Wauwatosa committee moves to protect County Grounds

Sunset, County Grounds Park

Vote is a victory for opponents of controversial master plan

A Wauwatosa Common Council committee voted unanimously Tuesday night to put on hold the controversial master plan for what is being called the Life Sciences District.

“We have been listening,” Kathleen Causier, Chair of the council’s Community Affairs Committee, told the packed room in the council chambers. The size of the audience for a committee meeting indicated once again the amount of concern and attention being paid to this issue by the community. The outcome included a provision that seemed to surprise nearly everyone in attendance.

During the public comment period before the committee deliberations the contentiousness that had characterized so many previous meetings simmered but never boiled over. The idea of putting the master planning process on hold was itself uncontroversial. Speaker after speaker rose to agree with it. Despite the narrow focus of the issue at hand, many couldn’t resist the opportunity to reiterate their opposition to elements of the plan itself.

When it came time for the committee to deliberate, Ald. Cheryl Berdan made the motion, which was to put the planning process on hold until such time as the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission and Milwaukee County both completed environmental impact assessments of County Grounds Park and the non-park county land commonly known as “Sanctuary Woods.” Initially there was little opposition and the decision seemed a foregone conclusion.

Autumn, Wil-O-Way Woods, DNR State Forest, County Grounds

Then alderman Jason Wilke proposed what he considered a “friendly amendment” that add new protections to not only the two parcels stipulated in the original motion but also to the Wil-O-Way Woods property north of Swan Boulevard. This proposal was met with some confusion and Berdan refused to accept the “friendly amendment” to her motion. Wilke then moved to amend the motion without the “friendly” designation, which led to a lively discussion about the intent and feasibility of adding the protection.

The public is clearly disturbed by the part of the plan that involves these three parcels, Wilke explained, and protecting them would serve to reassure people and allow the rest of the plan to move forward. This clarification seemed to satisfy the committee members. The audience listened with rapt attention as nearly every member of the committee expressed agreement in principle with the intent to protect the land. Causier summed up the sentiments by saying “none of us want to see anything going in there,” referring to development on the three parcels.

The final hurdle to acceptance was a consideration of the City’s role in providing permanent protection. City attorney Alan Kesner explained that permanent protection required more than zoning, which is within the purview of the city. A conservation easement or other instrument of protection would require consent of the landowners—Milwaukee County and the State of Wisconsin. While acknowledging the possibility of resistance, in the end the committee voted unanimously to include Wilke’s amendment to do “whatever it takes to preserve in perpetuity” the three parcels.

It was a stunning development in the now yearlong controversy over the Life Sciences District Master Plan and the committee’s decision was met with loud applause from the audience.

Spring, Sanctuary Woods, County Grounds

The decision means that the scheduled May 15 meeting of the Plan Commission and others will be canceled or postponed until the conditions of last night’s decision have been met. If they are not met, we can expect to hear this issue come up again sometime in the future. However, today we can thank the Community Affairs Committee for their vote to save the County Grounds.

Attention now turns to Milwaukee County, where the decision to act on the Community Affairs Committee decision rests. Those concerned with actually saving the County Grounds will want to make their feelings known to County Executive Chris Abele and the County Board.

There is a meeting of the County Board Committee on Parks, Energy and the Environment Tuesday, May 16 at 9:00 a.m. at the Milwaukee County Courthouse, 901 N. 9^th Street, room 201. 

As always, you can see more photos of Sanctuary Woods and the rest of the County Grounds on Flickr.

The specter of bulldozers on County Grounds floods Tosa City Hall with citizens

Though prevented from speaking the size of the crowd sent a clear message

Hundreds of people turned out Tuesday night to a normally quiet committee meeting for the unveiling of a proposed Wauwatosa master plan. Everyone in the room—and the overflow crowd in an adjacent room and out in the hall—they all knew why they were present.

An overflow crowd filled the Wauwatosa Common Council chambers Tuesday evening

Reacting to the prospect of bulldozers poised to plow through the County Grounds, which I addressed in my previous column, Mayor Ehley didn’t waste time getting to the point in her opening remarks, saying it is “untrue” that bulldozers would destroy Sanctuary Woods. Her words appeared to be calculated to relieve the anxiety of the audience. Although some in the crowd may indeed have been relieved, no one left the room. Promises have been made before about the County Grounds….

