said, “It would cost me a tremendous amount of money to set up a new Aveda salon, and at this stage in my life, I can’t go into debt trying to recreate what I already have."

Random Blog Commenter February 15, 2013 at 03:52 PM
No one should malign Ms. Craite, she simply is looking out for her small business and and doesn't have her hand out for anything. She owns her parcel and will charge for it what she wants and what she can get -- it's called leverage. Good for her. If the Church Street folks don't want a four-story buidling, then buy Ms. Craite's lot. At some point, people in this city do have rights over their own property and have no right to infringe on what others can do with theirs.
ann February 15, 2013 at 04:10 PM
The Church Street folks are the biggest bunch of whiners you are going to ever meet. Most are government employees, you can find all of them on the Walker Recall petitions. The hell with them, let her sell that building for the price she wants.
Wes Patrick February 15, 2013 at 06:25 PM
I couldn't agree more. Go back to the four story building, include her and just get the job done. That's the price you pay when you buy a house with a lot line on or in full view of a commercial property (area). It's called progress folks and it was bound to happen. I didn't necessarily agree with the design but there's an obvious need for four stories to make this particular project work for everyone NOT just the 10 Church Street folks. Let's try polling the many people who like the idea versus the 10 that don't. So who's really holding the city hostage here?
John Q. Public February 15, 2013 at 07:04 PM
@Ann Congrats on bringing in an unrelated and settled statewide political issue to a local issue regarding Wauwatosa. Based on your comments, it would seem as though you've performed a census of the residents of the neighborhood and know that "most are government employees" and they all signed the recall petitions. As a result, "to hell with them". So I have to wonder, if they all were business owners, hadn't signed the petition, and sported "I stand with Scott Walker" bumper stickers on their cars, would you then consider their plight in a different light? The article inidicates that homeowners pointed out that the scale of the buildings and the increased density are in contrast with the city's own "master plan". So is your position that because they didn't support the governor during the recall effort, they should just roll over and let the development go through without saying a word? Contrarily, if the governor had lost the recall election, could someone build a 4-story building behind your house we would expect you to not say anything? Thanks for clearing this up for me.
ann February 15, 2013 at 07:19 PM
It's pretty much settled John, Walker won the recall. It a matter of flexibility actually, you government employees are not very flexible, and this minor construction project proves it. We Walker types welcome new development in the village area, we understand the correlation between tax income and commercial development. We also are the ones paying your paycheck in the private sector. As I predicted, the Church Street Whiners are coming out of the woodwork.
IGetIt February 15, 2013 at 07:19 PM
uh, you do realize that the developer is asking for 1.8 million in city funds? 1.1 or so of that is for the Craite property. Fine to get what she can, but this cost is expected to be passed on to City residents via increased taxes. so- do you care to pay more in taxes because she can sell (ostensibly) to the city for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than her property is worth?
John Q. Public February 15, 2013 at 07:36 PM
@Ann, Thanks for the newsflash about the recall results - I have never posted anything either "pro" or "anti" Walker; I was merely trying to understand your logic in connecting the two topics. For your information, I am not a government employee. I work in the private sector so I doubt that you are paying my paycheck, I am pro growth and have a strong understanding of economics. Also, I don't live on Church Street and I don't have any friends or relatives that do. Would you care to make any additional incorrect assumptions about me?
Wes Patrick February 15, 2013 at 08:15 PM
I think you have your facts wrong getit. The 1.8 gap is if they need to take it to 3 stories (and to keep her salon within the development). The gap was closer to 1.2 million to build a four story development (and to also keep her salon within it). Furthermore, she isn't actually 'selling' her land. From what I understand and what the Patch reported before (http://wauwatosa.patch.com/articles/salon-owner-holds-key-to-former-firehouse-lot-development) she isn't technically getting a dime for this. It sounds like land exchange and the rest is what it will take to move her for an undetermined amount of time and then move her back. People throwing out this 1.1 million dollar figure that she is supposedly getting is irresponsible and erroneous. Please people get your facts together before spewing misinformation.
ann February 15, 2013 at 08:23 PM
Good point Wes. It's these darn Church Street folks(again, all gubment employees) who think that screaming and howling like they did in Madison is going to get things done.
