Loading...
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MINUTES - 4/24/2003 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - CITY OF MUSKEGO Approved MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD APRIL 24, 2003 Mayor Slocomb called the meeting to order at 7:08 PM. Also present were Ald. Petfalski, Buckmaster, Damaske, Patterson, Salentine, Madden and Schroeder, and Deputy Clerk Blenski. Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The Mayor noted the meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting law. Ald. Salentine moved for approval of minutes of the 3/13/2003 special joint meeting with the Plan Commission and 3/13/2003 regular meeting. Ald. Madden seconded; motion carried. PERSONAL APPEARANCES Parks and Recreation Department Staff Regarding the Chesapeake Facility Craig Anderson, Tammy Dunn and Irene Schuder of the Parks and Recreation Department were present to discuss acquisition of the Chesapeake facility. Mr. Anderson stated pool, gym and classroom space is needed for the programs his department offers. He identified the current facilities that are used which include Horn Park, Jensen Park, City Hall and the Library, private businesses whenever possible, and the schools. In addition, some programs are held in other municipalities, such as Franklin, as a collaborative effort. Mr. Anderson also outlined some of the problems with the existing facilities. The rooms at City Hall and the Library are not conducive for younger age children. The department’s highest demand is for pre-school programs. Room scheduling has also been a problem. Public use of the rooms at the Library has increased. It is difficult to schedule the same room at City Hall for the time period that a class is offered; the inconsistency creates problems for those attending as well as the instructors. When a course is offered at another municipality, Muskego can only offer half of the openings to its residents. Regarding use of the school facilities, Mr. Anderson stated the individual principals approve the use. Classroom space is not available. Security, safety and cleaning issues have been brought up by the school district. Ald. Petfalski suggested a committee be formed to discuss cost sharing measures with the school district for use of its facilities. The Mayor and Craig could also meet with school district officials. Ms. Dunn also reiterated the need for space especially during the daytime. She summarized the programs the department offers that are extremely popular: computer classes, adult cooking classes, preschool programs, including educational classes, art classes, babysitting. Space is not only needed for the classes but storage of materials as well. Ms. Schuder reviewed the current and proposed programs. She also discussed the space needs of the department and the importance of it to be consistent. Ms. Dunn then briefly explained the collaborative programs. Ald. Damaske asked where does it say we have to offer all of these programs? Ms. Schuder stated the community wants them. The department is turning people away. Ms. Dunn stated the evaluations always come back with suggestions for more classes. The Mayor stated that back in 1997, the Council made a policy decision to improve and Committee of the Whole Page 2 4/24/2003 expand the programs offered by the Parks & Recreation Department. That has happened, and as a result the demand for programs has increased and more space is needed. Today’s Council can make a different policy decision regarding the direction of the department. Ald. Salentine noted that the department has almost become self- sustaining. However, if the level of programs does not continue and people do not attend, that will stop. Ald. Petfalski agreed that the City cannot offer everything and should not invest capital trying to. Programs requested by the community need to be reviewed individually. Sometimes alternatives are available. Ald. Salentine stated the purpose of this presentation is to discuss the purchase of the Chesapeake property and if the Parks & Recreation Department could utilize it. Mr. Anderson responded that the facility could provide some needed space. Ms. Schuder reviewed how the facility could be used with existing programs, in addition to being used to fill rental requests from the community. Mayor Slocomb asked how the Town Hall facility fits into the picture. Mr. Anderson distributed a schedule of how that site would be used. Ms. Dunn noted that the Chesapeake facility could be divided for multiple uses at the same time, which is not true of the Town Hall building. Ald. Patterson noted that the City could continue to have good programs without offering additional ones. Mr. Anderson stated that is a decision to be made by the Council. He and his staff can only outline the needs of the department and potential options to meet those needs. His department has grown and the staff is very committed to serving the needs of the community and customer service. Ms. Dunn also noted that the department must provide diversity within its programs so people continue to attend. Ald. Damaske stated he has problems regarding the acquisition. The first is the economy and its effect on the programs. The second is the state budget, and the third is that his district does not support the purchase of the Chesapeake property. He noted that the costs for renovating the Town Hall have increased since the project began. Mr. Anderson responded that people have continued to participate in the department’s programs despite the economy. In addition, landfill funds would be used for the purchase and not directly taxed for. This is an opportunity to provide for recreation programs and services. Ald. Petfalski stated the acquisition should be looked at separately. Use of the facility by the Parks & Recreation Department will not meet its long-term needs; it would only be a temporary solution. Continuing to expand the programs of the department will have to be determined. The City should consider purchasing the property for conservation purposes and to preserve the boat launch. It could be sold in the future. Ald. Salentine agreed. She supports the purchase for conservation purposes. The fact that the building could be used by the Parks & Recreation Department is an added benefit. Ald. Schroeder stated he could not support the purchase solely for recreational purposes. He applauded the efforts of the Parks & Recreation Department and stated he has been very impressed with the programs that are offered. He is on the fence regarding acquisition of the property for conservancy. Ald. Patterson agrees that the property is valuable for