In fact, as the plan itself unfolded the headline of my story, “Wauwatosa master plan would bulldoze the last corner of the County Grounds,” was born out by a map (below), which shows not only the new “Scenic Parkway” (renamed from the last draft of the plan) but also a grid of new roads and new (potentially high-rise) development in the southeast corner of the County Grounds. Why the discrepency?

Detail of plan map showing “Scenic Parkway” and development options along both sides north of Ronald McDonald House.

As the mayor explains in an article in the Milwaukee Business Journal, “Sanctuary Woods” has “no strictly defined borders.” In fact, the name was conjured by the experience of those who enjoy its peaceful character and varied terrain. But the lovely name is also misleading—because it includes more than woodlands. The terrain that confronts the specter of bulldozers, according to this plan, includes critical habitat, small woodlands, and meadows that are particularly favored by wildlife as well as dog walkers. A small but significant wetland habitat would also be impacted by the proximity of “Scenic Parkway.” The planned extension of 92^nd St.—for what purpose?—would further fragment an Environmental District that the plan itself identifies as “disjointed.” 

View of Sanctuary Woods: The plan would replace this humble gravel road with a paved thoroughfare dividing the woods from County Grounds Park.

The plan would protect the ravine. In the meeting as well as in an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, promises to save the ravine and "Sanctuary Woods" took front and center. The JS article makes it clear, however, that the mayor and planners construe Sanctuary Woods to refer solely to the isolated woodland surrounding the ravine and not to the adjacent meadows. Habitats are not so easily bounded. Unfortunately for the many people who enjoy those meadows as well as the wildlife that depends on the non-fragmented integrity of the whole, this plan would greatly diminish the intrinsic—if not the economic— value of the last unprotected sixty acres on this corner of the County Grounds.

One of three meadows popular with dog walkers, south of proposed “Scenic Parkway” that would see high-rise development in the plan.

In fact, although the justification for developing this natural space is to increase its economic value, the master plan itself recognizes both the appeal and the positive economic impact of parks and natural areas. In a section entitled “Money grows on trees” it says, “People like being close to parks and green space. Even if they are stalwart urbanites, the trees, flowers, shade, and breezes are alluring. Not surprisingly, property values reflect human desires to be near parks through an almost direct correlation between the adjacency of a home to a park and its corresponding property value.”

Plan cross-section showing Scenic Parkway and 6-story building looking out over the Environmental District.

The plan bears the academic-sounding title of “Life Science District Master Plan.” The District is quite large, extending from Wauwatosa Village on the east to Highway 100 on the west and encompassing all four quadrants of what used to be the whole Milwaukee County Grounds (until successive parts of it were sold and developed.) To its credit, the plan envisions reunifying the disparate segments divided by Watertown Plank Road and Interstate 41. The proposed result would be a mixed-use, high density “metropolitan center.”

The 150-page plan, complex and comprehensive, is admirable in many ways. It acknowledges historical origins of the County Grounds, analyzes contextual elements such as circulation, development patterns, and also existing parks and natural features. Plans for new developments throughout the district are outlined in detail. Density is one of the key concepts.

Master plan map of Life Sciences District

The Life Sciences District Master Plan does pay considerable attention to the environment. A stated goal is to “Adopt an Environmental Regulating Plan to preserve, conserve, and socialize the natural environment to guarantee the use of natural features for passive and active recreational use.” The mayor and planners all emphasize the importance of balance, a value I share. With regard to the Environmental District, the plan would benefit by adding the perspective of biodiversity and wildlife ecology to balance out its emphasis on engineering and trail development.

The largest section of the “Environmental District” is made up of flood detention basins.

The plan identifies and touts a 597-acre “Environmental District” as the second largest in the county (after Whitnall Park.) However, when alderman Welch challenged the validity of that claim by pointing out that the acreage includes such non-park-like segments as Wisconsin Lutheran College’s private athletic field campus, the crowd, which had been respectfully quiet throughout the presentation, broke into applause. It felt to me like a release of pent up tension as someone finally gave voice to collective doubt.