IGetIt February 15, 2013 at 08:39 PM
interesting. yes, 1.4 million was what the businessmen wanted from the government coffers for 4 stories. 1.8 is what they want for 3 stories, which is what the city and village plans call for as maximum size. according to city communications, she was to recieve over 800k for her building and property- plus the equivalent of roughly 300k for relocation, temporary space and new space in the new building. she was also to be part owner in that building... what percentage, I don't know. so the total package for her property IS 1.1 million- that is not misinformation. 800 or so thousand is what she takes away, period. no misinformation. I did not say 'she' was getting 1.1... I said that was total cost for the Craite property. regardless, it'll be an added burden on yours and mine and even the ever-tolerant 'ann'.... I haven't seen exactly what we'll all be getting for that 1.4 - 1.8 million- a few public parking spaces, perhaps.
John Q. Public February 15, 2013 at 08:48 PM
@Wes, So do you believe that the city taxpayers should assist with the $1.2 million financing gap? Where I work, when we want to make a major investment we either pay out of our operating funds or finance it though a privately held financial institution, not the city. So are you willing to have the city intervene if there is a $1.2 million gap for a 4-story structure but not for a $1.8 million gap for a 3-story structure? Personally, I'm not sure where I draw the line. As far as the owner of the salon is concerned, she has been in that location for many years and I would expect that she would only consider this proposition if it is economically viable for her - any changes in the structure of the ownership of the property that houses her salon should be done at market rates. The developer certainly plans to lease to his tenants at a market rate. If he can't acquire the salon property and make the numbers work then perhaps he should develop a new plan or abandon it.
Wes Patrick February 15, 2013 at 08:56 PM
I'm not sure what 'city communications' you are getting but that is absolutely false information. Do you have a copy of the offer to purchase for you to be throwing around numbers like that?
Wes Patrick February 15, 2013 at 09:09 PM
I didn't think so.
Random Blog Commenter February 15, 2013 at 09:12 PM
If you simply want a business space in a former house then the property is worth $X. If you want the parcel so you can combine with other land to build something else, then it will cost you $X plus a whole lot more. The developer is buying future value of the property, not present value. To force a person to take $X when she should get $x plus more is to deprive her of full use of her property. I don't think the city needs to provide a penny for this project. It is not a requirement that it gets built and it's not Ms. Craite's problem that her building is "in the way" of development that city hall wants.
Wes Patrick February 15, 2013 at 09:57 PM
John Q: I'm not certain where I draw the line either. From what I understand there is only funding involved because she wants to stay and that if they simply developed the fire station remnant parcel without her they wouldn't be asking for city funding (I may be wrong). There is no blame being placed here but her staying, which she has every right to do, makes it more difficult and complicated. But then by not providing the financing is an incredible opportunity lost? I just don't think we can look at it as a typical development because of all the factors involved.
IGetIt February 15, 2013 at 11:27 PM
400-600k is what the developer estimates they require from the city for just the remnant fire station parcel. 3 stories and no retail. amount paid directly to Craite was shared by alderman- check with yours.
Jim Price February 16, 2013 at 01:58 AM
IGetit, you seem to have a fairly good grasp of much of this and some fairly accurate figures on even some things that have not been made public, so clearly you have some of the same inside information that I and a couple of other commenters seem to. But you are very wrong about Ms. Craite receiving "over 800k for her building and property" and that "800 or so thousand is what she takes away...." I have the numbers in front of me, and they tell me Phelan offered and Craite accepted to sell the property (including improvements) for assessed value, about $180,000. The rest would be paid by Phelan in relocation costs, to move her business to temporary quarters, set her up, then move her back and set her up again. Your total numbers are substantially correct, but the implication that she "takes away" any cash is false. I have spoken at length with her, with Phelan and with any number of CDA and city officials involved in this, and nobody has said that Linda Craite accrues any cash she could put in the bank above her equity in the property – which is what any one of us would get if we sold our mortgaged property.
Linda Craite February 16, 2013 at 07:56 PM
Thank you for clarifying that Jim. It's been very difficult and frustrating to listen to and read about all the inaccuracies with regards to this situation. I appreciate your help in trying to get people to understand the complexity and doing it with the facts.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something