Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

Interesting scheduling

Interesting scheduling situation for a meeting on Shoppes at Wyndham Village's Target store. A morning meeting on the Friday of Labor Day weekend? "May take action"?

It may simply be a meeting between Target and the two plan commissioners designated to deal with the store's design, with followup at a meeting of the full Plan Commission next week.

As explained on Franklinnow.com:

At 11 a.m. Friday, a sub-committee of the Franklin Plan Commission will meet and may take action on the architectural plan and elevations for the proposed Target store at the Shoppes at Wyndham Village.

The site for the Shoppes, a commercial development proposed by Franklin developer Mark Carstensen, is located near Drexel Avenue and Highway 100. Target would be the primary anchor of the development.

Last week the full Plan Commission voted to allow construction of Target and other stores to begin, but asked Target officials to revise the architectural plan.

Friday's meeting will take place at the lower level of Franklin City Hall, 9229 W. Loomis Road.

"You can walk to get some coffee or walk to the river or walk to a restaurant. You don't always need your car anymore."

A rather unexpected boon for small- and medium-sized downtowns previously depleted by suburban migration.

From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

New projects helping attract seniors to walkable downtown

By BRANDON LORENZ
Special to the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Aug. 25, 2007

Grafton - Jim and Julie Bednarczyk like condo living.

So when they were looking to escape the traffic congestion around their Mequon condo, the retired couple were among the first to move to Grafton Square, a condo project aimed at residents 55 and older on Grafton's south side.

The location seemed ideal. A five-minute walk away is a Sendik's grocery store. Ample sidewalks make it easy and safe for Julie Bednarczyk to walk Oscar, her 14-year-old dog.

"It was really hard in our old neighborhood. I had to watch the traffic closely," says Julie Bednarczyk.

Finished in 2004, Grafton Square was one of the last condo projects to be approved before trustees decided to restrict condominium projects to the village's downtown, concerned that too many of them would dilute Grafton's single-family character.

By limiting multi-family housing to downtown, village officials hoped to create a mix of commercial and residential uses that would enable residents to frequent nearby local businesses, an uncommon but sophisticated approach for a village of about 12,000 people.

"We've tried to be smart by locating condos in areas that we feel fit our redevelopment goals," says Darrell Hofland, village administrator.

"There has been demand for condos by the interstate, but we would only be competing against ourselves," Hofland said. "Resisting that demand has increased interest in the downtown."

The Bednarczyks moved from Mequon, one of the few couples in their building to move from outside the village.

Fueled by demand from older residents who want to maintain social connections with friends and church groups but who no longer want to own single-family homes, two recent projects have added dozens of units to Grafton's downtown.

The projects - Heritage Condominiums and Berkshire Senior Housing - have added more than $10 million to the village's tax base.

Developer Peter Sheperd said he initially expected that his new downtown project, the BridgeWater Condominiums, would cater to older residents.

When constructing the model, Sheperd decided to put an elevator in the three-story unit to entice seniors.

Situated on the Milwaukee River, the three-bedroom units range from 2,500 to 3,100 square feet.

Decks overlook the river and amenities include cathedral ceilings, granite and marble counters, security systems, surround sound and fireplaces.

But Sheperd says the units, which start at $449,000, are attracting younger buyers who want to be within walking distance of downtown restaurants and coffee shops.

Four of the nine units in the project have sold.

"What this really is, is a rural-urban downtown. You can walk to get some coffee or walk to the river or walk to a restaurant. You don't always need your car anymore," Sheperd says.

The downtown condominium projects have spurred village officials to allow multi-family housing units on the site of the Manchester Mall, not far from the Bednarczyks' condo on the village's south side.

If successful, the plan could revitalize the site, which has lost two national retailers.

Bednarczyk would welcome the change.

"We're city kids from Milwaukee. We want conveniences," Bednarczyk says. "I don't want acres and acres."

What have wetlands ever done for me?

A portion of the Lulu Lake Preserve, a property in Waukesha and Walworth counties owned by The Nature Conservancy. Photo by GERALD EMMERICH JR. -- for the Wisconsin Wetlands Association

A word sure to cause groans and sighs at any plan commission meeting: WETLANDS. Franklin is dotted with them, and developers (most recently Mark Carstensen and his Shoppes at Wyndham Village) are given fits over how to mitigate and preserve what looks like nothing more than soggy land.

