Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmarks Minutes 02-10-21CITY OF OSHKOSH LANDMARKS COMMISSION Minutes January 13th, 2021 PRESENT: Shirley Brabender Mattox, Steve Cummings, Nikki Stoll Olthoff, Gerald Jacklin, Kristopher Ulrich (Meeting was held virtually via Webex and all attended via Webex) EXCUSED: Paul Arnold, Deb Allison Aasby ABSENT: Elizabeth Hintz, Andrew Smith STAFF AND OTHERS: Steven Wiley, Timothy Hess 1. Call to Order Ms. Brabender Mattox called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. and a quorum was declared present. 2. Approval of January 13th, 2021 Meeting Minutes Ms. Brabender Mattox asked the Commission if there were any revisions for the January meeting minutes. No commissioners had any revisions to the minutes so the Commission voted 5-0 to approve the minutes as written (Ulrich/Cummings). 3. St. Mary’s Church Complex – National Register Comments - Action Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Wiley to provide background for the Commission on this item. Mr. Wiley stated that the item had come before the Commission previously. It was slated to be on the February 19th agenda for the WI State Historic Preservation Review Board which would make a recommendation to the National Parks Service on whether the property should be listed on the Registers. The Commission had received a letter from State Historic Preservation Officer Daina Penkiunas notifying that the St. Mary’s nomination was on the review board’s agenda. Mr. Wiley had drafted a letter of support to the state. Prior to sending the letter he wanted Landmarks input so he could make any revisions deemed appropriate. Mr. Wiley stated that he could then work with Ms. Brabender Mattox to finish up the letter. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she reviewed her previous letters that she had sent for past nominations and that Mr. Wiley had used information from the St. Mary’s nomination. She asked him to send her the nomination so she could contact Oshkosh’s legislators and have them submit letters of support. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she was surprised that the entire St. Mary’s complex was nominated for the Registers but that the entire complex was recommended in the historic survey. She noted that the convent was demolished several years back. She stated that Mr. Hess had informed her that the Smith School would be on the next review board agenda for consideration. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if any commissioners had any changes to recommend for the letter. Mr. Ulrich asked if it would make sense to add anything about the historic associations between the St. Mary’s complex and Mercy Hospital and much of the development on that side of town. He asked if it was appropriate to emphasize the impact the St. Mary’s complex had on the community, local organizations, etc. He stated that the letter focused on the architecture and was fine but that if need be the Commission could consider mentioning the cultural aspect of the St. Mary’s complex. Ms. Brabender Mattox agreed that many times churches revolved around neighborhoods and ethnic groups and that the letter could go into this. However, the main point of the letter was to support. She stated that the first paragraph told the significance of the complex. The second paragraph explained the reuse proposed for the school. She stated that the important things was that the school had a future. Mr. Ulrich stated that the letter had his support. Ms. Brabender Mattox replied that she would review the nomination to see if the cultural aspect was addressed in there. If need be she could add an extra sentence to the letter. She thanked Mr. Ulrich for bringing the cultural importance of the complex to the Commission’s attention. She asked Mr. Wiley if he wanted a Commission vote on the letter. Mr. Wiley answered affirmatively. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked for a motion. The Commission voted 5-0 to send the letter as written (Stoll Olthoff/Cummings). 4. Smith School Plans - Action Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if Mr. Wesenberg was showing up. Mr. Wiley answered that he had just emailed Mr. Hess to see if Mr. Hess could still attend the meeting. The Commission then moved to the building permit review pending the arrival of Mr. Hess. The Commission returned to discussion of this item after concluding on Item 7. Mr. Wiley stated that he had conversations with Mr. Hess and that the plans for the school itself were likely close to final. Other site features such as the number of garages could change but Mr. Wiley did not anticipate major changes to the school plans. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she too had discussed the project with Mr. Hess the previous week. Mr. Hess had informed her that the discussion would be more extensive than the plaque discussion from the January meeting. Mr. Wiley explained that he had put this item back on the agenda because the developer was planning to proceed through the approval process in the near future. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the plans included in the Commissioners’ packets were some of the better plans the Commission received because they showed the existing and planned conditions of the property. She asked if the plans were approved by the state. Mr. Wiley stated that he was not aware of the state formally approving the plans yet. Mr. Wiley stated that the developer was planning to convert each classroom to an apartment. Ms. Brabender Mattox added that the property would have 31 units. She asked if Mr. Wiley obtained permission from Mr. Hess to post the virtual tour on the Landmarks Facebook page. Mr. Wiley answered that he obtained permission, posted the tour, and credited the four partners developing the property. She asked Mr. Wiley if he would walk the Commission through the proposed changes. Mr. Wiley explained that much of the exterior would remain the same. On the southwestern portion of the property additional windows were proposed where apartment units would be created in the western portion of the building. The developers proposed rebuilding columns on the south side of the building and removing impervious area. The garages and open space would be located on the northern part of the site. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she was glad the view of the school would not be obstructed by garages. She asked if Mr. Hess was looking for a motion of support. Mr. Wiley answered affirmatively. If the Commission was satisfied with the work proposed they could go ahead and take action on the item based on the plans submitted. Minor site revisions could still occur but the plans were pretty far along. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked for comments from the Commission. Mr. Jacklin asked if site landscaping was part of the Commission’s purview. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that landscaping was part of the Commission’s purview but that Mr. Hess may have already discussed landscaping with the state. Mr. Jacklin noted that the auditorium and the adjacent portions of the building would tie in nicely together based on the proposed plans. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the first portion of Smith School was designed by architect William Waters and the second portion was designed by Henry Auler. Two important Oshkosh architects designed portions of the school. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked for a motion to support the proposed plan set/design for Smith School. The Commission voted 5-0 to support the proposed design (Ulrich/Cummings). Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if Mr. Arnold weighed in with any comments. Mr. Wiley answered that Mr. Arnold did provide comments prior to the meeting and that his comments were concise. Mr. Arnold had stated that the plans looked promising and so he hoped the adaptive reuse of Smith School would continue to move forward. After Mr. Hess arrived at the meeting Ms. Brabender Mattox informed him that the Commission did have a motion and voted to approve the drawings. She offered Mr. Hess the option to provide comments. Mr. Hess apologized as he thought the meeting was a 4 pm. He stated that he appreciated the Commission’s support. He showed the Commission a virtual walkthrough showing the proposed interior of the property as envisioned by the developers. Mr. Ulrich complimented Mr. Hess on the virtual tour. Ms. Stoll Olthoff asked if Mr. Hess had a rendering of the kindergarten room. Mr. Hess stated that he did not have a finalized rendering of this space because it was one of the areas where the State Historic Preservation Office was not thrilled with what the developer was proposing. Therefore, design changes were required and the team did not have updated drawings yet. The state wanted the developer to keep the space open. Mr. Hess thanked the Commission for their support and explained that the state had wanted the developer to keep the hallways open and continue to approximate being in a school as much as possible. The big challenge was running plumbing, electrical, etc. while maintaining the openness of the corridors. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked about landscaping and whether the state weighed in on landscaping for the site. Mr. Hess stated that in large extent the state would ignore much of what was happening on the exterior so long as the developer was not detracting from the historic building. Mr. Hess stated that the developer did have a landscape architect put a plan together. The plan was a very modern one and subject to change so Mr. Hess was open to comments and suggestions. Mr. Cummings stated that foundation plantings like what were seen today were not all that common back then. Much of the landscaping historically was away from the building. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that her friend had written a book that had some examples of historic landscaping. She told Mr. Hess that she would try to find that book for him. Mr. Jacklin mentioned landscaping along the garages and emphasized landscaping there. He asked which age groups Mr. Hess was looking to get into the apartments. Mr. Hess stated that these were market rate apartments. The likely residents would be people that would appreciate living in an older building. Mr. Hess stated that he could imagine some tenants being people that were nearing retirement. He stated that there were people that would pay to live someplace nice and not have to worry about property maintenance. He stated that tenants could be families. He explained that it was difficult to go for a particular demographic in the Oshkosh market many times. Ms. Brabender Mattox told Mr. Hess that the minutes would contain the Commission’s motion of support for the project. She stated that she would contact Oshkosh’s legislators to seek letters of support for the nomination. She thanked Mr. Hess and Mr. Hess thanked the Commission and apologized for joining late. Mr. Hess then left at 4:22 pm. 5. Building Permit Review Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that in all the years of reviewing building permits she had not remembered permit lists as concise as the February one. Mr. Ulrich asked about the permit for 459/461 N Main Street. He asked if there was a doorway inside the structure where someone would be able to walk between the two businesses. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Wiley. Mr. Wiley answered that based on the permit description it appeared that the previous doorway would be reopened. Ms. Brabender Mattox thanked Mr. Wiley for providing the building permit list. 6. 