View of Milwaukee Co. Parks Administration building with trees cut for development of Innovation Campus in 2013.

What had brought us to the meeting in such numbers and had stirred doubts despite the mayor’s reassurances? Distrust of government is not limited to national politics. The people of Wauwatosa and beyond remember the compromises that have led to the loss of precious natural land on the County Grounds. People remember with horror when tree-cutting machinery did destroy a beautiful stand of mature hardwoods around the Milwaukee County Parks administration building—and still wonder why. People remember promises made to preserve the historic Eschweiler buildings. People are tired of fighting the now 20 years of compromises that have resulted relentlessly in loss of natural habitat.

Eschweiler-designed Dormitory building being deconstructed in 2016.

Let’s consider this suggestion as a compromise: the City could drop plans for “Scenic Parkway,” rezone all 60 acres that currently are non-park county land to give them preservation status, pledge to build no new roads in those 60 acres, request that the county add them to County Grounds Park, and reconsider plans to develop other natural areas within the District (such as at the Research Park.) I believe that such a promise, if kept, would help rebuild trust of City Hall enough that other, more laudable portions of the master plan—such as increased density, the circulator bus, and high-rise development in infill areas—would be subject to less intense, more amenable scrutiny.

There are other initiatives in the master plan that will concern residents of Wauwatosa. In fact, people have expressed concern that the fuss about Sanctuary Woods might serve to screen larger issues. Why, for instance, when there has been a veritable building spree—in the Village, at the Burleigh triangle, and elsewhere—does Wauwatosa need so much new, dense, high-rise development? And at the expense of the most precious commodity a community can own, it’s natural land. Can we concede a little more density to save the last unprotected natural section of the County Grounds?

Owls and other wildlife are threatened by planned road

During the presentation the assembled multitude was assured that the plan presented was a draft and likely to change after further public input. “It is my belief that at the end of this planning process, we will have a plan that balances environment preservation with economic growth opportunities, ” Ehley said. “A plan to protect beloved green space, as well as provide opportunities and guide decisions that foster economic development, job creation and added value.”

Let’s help her protect our beloved green space.

There will be a public open house on February 7, 5:30 -7:30 p.m., at Wauwatosa City Hall.

This time you will be able to speak.

Whether or not you can make the open house, please continue to make your feelings known to County Exec. Chris Abele as well as the Wauwatosa Common Council.

To conclude, the plan itself testifies as to why so many concerned citizens showed up for Tuesday’s meeting:

“When an area’s natural resources are conserved and protected while allowing for human socialization and activity, the users’ appreciation serves as a far more protective force than any regulation. A community’s collective will to protect a forest, prairie, or natural habitat is more powerful than a government-instituted zoning district. Rules can be changed and circumvented; the will of a united community is seldom negotiable.”

This entrance to Sanctuary Woods is in the path of the proposed “Scenic Parkway.”

Read it for yourself: Link to current Wauwatosa Master Plan.

See more of my photos of Sanctuary Woods on and the rest of the County Grounds on Flickr. 

A slightly edited version this story first appeared in my column at Milwaukee Magazine on January 19, 2017.

County Grounds: What can you do?

-->

Although, as of this writing, it is snowed over in places, there is a fence line now that indicates the amount of land that will be used for Innovation Park.

My recent post about the tree cutting that was done on the County Grounds generated more response than any previous blog post. The reactions expressed in those responses ranged from anguish to anger. Clearly a lot of people care deeply about what happens on the County Grounds.

Along with the outpouring of emotions, many questions were raised. Chief among them was, “What can I do?”

The short answer is, Participate. There are two Wauwatosa Common Council committee meetings scheduled this week, the Plan Commission and the Budget and Finance Committee. Both will allow public comments. If you can’t attend, write to the aldermen and city officials. Details below. 

Witnessing the tree cutting was painful for many people. Be prepared for a similar shock when construction begins in earnest. But there are still opportunities to make your voice heard.

