Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmarks Minutes 04-14-21CITY OF OSHKOSH LANDMARKS COMMISSION Minutes April 14th, 2021 PRESENT: Shirley Brabender Mattox, Steve Cummings, Nikki Stoll Olthoff, Gerald Jacklin, Kristopher Ulrich, Deb Allison-Aasby (Meeting was held virtually via Webex and all attended via Webex) EXCUSED: None ABSENT: Elizabeth Hintz, Andrew Smith STAFF AND OTHERS: Steven Wiley, Allen Davis, Mark Lyons, Lee Franzen (Oshkosh | Winnebago County Housing Authority), Drew Niehans (OASD), David Gundlach (OASD), Timothy Hess 1. Call to Order Ms. Brabender Mattox called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. and a quorum was declared present. 2. Approval of February 10th, 2021 Meeting Minutes Ms. Brabender Mattox asked the Commission if there were any revisions for the February meeting minutes. No commissioners had any revisions to the minutes so the Commission voted 6-0 to approve the minutes as written (Ulrich/Stoll Olthoff). 3. Merrill School – National Register Nomination – Discussion Only Ms. Brabender Mattox noted that Mr. Gundlach and Mr. Niehans were in attendance from the school district. She asked him to provide background on the item. Mr. Wiley explained that Ms. Brabender Mattox had asked Mr. Wiley to place the item on the agenda and that she had worked with Mr. Hess on this item previously. Ms. Brabender Mattox had attended a school board meeting where the board had discussed new schools and had mentioned that the Webster Stanley and Merrill Schools would be razed. She noted that Merrill School was an historic building and that from a sustainability standpoint, it was better to reuse rather than tear down buildings. She had contacted Mr. Hess and asked him his opinion on the reuse potential of the building. She noted that the building was built well and she and several friends had taught there. She had done research on the history of the building and Mr. Hess and she contacted the Wisconsin Historical Society to see if it would be eligible for the National Register. She and Tim had wanted the school district to be aware that the building was potentially eligible prior to finalizing the referendum language. Upon receiving a letter from the WHS stating that the building was potentially eligible, Mr. Hess notified Mr. Gundlach. The referendum language was changed to “potentially raze” for Merrill School. Ms. Brabender Mattox and Mr. Hess did not proceed with a nomination because they waited to see the outcome of the referendum. Their neighborhood was not informed about the school and Ms. Brabender Mattox brought Merrill School up at Landmarks. She stated that the school district planned to demolish the school. Architect Chet Wesenberg (not in attendance) had done some concepts to see if there were other ways of siting a new school building. Mr. Gundlach replied that Ms. Brabender Mattox’s explanation was accurate and stated that the actual language in the referendum was “potential removal.” Mr. Gundlach explained that the school district needed to construct the building in its proposed location adjacent to the existing location. The district needed the current building’s location for green space which was why the building would be demolished. The spaces would flip from their current configurations. The only other alternative would require demolishing homes which was not viable. East Hall Park is nearby, but would require children to cross Jackson and the land was not owned by the district. Voters had authorized the district to remove the current Merrill building. The district would release information on the new school in May. Mr. Gundlach stated that the architects had retained some characteristics of the current Merrill School in the new design. He explained that the consolidation plan for the OASD was moving forward because the district was not in a positon to spend large amounts of money into maintaining buildings they did not need. He stated that there was discussion about in Phase II of the plan some buildings being retained. However, in contrast to the Smith School site which was no longer needed by the district, the Merrill site was needed. Mr. Ulrich asked if there was consideration for instead of razing the entire building, saving a portion such as the most architecturally significant and oldest piece near Center and New York. Mr. Gundlach stated that such discussion had not occurred because the district had no need for it. The school would house around 900 students so the athletic facilities would be used by significantly more students than was the case currently. Mr. Ulrich stated that he was wondering if it was possible to save any of the existing school and sell it to developers. Mr. Niehans answered that the issue was that this would drastically reduce the available space for athletic fields. Mr. Ulrich asked if there was any consideration of acquiring the properties along Custer Avenue much like what the Boys and Girls Club did for their expansion. Mr. Niehans answered that the district had looked at this but was looking at well over a $1 million outlay for the district to acquire the properties that were there. He stated that the district was getting much pushback from people who did not want to sell. He did not want the district in a position where they acquired a property in the middle of the block but could not get the properties adjacent. Mr. Lyons explained that from a neighborhood planning perspective he would have concerns with the removal of existing single family homes. There was the stabilizing factor of a new school and taking homes out of the neighborhood was a concern. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Gundlach how many homes the district had already acquired and razed along Kentucky and Jackson. Mr. Niehans answered that the number was five. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that staff was concerned about demolishing houses but five were already demolished so she wanted it to be transparent. Mr. Lyons replied that if five homes became twenty, this was a very large impact on a neighborhood. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that there was a gap on Jackson which no one could explain and the new school would have an impact on the neighborhood. She was not sure when the district was going to have a conversation with the people of the New York Avenue and Jackson Street areas about the project. She stated that since the building was potentially eligible there were state laws about demolition and that photos would generally be taken of the existing building prior to demolition. Prominent Oshkosh architect Henry Auler designed Merrill School along with others such as Smith. The school was significant for its architecture and for the development of the junior high concept. She stated that there was over a 100 year history and the original Merrill was built in 1900. She asked that the school district keep in touch and document the existing conditions to preserve history. Mr. Gundlach stated that the district was having this discussion for the historic and personnel significance of it. The Merrill and Webster staffs would be brought to the new school and some of the architectural and historic elements would be incorporated at the new school. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that schools and churches were important to the cultural history. She stated that the photographic evidence would go to Madison to the historical society. Ms. Brabender Mattox emphasized the importance of preserving the history through photographs and documentation. Mr. Gundlach stated that one of the most significant things for a neighborhood was a new school. Oaklawn School was an example of a large positive impact. Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Gundlach if he could comment on the district’s plans for public outreach for the Merrill project. Mr. Gundlach stated that the new school would likely not open until 2023 and that the district was focused on the security features for the existing schools which were to be done in summer of 2021. He stated that most of the focus with neighborhood groups would likely be around Washington Elementary since the district would no longer need this site. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the school district was considering the older trees at the site in the development plans or if they planned to remove everything. Mr. Gundlach replied that if there was any way to preserve what was there the project team would try to do that but long roots could be problematic. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she would like the district to consider saving the older trees. Mr. Gundlach stated that the district had some conversations and if it was possible to save trees the district would be mindful of this. Mr. Ulrich asked when demolition of Merrill would start compared to Webster. Mr. Gundlach answered that currently the district was in the rough stages of planning the building and that in 2022 more detailed planning would occur. The shell and rough spaces were laid out but the district was getting departments’ input on tweaking the spaces on the inside. This would occur over the next 12 months. The district would likely break ground a year from now and the building would take a year to construct, with occupancy in September 2023. The current Merrill building would stay for a year and house the Webster students while their building was created. Subsequent to that is when the existing Merrill site would become green space. Mr. Jacklin mentioned Froedert Hospital in the Milwaukee area as an example where pieces of the old Froedert Hospital were saved and reused in the new building. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that bricks were very valuable and there was demand for them after razing a building. The older buildings had old growth timber which could easily last another 100 years. The timbers, flooring, etc. all had value in reuse rather than sitting in a dust heap. Mr. Gundlach replied that he had noted this and that his team met with the architect twice a month. He could bring this up upon meeting with the architect at a future time. Ms. Stoll Olthoff explained that locally the Crescent Moon also could be interested and this would permit the materials to stay local. Mr. Jacklin asked about the future of Washington Elementary. Mr. Gundlach was not sure but said the district was open to ideas. The district would no longer need the building as an elementary school after 2024. He stated that he would like to hand the school board a list of options based on neighborhood input. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she and State Historic Preservation Officer Daina Penkiunas had driven through some parts of Oshkosh and looked at some schools to discuss eligibility for the State and National Registers. They did not drive past Merrill School however. She stated that historic designation made properties eligible for historic tax credits which could then allow for redevelopment projects that would otherwise not be feasible. She asked Mr. Gundlach to keep in contact with the Landmarks Commission and stated that the Commission was happy to help with any historic preservation items that arose. Mr. Gundlach replied that he was interested in keeping the avenues of communication open and that over the next month visuals of the proposed new school would be available. Ms. Brabender Mattox thanked Mr. Gundlach and Niehans for attending. Mr. Gundlach and Mr. Niehans both then left the meeting at 3:38 pm. 4. 530 N Main Street – Additional Cell Equipment - Action Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if anyone from the Raulf property was in attendance. Mr. Franzen answered that he was in attendance from the Oshkosh Housing Authority. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained the Section 106 process and that the SHPO appreciated when projects first were reviewed by the local landmarks commission prior to review by SHPO. The issue of focus was the additional cell equipment proposed and the potential visual impact on the historic property and district. She asked Mr. Wiley if he had worked with the consultant involved in the project. Mr. Wiley stated that he had and that he needed to follow up with them in the next few days with official comments from Landmarks. He stated that he had included a draft letter in the Commissioners’ packets but had not modified it pending input from the Commission. Mr. Wiley showed the Commission the proposed locations of the new antennas below existing equipment. Mr. Franzen stated that new antennas would be mounted on the west, north, and south ides of the tower (1 antenna on each side). The antennas would be 8 inches by 15 inches in size. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the antennas would be mounted below the parapet. Mr. Franzen stated that from Division Street observers would likely see the antenna but on the north side the antenna would be below the parapet. The antenna proposed for the south side would likely be visible but from a long distance away. Ms. Brabender Mattox commented on equipment shown on the north side of the building. Mr. Franzen stated that several antennas were there and had been there for over six years. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the visual impact was important and that the Raulf Hotel was visible for a mile along Main Street. She stated that the upper portion of the building was cluttered by equipment in the past and that upon doing an additional project, the Housing Authority and cell companies had to reduce the visual impact of the equipment. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked the Commission for input. Mr. Ulrich stated that initially he was in favor of the project as long as the visual impact was minimal and the new antennas were camouflaged. He stated that after reading the Commissioner training included in the packets he had some reservations. Mr. Ulrich asked if any of the proposed wiring could be placed in conduit and painted the same color as the building. Mr. Franzen answered that this was the plan. Mr. Jacklin asked if the City would be reimbursed for the cell company to place equipment on top of the Raulf. Mr. Franzen stated that Raulf Place did receive rent for the equipment on the building. He explained that without the rent it would be difficult to operate the building. Mr. Jacklin and Mr. Franzen remarked on the small physical size of the antennas. Mr. Jacklin asked if the antennas would be installed in a way so as to necessitate redoing the new antennas once the old ones were obsolete. Mr. Franzen stated that anytime old antennas became obsolete the old ones were removed and the new ones remained. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that during the previous modernization in 2015 the equipment was evaluated and all obsolete equipment was removed. She noted the contrast between the cluttered appearance of the building previously and currently. She explained that she was glad the Housing Authority could obtain the extra income from rent while remaining sensitive to the building’s visual impact. She asked Mr. Franzen when he thought the project would be done. He answered that he believed the project would be done in 2021. She asked if US Cellular was new to the building. Mr. Franzen replied that the company had rooftop equipment for six or seven years. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that the Commission would be sending a letter to SHPO regarding the project and traditionally had four categories of comments for cell projects. She asked Mr. Ulrich if he changed his mind on the proposed project. Mr. Ulrich answered that he was still in favor of the project and that as long as the equipment was not going to have a negative visual impact he did not see issues. Mr. Wiley stated that the Commission would likely need to modify the letter since none of the four categories would apply if the Commission did not object. Mr. Wiley stated that he could find the previous letter the Commission had done for equipment proposed for the Raulf building and modify it since that letter was in support of the equipment at the time. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that if the Commission approved, a motion could occur to send the letter to the SHPO and to US Cellular. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the letter could address the visual impact mitigated by the steal thing/camouflage and how the equipment would not affect the visuals of the building or historic district. Mr. Wiley stated that he could finalize the letter. The Commission voted 6-0 to approve a letter with no objections to the project (Jacklin/Allison-Aasby). Ms. Brabender Mattox thanked Mr. Franzen for attending. Mr. Franzen then left at 4:00 pm. 5. Smith School National Register Nomination – Action Mr. Hess stated that his team had hired Gail Klein from UW-Milwaukee as an historical consultant to write the nomination. Ms. Klein had completed the research. Mr. Hess was now asking for support of the Landmarks Commission for the nomination. May 14th was the date the review board would consider the Smith School nomination. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained to Mr. Hess that normally the Commission wrote a letter of support and she would then contact Oshkosh’s legislators to have them write letters of support which then went in the packet of materials that went to Washington DC. Mr. Hess stated that the Wisconsin Historical Society had reviewed his team’s proposed project and was supportive. He stated that he was excited about doing tongue and groove with cedar corbels under the soffit to return the feature to its original appearance rather than the aluminum soffit that was currently there. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked who Mr. Hess was working with at SHPO. Mr. Hess replied that he was working with Paul Porter, who was the tax credit reviewer for the eastern side of the state. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked for a motion to write a letter in support of the Smith School nomination. The Commission voted 6-0 to approve the motion (Allison-Aasby/Ulrich). Ms. Brabender Mattox thanked Mr. Hess. Mr. Wiley asked if he should write the letter or if Ms. Brabender Mattox would write it. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she would write the letter. Mr. Hess left at 4:11 pm. 6. Building Permit Review Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that this was the shortest building permit review the Commission ever had. Mr. Wiley stated that permitting and construction generally increased in April. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that several people on Linde Street had installed new furnaces and missed the opportunity for tax credits. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she would like to work with the neighborhood associations to increase awareness of tax credit programs. Mr. Ulrich stated that he would like to work on a tour of historic districts with realtors on behalf of the Landmarks Commission and increase awareness of tax credit programs. 7. Historic Building Code Discussion – Steve Cummings Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if Mr. Cummings was in attendance. Ms. Allison-Aasby explained that Mr. Cummings was having technical issues so was cutting in and out. Mr. Wiley stated that it looked like Mr. Cummings had a weak connection. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that she had contacted Paul Porter at the state and had sent emails and links to Mr. Wiley that Mr. Porter had sent her. She stated that for her one of the worst codes was the code addressing banisters/railings on porches. Often original railings were lower and when modern taller railings were installed this impacted the aesthetics of the porch. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she thought homeowners could work with the Inspections Division and show evidence of the original railings to Inspections. Inspections would then allow the owner to restore railings to their original appearances. She asked Mr. Wiley if this was correct. Mr. Wiley answered that if there was visual evidence (photographs, blueprints, etc.) Inspections had in some cases allowed people to restore railings accordingly. The Morgan House was an example. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Ms. Allison-Aasby if this would be her last Landmarks meeting. Ms. Allison-Aasby answered that this meeting would be her last one. She stated that she had learned a lot during her time on the Commission and she thanked everyone for making it a great year. Ms. Brabender Mattox thanked Ms. Allison-Aasby for her years of service to the Oshkosh community. Ms. Allison-Aasby thanked Ms. Brabender Mattox. 8. Historic Preservation Plan – Steven Wiley - Update Mr. Wiley stated that he had discussed the plan with Anne Schaefer, who was the Marketing and Fund Development Coordinator for the City. Ms. Schaefer often assisted on neighborhood related initiatives and was very helpful in assisting with fund raising for William Waters Plaza. Ms. Schaefer had suggested doing a case statement for the plan. The case statement was a document that could be presented to donors and it explained the project, its benefits, how it tied in with the strategic plan, etc. Mr. Wiley stated that the case statement was the next step and he would work with Ms. Schaefer on this. Afterwards the commission could meet with interested parties, donors, etc. to start fundraising efforts. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the goal was to hire a consultant. Mr. Wiley stated that due to limitations on staff and commission time this was the intent. Ms. Brabender Mattox emphasized that Commissions were fluid and that many Commission projects required great amounts of research. She stated that with a consultant’s help, hopefully the Commission would get a strong plan document. She thanked Mr. Wiley for reaching out to Ms. Schaefer. 