1. 24-0872 Request by Phillip Aiello, Mandel Group Inc., for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development at 1330 Wauwatosa Avenue, 7463 Harwood Avenue, and 7460/7462 and 7470 Blanchard Street for a multi-unit residential development (Harlow & Hem)
I'm writing as a VERY concerned Village area resident (Church and the Parkway), to urge the City of Wauwatosa to back-away from a hurried and foolhardy decision to flow ahead with the Harlow and Hem Project, a mere 3 blocks from our home.
As originally described some years ago, I was tepidly okay with developing that parcel IF the scale and size, number of units and availability of lower income and senior units were part of the development. I've been touting and asking the city for more townhomes as a personal way to invest in our area for many years. The original plan had those, which I was happy to hear.
With NO ridiculous TIF handout to a large company fully capable of self-funding and a promise of ample parking, sidewalk ease of access and a height comparable to neighboring properties, it was the best worst plan out there.
The changes over the last year are NOT supportable by any sane individual, especially those who have been directly affected by rapid, rampant and rather haphazard building in and around the Village.
Requesting a TIF? Haven't we all learned that lesson?
"Selling' the lot for a fraction of what it is worth? If it's a valuable plot, why is the city even considering that?
Initiating a PUD that modifies zoning requirements we ALL have to follow, even to put in a danged fence? Please.
Increasing the height? Outrageous.
Decreasing access points for pedestrians and visitors alike? How is THAT part of any forward thinking plan?
It seems like the growth pains have not resulted in much of a lesson plan for the city. While the St. Bernard property developers have at least somewhat appeared to partner responsibly by modifying their plans due to public concerns, comments and mobilization, to be in a position by which the city ignores logic and common sense, and public and even Village business owner concerns and most likely, if history is any indicator, sides with an outside developer who fools the leaders of this community with bait and switches and a 'you need me more than I need you' smugness shows that no, in fact, that lesson wasn't learned.
Take a look at the 'motel-like', CDA supported and city approved development behind our Church Street home on Underwood.
The promise of filling that with residents took years. The promise of filling that with new businesses is taking even longer. The first business was one that relocated from across the street! That left THAT building with a hole and no new businesses for years. A nail salon that may or may not be open? A small, but certainly good, bakery storefront that also doesn't seem open much? More empty space?
The building is an eyesore- that is the consensus of so many who see it and share their opinion. Painters tape is STILL on windows! The 'community gathering space' that the developers touted with slick projected images, etc., is unused and full of weeds.
In fact, the developers promised us a fence extension that, of course, never was built.
Neighbors worked as closely as possible with the city to negotiate some sort of development that we could tolerate. The city ignored that, hiding behind the ever-changing 'community plan' that would ensure a wrap-around project that, to this day, NEVER materialized.
And here we are again.
So the real people who live and shop and go to school and church and pay taxes and vote right here in Tosa are asking, once again...
Stop. At least PAUSE. These properties offer those who can afford outrageous rent an attractive unit... for now. Then they are gone. Or the unit goes south and the building untended. How does that help the Village and the city?
A plan for more single homes, duplexes and townhomes, even, results in ownership of our community. The challenges toward that end is understood- but is this unreasonably modified plan THAT much better or easier?
I don't think so.
I ask, again, that you listen to the concerns of we who truly invest in Tosa and apply the brakes to this chicanery. You are elected to initiate a level approach and prudently fair approach to leadership- I hope that you take that route and demonstrate that listening and learning from your constituents is what your role is all about.
I oppose the continuation of this project until the completion of the St. Bernard’s property. I also highly recommend the city of Wauwatosa uphold the requirements of the city and not allow the changes requested.
We should allow the St. Bernard’s project to be completed first and then reevaluate the next steps in housing for our village. Concerns about traffic, pedestrian and bike safety, parking, the impact on local businesses, and the village's character should be addressed. It seems very logical to allow one large scale development at a time versus approving everything right away and then having to clean up the mess that they cause afterwards.
Please delay approving this development until the full impact of the St. Bernard development is known. The combination of these two developments will add a crushing amount of increased population and traffic. Not only will this be a hardship on downtown businesses during construction, but the parking will be a considerable challenge, and a traffic study should be done after the St. Bernard development is occupied.
After reading the City of Wauwatosa’s Strategic Plan, I came away understanding that the city recognizes the traffic problems around the Harmonee Bridge and the parking issues around the downtown, particularly those not not separated by the river or train tracks. As an older resident, I appreciate being able to walk short distances from parking to business.
I am also confused by the emphasis on small costly apartments for the workforce. We have seniors, such as my husband and myself, who don’t have good affordable housing options in Wauwatosa were we to sell our home. We also have schools with a declining population yet no family size or affordable apartment options.
I also have difficulty understanding how this development is truly economically beneficial considering that the property was sold at an incredibly low price and the is a TIF from which these is no immediate benefit.
Thank you.
Deborah Dorn
2526 N. 73rd St.
We don’t want apartments in this space, especially one in which the citizens pay for. Pay for your own business costs, that isn’t our job. Also, there are other apartments proposed for the area, so we do not this at all.