Credit: HGA Architecture/GRAEF

There are many moving parts to the proposed development and some of them have been changed and are to be presented to the Wauwatosa Plan Commission for approval. One aspect of the new proposal is particularly troubling. The 2010 UWM Innovation Park Master Plan (above) shows a distinct separation between the residential developments around the Eschweiler complex on the north and the rest of the campus.

This separation served several important functions. It was to be a bioswale, which helps manage stormwater runoff. The bioswale also would help to maintain a healthy habitat to support wildlife. Just as important, it preserves one of the most magnificent features of this site, an open view across the high point of the entire Count Grounds. (Future residents may have their own reasons for preferring a green space between their apartments and the business park.)

The new proposal (below) has sited a pair of buildings in the former location of the bioswale and added connecting driveways to the residential zone. The reasoning that is given is that the new HWY 45 exit ramp to be built as part of the Zoo Interchange reconstruction will encroach on the buildable area. This is true, but the amount of encroachment doesn’t justify the amount of shift in the new plan. As with the tree removal, it isn’t an innovative solution.

Credit: Nancy Aten

On the map above the dashed white lines indicate Innovation Park buildings, roads and parking. One feature that may be hard to identify on the map is a large surface parking lot in the center. In other parts of the design parking structures have been used in order to reduce the area taken up with surface parking.

The question I would ask the Plan Commission is why the revision forced by the DOT wasn’t done in a way that is more consistent with the vision of the carefully crafted Master Plan?

Meeting and contact information

Plan Commission meeting:

Monday February 11 at 7 p.m. in the Common Council Chambers at Wauwatosa City Hall.

Send emails to:

Alderwoman Kathleen Causier: kcausier@wauwatosa.net

Paulette Enders: penders@wauwatosa.net

Budget and Finance Committee meeting:

Tuesday February 12 at 7p.m. in Committee Room 1 at Wauwatosa City Hall.

This committee will discuss a proposal to change the Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) district from $12.5 million to $30 million. The original TIF was created to build utilities and roadways. The new proposal allows the money to be used more “flexibly.”

Questions that a taxpayer might want answered:

What if this project does not develop as smoothly and successfully as projected?

How will the TIF affect overall land use in Innovation Park?

What about stormwater management, natural landscaping in the stormwater features, and other sustainable development features?

What will be the return to the taxpayers on an investment of $30 million?

Send emails to:

Craig Wilson (chair), cwilson@wauwatosa.net

Joel Tilleson, jtilleson@wauwatosa.net

Tim Hanson, (vice chair) thanson@wauwatosa.net

Pete Donegan pdonegan@wauwatosa.net

Jill Organ, jorgan@wauwatosa.net

Brian Ewerdt, bewerdt@wauwatosa.net

Don Birschel, dbirschel@wauwatosa.net

John Dubinski, Jdubinski@wauwatosa.net

Wauwatosa Council to vote on TIF for County Grounds Tuesday

Last week the Wauwatosa Plan Commission voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the proposed TIF district to help UWM develop the Milwaukee County Grounds. (See previous post for more details and my position on this controversial proposal.)

Tomorrow, Tuesday, Sept. 21, the full Common Council will be meeting for the final vote on the TIF proposal. Although this will not be a public hearing and the public will not be able to speak, it would be wonderful to see a strong public presence in the audience to witness the discussion. If you can go, please do.

The meeting starts at 7:30 but the vote on the TIF is late on the agenda.

The meeting is in the Common Council chamber at the Wauwatosa City Hall, 76th and North. 



A recent sunset from the Monarch Trail on the County Grounds



Are the Milwaukee County Grounds the right place for UWM?

Construction of the flood detention basins

on the County Grounds in 2006

There has been a lot of buzz going around lately about UWM’s plans for Innovation Park, the Engineering research campus that’s looking more and more like ordinary business—and residential—development.

