Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmarks Minutes 01-13-21CITY OF OSHKOSH LANDMARKS COMMISSION Minutes January 13th, 2021 PRESENT: Shirley Brabender Mattox, Steve Cummings, Nikki Stoll Olthoff, Deb Allison Aasby, Gerald Jacklin, Kristopher Ulrich (Meeting was held virtually via Webex and all attended via Webex) EXCUSED: Paul Arnold ABSENT: Elizabeth Hintz, Andrew Smith STAFF AND OTHERS: Steven Wiley, Amy James (Vision Architecture), Adam James (Vision Architecture), Timothy Hess 1. Call to Order Ms. Brabender Mattox called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. and a quorum was declared present. 2. Approval of December 9th, 2020 Meeting Minutes Ms. Brabender Mattox asked the Commission if there were any revisions for the November meeting minutes. No commissioners had any revisions to the minutes so the Commission voted 4-0 to approve the minutes as written (Ulrich/Stoll Olthoff). 3. Proposed Façade Alterations – 223 N Main Street – Amy James - Action Ms. Brabender Mattox announced that the first of the two guests present at the meeting was there for the façade alterations proposed for 223 N Main Street. She asked Mr. Wiley to introduce the item to the Commission. Mr. Wiley mentioned that Ms. James was with the architecture firm that was working with the property owner. The architect and property owner were looking to do modifications to the front façade at 223 N Main. Mr. Wiley recalled that the owner herself had come to a previous Landmarks meeting and had done some modifications a couple years previously to the back portion of the building. The architect and owner were now looking at the N Main Street side of the building. Ms. Brabender Mattox noted for the guests that Ms. Allison Aasby was the Commission’s Council liaison. Ms. Allison Aasby joined the meeting at 3:11 pm. Ms. James asked if the Commission wanted her to talk through the proposed facade changes. Ms. Brabender Mattox answered affirmatively. Ms. James explained two side-by-side images, one of the existing front façade and one showing the proposed changes. The owner had a need to replace front windows so the architect proposed to replace the windows with a more relevant historic storefront window type. They wished to increase the amount of window area where possible. Ms. James pointed out the large awning on the façade. She stated that as she looked at the awning space it almost looked like there were window openings. If there were indeed openings there the architect would do window in the area of the awning. If there were not the architect would consider alternative options or not remove the awning at all. The lower corner window was intended to let more light into the building and serve as a more efficient window. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that the lower level façade consisted mainly of windows already. She stated that the reason the building interior received less light was because the windows were mostly covered up with various posters. She asked if there was a malfunction of the windows that were there currently. Mr. James answered that the current windows were poorly performing single pane windows that required replacement. Mr. Ulrich stated that the windows looked old and not original to the building. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that with historic facades the large pane windows with the long ingress into the building was the traditional historic storefront. She was not sure when pane windows were introduced historically to storefronts. Ms. James answered that there was evidence of pane windows in the late 1800s. She stated that in the information Mr. Wiley had sent her had an example of a storefront very similar to the one proposed. Mr. Jacklin joined the meeting at 3:15 pm. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she received her packet the previous day and did not have time to contact Jen Davel at the Wisconsin Historical Society. One of Ms. Davel’s areas of expertise was historic storefronts. Ms. James stated that the subject building was not on an historic registry. The building was part of the downtown historic context. What was prompting the owner was more efficient windows and the ability to use the space inside. Currently if someone was on the interior of the building it was cold inside. The posters on the inside were a function of non-usable space. Mr. Cummings stated that the building was originally built as a bank. Mr. Wiley displayed an historical image of the building. Mr. Cummings noted that the entrance was originally on the corner. The building was altered much over the past 100 or so years. Mr. Cummings posed the question of whether the Commission was trying to restore the building to how it was originally built or make alterations to it to make it a more functional building but yet sympathetic to the original intention of the architect. Ms. Stoll Olthoff stated that the building was changed so greatly that it was in an adaptation phase. She did not see how it would be restored to its original appearance. Mr. Cummings stated that restoring the building to its original appearance would likely be difficult and costly. Mr. Cummings stated that back in the 1950s or 60s it was a women’s dress store. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that in 1920 the building was modified greatly. Ms. James stated that the building had evolved to something that could be adapted to be useful while being mindful of its context. She stated that the goal at this time was to replace the windows. Ms. Stoll Olthoff asked if Ms. James had an image of what she was describing under the awning. Mr. James stated that they did not have one currently but the area was basically painted plywood. Mr. James stated that the glass transom was gone. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if what was proposed was on homage to an historic glass transom. Mr. James replied affirmatively. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked the designers to talk through each of the designs. Mr. James replied that the images were all the same option, but different viewpoints. He stated that the work would involve the elimination of the large recess that was created in the 1950s. The entrance would be pushed back to the corner. He explained the floorplans. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that it looked to her like the brick column was standing alone. She stated that the design was not clear. She asked if any Commissioners made a site visit to the building. Mr. Ulrich answered that he visited the building and observed the outside. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that other buildings such as an example on Ohio Street had a similar corner configuration. Mr. Ulrich stated that he could see what the architect was trying to do with the recessed corner. He stated that the design looked great and supported improved efficiency and the transom in a location that previously had a transom. He stated that moving the entrance to the corner was on homage to the original corner entrance previously on the building. He stated that the signage was very reminiscent to what was going on at the Grand Opera House. He was not objectionable to making the proposed alterations to a building that had so many alterations previously. He noted that the architect was keeping the column on the corner. He noted the pane windows on the second floor and that currently the windows were not pane windows. He stated that if the architect used pane windows on the second floor it would look odd because none of the other second floor windows were pane windows. Other than the pane windows on the second floor Mr. Ulrich supported the design. Ms. Stoll Olthoff agreed with Mr. Ulrich’s comments. She noted the similarity between the proposed signage and the Grand signage. She asked if the architect would eventually do pane windows along the second floor side façade much like the ones proposed for the North Main façade. Ms. James stated that currently the proposal only addressed the front. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Wiley if he had any comments from Commissioners who could not attend the meeting. Mr. Wiley stated that Mr. Arnold was unable to attend but that he provided his comments ahead of time. Mr. Arnold had weighed in on the 223 N Main proposal and had concerns with what was being proposed as he did with the previous work that came through the Commission for the property. Mr. Arnold thought that the property lost more integrity with the previous work than it would with the currently proposed work. Mr. Arnold had stated that a lot of work had occurred previously on the property and that the property was significantly altered. Mr. Arnold had raised the questions of whether Landmarks had any ability to regulate alterations and also how much was really being saved by maintaining the property in its current condition. Mr. Arnold had also noted that the second story brick looked better than the first story and that it was better preserved. Mr. Arnold was not sure however, if the second floor brick was original. Mr. Arnold was the only one who weighed in on the proposal of the Commissioners that did not attend. Mr. Cummings stated that he agreed with what was said but that the building would look the best it had since it was a bank over 100 years previously. The building had been rather unsympathetically modified. The design was rather clean and returned the entrance to the corner while maintaining the second floor intact. The proposal was a contemporary look while retaining many historical elements. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the building was not in an historic district or on the registers but it did face one of the most important spaces (Opera House Square) in downtown. Ms. Brabender Mattox noted the importance of the building’s appearance and stated that she appreciated the architect attending the meeting and presenting. She asked if the Commission needed to take action on the proposal. Mr. Wiley stated that the Commission could take action and create a recommendation for staff to forward to the Plan Commission. Plan Commission would then have the ability to weigh whatever Landmarks said into the Plan Commission decision. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the changes proposed were less drastic than what the owner did to the building two years previously. She stated that if the Commission was to forward comments to the Plan Commission they would state that they appreciate the efforts to find some historic elements and realize the importance of the building to the downtown. Mr. Wiley stated that he could include this in the staff report and the Plan Commission would at least then know that Landmarks weighed in. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Wiley if he needed a motion and approval from Landmarks. Mr. Wiley stated that a motion and approval would be a good idea. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked for a motion. Mr. Cummings stated that he would make a motion to approve the new design for the building as submitted by the architect and owner. Ms. Allison Aasby seconded. Mr. Ulrich asked the architects if they were doing any mortar repairs. Mr. James stated that he would check to see if mortar repairs were needed. The Commission voted 6-0 to approve the motion (Cummings/Allison Aasby) 4. Smith School Marker – Timothy Hess – Discussion/Action Ms. Brabender Mattox introduced the next item and welcomed Mr. Hess. She asked Mr. Hess to present what he was proposing and the progress of the project. Mr. Hess stated that he was busy before the Landmarks meeting printing off the final materials to send to the Wisconsin Historical Society. Mr. Hess recalled that at a previous Landmarks meeting (last spring) that someone asked about the subject marker. At the time Mr. Hess had told Ms. Brabender Mattox that his group was not moving the marker. Then through a series of discussions with the Wisconsin Historical Society and with the goals that Mr. Hess and his group were trying to achieve, Mr. Hess decided that he wanted to move the marker. He therefore decided to come back to the Landmarks Commission. Mr. Hess shared the overall site plan for the Smith School reuse. Mr. Hess had discussed with the WHS different options. He noted that the large playground was to the north of Smith School. Mr. Hess and his group questioned what to do with the playground. Mr. Hess explained that his group had considered multiple options including a new apartment building on the north portion of the property. The WHS however, was not supportive of cutting off views of the historic Smith School. Another option was to maximize parking in the northern part of the property. With this option however, there was the possibility of blocking views. The historical society pushed the developer to come up with a plan that provided sufficient parking and yet keep a decent space and open view of the original building. The plan would also have to take into account what the marker represented. The developer wanted garages because Smith School was in a residential neighborhood. The plan that the Commissioners received in their packets was where the developer ended up. Mr. Hess showed the Commission where the marker was and stated that he wanted to shift the marker north 130 feet. The developer wanted to pick a design that gave as much of a view of the original historic building as possible and not cover the view up. Mr. Hess stated that the marker designated the donation of land to the school. It was possible to construct garages while leaving the marker where it was but the marker would not relate to anything anymore. Mr. Hess stated that Paul Porter at the WHS gave the developer the idea for the current plan. The plan allowed for ample parking and placement of the marker near an open space, almost park-like in nature. Mr. Hess then asked for questions. Ms. Brabender Mattox commended Mr. Hess for his group’s thoughtfulness in creating multiple different proposals. She asked other commissioners for input. Mr. Ulrich asked Mr. Hess for clarification on the marker’s current location. He asked if the area was surface parking or garages. Mr. Hess answered that the lined area where the marker was located was surface parking. Mr. Hess clarified the locations of the proposed garages and surface parking. Mr. Ulrich commended the plan’s open space and path. Ms. Stoll Olthoff stated that she was supportive of moving the marker to the proposed location. She asked if the intention was that people who would not live in the apartments could walk around in the space. Mr. Hess stated that the open space would not technically be a public park but with open green space and a pathway no one was going to prevent people from using the space. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked what would happen with the existing playground equipment. Mr. Hess replied that his group had hoped that Franklin School would take the equipment. Franklin School obtained grant funding and lost interest in the equipment. Therefore, Mr. Hess still did not have a taker for the equipment. He stated that he was hoping somebody with interest would come along and that if someone in the community could use the equipment that would be great. Mr. Ulrich stated that a few years previously his neighborhood redid their local playground at Sea Sand and Sailorland. The playground equipment that was there was picked up by a nonprofit who sent it to another country where it could be used. He thought a similar option was a viable one if there were no local takers and if it covered the associated costs and allowed for reuse of the equipment. He stated that if Mr. Hess was interested in that option he could put him in touch with Cynthia Thorpe of Menominee South who had information on the process. Mr. Hess stated that he was interested in the option Mr. Ulrich presented and that the Franklin Parent, Teacher Organization had a company from Fond du Lac inspect the equipment at Smith School to determine if the equipment was still salvageable. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the reuse of the playground equipment was a project Landmarks might be able to help with because she was aware of smaller private schools that might have interest in the equipment. The Boys and Girls Club or a small neighborhood pocket park might work out well. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked how the project was going and if Mr. Hess had the nomination in for the National Register. Mr. Hess replied that the nomination was in for the National Register and it was put in in August or September. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Hess to let the Commission know when the hearing would occur. She stated that the Commission liked to have someone at the nomination hearings and if the Commission could not have someone there they would write a letter of support. She stated that she would also contact the legislators to have them write letters of support also. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Hess who at the state he had worked with besides Paul Porter. Mr. Hess answered that Mr. Porter was the replacement for Mark Buechel and the one assigned to Oshkosh’s half of the state. Therefore, Mr. Porter was the only contact Mr. Hess had worked with on the Smith School project at this point. Mr. Hess stated that the intent was for his group to submit their scope of proposed work to the state by the end of the week. He would then anticipate a sixty day review period. Mr. Hess stated that he had worked with Mr. Porter on all of the most controversial decisions and Mr. Porter had reached out to the National Park Service. Mr. Hess stated that Mr. Porter had seen the proposal multiple times so was aware of the developer’s proposed work. Mr. Hess stated that he was hoping for sixty days but three months was probably more likely before they could start construction on the project. He stated that his group had taken the proposal to Plan Commission for a workshop at a recent meeting and he was planning to engage the neighborhood on the project. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Hess if he encountered any surprises in the building itself with his plans. Mr. Hess replied that the 1929 addition was constructed such that most of the floor structure was Spancrete. He stated that the floor construction was therefore much sturdier than everything else but more difficult than wood to cut holes for electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc. Mr. Hess’s group had anticipated wood construction initially. However, Mr. Hess did not anticipate substantial extra cost to reuse the building given the Spancrete floor structure. He stated that each classroom would become an apartment and the hallways would remain. Mr. Ulrich was supportive of the adaptive reuse proposal. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated to Mr. Hess that the Commission had some new members. She asked if Mr. Hess could show the Commissioners the virtual walkthrough that his group created. Mr. Hess stated that a few months previously on Facebook he shared a post from Wesenberg Architecture that had a link that took visitors to the walkthrough. Mr. Hess brought up the walkthrough and stated that it was on a website called “Kuula.co” which was a host for 360 degree images. Mr. Hess showed the Commission how to do a virtual tour through the building. Mr. Hess stated that the intent was that once his group finished the adaptive reuse of the property, he would go back in and redo the walkthrough. People would then be able to view the before and after virtual tours of the building. Ms. Brabender Mattox thanked Mr. Hess and stated that he was doing many good things with the building. The building was an important feature in the neighborhood for over 100 years. She asked the Commission if anyone else wanted to make comments before making a motion. She then asked the Commission for a motion to accept the proposal of the plans presented to Landmarks and for the new placement of the memorial plaque. The Commission voted 6-0 to approve the motion (Ulrich/Cummings). Mr. Hess thanked the Commission and left at this point. 5. Building Permit Review Ms. Brabender Mattox announced the building permit review as the next item. Mr. Ulrich asked about the test electrical permit for $430,000. He asked if the permit was a fluke. Ms. Brabender Mattox mentioned that the permit was for 1500 Arboretum Drive and asked Mr. Wiley if he could address it. Mr. Wiley stated that the permit was a test permit and that Inspections and Planning often ran test permits for certain addresses (City Hall was an example) if they wanted to see how something was working with the software. The permits were not real but just allowed staff to test the permitting software when needed. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she saw the greatest amount (over $1 million worth) of permits for 537 North Main. This was Crescent Moon Antiques which was previously the old Gibson Auto. The building was therefore an early example of automotive architecture and the Varsity Club was another example of such architecture downtown. Mr. Cummings asked if anyone knew what the owner was looking to do with the building. Ms. Brabender Mattox and Ms. Stoll Olthoff stated that they thought the space was going to be a club/event hall. Mr. Cummings stated that the property owner and his associates had the old bar from the Knights of Columbus and asked if they were looking to install that at the 537 North Main property. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that her understanding was that the property owner was planning to use Oshkosh historic artifacts. She had not talked with him. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Wiley if the property owner had applied for any historic grants. Mr. Wiley stated that as far as he knew the owner had not and at least had not come through city staff. With all the money the owner was investing Mr. Wiley believed the owner could apply for tax credits. She stated that she did not like to see someone spending over $1 million on things like heating and electrical and not taking advantage of historic tax incentives. She stated that the building was in an historic district and asked if some of the Commissioners remembered when the Karners wanted to use exotic wood over some of the black glass to put their sign up on the building. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that there were some permits that included window replacements. She stated that someday she wanted to see a business started that could help people do window restorations while saving the old timber that could last another 100 years if just restored. She asked if there was anything else on the building permit review. She stated that she did not see anything else for tax credit projects. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if anyone needed to leave the meeting. Ms. Allison Aasby answered that she might have to leave for another commitment that was running behind. 6. Historic Plaque Criteria - Update Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that Mr. Ulrich had worked on the plaque criteria and that the Commission had provided input. Mr. Ulrich replied that Mr. Wiley had made the requested edits. Mr. Ulrich stated that he supported the changes and that the document turned out well. He looked forward to seeing the document up and modernized on the website. Mr. Jacklin stated that there were asterisks on pages 1 and 2 referring people to Section 4 of the application but that Section 4 did not have the asterisk. Mr. Ulrich stated that he did not think the asterisks were necessary and that they looked like typos. Mr. Wiley stated that he could remove the asterisks. Mr. Jacklin suggested for the phone number towards the bottom of the last page that the application list the office or person that the number was for. Mr. Wiley stated that the number was his and that he could place in parentheses that it was his number. Ms. Brabender Mattox mentioned on page 6 on the fifth bulletpoint (suggested information) that the Commission might want to add architect. She stated that the architect might be the most significant thing about the building. Mr. Ulrich agreed that someone might apply on the basis of a significant architect that designed the building. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that for example a building might be an Auler or Auler, Jensen, and Brown building. She stated that she believed the Commission had come up with a good form that people would be able to use. 7. 2020 Annual Report – Steven Wiley – Action Ms. Brabender Mattox commended Mr. Wiley for completing the annual report draft on his own since in the past she and the staff person for Landmarks would spend hours creating the annual report together. Mr. Wiley stated that Jason Tish at the state changed the annual reporting process so CLGs only needed to fill out the annual report form online. Mr. Wiley still thought it was beneficial to have the annual report document. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she thought the online submission was new. Mr. Cummings provided a few comments. On the page with the Jessie Jack Hooper House he asked if the report should mention anything about her involvement in the suffragette movement. Ms. Brabender Mattox replied that the page should include this. Mr. Cummings asked if Jessie Jack Hooper had a husband. Ms. Brabender Mattox replied that Benjamin Hooper was her husband. Mr. Cummings suggested that the report refer to the house as the Benjamin and Jessie Jack Hooper House. She stated that she could do research to find out how far back the house was referred to as the Jessie Jack Hooper House. She stated that she was not sure how the house was referred to on the National Register. Mr. Wiley pulled up the nomination paperwork. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that Mrs. Hooper was a suffragist and ran for Senate against Bob Lafollette. Mr. Cummings suggested mentioning this. Ms. Stoll Olthoff mentioned that she looked up the house on the Wisconsin Historical Society page and that the historic name was the Benjamin and Jessie Jack Hooper House. Mr. Cummings stated that the report should refer to the house this way. Ms. Stoll Olthoff stated that under the National Register designation the property was listed as the Jessie Jack Hooper House and so this should be the name. Mr. Cummings disagreed with leaving Benjamin Hooper’s name off. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she did not know Jessie Jack Hooper was a woman until she had meetings at the house sometime after coming to town. Mr. Jacklin suggested referring to Benjamin Hooper in the explanation part down below the image. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if for page 2 with the map whether the map was color coded. Mr. Wiley stated that the map was in color and that the copy in the Commissioner packets was printed in black and white because it was not a final draft. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the map listed the individually-listed properties. Mr. Wiley answered that the map showed them in green. Ms. Brabender Mattox referred to the “Commission Goals” page of the report and said that there was nothing listed stating how the Commission worked to inform owners of historic properties about available tax credit programs. She stated that one reason why the Commission did the building permit reviews was to let people know of the tax credit programs and that this year it was important to get this embedded at the permit office and find a way to get the information out to people because many people did not know of the programs. Ms. Stoll Olthoff left the meeting temporarily due to technical issues around 4:10 pm. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked about including the Schriber House in the Annual Report on page 4. She stated that it was a phenomenal project and saved the house but wondered if Landmarks could find another visual for that spot. Mr. Wiley asked if anyone had other ideas for another visual for that location. Mr. Ulrich suggested Smith School or the Smith School marker. Ms. Brabender Mattox suggested the Waite Grass Carpet Company. She asked if the Commission had used that in an Annual Report. Mr. Wiley stated that a previous report did include images from when the Commission toured the Waite property but that he was not opposed to using an image if the Commission wanted it in the 2020 report. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked what the significance was of the house on the top of the page. Mr. Wiley stated that it was the property on Waugoo Avenue that received an Acanthus Award for painting. Ms. Brabender Mattox then referred to a line about the Historic Preservation plan. The line stated, “the subcommittee will work to refine the plan and then run the plan through the approval process.” She asked if there was anything more formal the Commission could use such as “submit the plan.” Mr. Cummings agreed with using “submit.” Ms. Brabender Mattox turned to the next page on social media. She noted that the annual report mentioned using other social media in addition to Facebook. She asked which other platforms were considered. Mr. Wiley answered that Instagram was a platform Ms. Stoll Olthoff brought up awhile back. Mr. Ulrich agreed that Instagram and You-Tube would serve the Commission well. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the City would allow Instagram use. Mr. Wiley stated that he would have to research this and that the major consideration was staff time. Ms. Stoll Olthoff explained that she had technical issues and just rejoined the meeting around 4:25 pm. Ms. Brabender Mattox mentioned the social media discussion to Ms. Stoll Olthoff. She then asked Mr. Wiley for the page on providing assistance to historic property owners to get in the text somewhere that the home was the Benjamin and Jessie Jack Hooper House. She asked Mr. Wiley to note that Jessie Jack Hooper was a woman suffragist. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if anyone had comments for the next page. She liked all of the logos for different organizations that the Commission had worked with. Mr. Cummings stated that the Winnebago County Historical and Archeological Society (WCHAS) logo was wrong and dated. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Cummings to provide Mr. Wiley with the new logo. Mr. Cummings also asked Mr. Wiley to note for the second bullet point that Mr. Cummings served as Vice President of the WCHAS. Mr. Wiley stated that he could make the changes. Ms. Stoll Olthoff noted a typo on the second bulletpoint where the word anniversary was misspelled. Mr. Cummings noted a line that mentioned historical signage on the former Lakeshore site and stated that this did not mean anything to people that were not from Oshkosh. He suggested changing it to the former Lakeshore Municipal Golf Course site. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if anyone had any additional comments for Mr. Wiley. Mr. Jacklin asked if Mr. Wiley wanted to mention that some Commissioners had attended the WHS Conference in 2020. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Jacklin which section he would propose including this under. Mr. Jacklin suggested the Public Outreach section. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Wiley to list the Commissioners that attended the event. Mr. Wiley stated that he could do so. Ms. Brabender Mattox thanked Mr. Wiley. 8. Historic Preservation Plan – Steven Wiley – Update Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Wiley for an update. Mr. Wiley stated that he submitted the CLG Subgrant application to Mr. Tish at the Wisconsin Historical Society. Mr. Wiley noted that Ms. Brabender Mattox had written a cover letter to accompany the grant application. He thanked her for writing the cover letter and explained that he had included it with the submission. Mr. Wiley stated that Mr. Tish would get in touch in the next few months regarding application status. Ms. Brabender Mattox mentioned that the previous night she received an email from Mr. Tish because she had a WAHPC board meeting and Mr. Tish was the state representative. Mr. Tish had received nine applications in the total of $256,000. The total funding available for grants was $110,000. Mr. Wiley stated that the application process would therefore be competitive and that staff and the Commission would have to have an alternative plan for funding in case Oshkosh received partial or no funding. Mr. Wiley stated that he submitted three itemized estimates from consultants. Two of the estimates had come in around $50,000 and the third was $65,000. Mr. Wiley stated that he had requested the full grant amount of $50,000 to start out. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that she had asked if Racine had received a CLG grant for their preservation plan and was informed that Racine had not received a grant. Instead the City budgeted for the plan. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if she could mention the Commission training program that was available on the Wisconsin Historical Society website. She had mentioned this in her cover letter for the grant. Mr. Wiley stated that she could address this item. She stated that the intent was for commissioners to be knowledgeable commissioners and understand what was all involved. She explained that Landmarks was a legal entity different from some other advisory boards and commissions. She said that on the state’s website was a ten chapter training program for commissions and it was the only one of its kind in the United States. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that many of the commissioners were new. Mr. Ulrich asked for the link to the training chapters. Ms. Brabender Mattox proposed doing one chapter a month. Commissioners would do the training and it would be included on the agenda for discussion each month. Commissioners would discuss what they learned and how it pertained to Oshkosh and the Landmarks Commission. Ms. Brabender Mattox noted that Jason Tish at the state historical society had not known of the program. She asked the Commission if they would be willing to have it sent to them each month and it would then be on the agenda as a discussion item for each meeting. Mr. Ulrich was supportive. Mr. Jacklin and Ms. Stoll Olthoff also supported doing the training. Mr. Cummings answered that the training as proposed was a good idea. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that she had formatted the first chapter into a Word document. She asked Mr. Wiley if she had sent it to him. Mr. Wiley stated that Ms. Brabender Mattox had sent it to him. She asked if Mr. Wiley could take the formatted versions and send those out to the Commission. She noted the delays that Commissioners sometimes experienced in receiving their packets and asked if perhaps the training chapters could be sent out weeks in advance of the Landmarks meeting. Ms. Stoll Olthoff suggested that for the upcoming month Commissioners could look at the chapter online and then for upcoming months the chapter could be included in the packets. The chapter included in the packet for the current month would be the chapter for the next month’s meeting. Ms. Brabender Mattox suggested the Commissioners receive the chapters via email so City staff would not have to print hard copies. The Commission supported emailing the chapters. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she would email the chapters to Mr. Wiley who could then email them to the Commission. 9. Social Media – Discussion/Action Mr. Wiley stated that he had been posting meeting dates, times, and agendas on the Facebook page and he had also done a few posts before the holidays. He had posted material out there as opportunities arose in order to keep activity on the page. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked that anyone who had ideas come up send them over to Mr. Wiley for posting. She emphasized the need for activity on the page. Mr. Wiley stated that if Commissioners had any ideas he was more than happy to post material. Ms. Brabender Mattox suggested the walkthrough Tim Hess had of Smith School. She stated that the walkthrough was exciting. The Facebook post could note that upon project completion an additional walkthrough would be posted. Mr. Wiley stated that he would check to see if Mr. Hess was fine with Landmarks posting the walkthrough. 10. Commissioner Statements a. Grand Opera House Signage – Steven Wiley Mr. Wiley provided an update and explained that the Grand Opera House group had applied for a permit for their blade and EMC signs and the permit was approved. The group had applied for a second permit for the marquee sign but Mr. Wiley did not recall seeing the construction details prior to the permit application. He explained that he contacted compliance reviewer Drew Barnhart at the Wisconsin Historical Society to see if she had seen the connection details. Mr. Wiley had wanted Ms. Barnhart to weigh in if she had not seen the details. Mr. Wiley explained that staff had already approved the permit for the blade and EMC signs. 11. Agenda Items for Next Meeting (February 10th, 2021: 3 PM in City Hall Room 203) Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if anyone had agenda items for the next Landmarks meeting. Mr. Wiley stated that the Chief Oshkosh signage had come up since the previous Landmarks meeting and he planned to include on the February agenda. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she had a meeting with the Mayor, City Manager, and Community Development Director on the Chief Oshkosh project. She stated that Mr. Wiley could place the Chief Oshkosh project on the agenda because by February there might be an update. She stated that the project might come up at her board and commission chair meeting scheduled for the next day. Mr. Cummings stated that many potential donors had concerns with plaque five of the proposed plaques. Mr. Cummings stated that some people were in agreement about correcting history but that the message would want to address this in a less controversial manner. Mr. Cummings stated that the statue was an Italian sculptor’s interpretation of an American Indian. Chief Oshkosh did not look like that but Mr. Cummings did not think Landmarks would obtain any additional funding with the language as it was. He stated that the City would likely have to come up with additional funding if the project moved forward. Mr. Cummings believed that the project was worthwhile but that it needed to be sensitive to the people who would provide funding. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that Chief Oshkosh resonated with people and the last thing people would want was to have hostile language. Mr. Cummings stated that the people who put the statue up over 100 years ago did it with very good intentions. He stated that when Bill Heine committed $5,000 a few years back it was to honor Chief Oshkosh. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that 404 W New York Avenue (local landmarking) would remain on the agenda. For the Lakeshore Historical site, she wanted to connect with the state archeologist. She wanted to get his perspective on the document done by the UWM consultant team for the site. She stated that then perhaps it would be possible to seek grant funding in order to write a National Register nomination for the eligible portion of the site. Mr. Cummings emphasized the importance of funding for the Lakeshore signage. Mr. Cummings brought up the 907 Washington Avenue property and stated that the owners had moved into the property. He stated that he would work on setting up a potential tour of the house. Mr. Cummings left the meeting at 4:53 pm. Ms. Brabender Mattox mentioned 1523 N Main Street. Mr. Wiley stated that this was a pending item and he placed it on so Landmarks would not lose track of it. He noted that he received the plaque in for Jeffrey Behnke over on Porter Avenue. Mr. Wiley stated that staff and the Commission would have to coordinate the presentation of the plaque to the owner. The owner had done much research already so Landmarks would not have to do much research. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she wanted to see if anything came up about the attorney who was the first inhabitant of the property. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked commissioners to let Mr. Wiley know if they thought of any agenda items between the meeting and the first of February. Mr. Jacklin noted that in the Northwestern, there was an article about a gravesite with two headstones for a married couple in Omro from around 1856 when they died. He did not believe this was an Indian burial site but that it would still be interesting for commissioners. 13. Adjournment Mr. Ulrich made a motion to adjourn and Mr. Jacklin seconded. Meeting adjourned at 4:55 pm (4-0). Recorded by: Steven Wiley, AICP, Associate Planner