Here's a bit of a "what do wetlands do for you" primer from Madison's Wisconsin State Journal:

Wetlands are nature's  own hazard insurance

By Laura England
August 24, 2007

As these unusual rains continue, flood warnings, flood advisories, and flash flood watches are seizing headlines around much of the state, underscoring the critical need for flood storage capacity throughout our communities and our watersheds.

Wetlands are a key component of future flood prevention planning that should start now.

Two weeks ago, the parched earth in Wisconsin was practically begging for rain. Yet after being saturated by heavy rains last weekend, our soil has been rejecting the millions and millions of new drops that have been falling all week, turning them instantly into overland runoff. And while Wisconsinites love water, we likely all agree that too much of it in the wrong place brings intolerable economic losses and health and safety concerns.

But flood damages are often forgotten once "normal " weather returns.

Recall the intense flooding that parts of Wisconsin endured in the spring of 2004. These floods brought enormous economic damages.

According to the Wisconsin Emergency Management agency, public and private property owners incurred more than $87 million dollars in damages from natural disasters in 2004, much of which stemmed from flooding in May and June. Parties affected included businesses, farmers, municipalities, and more than 5,000 individual homeowners in 44 counties.

What can we do now to prevent future flooding?

We must protect and restore wetlands, nature 's hazard insurance. Often likened to sponges, wetlands soak up and retain runoff when it rains, slowly releasing it to groundwater or adjacent streams, rivers and lakes.

Wetlands are a crucial and necessary component of any plan to prevent future flooding and associated economic damages and health and safety concerns. And wetlands are especially needed in and around urban and suburban areas where pavement and other impervious surfaces intensify flooding problems.

Impervious surfaces turn rain into runoff that reaches lakes and rivers much faster than it would through the ground.

Wisconsin landscapes today have only half of the state 's pre-settlement wetland acreage. Nearly 5 million acres of wetlands -- once considered wastelands -- were drained or filled and converted to higher economic uses.

Now that science has documented the economically valuable services that wetlands provide, and the costs associated with wetland loss, we must protect remaining wetlands and restore historical losses.

The state has actually articulated this need through the Department of Natural Resources ' strategy on wetlands, Reversing the Loss, yet wetland fill continues and funding constraints have resulted in missed opportunities for restoration.

Wisconsin needs our marshes, bogs, swamps, and fens now more than ever to prevent future flooding and associated economic damages.

There are several other valuable wetland functions that make wetland protection compelling.

Wetlands ensure the health of our lakes, rivers and drinking water by filtering pollution and recharging groundwater supplies. And wetlands contribute significantly to our state 's $12 billion a year tourism industry by supporting hunting and fishing opportunities and providing beautiful, magical destinations for bird-watchers, paddlers and other outdoor enthusiasts.

It is worth noting that this summer 's prolonged dry period followed by the current intense rainy period matches precisely the trends for Wisconsin 's weather that have been predicted by climate change models.

As climate change continues and Wisconsin 's climate becomes more erratic, protecting remaining wetlands and their flood storage functions will become even more critical.

We cannot afford to lose more wetlands, or miss opportunities for wetland restoration, in this state. We urge Wisconsinites to convert concern about the current state of emergency into action for wetlands.

It is up to everyone -- from private landowners to local planners and state officials -- to ensure that our future landscapes include wetlands to provide nature 's hazard insurance.

England is outreach programs director for the Madison-based Wisconsin Wetlands Association, www.wisconsinwetlands.org. Her e-mail address is [email protected].

 

Dangerous Sprawl: Cautionary tale from USA TODAY

Six out of 10 homeowners in Wicomico County, Md. do not have hydrants within the recommended 1,000 feet?

On the plus side, their property taxes are probably lower as a result ...

From USA TODAY.

Excerpt:

"Municipalities and county governments are finding with this far-flung development it costs a lot to extend the basic infrastructure," says Anthony Flint, public affairs director of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

In Wicomico County, it costs about $15,000 per house to run water and sewer service into a new development, Salisbury, Md., City Manager John Pick says.

