Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesCITY OF OSHKOSH LANDMARKS COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2011 PRESENT: Todd Clark, Dennis Arnold, Shirley Mattox, and Steve Cummings EXCUSED: Arlene Schmuhl STAFF: David Buck, Principal Planner and Allen Davis, Director of Community Development CALL TO ORDER Mr. Clark called the meeting to order at 3:11 pm and a quorum was declared present. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER MINUTES Mr. Arnold moved for approval of the December minutes, as presented. Ms. Mattox seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY BRIDGE Mr. Buck introduced Ms. Charlene Roise who is a historical consultant with Hess, Roise and Company, which is a historical consulting firm out of Minneapolis, MN. She is the consultant hired by HNTB to perform an assessment of National Register Eligibility for the Chicago and Northwestern railway bridge located across the Fox River near the mouth of Lake Winnebago. Mr. Buck explained that the railroad is looking to replace the bridge. Ms. Roise explained that when it was clear that this would be a Section 106: State Preservation Act issue and would require review for historical significance, she contacted the State Historic Preservation Office who suggested she contact the Friends of the Fox and the Fox River Navigational System Authority but she also felt local historic preservation comments were important. Additionally, after consultation with staff, she contacted the Fox River Heritage Parkway group, who has also reviewed it. Ms. Roise explained the history of Section 106 and explained that the Coast Guard, who is managing the project, is required to determine historic significance. She presented the results of her analysis which determined the 1899 bridge to be a significant structure in itself and in its role in the local economy. Ms. Roise further stated that though it is significant historically, the engineers on the project have concluded that it is not capable of functioning as needed based on the age of the design in relation to modern railroad industry, for river navigation safety and that it needs to be replaced. The proposed replacement bridge is a bascule bridge, which is also a historic bridge type that was common in Milwaukee and Chicago in the early 20 century. General discussion ensued regarding the alignment, design and function of bascule bridges and the plans of the existing and the proposed bridge were reviewed. Ms. Roise explained that the next step would be to go to mitigation and develop a memorandum of understanding to determine how to deal with the loss of this historic resource and she was hoping to get some comments to add from the groups mentioned. She talked about the Historic American Building Survey Program which archived information on old structures in the 30s. In the 60s, the Historic American Engineering Record was established doing the same archiving for more 1 of 4 engineering work rather than just architecture. Ms. Roise stated that the initial mitigation item is to gather photos, records, etc. for the bridge as in the eligibility study and archive them within the State Historical Society library and provide other copies for public use (such as local preservation agencies, libraries, etc.). A meeting had previously taken place with the Friends of the Fox and the Heritage Parkway group who felt the mitigation as mentioned was important but also felt some salvage from the bridge (such as the 1899 plaque) should be salvaged and they also thought that interpretation panels /kiosks specifically of the bridge and its impact could be incorporated onto the shore(s) but the railroad and Coast Guard will have to weigh in. Mr. Arnold mentioned that a builder's plate may also be present and that could be reused. Mr. Clark stated that he understands why replacement is the chosen alternative but that he is concerned with the replacement not having any context with what is currently there and he thought there may be opportunity to have the look of the bridge more closely match the existing by possibly adding a faux lift. Mr. Arnold commented that he is in favor of seeing sections of the bridge reused such as the approach section but that it may be unlikely. Mr. Cummings added that something like disassembling the swing section and reassembling on shore near Pioneer Drive would be very advantageous. Mr. Davis suggested possibly placing something on the north shore near the Leach or on the south shore by the future parking area. Mr. Arnold added that the silhouette is the most defining feature of the bridge. It was determined that the Commission would like to see some type of salvaged components be incorporated into a kiosk or interpretive piece on both shores. Mr. Cummings said that the boater's views should also be considered. Ms. Roise stated that the design of the bascule bridge is very aesthetically pleasing and a special design that will fit in well with historic context. She inquired if there would be any local money that could be utilized or if the city would be willing to take ownership to any of the salvaged elements? Mr. Davis said it would be donated and stored but will have to be coordinated with the 2012 budget. Mr. Buck commented that salvaged portions could possibly be incorporated into an interpretive piece or kiosk when the redevelopment areas on the shores are constructed. Mr. Chris Brown with HNTB informed the Commission that the bridge will be made of unpainted steel and that the cost of making a faux span to match the existing bridge would not be cost effective. Ms. Roise also stated it would be a false history without really any historical value. Ms. Mattox asked if there are examples of what others have done. Mr. Brown and Ms. Roise gave several scenarios from other areas and explained differences between mitigation on private versus public projects and that private projects typically do not have major mitigation. Mr. Clark recommended that the Commission draft correspondence to the Coast Guard with the Commission's preferences. Ms. Roise stated that it would be helpful to her in discussions with the railroad and asked Mr. Brown if the railroad would be willing to salvage portions for the city's use. Mr. Brown stated that they may be and that they would probably be more willing to sell but they would definitely want all liability and responsibility to be transferred to some other entity. Mr. Cummings discussed possible private interest groups to get involved as a funding resource and Ms. Mattox thought a rail bridge park on the south shore would be a great addition to the redevelopment plans. Mr. Arnold said that without a sense of the level of caring in the community he would be in favor of keeping the builders plate and the 1899 plaque to be incorporated into the redevelopment areas. Ms. Mattox expressed interest in leaving pieces of the girders along the river walk as a "walk under" feature or a