I won’t repeat what others have already said so well:
Cheryl Nenn at Milwaukee Riverkeeper
Chris Liebenthal of Milwaukee County First

As regular readers of Urban Wilderness know, I have consistently argued for preservation of the natural character of the County Grounds. I have also consistently affirmed the appropriateness of UWM as the developer of choice if the grounds must be developed, a position many environmentalists embraced a year ago when the county decided to sell the land. In contrast, the general public, as indicated by attendance and participation in public hearings held by the Wauwatosa Common Council, has never given up on the idea of preserving all of the land.

You wouldn’t know that by asking the Common Council. As an active participant myself, I have been discouraged by the total lack of acknowledgement of this by the Common Council. We have even been dismissed by some council members as pushing too hard for more conservation—we who are the ones willing to compromise.

If you live in Wauwatosa, write or call your alderman and find out what he/she has to say.

There is still time for a healthy compromise to be achieved. As I first reported a week ago (read previous post), a coalition of environmental and historic preservation groups has been formed that is devoted to maintaining a presence on the grounds and to ensuring that wildlife habitat is protected and the Eschweiler buildings renovated—as promised by all parties. It is clear that there is strong sentiment for reconsidering UWM’s plans altogether. Whatever comes to pass, it is in the mutual interests of the city, county, and public that these lands remain a beautiful place to visit and experience its unique scenery and wildlife habitat.

For more pictures of the county grounds, go to my county grounds flickr page.
For pictures of the historic but decaying Eschweiler buildings, go to my Eschweiler flickr page.
For more pictures of the construction of the flood detention basins, go to my website.

After rhetorical firestorm Wauwatosa adopts UWM plan despite questions

What was Alderman Donegan thinking? The rest of the Wauwatosa Common Council went very quiet; the audience went still as if holding their breaths. The one unmentionable topic was broached, and despite protestations to “drain emotion from the debate” this one brought out emotions aplenty: is preservation of the Eschweiler buildings worth the loss of potential parkland?

The reaction was predictable. In fact, Mr. Donovan even predicted it himself, saying that he’d be “getting a lot of letters” by taking this position. What he got, in very short order, was a firestorm of criticism from the council. Never mind that the preservation of those buildings, which are on the national registry of historic places, has always been a prerequisite for any development on the county grounds, end of argument. No, there had to be an exhaustive review of Wauwatosa’s stewardship of historic properties and reassertion of preservation as one of the city’s premier values.

In fact, this stunning turn in what should have been a conversation about the merits and scope of UWM’s plan followed an award ceremony. We had just witnessed the charm and effervescent delight on the faces of elementary school children for artwork they had done on the theme of historic Wauwatosa. The contest was sponsored by the Historical Society. If questioning the value of the Eschweiler buildings was some sort of strategy, it not only failed utterly but, in my opinion, it derailed an important debate.

Nearly an hour of rhetoric obscured the fact that Alderman Donovan had not suggested that the historic buildings be demolished. His much more measured and reasonable motion was simply to return the question of approval back to the committee on community development for further study. Unfortunately, his tactless comments about preservation made it possible for vocal aldermen who had already made up their minds to dismiss his other very pertinent questions. The foremost of these were: Will Wauwatosa give a green light to 200,000 sq. ft. of residential development before it knows how much the renovation of the Eschweiler buildings will cost? What if, after construction of the apartment units (intended to enable the developer to renovate the dilapidated structures) it is then determined that the cost is still too high?

More important to the many patient audience members, Alderman Donegan’s motion to remand the resolution back to the committee superseded one by Alderman Hanson to amend the resolution. Hanson’s motion would have limited the total square footage of development to the originally agreed 850,000, down from UWM’s request of almost 1.2 million sq. ft. Late in the evening, by the time the council returned to Mr. Hanson’s motion, which had the support of most of the environmental groups represented in the audience, no one was in the mood for further debate. This significant difference in development footprints was dismissed as “negligible.” (Never mind that, if all of the still speculative developments are completed and further need is demonstrated, UWM could come back to Wauwatosa with a new request to return to its 1.2 million.) The “no” vote on that amendment was quickly followed by approval of UWM’s preliminary plan for Innovation Park with two dissenting votes.

To view my recent photo shoot on the county grounds go to my flickr site.