Sprawl exceeds reach of hydrants

By Joseph Gidjunis, USA TODAY

SALISBURY, Md. — When Robert and Tammy Weber bought their dream home in 2004, they didn't give a thought to the fact that the nearest fire hydrant was more than a mile away.

"Having the entire house burn down is one of those things you don't ever think is going to happen to you," Robert Weber says.

On July 17, that's exactly what happened. Three tankers of water couldn't put the fire out in their late 1990s subdivision house.

Six out of 10 homeowners in Wicomico County, Md., a growing area between the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, do not have hydrants within the recommended 1,000 feet, says Jack Lenox, county planning and zoning director.

Nearly a fourth of U.S. families face the same protection inadequacies as the Webers because they live in extended suburban or rural locations with no hydrants, says Lori Moore-Merrell, an operations analyst with the International Association of Fire Fighters. The lack of fire hydrants is a growing problem as more homes are built outside urban and suburban infrastructure, she says.

States create their own standards, and localities may or may not enact stricter rules, says Chris Jelenewicz, an engineer with the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.

"Municipalities and county governments are finding with this far-flung development it costs a lot to extend the basic infrastructure," says Anthony Flint, public affairs director of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

In Wicomico County, it costs about $15,000 per house to run water and sewer service into a new development, Salisbury, Md., City Manager John Pick says.

Hydrants, which are recommended every 1,000 feet, cost about $1,200 apiece, according to Jim Smalley of the National Fire Protection Association.

Proximity to hydrants and fire stations has always been important to homeowners because it influences insurance rates.

In Lexington, Ky., for example, the owner of a $100,000 home in the city limits pays about $400 a year, but the rate is $1,200-$1,500 a year on the outskirts of the county, says Donna Pile, president of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents.

Gidjunis reports for The Daily Times in Salisbury, Md.

Paul Soglin: "Your Wisconsin Tax Hell: Manufactured by WMC"

From Franklinnow.com, "Franklin School District residents last night overwhelmingly approved a 5.6 percent tax levy increase in the 2007-08 school budget."

Condition: Sprawled, unchecked residential development. Consequence: Overburdened school district.

But, guess what? That's not the main reason for high property taxes here in Franklin; see my post "Property taxes: 'Why am I paying so much?' Part 2."

Paul Soglin's take on the subject, and a link to a terrific informational resource, via his  Waxing America blog:

You have to give Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) credit. They can shake your hand and pick your pocket at the same time. I have more respect for the saw mill operator who torched the town so he could sell more lumber. At least he rebuilt what he destroyed.

Your check book is in safer hands with a Nigerian spammer asking for your signature so he can share his trusted oil millions with you rather than a WMC spokesman offering you tax reform.

I remember when WMC's Jim Buchen said, "Wisconsin needs a property tax freeze, and this plan will give taxpayers needed relief.” (False)

The there were the repeated messages that, "Wisconsin has the fifth highest state and local taxes in the U.S., reports the non-partisan Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C." (False)

For the past thirty years, significant changes in Wisconsin tax law not only reduced taxes on Wisconsin businesses, but they shifted them to the ordinary homeowner. Take a look at Exposing the Wisconsin "Tax Hell" Hoax written and prepared by Jack Norman of the Institute for Wisconsin's Future.

Here are the facts, from Jack:

• As property taxes on manufacturers and agricultural lands dropped, home owners picked up the burden. When the business property next door had its taxes lowered a few thousand dollars, the difference was picked up by the residential property owners.
• As the Republicans led the charge to lower corporate income taxes, personal income taxes had to pick up the burden. That is why Forward Wisconsin boasts:  "Wisconsin ranks fourth lowest in the nation in business taxes as a percent of all state and local taxes."
• All of this shifting means that while home owners used to pay 50% of all property taxes in Wisconsin, they now pay 70%.

There is more to note about the Wisconsin tax climate, but for now, one thing is clear. WMC is looking out for themselves and no one else. When the legislature is in session nothing is safe as WMC loots and pillages.  They plunder too.