Here is the logical and obvious why:
• The project has been in process for over four years and does not have any obvious Wauwatosa citizen / taxpayer / voter support. Please be mindful these are the individuals who elected you to serve and LISTEN to them.
• The property is City-owned and functioning as it should providing much needed parking for Village businesses in the interim.
• Public parking will become more critical with the pending St. Bernard development, it is logical to phase major developments in the Village to minimize impact.
• At both the Plan Commission and Public Hearing/Common Council meetings, only the developer spoke in favor of the project, while everyone else requested a pause or opposed the project.
Additionally, the concessions being requested by the developer via a PUD for “Harlow and Hem” (beyond the TIF gift and gift of land being sold at a fraction of market value) are all unacceptable from our viewpoint and it appears the vast majority of Wauwatosa citizens / taxpayers / voters are in alignment in that opposition.
It would be logical and appropriate to allow the St. Bernard’s project to be completed first and then reevaluate the next steps in housing for our Village. Concerns about traffic, pedestrian and bike safety, parking, the impact on local businesses, and the Village's character should be addressed.
It is imperative you are mindful of the opinions being expressed by the individuals who elected you to serve and LISTEN to them.
Thank you for your time, expertise and talents in providing the public service that you do, it is appreciated.
John Balzer
Jacki King
7808 Geralayne Circle
Wauwatosa, WI 53213
Too large of a project for too little space. No green space. No retail or restaurants. Not enough parking. The building looks like county jail. Too many large apartment complexes too close together. Detrimental to our neighborhood. The majority of residents are AGAINST this plan.
Wauwatosa should be taking care of more important issues like crime, the new homeless population here, traffic, improving life for tax paying residents, etc.
Also, the same rules that apply to me should apply to developers. I was not able to even obtain one variance, much less multiple variances when I needed to rebuild my damaged garage. But these developers can do as they please. They can do whatever they want because the city lets them. Horrible way to treat the residents.
I am fed up with the city’s lack of care for the home owning residents. I’m fed up with the city doing as they please with no regard for residents. There are so many other things that could be done with that lot. Even just having those parking spaces available is better than this project.
As of writing this e-comment as Alder, I have received feedback from approximately five residents and developers in favor of the Harlow and Hem development and about 60 residents opposing it, either through email comments or public hearing statements. The concerns raised by residents opposing the development include but are not limited to the lack of city responsiveness to questions, absence of published updated traffic studies, TIF subsidies, lack of an affordable housing component, the overall design, and numerous apprehensions regarding the approval process.
I'm writing as a VERY concerned Village area resident (Church and the Parkway), to urge the City of Wauwatosa to back-away from a hurried and foolhardy decision to flow ahead with the Harlow and Hem Project, a mere 3 blocks from our home.
As originally described some years ago, I was tepidly okay with developing that parcel IF the scale and size, number of units and availability of lower income and senior units were part of the development. I've been touting and asking the city for more townhomes as a personal way to invest in our area for many years. The original plan had those, which I was happy to hear.
With NO ridiculous TIF handout to a large company fully capable of self-funding and a promise of ample parking, sidewalk ease of access and a height comparable to neighboring properties, it was the best worst plan out there.
The changes over the last year are NOT supportable by any sane individual, especially those who have been directly affected by rapid, rampant and rather haphazard building in and around the Village.
Requesting a TIF? Haven't we all learned that lesson?
"Selling' the lot for a fraction of what it is worth? If it's a valuable plot, why is the city even considering that?
Initiating a PUD that modifies zoning requirements we ALL have to follow, even to put in a danged fence? Please.
Increasing the height? Outrageous.
Decreasing access points for pedestrians and visitors alike? How is THAT part of any forward thinking plan?
It seems like the growth pains have not resulted in much of a lesson plan for the city. While the St. Bernard property developers have at least somewhat appeared to partner responsibly by modifying their plans due to public concerns, comments and mobilization, to be in a position by which the city ignores logic and common sense, and public and even Village business owner concerns and most likely, if history is any indicator, sides with an outside developer who fools the leaders of this community with bait and switches and a 'you need me more than I need you' smugness shows that no, in fact, that lesson wasn't learned.
Take a look at the 'motel-like', CDA supported and city approved development behind our Church Street home on Underwood.
The promise of filling that with residents took years. The promise of filling that with new businesses is taking even longer. The first business was one that relocated from across the street! That left THAT building with a hole and no new businesses for years. A nail salon that may or may not be open? A small, but certainly good, bakery storefront that also doesn't seem open much? More empty space?
The building is an eyesore- that is the consensus of so many who see it and share their opinion. Painters tape is STILL on windows! The 'community gathering space' that the developers touted with slick projected images, etc., is unused and full of weeds.
In fact, the developers promised us a fence extension that, of course, never was built.
Neighbors worked as closely as possible with the city to negotiate some sort of development that we could tolerate. The city ignored that, hiding behind the ever-changing 'community plan' that would ensure a wrap-around project that, to this day, NEVER materialized.
And here we are again.
