Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews economic, transportation and housing chapters of comprehensive plan; housing assessment shows need for 1,300–2,000 new households by 2035
Summary
MSA Professional Services presented the comprehensive plan’s second‑set chapters and a housing assessment showing a need for roughly 1,300–2,000 additional households by 2035; commissioners directed staff to remove explicit encouragement of multifamily and to reword a passage supporting regional transit.
MSA Professional Services lead planner Brian Wheatonfield presented the Planning Commission with the second set of chapters for the Village’s comprehensive plan update on April 8, including economic development, transportation, intergovernmental cooperation and housing, plus a 14‑page housing assessment appended to the draft plan.
Wheatonfield said the updated chapters carried forward goals from the 2015 plan while adding strategies reflecting recent outreach: maintain and diversify the local economy, use tax increment financing where appropriate to spur redevelopment, expand bike/ped connections as a recreational and tourist draw and routinely evaluate downtown parking needs. He described the housing assessment as a market‑focused appendix that supplements the plan’s housing chapter.
Housing assessment findings: the appendix includes two growth scenarios. Using Wisconsin Department of Administration household projections adjusted for the 2020 census, the report modeled a moderate scenario that yields roughly 1,300 additional households by 2035. A higher‑growth scenario that projects continuation of recent elevated building rates yields roughly 2,000 net new households by 2035. The assessment notes Menomonee Falls currently has a high share of larger multi‑unit buildings compared with the county; it recommends monitoring unit‑type mix and matching future approvals to the village’s desired ownership/rental balance.
Commission debate and edits: commissioners raised several edits and policy preferences on the record. Commissioner Paul Curtis and others urged striking language that explicitly “encourages multifamily” and removing a sentence promoting “medium and high density” in mixed‑use settings; the commission asked staff to remove those phrases from the draft housing chapter. Commissioners also objected to an unfettered statement in the transportation chapter to “support regional public transit connections” and directed staff to remove or reword it after discussion about costs and past low ridership on county/regional routes. The commission asked planners to preserve an objective that the village aims to maintain a stronger single‑family to multi‑unit balance in the long term (commissioners referenced a longstanding target at the board level of about 75% single‑family to 25% multi‑unit).
Outdoor recreation plan: staff also presented a final draft five‑year Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (CORP) adopted by the Village Board March 17; that plan is required for state stewardship grant applications. The commission heard that the village will apply for DNR stewardship funds for trail connections and that the CORP focuses on realistic short‑term trail and park improvements.
Next steps and timeline: Wheatonfield said the land‑use chapter and future land‑use map will be presented at the July meeting; the final comprehensive plan will follow in the fall. Commissioners asked staff and the consultant for additional proofreading and to carry the commission’s housing and transit edits into the July land‑use draft.