For more information and analysis:
The Daily Reporter
The Political Environment
Milwaukee County First

Wauwatosa: proceed with caution on the milwaukee county grounds

An open letter to the Wauwatosa Common Council.

My positions on UWM’s plans for the county grounds closely match those of Barb Agnew, director of the Monarch Trail, and I will try not to repeat them. I have four main points to make: 1) constituencies, 2) compromise, 3) some details of the plan, 4) caution.

1. Who are the constituents here and what are their interests?

The committee on community development discussion last Tuesday night was dominated by concerns about the details of the UWM plan. UWM is clearly the dominant stakeholder. Representatives of the Monarch Trail, Riverkeeper, Sierra Club and other concerned groups, although not allowed to speak, were visibly present. Some of their concerns were acknowledged during the discussion. Although the audience included ordinary citizens, like myself, what was missing was even a passing reference to the overwhelming opposition that was expressed in last week’s public hearing to any sort of development. The point I made at that meeting still stands: no constituents stood up to support this plan. The environmental organizations are not taking the extremist position in this conversation; they—however reluctantly—see the need for compromise.

2. It’s time for a new compromise.

Ten years ago the Common Council compromised. The public then, as now, clearly wanted no development. The Kubala-Washatko plan that was approved by Wauwatosa allowed for some development. During the past year we have seen further compromise. UWM’s good plan takes many environmental concerns into account. However, the requested acreage increased from 66 to 89 and that was approved. Now you are being asked to allow a significant increase in overall square footage of development from 850,000 to nearly 1.2 million. This is too much. It’s time for the developers to compromise, not the public.

3. The devil is in the details.

Most of the plan, which includes habitat protections, bio-remediation of storm water, and sensitivity to the relationship between parklands and developments, among other things, is a good compromise. The committee discussed some specifics of the plan and added judicious restrictions. These were accepted by the UWM representatives at Tuesday’s meeting. I want to urge action by the Council on three major details.

 As Barb Agnew has said, it would be a mistake to raise the building heights in order to reduce the footprint of development. (See my previous blog for more on that.)

 Instead, the overall footprint of development should be reduced by limiting the square footage to the originally agreed 850,000. UWM needs only a small fraction of that for its campus. This is the compromise needed to give the public its due.

 The initial phase of development, as presented to the committee, makes it clear that complete development is not only years away but speculative. While it may make economic sense to install the utility infrastructures in anticipation of full development, the exit road to Swan Blvd., which would divide protected wildlife habitat areas, should not be constructed until a later phase makes it necessary.

4. Caution and vigilance will be needed.

By the end of a meeting that went very late some of the aldermen seemed a bit shell shocked at the magnitude and importance of the issues being discussed. (Read the blog I posted online previously for a more complete description of that meeting.) A very real dilemma was inadvertently created by the coincidence of such a large turnover in the middle of this process. I urge the common council to acknowledge the need to slow this process down and honor the instincts of those committee members who had valid questions. Please send this back to the committee before a final vote is taken.

As Alderman Jay pointed out so graphically, vigilance will be needed even after your well-intentioned specifications are put in place. This is not the moment to proceed without exceptional caution. I thank you all for your sincere efforts and your obvious concern for this vital and special place. We are about to change Wauwatosa indelibly. Let us do it right.

For a portfolio of photographs of this area that I shot during a two hour walk on Wednesday, April 29, go to my flickr site.

UWM Plan for County Grounds Passes after late night deliberations

Picture taken 4-28-10: Spring Fireworks on the County Grounds.

Tension mounted among committee members as the evening grew late. Serious questions were raised about the specifics of UWM’s plans for its Innovation Park developments on the Milwaukee County Grounds. Most came from newly elected aldermen Organ and Jay. How did UWM come up with the figure of 200,000 sq. ft. of residential development and was market research done to justify such a large amount? How would contractors be prevented from “inadvertently” damaging the root systems of trees universally acknowledged to be crucial to the health of Monarch butterfly habitats protected by the plan?

While the meeting remained calm, impatience and frustration simmered. Freshman aldermen, sworn into office just last week, make up a neat half of the 8-member Committee on Community Development. All four seemed troubled by the need to make what felt like momentous decisions without adequate preparation.

