Highlights from Community and Government Affairs - September 13, 2022
Drop a tot and grab a beer; Ald. Makhlouf concerned (x6) about potential zoning changes; committee mostly skeptical about decriminalizing marijuana possession.
→ The Little Village Play Café is a new business at 6505 W. North Ave. that hopes to offer not just fun toys and activities for young children but also, if their license is approved, a nice place for parents to drink wine and beer “on-premises as their children play.”
Ald. Moldenhour:
I have to admit when I first read this business plan [...] it troubled me a little bit. Perhaps you can explain toddlers and having people drink alcohol. I'm struggling with this.
Ald. Fuerst:
I do echo the same thing. I was a little concerned when we were here a few months ago, and we were going until 9 p.m. I think [The Little Village Play Café is for] ages birth to six? I just don't know why they're out until 9 o'clock. And now we're serving alcohol until 9 o'clock?
The owner, Abigail Gilman, explained that parents of young children often look for places to go where they can socialize with friends and where their children won't irritate everyone around them. The Little Village Café will be open to the public and to parents and serve as a place where the community can get together. And while the listed hours are 7 a.m. until 9 p.m., she anticipates that the play area for children will close around 5 or 6 p.m. The Café will remain open until 9 p.m. to host events like book clubs or other activities for parents.
Her request for a Class B Beer and Class C Wine license was unanimously but skeptically recommended for approval by the Government Affairs Committee.
→ The Tourism Commission presented their annual report (pages 25-34) to the Government Affairs committee on September 13. Leisure travel has gone up significantly in 2022 compared to last year, and Tourism Commission chair Dave Amoroso stated that hotel occupancy is “almost back to the same levels as part of 2020,” although the graph he provided didn't really seem to support this, and it’s not clear what the numbers on it mean.
He was also very excited about a recent twenty minute episode of Discover Wisconsin focusing on Wauwatosa and available on YouTube. If you live in Wauwatosa but never leave your home, you might find it informative.
→ The Community Affairs committee voted on a subset of zoning code changes recommended in the Zone Tosa For All report. Some of the changes include:
When public hearings are held for things like rezoning amendments, conditional use permits, and planned unit developments, the developer must normally notify other property owners in a 200 ft. radius. Now they'll be required to notify owners and occupants within a 300 ft. radius.
Eliminating minimum lot area requirements on C1-zoned commercial properties. This should allow a developer to fit more units into a smaller space.
Eliminating minimum lot area requirements on C2-zoned parcels but adding requirements for larger setbacks when next to residential properties that increase based on the proposed height of the building. Buildings less than 50 feet high would require a 15 foot setback, buildings 51-100 feet high would require a 25 foot setback, and buildings greater than 100 feet high would require a 50 foot setback. These changes would only apply within the Mayfair Mall corridor.
Allowing multi-unit residential buildings by-right (a developer doesn't need approval from the Common Council). This would only apply within the Mayfair Mall corridor.
Allowing larger Accessory Dwelling Units up to 900 sq. ft. The maximum size was previously 600 sq. ft.
Imposing long-term bike storage requirements for new multi-unit residential, commercial, and industrial buildings.
Ald. Makhlouf ruined everyone's mojo by requesting to discuss and vote on each of the twelve proposed changes individually. Then he complained about the process by which the proposed changes were being approved:
This is, as stated, a report. It was never voted on to be a plan or program by the council. And I don't understand how we are doing zoning changes or implementing various changes in relationship to a report that was not ever officially approved by the council. That's my first concern.
City Attorney Alan Kesner replied:
These are zoning code changes going through the regular zoning code change process. Any time we want to make a zoning code change, it goes to Plan Commission, has a public hearing, just like we've done here [...] This is entirely within the proper procedure.
Ald. Makhlouf appears mollified but then expresses concern (he uses this word many times) that some of these changes may be motivated less by the Zone Tosa For All report than by the City’s recent acquisition of the former Boston store and surrounding parking areas, and he feels the City is pushing through these changes to accommodate desired development at that site.