So the real people who live and shop and go to school and church and pay taxes and vote right here in Tosa are asking, once again...
Stop. At least PAUSE. These properties offer those who can afford outrageous rent an attractive unit... for now. Then they are gone. Or the unit goes south and the building untended. How does that help the Village and the city?
A plan for more single homes, duplexes and townhomes, even, results in ownership of our community. The challenges toward that end is understood- but is this unreasonably modified plan THAT much better or easier?
I don't think so.
I ask, again, that you listen to the concerns of we who truly invest in Tosa and apply the brakes to this chicanery. You are elected to initiate a level approach and prudently fair approach to leadership- I hope that you take that route and demonstrate that listening and learning from your constituents is what your role is all about.
Thank you
Kevin F. Pulz
1460 Church St.
Wauwatosa, WI 53213
I oppose the continuation of this project until the completion of the St. Bernard’s property. I also highly recommend the city of Wauwatosa uphold the requirements of the city and not allow the changes requested.
We should allow the St. Bernard’s project to be completed first and then reevaluate the next steps in housing for our village. Concerns about traffic, pedestrian and bike safety, parking, the impact on local businesses, and the village's character should be addressed. It seems very logical to allow one large scale development at a time versus approving everything right away and then having to clean up the mess that they cause afterwards.
Please delay approving this development until the full impact of the St. Bernard development is known. The combination of these two developments will add a crushing amount of increased population and traffic. Not only will this be a hardship on downtown businesses during construction, but the parking will be a considerable challenge, and a traffic study should be done after the St. Bernard development is occupied.
After reading the City of Wauwatosa’s Strategic Plan, I came away understanding that the city recognizes the traffic problems around the Harmonee Bridge and the parking issues around the downtown, particularly those not not separated by the river or train tracks. As an older resident, I appreciate being able to walk short distances from parking to business.
I am also confused by the emphasis on small costly apartments for the workforce. We have seniors, such as my husband and myself, who don’t have good affordable housing options in Wauwatosa were we to sell our home. We also have schools with a declining population yet no family size or affordable apartment options.
I also have difficulty understanding how this development is truly economically beneficial considering that the property was sold at an incredibly low price and the is a TIF from which these is no immediate benefit.
Thank you.
Deborah Dorn
2526 N. 73rd St.
We don’t want apartments in this space, especially one in which the citizens pay for. Pay for your own business costs, that isn’t our job. Also, there are other apartments proposed for the area, so we do not this at all.
Please PAUSE the “Harlow and Hem” project.
Here is the logical and obvious why:
• The project has been in process for over four years and does not have any obvious Wauwatosa citizen / taxpayer / voter support. Please be mindful these are the individuals who elected you to serve and LISTEN to them.
• The property is City-owned and functioning as it should providing much needed parking for Village businesses in the interim.
• Public parking will become more critical with the pending St. Bernard development, it is logical to phase major developments in the Village to minimize impact.
• At both the Plan Commission and Public Hearing/Common Council meetings, only the developer spoke in favor of the project, while everyone else requested a pause or opposed the project.
Additionally, the concessions being requested by the developer via a PUD for “Harlow and Hem” (beyond the TIF gift and gift of land being sold at a fraction of market value) are all unacceptable from our viewpoint and it appears the vast majority of Wauwatosa citizens / taxpayers / voters are in alignment in that opposition.
It would be logical and appropriate to allow the St. Bernard’s project to be completed first and then reevaluate the next steps in housing for our Village. Concerns about traffic, pedestrian and bike safety, parking, the impact on local businesses, and the Village's character should be addressed.
It is imperative you are mindful of the opinions being expressed by the individuals who elected you to serve and LISTEN to them.
Thank you for your time, expertise and talents in providing the public service that you do, it is appreciated.
John Balzer
Jacki King
7808 Geralayne Circle
Wauwatosa, WI 53213
Not the right project for that space. I oppose the project. Does not fit the neighborhood.
Too large of a project for too little space. No green space. No retail or restaurants. Not enough parking. The building looks like county jail. Too many large apartment complexes too close together. Detrimental to our neighborhood. The majority of residents are AGAINST this plan.
Wauwatosa should be taking care of more important issues like crime, the new homeless population here, traffic, improving life for tax paying residents, etc.
Also, the same rules that apply to me should apply to developers. I was not able to even obtain one variance, much less multiple variances when I needed to rebuild my damaged garage. But these developers can do as they please. They can do whatever they want because the city lets them. Horrible way to treat the residents.
I am fed up with the city’s lack of care for the home owning residents. I’m fed up with the city doing as they please with no regard for residents. There are so many other things that could be done with that lot. Even just having those parking spaces available is better than this project.
As of writing this e-comment as Alder, I have received feedback from approximately five residents and developers in favor of the Harlow and Hem development and about 60 residents opposing it, either through email comments or public hearing statements. The concerns raised by residents opposing the development include but are not limited to the lack of city responsiveness to questions, absence of published updated traffic studies, TIF subsidies, lack of an affordable housing component, the overall design, and numerous apprehensions regarding the approval process.