Nancy Welch, Director of Community Development, unwittingly provided a prelude to these late evening exchanges during her opening orientation of the new committee members. She explained that, for the sake of brevity, the information packet that each member receives to prepare for the meetings often contains condensed versions of complex proposals such as those for the County Grounds. Understandable. She wisely observed that fully understanding the complexity of the issues would require reading 30 to 50 pages. I agree and I believe the new members were put in a difficult position, having to make spur of the moment decisions in the absence of this important background.

It wasn’t their fault. It was an unfortunate coincidence that these deliberations, which are so important to so many in this city, spanned a period during which a large transition of aldermen occurred. The solution should have been to table the decision so that new members could read the 50 pages. The hesitation on the faces of the committee members was obvious to the many constituents who came to watch the proceedings, but who were prevented from speaking.

City Attorney Alan Kesner guided the committee to a compromise amendment that enabled them to pass UWM’s plan with stipulations. The main sticking point was the proposed 200,000 sq. ft. of residential development that would surround the historic Eschweiler Buildings. For some committee members this seemed like too much to concede without concrete justification. Understandable. The representatives of UWM and its consultant HGA Architects were very patient with the proceedings and cooperative whenever questions arose. The height restrictions, they said, had been self-imposed for “purely aesthetic” reasons out of concern for the Eschweiler complex and they were willing to consider other options. More troubling for the committee was the informal nature of the deliberations that resulted in the 200,000 sq. ft. figure. The compromise amendment establishes that figure as a maximum with the stipulation that actual, specific design proposals must attempt to reduce the square footage (not just the footprint) and provide market research to justify the economic need for the final figure. I personally think they should be more concerned about the overall footprint, which has grown with each “compromise.” Let’s hold development at 850,000 sq. ft. or less.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the amendment also included a well-meaning, but ill-advised lifting of height restrictions, which had been limited to below the Eschweiler buildings. Being able to build higher provides a developer with the flexibility to maintain square footage while reducing the size of the footprint. But any gains made by doing this to maintain scenic views of the historic buildings would be more than offset by two significant losses. Taller buildings create more violent wind patterns that would disrupt the butterflies’ ability to roost at the adjacent protected sites. Also the Eschweiler Buildings are far from the only scenic concerns. Well designed architecture can solve that problem in any case. What are far more valuable as scenery are the views of downtown Milwaukee visible from the hilltops and the wide expanse of the land itself, with its rolling prairie character. Tall buildings would destroy that character.

UWM has consistently expressed a willingness to comply with the wishes of the public on most issues and wisely chose self-imposed height restrictions that respect the low profile needed to maintain these assets. At last week’s public hearing the Common Council’s constituents turned out in force to express their desire to see this land preserved as open green space, while no constituents spoke in favor of development. The committee room was likewise packed, even though the public could not speak. The committee members’ instincts were good. Caution is required. Let’s proceed with due caution and consultation.

View of County Parks building from proposed Innovation Park

Two Meetings Tuesday to Discuss Fate of Milwaukee County Grounds

I'm passing this information on from Barb Agnew, leader of the Friends of the Monarch Trail. I hope to make both meetings and I hope you'll join me.
As she says, if you can't make the meetings, send a message. Links below.

The Pressure is on: we need to keep pushing to hold the ground we have gained and continue our vigilance. The County, City, and Real Estate Foundation are waiting for us to give up but determination will win out.

2 meetings this week will impact the County Grounds----both on Tuesday April 27th, 2010

• Parks Dept 5 pm-7- conservancy vs. soccer field---Sue Black will attend this hearing and I hope there will be many people to explain the incompatibility of wildlife, all natural, functioning habitat and soccer fields. If you cannot attend, send emails to her or me, I will bring them along as representing those who did not know about, or could not attend this meeting. Sue.black@milwcnty.com 
• Tosa City Hall-Committee on Community Development 8 pm. They will discuss and vote to hold or recommend the UWM proposal to the full Council (may 4th) We need to be here to support the 6 Preservation points and be sure the Alderpersons understand that they represent their constituents and the Hearing last Tuesday was a clear indication of public sentiment for the County Grounds! The Real Estate Foundation will be here in force to persuade the Committee.

