City of Milwaukee - File #: 260030

• File #: 260030
• Version: 0
• Type: Plan Commission Resolution
• Status: In Committee
• File created: 5/6/2026
• In control: CITY PLAN COMMISSION
• Title: Resolution approving changes to the site and existing building previously occupied by Walmart located at 5825 West Hope Avenue, on the east side of North 60th Street, north of West Capitol Drive, relative to the Midtown Center Development Incentive Zone (DIZ) overlay established by Section 295-91.0044 of the former Milwaukee Code, in the 2nd Aldermanic District.
• Sponsors: THE CHAIR

Date	Ver.	Action By	Action	Result	Tally
6/29/2026	0	CITY PLAN COMMISSION	Minutes note: Items 6 and 7 were considered together. Appearing: Lafayette, DCD Commissioner Trent Overhue, AFS (applicant) Commissioner Crump presented on the status of the entire site, noting vacancy challenges and the prior objection to an indoor self-storage proposal, and described the current request for two additional uses at the rear of the former Walnut building — an indoor self-storage facility and a data processing, computer services, and computational research facility. He emphasized the proposal was not for an AI or enormous data center, would not require thousands of gallons of water or significant power, would occupy a much smaller footprint of approximately 100 feet by 200 feet, and would not commence until the housing and civic development components commenced first. Ms. Fonseca recognized staff for their work and presented details as contained in the full CPC Staff Report. She explained the subject files relate to land on the south side of 5825 W. Hope Ave. and entail a deviation from the DIZ Overlay use list. The owner, AFS Milwaukee, LLC, intends to repurpose the vacant building by reserving approximately 51,000 square feet in the north front portion for community-serving uses, including a potential library branch as allowed by the DIZ Overlay, while allowing a self-service storage facility and data processing facility in the approximately 108,000 square foot south rear portion. The two rear uses require deviations, but the proposed building and site modifications comply with DIZ design requirements. Staff recommended conditional approval for the deviation, file 260029, and approval for site and building modifications, file 260030, as detailed in the CPC Staff Report. Mr. Overhue then presented, stating the new uses would positively impact the community despite limited job creation, noting difficulty finding retail tenants, describing 24/7 staffing, characterizing the data facility as for biomedical purposes, and addressing community concerns and misconceptions regarding water usage and noise . There was inquiry and discussion on the applicant's ownership experience and the operator of the data research facility. Ald. Mark Chambers, Jr. of the 2nd Aldermanic District appeared and commented that the two proposed uses were a compromise needed to help supplement the other developments at the site. Further inquiry and discussion followed on the sale of the indoor storage portion, the status of the housing and City library conveyances, and community engagement. Public testimony in opposition: Quarel McWin, Jasmine Davis, Daniel Venezuela Rivera, Steve O'Connell, Nathan Cole, Samantha Docus, Joshua Taylor, Blue Pelikan, Warren Estro, Ald. Peter Burgelis, Erin Trad, Stacy Spiter, Ryan Dean, Regan Fligama, Benjamin Dufren, Dejean Johnson, Mable Lamb, Fionna McKenna, Aria Chen, Sarah Buzinski, Lannon Zimmerman, Khani Solochek, Rachel Stiles, Danell Cross, Melody McCurtis, David Ashley, Isadora Pershik, Julia Albert, Shanarda Wilbourn, Kiante Shields, Hayden Trouble Hardwood, Amy Donahue, Dr. Deborah Pasha, Marty Wall, Dr. Cassandra Bowers, Dr. M. Tyler, Jamile Mitchell, Shaleah Wilson, and Jenica Deway. Public testimony in support: Jeremy Moore, Gloria Gonzalez, Tina Ojeda, Shayna Howard, Janice West, and Babett Jeanes. Those who provided testimony included immediate residents, neighboring residents, nonresidents, PSL Milwaukee, Milwaukee DSA, Sherman Park and Metcalf Park groups. Opposition testimony included concerns over environmental and infrastructure impacts. Multiple speakers said the applicant had not provided concrete operational data on water use, noise, or power draw, and described the proposal as a mistrusted "AI center" that would worsen pollution. Several residents who live near Capitol Drive tied it to existing problems — chronic flooding at Midtown that drains into surrounding neighborhoods, and dangerous traffic conditions — arguing the project would compound both. Speakers referenced another Wisconsin data center as a cautionary example, testifying that noise barriers are only effective within a short distance and that excess noise travels upward into homes. Others warned the facility's power draw could be many times that of a residence, destabilizing the local grid, and raised concerns about utility strain, increased heat, blackouts, and higher community energy bills. Water was described by several testifiers as sacred, with concerns about water loss and consumption, and one speaker explicitly invoked a prior large tech project failure in the state as a reason for caution. Another concern was process and transparency. A large bloc of speakers called the plan a bait-and-switch that holds the promised housing and library hostage to force approval of self-storage and a data center, noting the difficulty the developer reported in finding retail tenants. Testimony pointed to inconsistent messaging — with defense-related uses mentioned at an