Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmarks Minutes 11-11-20 CITY OF OSHKOSH LANDMARKS COMMISSION Minutes November 111h,2020 PRESENT: Shirley Brabender Mattox, Nikki Stoll Olthoff, Deb Allison Aasby, Gerald Jacklin, Kristopher Ulrich, (Meeting was held virtually via Webex and all attended via Webex) EXCUSED: Paul Arnold, Steve Cummings, Andrew Smith ABSENT: Elizabeth Hintz STAFF AND OTHERS: Steven Wiley,Jeffrey Behnke (Owner, 1321 Porter Avenue), Travis Zochert (Owner, 1149 Algoma Boulevard) 1. Call to Order Ms. Brabender Mattox called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and a quorum was declared present. 2. Approval of October 141h,2020 Meeting Minutes Ms. Brabender Mattox asked the Commission if there were any revisions for the October meeting minutes. No commissioners had any revisions to the minutes so the Commission voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as written (Ulrich/Stall Olthoffl. 3. Historic Plaque Application—1321 Porter Avenue—Jeffrey Behnke—Discussion Mr.Ulrich asked if this was an open discussion or if Mr. Behnke would present his material to the Commission. Mr. Wiley explained that Mr. Behnke was at the October Landmarks meeting and that the Commission had determined at the meeting that they had wanted to revise the historic plaque criteria. Mr.Ulrich had worked on the criteria and Mr. Wiley stated that he had put them in the Landmarks packet for November. During the October meeting the Commission was not sure what criteria Mr. Behnke's plaque request should fall under. Mr. Behnke had submitted additional information that Mr. Wiley included in the November Landmarks packet. Mr. Wiley stated that Mr. Arnold did submit some feedback on Mr. Behnke's plaque request for the November meeting. Mr. Ulrich stated that he could see the plaque falling under the category "work by a designer or association with a significant person." Mr. Ulrich stated that there were also some architectural elements. He could see the plaque request ticking at least two boxes of the revised plaque criteria. Mr. Ulrich asked if the Commissioners all had a chance to look at the Historic Plaque Application that he put together and Mr. Wiley revised. Mr. Ulrich stated that Mr. Behnke had included images and other materials that Mr. Ulrich had looked for. Mr. Ulrich found the information on the molding and windows helpful. He stated that it was hard to tell if some elements were original or not when reviewing a house of that age. Mr.Ulrich asked if there were concerns about the windows at the October Landmarks meeting. Mr.Jacklin replied that the windows would be a good place to start. He explained to Mr. Behnke that Mr. Behnke had given the Commission enough material to work with. Mr.Jacklen was amenable to considering the windows in lieu of the history of the house. Mr.Jacklin explained that changing the current windows to more historically appropriate examples would benefit the house. Mr. Ulrich agreed with Mr.Jacklin and stated that it did not look like the windows were changed since 2013 when Mr. Behnke purchased the house. He therefore found it hard to hold the replacement windows against the current owner. Mr. Behnke replied and mentioned the 1957 black and white image he had submitted. He believed that the windows had already been replaced by the time of the 1957 image. He stated that by 1957 the originals appeared to have been replaced. Mr.Ulrich asked Ms. Brabender Mattox to weigh in as the Commission had discussed the plaque at the October meeting and Mr.Behnke had done a significant amount of research as evidenced by the additional materials submitted for the November meeting. Mr. Ulrich asked what more the Commission needed to ask prior to making a decision on the plaque. Mr.Wiley stated that he could provide Mr. Arnold's input. He asked Ms.Brabender Mattox if she wanted him to do that or wait. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she wanted Mr. Arnold's input. Mr. Wiley read Mr. Arnold's input into the record. Mr. Arnold had called Mr. Wiley the day before the meeting because he wanted to weigh in. Mr. Arnold did not see how the Commission could give the plaque on the basis of the architecture because it appeared that there was little left on the exterior of the original. Mr. Arnold could see perhaps considering the plaque on the basis of who lived in the house previously (Albert Norton). Mr. Arnold had reviewed the images of the cold molding and believed it may have been installed in the 1940s or 1950s. Mr. Arnold found the base board near the basement steps and very interesting. The doors and windows in the attic may or may not have been original but Mr.Arnold was not sure. The door in the attic with glass may have been an exterior door but removed from the fabric of the house. Mr. Arnold thought that if the Commission supported the plaque it would not be possible to support it based on interior or exterior correctness. A significant question was whether Albert Norton was a significant enough person. Mr.Arnold had stated that if the Commission was not comfortable approving the plaque,his suggestion would be that Mr. Behnke would do what Mr.Arnold did and order his own plaque without the Oshkosh Landmarks Commission name. Mr. Arnold had stated that Mr. Behnke's research was very good and valid. The house had perhaps original bones but nothing interior or exterior that for Mr. Arnold would warrant approving a plaque based on architectural significance or integrity. Mr.Arnold was also wondering what Mr. Behnke's inclination was to do additional restoration with the property. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr.Wiley if Tony Neumann in IT could help rectify the audio issues. Mr. Wiley stated that he would check and that he would have to step out of the meeting for a few minutes. Mr. Neumann and Mr. Wiley came down and addressed the technical issues. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she looked at Mr. Behnke's materials and the new plaque application that Mr. Ulrich had worked on. She asked if the Commission first needed to discuss the application form. Ms. Stoll Olthoff replied that reviewing the application form was the first step. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that after reviewing the application form the Commission could then review Mr. Behnke's application. She asked Mr. Behnke if he was fine with waiting. Mr. Behnke replied affirmatively. The Commission moved to Item 5 of the agenda to discuss the historic plaque criteria. Discussion ensued and concluded on Item 5. After the discussion concluded on Item 5 the Commission returned to Item 3. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked the Commission if they wanted to consider making a decision on Mr. Behnke's application. Mr.Jacklin stated that in his opinion the Commission should make a decision. Ms. Brabender Mattox looked at Section 2 on the application form and noted "Architectural Style" for the property. Mr. Wiley stated that he could get the current zoning for the property. Mr. Behnke stated that to the best of his knowledge, the house was constructed in 1865. He stated that the architectural style was Greek revival and more specifically, the simple form. Mr. Behnke listed the materials as wood framing. Mr. Behnke had already provided the information on alterations to the structure. There were no additions to the house. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked which criteria under which the Commission would place the house. Mr. Ulrich stated that the Commission could make a case for the Greek Revival style and for the historic person who owned the home. Ms. Stoll Olthoff stated that her thoughts were similar to Mr. Arnold's. There were so many changes to the original structure that she was not comfortable placing the property under the "architecturally significant" category. Mr.Jacklin stated that he could see two categories applying. The first was the "cultural significance to the city, state, or nation" and the second was the "dwelling place of a significant person." Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she was looking at the plaque application with cultural significance to the city. The house was an example of early history on the west end of Oshkosh. Mr. Behnke stated that he could not prove it but in his opinion the Norton family built the house because they had many carpenters in the family. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Wiley if Mr. Arnold had a category under which he would place the property. Mr. Wiley re-read Mr. Arnold's thoughts. Mr. Arnold did not think the Commission could approve the plaque on the basis of the home's architecture but he did think the Commission could consider it on the basis of who lived at the house. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Behnke if he had done any research on Newspaper Archive and if Albert Norton came up. Mr. Behnke stated that he had done research and that Albert Norton did come up and that he had an office on Main Street. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that for her it would likely be easier to do the historically significant person. Ms. Stoll Olthoff asked if the Commission could apply both the culturally significant and historically significant person criteria. Mr.Jacklin supported applying both criteria. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Behnke if he thought about what would go on his plaque. He answered that he would see something about Albert Norton s residence going on the plaque. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked for a motion. Mr. Ulrich made a motion to approve the plaque on the basis of a historically significant person and cultural significance. Mr. Jacklin seconded. The Commission approved the plaque 4-0 (Ulrich/Jacklin). Ms. Brabender Mattox thanked Mr. Behnke for taking an interest in the history of his home. Mr. Wiley stated that he would work with Mr. Behnke on the plaque. Mr. Ulrich thanked Mr. Behnke and asked him to tell the story of the plaque program. 4.Jessie Jack Hooper House—1149 Algoma Potential Work—Travis Zochert—Discussion Mr.Wiley explained that the owner of the property had contacted him. Mr. Zochert and Mr. Wiley had talked prior to the November Landmarks meeting. Mr. Zochert had discussed the potential of doing work on his property and Mr. Wiley had thought it would be beneficial for him to attend a Landmarks meeting to obtain input. Mr. Wiley asked Mr. Zochert to explain what work he was thinking of prior to the Commission discussing tax credit programs, etc. Mr. Zochert thanked Mr. Wiley for sharing the information already provided and inviting him to the Landmarks meeting. Mr. Zochert stated that his home was the Jessie Jack Hooper house and that he could see applying for a plaque because his property could qualify on at least three criteria. The home was a well-preserved example of a Shingle style home, the architect was William Waters, and Jessie Jack Hooper was the nation's first woman to run for national office. Mr. Zochert stated that home had at least eight different profiles. He was a former contractor and stated that 135 years was likely past the normal life span for cedar shingles. He asked what the best way was to maintain the house. He wanted to preserve the look but also have the house last another 135 years. He asked if it would make sense to refurbish and repair or replace the shingles. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the number one thing in preservation was to repair. Tax credits were available for repair and painting. Ms. Brabender Mattox was aware of multiple times the house had been repainted. She emphasized the importance of the house historically. She recommended that Mr. Zochert speak with Jason Tish and Paul Porter at the Wisconsin Historical Society. She stated that it was possible for properties to get to the point where they were no longer historic because of what was replaced on them. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr.Wiley if he had any input. Mr. Wiley stated that he had provided Mr. Zochert with the information and paperwork for the tax credit programs. Since the house was individually listed on the registers it would likely be easy to apply for tax credits. Mr. Wiley stated that he could connect Mr. Zochert with Jason Tish. Mr. Zochert stated that he was not concerned with painting as much as with what was under the paint. He did not want to paint the existing shingles and have an issue with water infiltration if the shingles were not sound. Mr. Zochert stated that building materials had lifespans and had to be replaced eventually. Ms. Stoll Olthoff asked Mr. Zochert if he had reached out to Terry Laib. She stated that Mr. Laib did a lot of restoration work and could provide guidance. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that there was no question about whether the house qualified for tax credits but rather what the owner did and how he did it. She stated that old growth timber should last for 200 years. Ms. Brabender Mattox recommended that Mr. Zochert reach out to Terry Laib,Jason Tish, and then Paul Porter. Mr.Jacklin stated that he owned an older home and that he repainted the house. Mr. Zochert stated that his concern was with sandblasting as this could release much lead paint and cause issues. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the Wisconsin Historical Society looked very unfavorably on sandblasting wood and masonry. Mr. Wiley stated that he would get Mr. Zochert the contact information for the individuals capable for providing assistance. Mr. Zochert thanked the Commission and left at this point. 5. Historic Plaque Criteria—Discussion/Action Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Ulrich if he could discuss the process for updating the criteria and application form. Mr. Ulrich stated that his revisions were based on the information that was on the older pamphlet in the past. His draft included the elimination of some superfluous information and expansion of some materials that the Commission found important in previous discussions. Format wise Mr. Ulrich worked to make the draft clean and allow people the opportunity if they saw it online to learn how to submit relevant information as part of a plaque application. Mr. Ulrich looked at four different application forms as examples for his draft. They included Champaign-Urbana,Illinois, Appleton, Green Bay, and Manitowoc. He put everything together and then Mr. Wiley edited the format. Content-wise Mr. Ulrich believed that his draft addressed everything the Commission had discussed at previous meetings. He had used the Landmarks minutes from September and worked to incorporate the input of all Commissioners, present or not,who weighed in. He stated that he was open to making any changes that Commissioners suggested but that his draft was consistent with other communities in Wisconsin and surrounding states. Ms. Brabender Mattox thanked Mr. Ulrich and was glad that he looked at other communities. In reviewing the criteria she believed that Section 1 on the application was self-explanatory. For Section 2 she mentioned that there were a number of things that City staff might have to complete. For example, the current zoning designation would be difficult for the average person to complete. Mr. Ulrich stated that he had thought about this too and considered putting an asterisk on the application and a note that people should fill it out to the best of their abilities. He stated that for items such as zoning, land use, and neighborhood association he considered placing them in a separate line that would be filled out by the city. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that for neighborhood association the application could ask about whether a property was in an historic district because contributing properties in historic districts were already approved at the state and national levels. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that for "current land use" there were many categories. Mr. Ulrich explained that he placed "current land use" on the application because he envisioned the Commission wanting to have more plaques out there rather than fewer. He stated that the Commission should offer someone the opportunity to apply for an historic plaque even if it was not necessarily on a house. He therefore included land use as an item on the application as a means of getting more people to apply and obtain more information. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained a number of Main Street examples of properties where owners have received or applied for plaques. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if perhaps the wording should change from "current land use" to "building type." Mr. Ulrich stated that the wording could change. Ms. Brabender Mattox mentioned that at the bottom of the application there was a line that mentioned "Alterations, Additions, or Anything that was removed." Ms. Brabender Mattox suggested having two lines for each of these rather than just one because they would require more detail. She asked if anyone had questions or comments on Section 2 of the application. Ms. Stoll Olthoff stated that for Alterations or removed features it would be beneficial to ask for images of those things if possible. Ms. Brabender Mattox agreed. Mr. Ulrich answered that he would add this to Item 4 in the application. For the line in Section 2 he would add an asterisk and refer people to Item 4. Ms. Allison Aasby left at 3:30 pm. Ms. Brabender Mattox noted that Ms. Allison Aasby had left. Mr. Wiley stated that Ms. Allison Aasby had informed him prior to the meeting that she had to leave at 3:30 pm. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr.Jacklin if he had any comments on Section 2 of the application. Mr. Jacklin suggested adding a note in parenthesis for items such as neighborhood association, land use, etc. The note could say, "If uncertain, City staff can fill out." Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that years ago when people applied for a plaque she, Mr. Arnold, Mr. Buchholz, or David Buck would do the research. She stated that often people did not know and were surprised by the Commission's research. She explained that the Commission would often present people with the packet of Commission research when presenting plaques. Mr. Ulrich stated that some of the items in Section 2 would encourage people to do some preliminary research on their own so they were not approaching the Commission with a blank slate. Ms. Brabender Mattox moved on to Section 3 which she stated was very important. Mr. Ulrich stated that for Section 3 he removed some of the wordiness and used it as an opportunity for people to make their cases for historic plaques. He stated that it was in line with the four examples he had looked at and that nothing was missing or extraneous. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that "Site of a significant event" was very narrow and specific. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that the other criteria made sense to her. She asked what the difference was between designer and architect. Mr. Ulrich stated that he was not sure but that he had seen the language in other applications. Mr.Wiley answered that currently "Architect" was a legally-protected title and that there were many designers who had design backgrounds but were not architects. In order to become an architect a candidate had to pass the Architecture Registration Exam and obtain the required hours of work experience before doing so. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she was thinking of JT Raycraft who was a very famous contractor/designer but not an architect. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if there were any other categories that anyone could think of to include in Section 3. She thought of Mr. Behnke's house and that it started life in West Algoma. She stated that she was looking at the plaque criteria in Section 3 and trying to figure out where Mr. Behnke's house would fit. Mr. Ulrich stated that he would put it under "Prominent example of an architectural style" if it was Greek revival. Ms. Stoll Olthoff asked if the Commission should specify that a property needed to be an intact example of an architectural style. Mr. Ulrich stated that this was why he used the word "prominent" in the criterion. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the use of the word "prominent" could cause trouble and she cited the example of the Merilyn Smith House at 226 High Avenue. She stated that the staff person for Landmarks had challenged her and argued that it was not the most prominent example of Italianate architecture in the city. Ms.Brabender Mattox suggested changing the word from prominent to excellent. Mr.Wiley stated that for the National Register the word integrity was used to suggest that much of an example was intact. She stated that in Mr. Behnke's house the front porch was not there originally but the porch had been there for over 50 years. She stated that in describing the style for some properties the Commission might have to say that it was two styles done over a period of time for some examples. Ms. Brabender Mattox moved onto Section 4 which was property pictures. Mr. Ulrich stated that the more pictures were available the better. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the most important pictures were the ones taken from the right-of-way. Mr.Ulrich stated that he could edit the application and change the wording from pictures taken of the front of the house to pictures taken from the street/right- of-way. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that it was extremely important to include historic photographs. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if there were any comments for Section 5 of the application. Mr. Ulrich stated that Section 5 was an opportunity for people to make their cases and that the more information they could provide the better. He explained that many people would likely not come in with the level of information that Mr. Behnke had. Mr.Ulrich stated that for Section 5 people could include specifics that pertain to Section 3. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Ms. Stoll Olthoff if she had comments. Ms. Stoll Olthoff stated that her only comment was that where the application stated "this is your opportunity to snake your case for the Historic Register' it was not the historic register so Mr. Ulrich would have to change the wording. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she was glad Mr. Ulrich listed the Oshkosh Public Library but suggested listing the Wisconsin Historical Society webpage as a resource. Mr. Jacklin suggested listing the phone number for the Wisconsin Historical Society. Mr. Ulrich agreed that providing the phone number was a good idea but preferred listing it on the Historic Plaque website because people would obtain the plaque application from the website. Ms. Stoll Olthoff suggested listing the Oshkosh Public Museum as a resource. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if any Commissioners had revisions for Section 5. None had any additional revisions. Lastly Ms. Brabender Mattox asked about the last page. Mr. Ulrich stated that this was the certification page and he believed it added a degree of professionalism to the application. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that finally the Commission could move forward with an application form that was more usable. She asked for comments from the commissioners. Ms. Stoll Olthoff thanked Mr. Ulrich for moving the revisions forward and noted two things. She asked if the form could be made into a fillable pdf so someone could fill it out online and not have to print it out and write on it. Mr.Wiley answered that the city had the capability to convert the form into a fillable pdf. Ms. Stoll Olthoff suggested removing the periods that were at the ends of each of the bullet points for Sections 3 and 4 on page 2. Mr.Jacklin agreed also. He stated that it was a step in the right direction. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that there was currently nothing there about the integrity of the structure. She stated that the sections that addressed alterations, additions, and removals could generate discussion on this point however. Mr. Ulrich stated that he could include language on integrity. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked the Commission if they were ready to vote on approving the application with changes discussed. The Commission voted to approve the application draft with changes 3-0-1 (Jacklin/Stoll Olthoff, abstain Ulrich). 6. Building Permit Review Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that for one project an owner put in a furnace for $12,000. She stated that if she had time she would call the owner to see if they had already done the work. She stated that she was concerned with two properties. She mentioned one of the twin bungalows on Irving putting in a $26,000 bathroom. She stated that two properties on Union and Amherst included work that involved tearing down a garage and putting in surface parking areas. She stated that parking lots had no place in historic districts and that the area was turning into something that did not look like a historic district. Mr. Wiley stated that this was something that occurred a number of times. He explained that if the Commission wanted heightened standards they would have to look at creating an overlay or another version of heightened standards for the districts. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that some of these were design standard things that would warrant further discussion. She asked about 1107 Algoma Boulevard and how the work involved$13,000 to remove a rubber roof. She asked if a rubber roof would have been there originally. Mr. Wiley stated that he was not sure if such a roof would have been used when the structure was built but that other projects such as the Frontenac building did receive tax credits to do membrane roofs. Such roofs were preferred to prevent water infiltration. 7. Historic Preservation Plan-Steven Wiley-Update Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that Mr. Wiley was in the process of applying for a grant for funding. She had been on a WAHPC board call previously and Jason Tish was on the call. Mr. Tish had informed WAHPC that the application deadline was extended. Mr. Wiley stated that he had obtained some input from Community Development Director Davis on his draft grant application. Mr. Tish had provided some input and Mr. Wiley wanted to discuss further with Mr. Tish since he was taking over Joe DeRose's position as CLG Coordinator. Mr.Wiley stated that he had talked with Ms. Brabender Mattox about having her write a cover letter for the grant application. He also wanted to obtain input from Planning Services Manager Mark Lyons. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that Mr. Tish had announced the extended deadline because there were fewer applications due to COVID and commissions not meeting. Ms. Stoll Olthoff stated that she had to leave at this point. 8. Social Media-Discussion/Action This item was not discussed due to loss of quorum. 9. Commissioner Statements a. WI Historical Society Local History and Historic Preservation Conference-October 21-23 (Virtual for 2020)-Shirley Brabender Mattox, Steve Cummings, Gerald Jacklin, Nikki Stoll Olthoff, and Steven Wiley-This item was not discussed due to loss of quorum. b. St. Mary's National Register Nomination-Steven Wiley-This item was not discussed due to loss of quorum. 10. Agenda Items for Next Meeting(November 111h,2020: 3 PM in City Hall Room 203) This item was not discussed due to loss of quorum. 11. Outstanding Issues This item was not discussed due to loss of quorum. 12. Adjournment Ms. Stoll Olthoff made a motion to adjourn after Item 7 and Mr. Ulrich seconded. Meeting adjourned at 4:46 pm (4-0). Recorded by: Steven Wiley, Associate Planner