historical marker and art piece. The Commission made the statement that they understand that saving the bridge as -is is not an option as it would put the railroad out of service for too long and would not be economically feasible, especially with competition of subsidized highway transport options, however they want to celebrate the historic bridge in some nature and feel that the concept of salvaging key components as part of a kiosk or other feature on the trail or shore. A motion was made to draft official 2 of 4 correspondence by Mr. Cummings and seconded by Mr. Arnold expressing the Commission's appreciation to the Coast Guard, railroad and the consultants for being brought in on the discussion and afforded the opportunity to provide comments. The recommendation of the Landmarks Commission is to include all archived material on the bridge with the City and have a discussion at the time of demolition that the railroad could ideally save a portion of the span, girders or other salvage element to be incorporated into the redevelopment of the area and that at a minimum add some type of interpretive kiosk or marker with history and narrative of the bridge and its role in the development of and influence on the community at or near its present location. Motioned carried unanimously. BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW DECEMBER, 2010 Mr. Buck presented the list of building permits that were issued in the month of December and described work being done. Discussion on 418 North Main and the scope of work took place. Mr. Buck did not believe that they used the Foundation program but was not sure. There was discussion on the Downtown Overlay design standards and it is hoped that the renovations are in -line with the other storefronts and the original styles of the block. Mr. Buck stated he would check the permit to see what is being done and get back to the Commissioners. General discussion took place on the education of homeowners and the production of literature and new website design to reinforce appropriate historical redevelopment. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Mr. Buck provided information in a memorandum regarding the history of the design standards currently within the Municipal Code for landmarked properties, landmarked thematic groups and contributing properties within Council approved historic districts. The memorandum also included information regarding the history and standards associated with the Near East Neighborhood Redevelopment Area Zoning Overlay District. The Commission went over the requirements /regulations of each ordinance. Discussion ensued regarding the city's enforcement of design standards, or lack thereof. Mr. Arnold and Ms. Mattox discussed how the discussions at the Council and at the Near East Neighborhood meetings unfolded and the effects these had on staff actions. Mr. Buck and Mr. Davis felt that the Neighborworks or Great Neighborhoods program would be much more of a "grass roots" and consensus building. Mr. Davis discussed the goal of reinforcing the regulations with "carrots" rather than sticks as well as stating that he was not even sure if the current Council members realize we have unenforced regulations on the books. Mr. Arnold commented that if there is no will to enforce the regulations by the elected officials that the regulation should be removed from the books. He added that individuals who attacked the Near East pilot program and the authority of the steering committee received legitimacy through the Council's willingness to change the districts purpose and actions. Mr. Cummings mentioned that the Council recently directed staff to check the codes to make them compatible with the character of the neighborhoods for which they are in. Mr. Davis said that this is a first step to that end. Ms. Mattox finds it interesting that most cities throughout the state are providing help and are a valuable resource to homeowners not just a policing agency. She believed that the educational and technical assistance element of our design standards must be showcased. Mr. Buck said that the process for building permit review and issuance is extremely streamlined now and there is often no involvement from the homeowner, only the contractors. Mr. Arnold stated that he believed any delay will receive some negative feedback. Ms. Mattox commented that contractors working in other communities, such as Fond du Lac must go through the process and that just because Oshkosh hasn't done it does not mean it is a new concept. The Commission agreed that it needs to be incorporated as an educational element given in advance because without that it may "go down in 3 of 4 flames" like the previous attempts. Mr. Davis questioned just how voluntary it will be or if it would be something where there are required guidelines and is the city willing to fund mandates. Mr. Cummings stated that we must show the homeowners how the guidelines will enhance property values. Ms. Mattox stated that examples of quality rehabilitation vs. inappropriate rehabilitation need to be a tool in that effort. Mr. Cummings said he can go into the MLS to show how the sales of appropriate versus inappropriate maintained homes support the position as well as values in the area of a poorly redeveloped home. Mr. Arnold agreed that this approach will be far more effective as it is empirical data rather than the "expert" opinions of the Commission, staff or data from magazines or the internet. Mr. Buck commented that the values have to be market values because assessments typically are not showing any difference between the two. Mr. Arnold also commented that the realtors can provide information on how many people are looking for "period" homes with specific items such as hard wood floors, trim, etc. Mr. Buck stated that the memorandum was really a history lesson and an informational piece to get the Commission up to speed on the topic prior to any kind of workshop with the Council. GOAL SETTING 2011 Mr. Buck asked each of the Commissioners to come up with a limited number of actions that they want to complete in 2011 and bring them to the next Landmarks Commission meeting to incorporate into the planning calendar for this year. He suggested that having too many goals and not completing them is much worse than having fewer goals and getting them done. This is especially more of an issue as the Commission is short members and each of us is strapped for time already. AGENDA ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETING /COMMISSIONER STATEMENTS Mr. Buck stated that he has enough topics to get an agenda together for the next meeting if the Commission was okay with that. The goal setting will definitely be an item and probably the planning calendar as well. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Arnold and seconded by Ms. Mattox. Motion carried 4 -0. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck Principal Planner 4 of 4