9. Social Media – Discussion/Action Mr. Wiley stated that he had continued to post when ideas came up. He informed the Commission that he was planning to post on the upcoming WAHPC conference the day following the Landmarks meeting. Mr. Ulrich and Mr. Jacklin commented on the post that Mr. Wiley had done showing them and Mr. Cummings at the Grand Opera House for the unveiling of the new Grand Opera House signage. Ms. Brabender Mattox remarked that it was too bad that the City only permitted staff to post on social media for boards and commissions. Mr. Cummings left at 4:26 pm due to technical issues. She stated that the process of finding something to post, sending it to staff, and having staff post was cumbersome. Ms. Allison-Aasby explained that she sympathized and agreed but the reason this policy was enacted was because people in the past posted their personal views. She stated that this did not have to do with Landmarks or any of the Commissioners but rather with other board and commission members. Ms. Allison-Aasby thanked the Commission and left at 4:30 pm. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Commissioners to send Mr. Wiley anything they might have for posting and Mr. Wiley to post information on the WAHPC conference. Mr. Wiley stated that he would do this. Ms. Stoll Olthoff explained that on social media there was the ability to invite friends to like the page. She stated that she had already invited her friends to like the page and suggested that Mr. Ulrich and Ms. Brabender Mattox do the same. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the Facebook page needed to be kept alive or people would lose interest. The intent of the page was to inform and support Landmarks’ mission and make people aware. Mr. Ulrich stated that education was important. 10. Wisconsin Historical Society – Commissioner Training – Discussion Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the Commissioners had a chance to review the second chapter of the WHS Commissioner training. The chapter dealt with legal aspects and background for preservation. She stated that Landmarks was a legal entity. Mr. Ulrich stated that this reminded him of urban renewal and many demolitions that would have occurred in the 1950s and 60s. Ms. Brabender Mattox mentioned that the first section was the National Historic Preservation Act, followed by the National Environmental Protection Act and transportation act. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that the Commission had powers as a CLG. The Wisconsin Building Code was discussed in the training and it was used in the adaptive reuse of the Granary in Oshkosh. Older buildings could keep their historic properties. Mr. Wiley explained that if a property is locally landmarked or designated there was flexibility there under the building code. He had worked with Inspections on a few projects where this flexibility was used. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that each SHPO had a historic preservation officer. In Wisconsin this was Daina Penkiunas. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that Oshkosh was a CLG (discussed in the training) and she had fought for years to obtain this status. CLG status allowed communities to apply for grants. 11. 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 been in touch with the property owner awhile back and that it would be ideal to schedule a plaque presentation in May or June. As long as the presentation occurred outside the City would not have issues with the presentation. Mr. Wiley stated that he would get something on the calendar for May or June. b. Historic Plaque Criteria – Steven Wiley – Update Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Wiley for an update on plaque criteria. Mr. Wiley explained that he planned to make the plaque application form into a fillable pdf for inclusion on the Landmarks website and Facebook page. Mr. Ulrich stated that his neighborhood had a conversation regarding this at their last meeting. His neighborhood was walking through and picking houses that might be able to be nominated. They would then approach the homeowners to let them know. He thanked Mr. Wiley for work on the criteria. c. WAHPC Conference – April 23rd and 24th – Shirley Brabender Mattox Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she had sent the information to Mr. Wiley who then forwarded it to commissioners. She recommended that commissioners sign up and she explained that it was free to attend. Commissioners could register for either or both days. 12. Agenda Items for Next Meeting (May 12th, 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 May. 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. Outstanding Issues Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the Lakeshore Park discussion would remain on the agenda for further discussion. She wanted to see more than a plaque for that site. The 1523 N Main plaque application would remain. She asked Mr. Wiley for an update on the Grand Opera House signage. Mr. Wiley explained that he was still working with the Grand Opera House team and structural engineer on final documentation (images of the plates and thru-bolts) for the project. Mr. Wiley had no update on the Chief Oshkosh signage. 14. Adjournment Mr. Ulrich made a motion to adjourn and Ms. Stoll Olthoff seconded. Meeting adjourned at 5:04 pm (4- 0). Recorded by: Steven Wiley, AICP, Associate Planner