You have to give Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) credit. They can shake your hand and pick your pocket at the same time. I have more respect for the saw mill operator who torched the town so he could sell more lumber. At least he rebuilt what he destroyed.

Your check book is in safer hands with a Nigerian spammer asking for your signature so he can share his trusted oil millions with you rather than a WMC spokesman offering you tax reform.

I remember when WMC's Jim Buchen said, "Wisconsin needs a property tax freeze, and this plan will give taxpayers needed relief.” (False)

The there were the repeated messages that, "Wisconsin has the fifth highest state and local taxes in the U.S., reports the non-partisan Tax Foundation in Washington, D.C." (False)

For the past thirty years, significant changes in Wisconsin tax law not only reduced taxes on Wisconsin businesses, but they shifted them to the ordinary homeowner. Take a look at Exposing the Wisconsin "Tax Hell" Hoax written and prepared by Jack Norman of the Institute for Wisconsin's Future.

Here are the facts, from Jack:

• As property taxes on manufacturers and agricultural lands dropped, home owners picked up the burden. When the business property next door had its taxes lowered a few thousand dollars, the difference was picked up by the residential property owners.
• As the Republicans led the charge to lower corporate income taxes, personal income taxes had to pick up the burden. That is why Forward Wisconsin boasts:  "Wisconsin ranks fourth lowest in the nation in business taxes as a percent of all state and local taxes."
• All of this shifting means that while home owners used to pay 50% of all property taxes in Wisconsin, they now pay 70%.

There is more to note about the Wisconsin tax climate, but for now, one thing is clear. WMC is looking out for themselves and no one else. When the legislature is in session nothing is safe as WMC loots and pillages.  They plunder too.

Wal-Mart: "A company that has changed stores as casually as you and I change shoes."

According to Sprawlbusters, there are at any given point in time between 300 and 350 dead Wal-Mart discount stores littering the landscape. And they are in NO hurry to repurpose those ugly eyesores - - colossal structures often built  with city and state tax money in the form of "grants," deferments, and TIFs.

From the PBS special STORE WARS: WHEN WAL-MART COMES TO TOWN -

Empty Boxes

Wal-Mart stores are often the size of four or five football fields - huge in scale compared to many of the small communities that they neighbor. Criticized for deserting stores that under-perform, Wal-Mart has left behind more than 25 million square feet of unoccupied space across the country (May, 2000). The company claims it tries to sell these properties, but the only potential buyers are other big retailers, and Wal-Mart will not sell real estate to its competitors. In one Kentucky town, an empty Wal-Mart was torn down at the taxpayers' expense.

"They place their stores so close together that they become their own competition. Once everybody else is wiped out, then they're free to thin out their stores. Wal-Mart has 390 empty stores on the market today. This is a company that has changed stores as casually as you and I change shoes."

- Al Norman, Sprawl-Busters

Is it any wonder Saukville, Wisconsin needs to hold the retail giant's feet to the fire?

Amendment may affect plans for Wal-Mart

Saukville - If a Wal-Mart Supercenter is built in Saukville, the village might want assurances that Wal-Mart will find a way to reuse its existing store at 825 E. Green Bay Ave.

The Plan Commission will consider tonight whether to recommend amending a village ordinance governing buildings larger than 50,000 square feet. The amendment says that if a new building, such as a Supercenter, causes a current business to relocate within the village, the proposal "shall include a reuse plan for the structure being vacated as well as the proposed new building."

The amendment also would require the developer or the new building owner to pay for marketing the reuse plans.

Wal-Mart last week submitted initial site plans for a Supercenter on the east side of I-43 less than a mile north of Highway 33, said Brian Biernat, the community development director.

From The News & Observer of North Carolina:

Old Wal-Marts linger empty
Closings leave towns with 'a giant hole'

Eric Bishop, Staff Writer

HILLSBOROUGH - The massive building sits abandoned behind hundreds of empty parking spaces at the Hillsborough Commons shopping center.

Once bustling with shoppers, the former Wal-Mart just off South Churton Street has been quiet since the retail giant replaced it in 2003 with a Wal-Mart Supercenter three times its size a few miles up Interstate 85.