2020 Annual Report – Steven Wiley - Update Mr. Wiley stated that he had taken the Commission input from the January Landmarks meeting and made revisions to the report based on the input. He then printed color copies for the Commissioners’ packets so Commissioners had these. He stated that he had made changes to the images and text where Commissioners had requested these. Mr. Ulrich stated that the image of Mr. Cummings presenting the Acanthus Award looked nice in color. Mr. Cummings referred to the page with the logos and stated that Mr. Wiley would have the correct logo for the county historical society the next day. Mr. Wiley stated that he had taken the logo from the historical society’s website but if Mr. Cummings had a newer one he would update the report. Mr. Ulrich asked if the Wisconsin Association of Historic Preservation Commissions had a better file Mr. Wiley could use. Mr. Ulrich noted that the current logo looked blurry in the document. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she would look in her file for a better logo. Mr. Cummings referred to the page showing the Jessie Jack Hooper house and mentioned the line that read, “In addition to the home’s William Waters design, it is historically significant because important suffragist Jessie Jack Hooper owned it.” He stated that the line would read better if it was revised. The line could read, “The home is historically significant because of its William Waters design and because important suffragist Jessie Jack Hooper and her husband Ben lived there for many years.” Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if there was a different image that did not have so much foliage obscuring the architecture. Mr. Wiley stated that he could look in the City’s files to see if there was another image. Ms. Brabender Mattox mentioned the “Public Outreach” page and referred to the very last item: “2020 Wisconsin Historical Society Conference.” She stated that the Wisconsin Historical Society did a lot of conferences and the one that staff and commissioners attended was the 2020 Wisconsin Historical Society Local History and Historic Preservation Conference. She asked Mr. Wiley to add a sentence mentioning that registration was paid for by the City of Oshkosh. This would show that the City supported Landmarks, historic training and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Ms. Stoll Olthoff stated that she did a search on the Jessie Jack Hooper House and that in 2019 when Google Maps was last updated there was still a lot of foliage. Mr. Cummings suggested contacting First Weber to see if they had an image without vegetation from when the house was last sold. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if there were any additional comments for Mr. Wiley. Ms. Brabender Mattox and Mr. Cummings thanked Mr. Wiley. 7. Social Media – Discussion/Action Ms. Brabender Mattox mentioned that the Landmarks Commission had a website and Facebook page and that Mr. Wiley was adding to the Facebook page. She stated that Mr. Wiley had mentioned in the annual report how the Facebook page had over 350 followers. The Facebook page could therefore serve as a major resource for educating people on historic preservation. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she had much material but the challenge was organizing it and getting it to Mr. Wiley for posting. Mr. Wiley stated that he did post the funding opportunity Ms. Brabender Mattox had sent him from the National Trust for historic worship spaces. He thanked Ms. Brabender Mattox for sending him this. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the Commission should go back to the Smith School item. Mr. Wiley stated that the Commission could do this if desired. 8. Wisconsin Historical Society – Commissioner Training - Discussion Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that Session 1 of the commissioner training was the focus of discussion. She asked the Commissioners how many of them enjoyed the training. Mr. Ulrich stated that he was able to tie dates into what was happening in Oshkosh at the time. He found the training a beneficial exercise. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the training put into perspective why the Landmarks Commission was in place and where it all got started. She stated that she thought Wisconsin was the first state to have a historical society. The Wisconsin Historical Society had been involved consistently over many years and progressively increased its responsibilities. Mr. Ulrich asked if Aldo Leopold and the conservation group dove-tailed into the early preservation movement and if that was how Wisconsin got its first societies. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she was aware of Aldo Leopold’s influence on conservation and how the conservation movement led to the national parks. The National Parks Service was eventually formed and currently much historic preservation ended up at the National Parks Service. Mr. Cummings mentioned Charleston, South Carolina, which was mentioned in the training for its significance as the first historic district in 1931. He noted that as much as Charleston was noted for preservation, one of the Charleston staff had informed him that they still had difficulty convincing people of the economic benefits. Mr. Cummings noted to Mr. Wiley that having a one-size-fits-all building code was also problematic. He noted the importance of getting the codes changed since many older properties did not comply with modern building codes. Mr. Cummings argued that the Commission and staff would need to look at creating separate codes for historic versus non-historic buildings. Mr. Jacklin stated that he enjoyed the chapter and he noted the paragraph that noted the concerns in the early 1960s that arose with urban renewal and the report “With Heritage So Rich” that helped alert people to the need for preservation programs. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she had and was familiar with this report. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that for commercial buildings there was a historic building code and this was why the Granary was landmarked. In landmarking the property and using the historic building code, many of the historic elements could remain uncovered and visible. She explained that old growth timber was present in many Oshkosh buildings and that heavy timber could withstand fire better than steel in many cases. A home 100 years old could easily last another 100 years if it was maintained. A home built currently could last maybe 30-70 years. She stated that in many newer homes doors and windows often required replacement. In order homes these elements often could be repaired rather than replaced. Therefore, there was a benefit to investing in the older buildings. Mr. Jacklin asked if this information provided by Ms. Brabender Mattox was appropriate to add to the Landmarks website. Mr. Cummings replied that if current homes started to burn, they would burn very quickly and start to melt. Ms. Brabender Mattox added that many modern homes were open concept which was also a fire hazard because fire could spread much more quickly versus an older home where rooms were separated by walls which slowed the spread of fire. She emphasized the safety aspect of older homes in this regard. She then asked if any commissioners had additional comments on the training. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she would ask Mr. Wiley to send out Chapter 2 of the training to the Commissioners so they could review the training prior to the next meeting. The second chapter focused on the legal elements of preservation. Mr. Wiley stated that Ms. Brabender Mattox could send him the chapter and he could email it out and provide Mr. Arnold a copy. Mr. Ulrich asked what the Commission’s end goal was with the training. He asked if the Commission would give a presentation, do something at the State of the City, etc. to make the most of the training. Ms. Brabender Mattox answered that the training was to educate the commissioners on their jobs so that they did not come into situations unprepared. There were national standards to know and the training would allow commissioners to make informed decisions. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that perhaps during an Acanthus Award presentation she could mention that the Commission was doing a year-long training. The Facebook page was another opportunity to explain the Commissioner training. She mentioned that Wisconsin was the only state to provide this Commissioner training. 9. Commissioner Statements a. 1321 Porter Avenue – Plaque Presentation – Steven Wiley Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Wiley for an update. Mr. Wiley explained that he had received the plaque sometime back and that he had informed Mr. Behnke who was the owner of the Porter property. The Commission would have to determine how they wanted to do the presentation with the winter weather and coronavirus pandemic. Mr. Behnke had completed much research so Mr. Wiley did not think there was much on that end that the Commission needed to do. Ms. Brabender Mattox noted that she was going through the old directories from 1857. She was overwhelmed with the number of houses that used to be located in West Algoma which was the original location of the Porter Avenue property prior to its relocation in the 1950s. Mr. Hess joined the meeting at 4:00 pm. b. Historic Plaque Criteria – Steven Wiley – Update After Mr. Hess left the meeting, Ms. Brabender Mattox resumed on Commissioner Statements. She asked Mr. Wiley for an update on plaque criteria. Mr. Wiley explained that he made the changes based on the last meeting and planned to make the plaque application form into a fillable pdf for inclusion on the Landmarks website. Ms. Brabender Mattox suggested placing it on the Facebook page also due to the potential of more people seeing it. c. Chief Oshkosh Signage – Update Ms. Brabender Mattox asked for an update on the Chief Oshkosh project. Mr. Wiley explained that not much had occurred except that the City Manager had asked the Oshkosh Public Museum Director to look at Professor Manning’s draft and provide input. Mr. Wiley had not heard anything new since then however. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that her WAHPC board had met the previous night and was planning to have a spring conference which would be held virtually April 23rd and 24th. Each session would start on the hour. The presentation of WAHPC awards would occur at noon on the 23rd. The Wisconsin Trust for Historic Preservation was planning their awards for the 24th at noon. They were looking to make the conference free and welcome commissioners from around the state. Ms. Brabender Mattox was working on setting up the program and getting presenters. Ms. Brabender Mattox also noted that Jen Davel was leaving her position as Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer for a position at Heritage, a large firm that did historic preservation nominations, etc. Mr. Cummings mentioned the potential tour of the property at 907 Washington Avenue and proposed April or May when the weather would improve for months to consider. He stated that he could work with the owner to set something up. Ms. Brabender Mattox suggested considering a plaque for the property and coordinating a plaque presentation with the visit. Mr. Jacklin asked for explanation on the February 19th virtual meeting for the State Historic Review Board. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that this was the hearing where nominations were considered for recommendation to the National Parks Service. Presentations on each nomination would occur and then a final hearing. 11. Agenda Items for Next Meeting (February 10th, 2021: 3 PM in City Hall Room 203) Mr. Wiley asked the Commission to let him know if anyone wanted items on the agenda for March. He asked Ms. Brabender Mattox to send the second chapter of the commissioner training. Mr. Cummings asked if the Commission could continue the discussion on building codes. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she would see if she could get a session at the WAHPC conference on this. 13. Adjournment Mr. Cummings made a motion to adjourn and Mr. Ulrich seconded. Meeting adjourned at 4:33 pm (5- 0). Recorded by: Steven Wiley, AICP, Associate Planner