open house and biomedical uses emphasized later — and to a secretive operator shielded by NDAs, with residents saying they did not even know the company names involved. Community engagement was sharply criticized: the first public meeting was described as canceled after community pressure, and subsequent meetings were held in high heat with no chairs, little detailed information, evaded questions, and a last-minute switch to the two new uses. Speakers also said no data-security protocols had been shared. One elected official who co-sponsors the pending data center ordinance did not take a position for or against but pressed staff on accountability — asking what happens if a sound study fails, what enforcement tools the city has, and what the court timeline would be. Other concerns related to equity, jobs, and calls for a pause. Many residents and representatives from neighborhood associations and advocacy groups said the project would create few if any local jobs and that the associated housing would not be affordable for current residents. Speakers repeatedly framed the siting as targeting Black, Brown, and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, describing it as systemic inequity, gentrification, and a transfer of profit to an out-of-state developer. Because of these concerns, a significant number of testifiers — both in-person and virtual — called for a moratorium of up to 24 months, similar to actions taken by other municipalities, and urged the commission to wait for the pending local data center ordinance, require a full environmental impact analysis, and add water and power benchmarking before any vote. Ald. Peter Burgelis, 11th Aldermanic District, testified during public testimony. He identified himself as cosponsor of the pending data center ordinance that would add restrictions. He inquired about accountability, recourse for noncompliance, and timeline for enforcement. He said the Commission needs enforcement timeline information in place before moving forward. Ms. Fonseca replied that noncompliance would result in the non-issuance of permits or a certificate of occupancy by the Department of Neighborhood Services and that the applicant would not be able to proceed to operate. John Cunningham, DNS Permit Center, said that DNS checks plans and conducts inspections for compliance throughout construction. Issuance of the certificate of occupancy is the final step, and it is withheld if conditions are not met. The City has enforcement tools including issuing orders against the property, referring cases to the court section, and revocation of occupancy permits, which would prevent operation. Testimony in support welcomed the investment as a way to end long-standing blight, bring life back to Midtown, and provide a catalytic fresh start after repeated failed attempts to attract retail, describing the server room as small and resulting in minimal to no environmental impacts. One in support was hired security at Midtown. Commissioner Crump gave final remarks, stating the concern should focus on use, size, and impact, that the proposed size is extremely small and not the kind that causes the issues raised, that the City does not demand client information, and that enforcement exists through the courts with mechanisms to cease operations. Ald. Chambers, Jr. gave final remarks, stating he had canvassed neighborhoods, that many residents in support did not want to speak, were unable, or were afraid to offer testimony, that he does not believe the project is as detrimental as feared, that the project is a necessity, that the property should not continue to sit idle, and that misinformation should not replace facts. There was inquiry and discussion on an environmental impact analysis study, the data center ordinance and permitting process for facilities under 20,000 square feet, Midtown DIZ Overlay permitted and prohibited uses, other existing data centers in urban areas of the City, the impact of pending legislation, AFS's other data centers elsewhere, and consideration of solar panels, water treatment, public benefits beyond affordable housing, transparency and access to environmental reports, standardized community engagement, anticipated employment, and making reports publicly accessible. Ms. Tanya commented that there was no requirement to conduct an environmental impact analysis but staff had proposed conditions to address environmental impacts, that the data center and indoor storage are not listed as permitted uses in the Midtown DIZ and therefore require a site-specific deviation, that other data centers exist in dense urban areas including downtown and some are larger, that pending local legislation would not affect the current proposal, and that very high staff conditions were being placed on the proposal including requirements that land for housing be conveyed and permitted and that a lease be in place for a library, along with technical equipment requirements. Mr. Overhue commented that he had completed a noise study, that much misinformation existed about the project, that the facility would be small with minimal power consumption and impacts, that they target areas with existing infrastructure like Midtown, that solar was not included, that water treatment would be through in-house self-contained pump systems with no chemicals and disposal by water removal companies, that the public benefit includes no public funding with a lease for the civic building and land conveyance for housing, that they can report on water and power as required, that they would try to hire locally and bring