"The day they left, it was like a tomb over there," said Mark Bateman, who owned a video store a few doors down and saw his and other merchants' sales suffer without Wal-Mart pulling shoppers in.

Empty Wal-Mart buildings plague communities across the nation. At any given time, about 350 former Wal-Marts lie vacant in America, according to Al Norman of Sprawl-Busters, an organization that opposes big-box stores. At least nine empty former Wal-Mart spaces -- the equivalent of 12 football fields in size -- occupied North Carolina as of February, Norman said.

In Knightdale, plans are under way to close a Wal-Mart and build a supercenter a mile away. The retailer, however, hasn't found a new occupant for the existing building, which it owns. Wal-Mart is planning to market the space, said spokesman Kevin Thornton.

Supercenters -- which include full-service groceries and are about twice the size of Wal-Mart's discount stores -- help meet customers' one-stop shopping needs, Thornton said from the company's Arkansas headquarters.

They also make Wal-Mart more money, said James F. Smith, professor of finance at UNC-Chapel Hill.

"It's way more profitable, a way more efficient use of space," he said.

As of July, Wal-Mart had 81 supercenters in North Carolina, and only 34 discount stores.

The retailer's shift to massive supercenters, though, means more empty Wal-Marts in towns such as Hillsborough.

"It's just a giant hole in the community that can last for years," said Julia Christensen, a former university lecturer now writing a book on how communities reuse empty big box stores.

Christensen said the buildings' sheer size -- ranging from 60,000 to 200,000 square feet -- makes them tough to fill, especially when Wal-Mart or another big-box retailer restricts how its former sites can be used to avoid competition.

Despite the challenges, the infrastructure and locations of many empty big-box stores can be attractive for prospective businesses, Christensen said. Many of them are reused, living on as flea markets, churches or even schools.

Part of the Wal-Mart building in Hillsborough was converted in 2004 into a 10,000-square-foot Dollar Tree. Most of the space, though, remains vacant.

Hillsborough officials say they'd like to see their old Wal-Mart building become an entertainment spot.

"It'd be a perfect place for a bowling alley or a skating rink," said Margaret Wood Cannell, executive director of the Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce. "But so far, nothing."

The future of the empty space remains a mystery for its neighbors.

"I don't know what the holdup is," said Eric Rodgers, 46, an optometrist with an office at Hillsborough Commons. "I think it's too good a spot in the middle of a town that's growing to stay empty."

Several businesses have expressed interest, community leaders said, but none has been able to work out a deal with the companies that have managed the property, The Shopping Center Group and before that Florida-based Tricor International.

Former Hillsborough Mayor Joe Phelps said Tricor CEO Marc Hagle told him in 2004 that he wanted to market the property to national companies. Hagle -- who is also CEO of the property owner, Hillsborough Commons L.P. -- did not return multiple phone calls.

"It's very hard to get ahold of the rental company," Cannell said. "It does not appear that re-leasing the old Wal-Mart space is a priority for The Shopping Center Group."

Representatives from The Shopping Center Group said they respond to all inquiries but haven't found the right tenant.

That tenant can't be a department store or wholesale store, according to restrictions Wal-Mart imposed when it bought out its lease, which ran until 2009, said Thornton.

And with redevelopment in the works for nearby Daniel Boone Village and the soon-to-come Waterstone project between I-85 and I-40, prospective tenants may soon have some new, more exciting options.

Meanwhile, the Hillsborough Commons shopping center remains adrift. "Wal-Mart was the anchor," said Robin Taylor-Hall, president of the Hillsborough Area Chamber of Commerce. "When the anchor closes, it affects all the other stores."

Bateman sold his video store soon after Wal-Mart closed.

The new owner closed for good in May, and two more stores have closed. Just eight of the 15 retail spaces are occupied.

Losing Wal-Mart, Bateman said, left "just a dead feeling in that shopping center."

"Scamming the system" - More about corporate tax abuse

You saw a discussion on the need for Combined Reporting here on the 22nd ("Property Taxes: 'Why am I paying so much?' Part 2"). Now see it in the "mainstream."

What Wal-Mart doesn't pay, you do.