And also, we’re making the Mayfair Mall a separate zoning district. We shouldn’t do that.
And also, the Common Council is ceding control by removing density limits and allowing by-right development of high-density apartment buildings instead of forcing developers to get approval from us first, and “I don't think we should make radical changes that would take control away from the city or council and simply give them the right to development as they see fit.”
And also, why aren’t we discussing adding maximum height restrictions to C2-zoned properties? People are really concerned about that.
And also, why aren’t we incorporating all these changes into a future Comprehensive Plan and the official zoning plan? It’s a legal document that should to be followed, not a guide we can choose to comply with in some cases but not others.
Development Director Paulette Enders and City Attorney Alan Kesner explained that the letters they received seemed less concerned with height than with minimum setbacks and that the Mayfair Mall has always had separate zoning restrictions and that while the lack of height restrictions on C2-zoned parcels is an issue of significant concern to the public and that they intend to address it soon, it wasn’t a recommendation in the Zone Tosa For All report.
I suspect Ald. Makhlouf might have had more concerns but Ald. Lowe, having seemingly grown tired of listening to them, makes a motion to approve all of the changes as recommended.
“Okay, full speed ahead,” says Ald. Wilke to which Ald. Meindl responds, “We’re moving a little hot and quick for my liking. I was interested in actually parsing this out […]”
Most of the committee seems to agree, and the motion fails by a vote of 3-4. Discussion resumes, and the committee then goes through each proposed change and votes on them individually. All are ultimately recommended for approval.
→ Ald. Meindl and Lowe presented their proposal to “Decriminalize” THC (page 38) to the Government Affairs committee this week. Ald. Meindl gave a thorough presentation citing scientific findings on the limited health effects of marijuana consumption and the deleterious effect of criminalizing its use. To summarize:
Most Wisconsinites support legalization,
It’s not a “gateway” drug, and
It has fewer negative impacts than alcohol and tobacco.
Further, decriminalizing possession would:
Maintain liberty and freedom,
Prevent ruining the lives of people arrested for THC-related ordinance violations,
Let police focus on more important issues, and
Reduce racial disparities in policing.
Ald. Lowe added that:
Decriminalization is the “wave of the future,”
Once it’s legalized at the state or federal level, it can be a source of tax revenue,
It would encourage people to move to Wauwatosa [My note: Would it really?],
From an Equity and Inclusion standpoint, many laws and rules disproportionately affect minorities and people of color.
Following their presentation, City Attorney Alan Kesner informed the Common Council that while it is popular to use the term “decriminalization,” the city doesn’t actually have the power to do so. That can only be done at a state or federal level. Instead, the city only levies a fine, and its only options are to eliminate the ordinance prohibiting possession, reduce the fines associated with the ordinance, or ask police not to enforce it.
Police Chief James MacGillis also added that:
Drug possession is often associated with many other crimes so he disagrees with Ald. Meindl’s comment that it’s not a “gateway drug” [My note: I think they’re actually using two different meanings of the term “gateway drug”],
Without an ability to simply fine people for possession, the police have less room for discretion and they must either ignore it or charge them under much harsher state laws,
The Wauwatosa Police Department spends very little time on these types of crimes anyway. They’re just not very common, and the District Attorney will often not prosecute them unless other, more serious crimes were committed at the same time, and
He takes issue with the claim that these ordinances are enforced disproportionately based on race. It’s not true, and Ald. Meindl and Lowe never asked for this data.
According to Facebook, some members of the community also thought this was silly:
Members of the Government Affairs committee thanked the two for their well-researched and thorough memo but remained mostly unconvinced. Some didn’t think changing laws at the local level would have much impact since it’s still a crime in Wisconsin and at the federal level. Some worried that it would actually lead to harsher penalties for drug possession given Chief MacGillis’ statement above.
The committee recommended denying the proposal by a vote of 5-1. Ald. Arney abstained.
Thanks, very informative - as usual.