existing employees to train, that their other data centers are similar in scale and environmentally designed, and that this is their first Wisconsin project. Ald. Chambers, Jr. commented regarding community engagement that he had focused on canvassing and notifying residents within the 250-foot radius, that he has tried in the past to expand that radius, and that he cannot control who responds. Commissioner Crump commented that the City has increased outreach on projects it controls and would advise developers to do outreach for their own projects, and that this subject project did not originate from the City. There was discussion on requiring an environmental impact analysis study, adding water benchmarking to staff condition 10, and finding a pathway to provide accurate information. Mr. Overhue was in agreement to conduct the water benchmarking. Commissioner Crump said the housing and civic components were contingent upon the indoor storage and data center moving forward, that AFS would risk losing tax credits and both the housing and civic pieces might not move forward should the storage and data center not proceed, and that work could be done to fulfill additional conditions for water benchmarking and a publicly accessible environmental impact analysis. Members inquired and discussed wanting input and to learn about impacts of other similar facilities elsewhere owned by the applicant. Vice-chair Nemec inquired and discussed DIZ criteria regarding what was across the street to the south, a landscape plan to add buffer along 60th Street as an additional condition, parking configuration and consideration for a two-way lot, aesthetics, and a children's play area. Mr. Overhue replied that across from the rear of the building is Pick 'n Save. Mark Larson, architect, appeared and commented that the landscape plan was part of the application, that they could explore a two-way parking configuration with the library, that the facade would be attractive, that the W. Hope facade remains under design consideration, and that the playground location was chosen to be accessible to the whole community. Ald. Sharlen Moore of the 10th Aldermanic District testified that community engagement was inadequate, that she was not happy to lose a library from her district, and that people were told the library relocation was a done deal and could not be changed. There was discussion and inquiry on the July 31, 2026 housing tax credit deadline and consideration of a moratorium on data centers. Ald. Chambers, Jr. commented that he and other Common Council members had explored a moratorium in the past and were told by the City Attorney's Office that a moratorium could not be done legally, that talk to relocate the Capitol Library has occurred since 2022, that the current Capitol Library building sustained damage from recent floods, and that the library would not be lost but relocated 14 blocks away into a much-needed corridor. Commissioner Crump commented that improving the current Capitol Library building was not viable, that there was an opportunity for a new state-of-the-art library, and that regarding the July 31st deadline, the indoor storage and data center must break ground by then for AFS to receive tax credits or be subject to not receiving them or paying expensive extension fees Members inquired and discussed making additional requests and/or conditions at length. Member Smith moved approval conditionally based on staff conditions, 1-12 as contained in the CPC Staff Report, and based on the following additional amendments to staff conditions and new conditions: Include water benchmarking and reporting requirements in condition 10. Condition 13 to require all reports and studies, including environmental impacts (noise, water, energy, air quality), be completed and made available to public. Condition 14 to require there be ongoing landscaping and library parking configuration review by staff. Condition 15 for there to be an in-person independent study report on existing data processing/computer services/computational research facilities, owned by ASF, in similar size and scope, regarding to their impacts. The study report shall be made available to the community and public via Ald. Chambers, Jr.'s office. Developer to pay the City for the costs of the study. Study costs and name of the firm doing the study to not be disclosed to ASF. Study shall look at all the claims made by ASF and meet all 14 previous conditions. Study to include investigation of using solar to offset as a power source. The City would withhold redevelopment permits until satisfaction of all conditions. Motioned failed due to lack of a second. Commissioner Smith moved to hold the file for completion of a third party independent review assessment and solar assessment. Seconded by vice-chair Nemec. (Failed 2-4-1) yes - Nemec, Smith; noes - Washington, Crane, Moody, Gonzalez; abstained - Bloomingdale Commissioner Gonzalez moved to hold the file, seconded by vice-chair Nemec. (Prevailed 7-0)
5/6/2026	0	COMMON COUNCIL	ASSIGNED TO

Number

260030

Version

ORIGINAL

Reference

Sponsor

THE CHAIR

Title

Resolution approving changes to the site and existing building previously occupied by Walmart located at 5825 West Hope Avenue, on the east side of North 60th Street, north of West Capitol Drive, relative to the Midtown Center Development Incentive Zone (DIZ) overlay established by Section 295-91.0044 of the former Milwaukee Code, in the 2nd Aldermanic District.

Analysis

Body

Requestor

City Plan Commission

Drafter

City Clerk's Office

Chris Lee

4/29/2026