From Sunday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Wal-Mart owes back taxes, state says

Paying rent to itself cuts millions off retailer's tax bill

By STEVEN WALTERS and AVRUM D. LANK
[email protected]

Posted: Aug. 25, 2007

Madison - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has avoided millions of dollars in state taxes by paying rent on 87 Wisconsin properties in a way that the state Department of Revenue calls an "abuse and distortion of income."

As a result, state tax auditors say, Wal-Mart owes more than $17.7 million in back corporate income taxes, interest and penalties for 1998, 1999 and 2000. More could be due for later years.

Revenue Department lawyer Mark Zimmer argues that the world's largest retailer is not paying its fair share of taxes that support public schools, local police and fire departments and the highways it uses to transport what it sells in Wisconsin.

As a result, Wal-Mart shifts the burden of paying for those services "to individuals and small businesses who are unable to set up such elaborate mechanisms," Zimmer told the Tax Appeals Commission, which is considering the matter.

The charges are unusually aggressive for the state's tax-collection agency, and the case is being closely watched by tax professionals. Legislators, too, have become involved; some want to change state law to end the technique Wal-Mart is using.

Wal-Mart says it has not done anything wrong but is merely taking advantage of an overlap of state and federal tax laws: To reduce its taxes and costs, it sets up one subsidiary to run its stores and another subsidiary to own its real estate. The operating subsidiary pays rent to the real estate subsidiary and takes a tax deduction for the rent, even though that money eventually ends up in the corporation's own pocket.

Shoppes at Wyndham Village: Promises, promises

One of the stranger issues on the Plan Commission agenda this past Thursday:

To allow the construction and use of a Single-Family residential dwelling at approximately 7700 to 7800 South Lovers Lane Road within the CC City Civic Center District.

Build a single-family dwelling behind the Target/Sendik's loading dock, with a driveway and unoccupied frontage that removes the possibility of commercial/apartment developments immediately south of Shoppes? Completely inappropriate, of course; a no-brainer. An easy "no" vote for the Commission as they firm up the nascent Franklin City Civic Center District and nurture the conditions necessary to generate commercial growth, ongoing success, and wider tax base.

But wait ...

As noted on Bryan Maersch's Franklinnow.com blog, the proposed new home, sited back on the property behind trees and a pond, replaces a farmhouse on land that has been in the Rausch family since the late 1800's. The Rausches - - who spoke in support of the Shoppes development at one of the first meetings regarding the project - - were suddenly very, very concerned that they might have to vacate the property.

Still a no-brainer?

The Rausch situation is a very, very difficult one. Of course, my first inclination is to support a family with multi-generational ties to a piece of land.

But here is the larger issue: Once again Franklin wanted to "have its cake and eat it, too." They never should have allowed rezoning for an area where they were aware of a family that felt strongly about moving. They should have required Mark Carstensen and Target to satisfy the Rausch family in some manner prior to granting the zone change (which would rightly and greatly enrich the Rausch family). That work was not done, leaving a completely inappropriate situation for the Plan Commission to face. Plain and simple: MEC Holdings (Carstensen) made a series of promises to the Rausch family that they had no authority to make.

The Rausch family was left believing it would be the City of Franklin taking their property - - not MEC Holdings and Target, the actual benefactors of their precarious situation.

From a stone-cold logical viewpoint, the Rausch's land - - again, once sold to Target and/or MEC Holdings (Carstensen) at a price that would greatly and fairly enrich the Rausches - - would be best used for either:

A) Multi-story, multi-family housing and/or apartments as part of the City Civic City multi-use mandate. Franklin needs good affordable housing, and having multiple living units close to (and part of) a commercial area has been shown to greatly increase security and safety (the "eyes on the street" effect). It would/should have been a great amenity for the city.

Or,

B) Multi-story office space with or without apartments to augment the commercial zone.

But, as I discussed with blogger Bryan Maersch, who knows the family, I certainly would not want to be the one to explain to someone "despite all the promises made to you by a developer, now that the die is cast you have to leave your family's land." I empathize with them and share their relief at not having the rug pulled out from beneath them.

The city was manipulated into a corner where the right decision would appear heartless. That's what poor planning looks like. I know Plan Commissioner Kevin Haley had all the sympathy in the world for the Rausch family, but he had to vote with his brain rather than his heart; his was the sole "no" vote.