land conservancy. Ald. Buckmaster stated the people in his district do not support the purchase of the Chesapeake. The Mayor stated landfill funds would be used for the purchase as allowed by the contract. Those monies cannot be used for general fund purposes. Ald. Salentine stated the City’s Conservation Plan was Committee of the Whole Page 3 4/24/2003 developed to respond to what the public wanted. The plan clearly indicates that this property should be retained for conservancy. Ald. Schroeder asked where the monies (approximately $18,000) would come from for the required improvements. The Mayor stated landfill funds could be used as part of the initial outlay to acquire the property. Ald. Schroeder asked if the estimated cost of any remodeling was known. Mr. Anderson stated some booths would have to be removed and a kitchen stove acquired; the costs should not exceed $5,000. That money could be incorporated into program fees. The Mayor also noted Park Dedication funds could be used, which are not tax dollars. Ald. Schroeder asked about the well that services the Chesapeake. Mr. Bennett was present and responded that the well is on the gun club property. He previously agreed to install a separate well for the Chesapeake. Ald. Buckmaster asked what the landfill funds would be used for if this property were not purchased. Ald. Salentine stated they could be used for other land acquisitions. It was clarified that the funds could not be used for operating costs, which could artificially offset the tax rate. Ald. Schroeder stated that there are many potential interests out there that the money could be used for. It is not a use it, or lose it type arrangement. Ald. Buckmaster stated there are issues in his district that the funds could be used for. Ald. Petfalski stated the monies should not be used to benefit one neighborhood or one district but the City overall. Ald. Madden stated people in her district are split. She supports the purchase for land conservancy but also believes the building should be upgraded and improved so it can be utilized. Ald. Schroeder asked if the property owner was interested in selling the vacant parcel if the Chesapeake were not purchased. Mr. Bennett stated he is not interested in selling only the lot. He came forward to offer the property to the City but needs an answer one way or the other. He now has two buyers that are interested in the property. Ald. Salentine moved to recommend to Council that the City proceed with the purchase of both parcels for the purpose of land conservancy with landfill funds to be used. Ald. Petfalski seconded. It was noted that the well issue would be addressed in the Offer to Purchase. Ald. Petfalski requested a roll call vote. Motion carried 5-2 with Ald. Petfalski, Patterson, Salentine, Schroeder, and Madden voting “yes” and Ald. Buckmaster and Damaske voting “no.” The Mayor noted the Offer had to be approved by the Common Council and could be on the next agenda. The Committee took a brief recess. NEW BUSINESS Discuss Open Space Requirements on OLS Lots- Possible ADA Requirements The Mayor distributed a plat of survey for the Knickelbine property (on Jewel Crest Drive). When the City’s zoning code was adopted in 1965, many legal, nonconforming lots were created. The property is 7,204 sq. ft. in size. The owner would like to build a Committee of the Whole Page 4 4/24/2003 home on it with a 1,400 sq. ft. footprint and an attached garage consisting of 660 sq. ft. It was noted that Mr. Knickelbine was present. A driveway and deck are also desired. The problem with the lot is the ability to meet the open space requirement (75%). Only 1,801 sq. ft. of ground can be covered. Mr. Knickelbine’s proposal would cover 3,219 sq. ft. Some alternatives would save square footage but probably not enough to meet the requirements. The Board of Appeals would probably note other options (such as a two-story residence) are possible. In the case of the Knickelbines, all of the living space must be on one floor because of disabilities. The Mayor has asked if the City is required to make reasonable accommodations in this case because of the disabilities and the answer is not known. The City’s attorneys could research at a cost of between $5,000 and $10,000. New zoning concepts particularly regarding lake lots will be forthcoming. However, the time for that to happen is one to one and a half years away. The Mayor outlined the three options to be considered: 1.) Research done by City Attorney; 2.) Code Change; 3.) Nothing. Ald. Petfalski noted that this parcel was previously combined with an adjoining lot for tax purposes and then legal lot status was petitioned for and granted. Ald. Patterson expressed concern about runoff and other properties on the lake. Mr. Knickelbine asked that the aspects of the total picture be looked at. Ald. Schroeder stated if an ordinance change were proposed, he would be interested in hearing the comments expressed at the public hearing. Ald. Petfalski stated he would like to see the problem taken care of but is not in favor of changing the ordinance just for this individual because it could have an adverse effect citywide. He would like staff to review but that will take time. He favors the City spending the money to determine what the law in this situation requires; the issue will come up again. Ald. Schroeder agreed that the ordinance should not be changed for this situation alone. He suggested if it is determined that the legal research be done that someone with ADA expertise be used. Ald. Petfalski stated the League of Wisconsin Municipalities should be contacted first. Mayor Slocomb noted that the League was contacted verbally and a legal opinion was not available. Ald. Schroeder moved to get a written opinion from the League of Wisconsin Municipalities and not spend any money for legal research at this time. He encouraged Mr. Knickelbine to consider revising his proposal and petitioning the Board of Appeals. Ald. Patterson seconded. Motion carried 5-2 with Ald. Petfalski, Patterson, Salentine, Schroeder and Madden voting “yes” and Ald. Buckmaster and Damaske voting “no.” Following additional discussion, Ald. Petfalski moved to reconsider the previous vote. Ald. Salentine seconded; motion carried 6-1 with Ald. Damaske voting “no.” The previous motion was read and voted 6-1 with Ald. Damaske voting “no.” Ald. Schroeder requested the issue be placed on the next Committee of the Whole agenda (May 8). Committee of the Whole Page 5 4/24/2003 Ald. Petfalski moved to adjourn at 10:39 pm. Ald. Madden seconded; motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Jill Blenski, CMC Deputy Clerk