If you cannot attend email: tclerk@wauwatosa.net  State that it is for distribution to all alderpersons and for the record.

We all wonder why the UWM folks did not participate at the Public Hearing but I do not want them to overpower this committee with rhetoric or unsubstantiated promises. Again, our presence at this meeting will go a long way toward a better outcome for the County Grounds.

And know that the “time-crunch” excuse is an empty threat being used to hurry the Wauwatosa Common Council. The County is not entertaining other development on the Grounds and will give any time extensions the UWM Foundation requires. This IS the most important project Tosa will be making decisions on—they need to take the time to fully understand this plan!!!

Milwaukee County Grounds: a proposal with no proponents

It was standing room only in the Common Council meeting room at Wauwatosa City Hall last night. On the agenda: a public hearing about whether or not to rezone two pieces of the Milwaukee County Grounds. Item one, if approved, would rezone 89-acres as a business district in order to permit UWM to move forward with its proposed Innovation Park and research campus. Item two would rezone 55 acres as a conservancy district for parkland.

Mayor Jill Didier explained that each item would be addressed as follows: Proponents speak first; then opponents, followed by general questions.
No one stood up to support the proposed rezoning of item one.

(A member of the Wauwatosa Preservation Society did stand up and speak in order to address the preservation of the Eschweiler Buildings, but she specifically qualified her remarks by saying she was not there to support the entire zoning proposal.)

Then a wide variety of citizens of all ages took turns at the microphone to oppose the rezoning and propose that the entire remaining land in the county grounds be zoned as conservancy. They spoke eloquently and passionately about the value of the land, the loss of green space in Wauwatosa, the importance of the Monarch and other wildlife habitats, and about their personal experiences on the county grounds. The mood in the room was overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining open green space and preserving wildlife.

When all the opponents were finished I rose to ask two rhetorical questions.

Why did no one come to support the proposal? It requires no leap of logic to conclude that the proponents were so confident of approval that they felt the Common Council needed no convincing.

If the land is rezoned, does that mean that the UWM proposal is also approved? That proposal, which was left alarmingly open ended, has generated continued controversy and debate. Nancy Welch, Director of Community Development, explained that the business district zoning would give Wauwatosa the most control over the development of the site. I urged the Common Council to assert its control by adopting specific and effective restrictions over what, where, and how much development occurs. The goal should be to keep within the spirit of the previously adopted Kubala-Washatko plan and the will of the community as expressed at this hearing.

Item two was more predictably one-sided. The entire audience stood in support of conservancy zoning for the parkland. Several spoke. Cheryl Nenn, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, urged that both parcels be zoned as conservancy. This elicited a rousing applause. Another speaker assured the Council that no one opposes UWM, only their choice of a location for their campus. A UWM faculty member reminded the Council that the Innovation Park proposal is highly controversial even within the UWM community.

No one spoke in opposition to this proposal.

“Call me a skeptic,” I said as I got up once more to ask a question. What kinds of development are allowed in a conservancy zone? There was a loud collective gasp as Ms. Welch explained that conservancy zoning allows for athletic facilities and educational or park-related structures. Mayor Didier quickly jumped in to assure the crowd that no stadiums were being proposed.
I requested that the obvious will of the people be enshrined in the greater protections provided by zoning the land as “no-build” in addition to conservancy. Further, the “no-build” restrictions should be added to those portions of the business district identified in the plan as wildlife habitat and green spaces, as well as the 17-acre DOT outlot set aside for freeway expansion.

Much was said about the value of this land and the Monarch habitat. It is not hyperbole to suggest that this is the most valuable land in Milwaukee County (someone added “in Wisconsin.”) It is also not hyperbole to underscore the irreplaceable importance of the Monarch habitat and the value it brings to our community. As I’ve said on the record many times: Let’s keep this treasure for future generations to enjoy.

For more on this hearing, go to WauwatosaNOW.