My sympathies are with the family to the extent that I sincerely doubt I would have had the courage to vote the way Commissioner Haley did - - and he voted correctly. The truth is, empathy aside, there should not be a single family dwelling in the area designated as Franklin's City Civic Center. In a logical world, the rezoning Mark Carstensen requested would have been ABSOLUTELY conditional on the Rausches selling their property, but that slipped by and created the very, very inappropriate situation that the city had to wrestle with Thursday night, and has to live with for the foreseeable future.

Because somebody made the Rausches a promise that they were in no position to keep ...

"My part of the development, which is the Sendik's and all the outlying buildings..."

Last night's Plan Commission Meeting was quite long and deserves a detailed recap. Until I can put together an analysis of the evening, I can say that the big news of the evening for me was when developer Mark Carstensen suddenly began referring to "my part of the development" and "their part of the development" when talking about Target's store. 

"Target is actually owning their own store here," said developer Mark Carstensen.

The situation I predicted here has come to pass - - preemptively!

City engineer John Bennett later assured the assembled, "This is no surprise. This is still a unified site plan."

I heartily disagree on both points. It was surely a surprise to the persons in city administration who described to me in past months what they felt was a lease situation with Target.

Secondly, the fact that Target owns the building and land in front of their store means that the awful site plan - - which is now approved - - has as much to do with the fact that Carstensen had to design around Target as it does with lack of imagination.

This is anything but a unified site design. This is a Target strip mall with smaller "barnacle" businesses held out at arm's length across a moat of unimpeded asphalt. Zero interaction. Zero significant, welcoming public space. Zero character.

Why come to this particular location rather than half a dozen others within a 15 minute drive?

The talk of a "nicer looking Target" is all fine, but here's a basic truth: site design trumps architecture.

Another alarming revelation: Target will have a Starbucks in its store. Isn't there supposed to be a Starbucks (or, better yet, local independent) coffee shop occupying an "outlying building"? Evidently, that coffee shop's main role will be that of a drive-thru. Very sad, and another indication that Target is living on an island of its own.

I'd assumed Target might not sell basic groceries at this location in deference to the next-door Sendik's, but in light of the in-store Starbucks I'm certain they'll stock a lot of the food Sendik's offers - - to the detriment of the grocer.   

Looking and acting more and more like a strip mall. More later ...

Plan Commission to discuss Shoppes at Wyndham Village tonight

Franklin Plan Commission meets at 7pm at City Hall the Franklin Law Enforcement Complex.

As blogger Greg Kowalski notes, significant public meetings regarding Mark Carstensen's troubled Shoppes at Wyndham Village development have consistently fallen on "conveniently inconvenient" occasions:

• Halloween (recap here)
• Memorial Day week (recap here and here)
• Packer evening game (tonight)

Also, the meeting agenda did not appear on the City of Franklin website until yesterday afternoon.

An interesting thing to watch for if you attend the meeting:

Recent action by the Franklin Common Council created a new rule: only a "registered spokesperson" is  allowed to speak on behalf of an association of homeowners.

The President of the Wyndham Ridge Homeowners Association (the Carstensen-built subdivision across the street from the Shoppes development) is Jaime Maliszewski. Here are some mitigating factors Mr. Maliszewski must contend with as he deals with Mr. Carstensen regarding the Shoppes development:

• As is common in new subdivisions, Jaime Maliszewski was put into his position by the developer, Mark Carstensen.
• Jaime Maliszewski and Mark Carstensen share an attorney named Don Gallo. They have no overlapping business, Mr. Maliszewski assures me.
• Mr. Maliszewski's father has a business relationship with the same Balistreri that is building the Sendiks at the Wyndham location;  they are both part owners of the Brookfield Towne Center. He has no relationship with Sendik's Corporation specifically, however.
• Mr. Maliszewski has a checklist of warranty work pending on his house; his builder/contractor is Mark Carstensen.

I don't mean to imply any "conspiracy" on Mr. Maliszewski's part; rather, it is informative to know what possible constraints he must observe as he speaks on behalf of his subdivision.