By Dave Fidlin
Correspondent
Twenty years have passed since Whitewater’s former Franklin Middle School building was bulldozed. The status of the vacant parcel was discussed at length at a recent meeting.
Members of the Plan and Architectural Review Commission on April 8 heard a status report about the dormant 3-acre site from City Planner Chris Munz-Pritchard. She was requested at a prior meeting to look into the property’s ownership and what, if anything, is being done to develop the parcel.
The former middle school, located near the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater campus, was razed in 1999 and has gone through a series of ownership changes in the past two decades, Munz-Pritchard told commissioners.
In 1998, the Whitewater Unified School District relinquished the property to an entity known as Whitewater Franklin. Three years later, the property again changed hands, this time to the UW-Whitewater Foundation.
Since 2010, an outfit known as Warhawk Real Estate Foundation has assumed control of the site.
Based on the conversations she has had to date, Munz-Pritchard said she has not become aware of any proposals for the site.
“I am hoping to get a little more information on potential development in the area,” Munz-Pritchard said, noting she has been in dialogue with several officials within UW-Whitewater and related organizations.
Upkeep of the vacant parcel also was discussed in the conversation between Munz-Pritchard and commissioners.
Based on current zoning and ordinance specifications, Munz-Pritchard said Warhawk Real Estate has been in compliance of the requirements set forth in the zoning code.
In the warmer months, Munz-Pritchard said the entire lot is being mowed. Ordinances require maintenance 20 feet from the curbside.
“They’re actually maintaining, above and beyond,” Munz-Pritchard said. “They are meeting the city ordinances at this time.”
While the vegetation is properly being addressed, questions about the remnants of the former middle school parking lot came into question. Several commissioners questioned why the lot was not completely removed when the building was taken down and regarded to grassland.
To that point, Munz-Pritchard said she had combed through the municipal code and did not see a passage defining what would constitute “a complete demolition.”
For this reason, Munz-Pritchard said there is not a mechanism the city currently can use to require the parking lot’s outright removal.
Council member Lynn Binnie, who sits on the commission, agreed with the sentiment.
“We can’t do anything, other than say, ‘Pretty please, do something,’” Binnie said.
While plenty of questions about the parcel’s future abound, Binnie said he is hoping the property will have a productive use in not-too-distant future.
“Frankly, I’d like to see them sell it to a developer,” Binnie said. “Putting it to a constructive use would be ideal.”
Binnie also said he would like to see a housing development on the parcel because it is a need in the city at the moment.
