Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesCITY OF OSHKOSH LANDMARKS COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 13, 2011 PRESENT: Todd Clark, Dennis Arnold, Arlene Schmuhl, Shirley Mattox, and Steve Cummings OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Jamroz, Blue Design Group, LLC STAFF: David Buck, Principal Planner CALL TO ORDER Mr. Clark called the meeting to order at 3:05 pm and a quorum was declared present. Mr. Clark stated that the agenda items would be taken in a different order allowing Item 6 to be taken after the minutes were discussed as Mr. Jamroz with Blue Design Group, LLC was here to discuss St. Johns project. APPROVAL OF MARCH MINUTES Mr. Arnold moved for approval of the February minutes, as presented. Mr. Cummings seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 440 WEST SOUTH PARK -ST JOHNS CHURCH CONVERSION TO CONDOMINIUM Mr. Buck introduced the project, reviewed the site and surrounding area, discussed the history of the site and reviewed the condominium project site plan. He also reviewed the elevations for the structure and explained that some of the stained glass windows would have to be replaced with egress windows but the window openings would remain the same as the original ones. Mr. Jamroz of Blue Design Group, LLC representing the owners /developers of the project, discussed the changes to the church and explained that the only significant change to the structure is the replacement of multiple stained glass windows with Department of Commerce approved egress windows. He explained that they attempted to keep as many as possible and that they were sympathetic to the architecture and design of the church by using the same window openings as the originals. Ms. Mattox commented that the stained glass windows are important to the local area. Mr. Jamroz explained that the code requirements for egress drove the window replacement issue. Mr. Clark explained that the replacement of windows is a result of adaptively reusing the building for a use it was never intended to have and that it is a not always easy to keep the structure intact but that the developer has been positive in how they have addressed the project. Ms. Mattox stated she was concerned with the aluminum storefront window system being proposed and also worried that with future work the replacements could be done improperly and she knows that they make double -hung stained glass systems. She inquired whether the petitioners had looked at a historic building code as basis for a variance. Mr. Jamroz discussed timing and costs associated with window choices and further explained that the use change has been a big issue with changing the buildings systems including windows. He further discussed how aluminum clad wood windows are extremely limited to shape while the aluminum storefront windows can be flexible so they can be shaped to match the existing openings so in the event things change with the use the owners can always reinstall the stained glass. Mr. Clark stated that the conversion is double -edged with code requirements versus original building design. Ms. Mattox agreed that it is important to keep the window opening shapes and the windows themselves. Mr. Jamroz said he felt what was being proposed was a great compromise between the city and the owners and that the building retains its 1 of 4 historic flavor while meeting modern codes. Ms. Schmuhl asked that the owners be made aware of the historic context of the building when the property is maintained, such as replacing siding. Mr. Jamroz stated that the development will be a condominium so individual owners will have the decision making on exterior maintenance. Ms. Mattox inquired if the owners considered putting garages on -site to make the development more attractive to potential buyers? Mr. Jamroz stated he was unsure. Mr. Mattox added that she felt the adaptive reuse of the building was responsible from a cultural and environmental standpoint and stated that "the greenest building is the building that has already been constructed ". Mr. Arnold stated that he supports the project and hopes that future renovations will be as sympathetic to the historic character as the proposed ones. Mr. Arnold motioned and Mr. Cummings seconded a motion to support the adaptive reuse of the building as proposed with conditions that they consider garages be added to the site and that they make an effort to reuse or at least retain the stained glass. Additional comments include that they felt the developers had done a good job attempting to keep the structure as historic as possible and hope that future efforts at renovation be as sympathetic to the facade as this project. Motion passed unanimously. BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW MARCH, 2011 Mr. Buck presented the list of building permits that were issued in the month of March and described work being done including the demolition of the former Buckstaff Observatory, which was discussed at a previous Landmarks Commission meeting. CN RAILROAD BRIDGE UPDATE Mr. Buck provided an update on the status of the Canadian National Railroad bridge reconstruction. He stated the railroad was now going to build the structure in its current location but is still willing to provide an interpretive panel and has offered the elements of the existing bridge to the city as requested by the Landmarks Commission. Mr. Buck added that AECOM was currently assessing what would need to be done to place the bridge elements on shore and provide a cost estimate for the same. The interpretive panel was further discussed as the Friends of the Fox offered to assist with its design in an attempt to coordinate it with the Fox Heritage Parkway project. The Commission determined that they were willing to work with the Friends of the Fox on a design and would comment on and approve the narrative but also felt the design must not only represent the Fox Heritage Parkway project but be compatible with the riverfront redevelopment plans of the city. INTERN DISCUSSION Ms. Mattox stated that she had several e -mail interactions with the potential intern but was unable to coordinate a meeting and she asked Mr. Buck if he had any interaction. Mr. Buck stated that the only conversations he had with the intern was to share Mr. Clark's and Ms. Mattox's contact information as the Commission had wished to interview the potential intern to determine his interests, abilities and time commitments. Mr. Arnold asked Mr. Cummings if they would be interested in contacting the gentleman to coordinate a meeting and Mr. Cummings agreed and asked Mr. Buck to supply him with contact information. PLANNING CALENDAR 2011 Mr. Buck went over the planning calendar prepared by Ms. Schmuhl and discussed how the Landmark's agendas were generated based on item deadlines for reporting on the planning calendar. He added that the yearly goal list was included as it states who is responsible for the individual items. Mr. Cummings commented that the goal list had the incorrect address for the "Honeymoon House" listed as 655 Mt. Vernon when it should be 633 Mt. Vernon. He further went over upcoming items for the future meetings. Ms. Schmuhl mentioned the historic preservation month 2 of 4 activities including the proclamation and acanthus awards which need to be coordinated on the Common Council's agenda. Mr. Buck stated he would get the National Trust's proclamation and tailor it to Oshkosh for the first Council meeting in May and asked if the Acanthus Awards should be addressed at that meeting or the second meeting in May. The Commission agreed that the Acanthus Awards should be on the second meeting. SELECT ACANTHUS AWARD RECIPIENTS Discussion on what type and how many possible Acanthus Award winners took place. Four possibilities were settled upon as follows: 1. Grand Opera House — Restoration efforts. It was determined that Ms. Mattox and Mr. Arnold would work on this item and that Joe Furlough could accept the award on behalf of the citizens of Oshkosh. 2. Architect Reinke — For his work on the many churches of Oshkosh. Ms. Mattox and Mr. Arnold would work on this item. 3. CR Meyer Construction Company — For their many architectural contributions to Oshkosh over the years. Mr. Clark would work on this item. 4. Jerry's Bar on Ceape & Frankfort— Continued contribution by the owners to Oshkosh over the past 100 years. Mr. Cummings and Mr. Clark would work on this item. COMMISSION REVIEW OF ANNUAL REPORT Mr. Clark stated that the structure of the annual report is in place but he has nothing further to report on the agenda item. He requested the item be carried over to the May meeting of the Commission. GRANTS — DISCUSSION ON TYPE AND TIMING Mr. Buck distributed a list and spreadsheet and explained that these historic preservation funding mechanisms are only a sample he had found online. Ms. Mattox added that there are CLG status grants out there that need to be looked into, especially to pay the administration cost for historic preservation professionals to shoulder some of the workload. Mr. Buck stated that the item should be continued at the May meeting as we don't want to miss out on any grant application deadlines. Mr. Arnold and Ms. Mattox briefly discussed the conference they attended on preservation of windows. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2011 -2015 Mr. Buck stated that he had the 5 -year CIP with him but was going to have a map made showing the roadways to be reconstructed to determine how they may relate to the action on the yearly goal list. Mr. Buck suggested this item be brought back at a later date, which was agreed upon by the Commission. NEWSLETTER DISCUSSION Ms. Schmuhl stated that the October 2010 newsletter needs to be finished to get up -to -date and she suggested that the newsletter be scaled back to twice a year. The Commission agreed that this was a wise decision based on time constraints. Ms. Schmuhl discussed future articles and inquired about what architectural style should be featured. It was suggested that the Greek Revival style would be a good one and that they could possibly focus on Mr. Cummings home. AGENDA ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETING /COMMISSIONER STATEMENTS Mr. Buck stated that topics to get an agenda for the next meeting have been determined by the Planning Calendar as well as the carryover items from this meeting. Additional items would include building permit review. Mr. Cummings asked that Darryn Burich's photographs of historic markers /interpretive panels and plaques from Racine and Philadelphia be included in the June 3 of 4 packets as part of the plaque program discussion. Ms. Mattox commented that Columbus has a plaque program and stated that they use the Erie Plaque Company. Discussion on local monument and trophy shops that may be capable of creating local plaques took place. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn at 5:33 pm was made by Ms. Mattox and seconded by Mr. Cummings. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck Principal Planner 4 of 4