Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CITY OF OSHKOSH LANDMARKS COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 2011 PRESENT: Todd Clark, Robert Hughes, Dennis Arnold, Steve Cummings, Vicky Redlin and Shirley Mattox EXCUSED: Arlene Schmuhl STAFF: David Buck, Robin Leslie CALL TO ORDER Mr. Arnold called the meeting to order at 3:00 pm and a quorum was declared present. Mr. Buck suggested that Item 4 be taken out of order and be addressed first because Robin Leslie, Principal Planner with the City was here to go over the Draft Sustainability Plan and solicit comments from the Landmarks Commission. The Commission agreed to amend the agenda to make Item 4 the first item of business. DRAFT SUSTAINABILITY PLAN REVIEW Ms. Leslie thanked the Commission and stated that she has and will be bringing the draft plan through multiple boards and commissions to solicit comments and suggestions. She went over a handout that summarized the components of the draft Plan. Ms. Mattox stated that Oshkosh is an innovator as there is no other like communities developing sustainability plans. Mr. Buck asked what chapter or section would be relevant to historic or cultural preservation and suggested that the comments he had heard before including the re-use of existing buildings rather than tearing down and building new are supplied to Ms. Leslie to forward onto the Sustainability Board and the Council. Ms. Leslie said she felt the Land Use and Development Section would probably be most connected to historic preservation. Ms. Mattox commented that the plan should state that we as a community should reuse what we already have, reinvest in the existing community, apply green retrofits to the already built environment, respect the heritage of buildings and recycle when demo is necessary. Ms. Mattox further described her comments by saying that in many cases the greenest building is the one already built because of the costs associated with new construction and that preservation is the ultimate recycling. In order to get the right language, Ms. Mattox proposed to include the comments in an e-mail to Ms. Leslie. Mr. Cummings asked if the suggestions of the plan include suggestions to revising building codes making it easier to reuse older buildings. Mr. Arnold said that codes must be more creative to allow new uses in historic buildings. Ms. Leslie said she understands and that the current code does have concessions for narrow lots. Mr. Cummings suggested that allowing on-street parking overnight could help older neighborhood redevelopment because it would allow those spots to be counted towards minimums. Ms. Leslie stated that many communities incorporate such things into their infill policies. Mr. Arnold asked how much the draft plan weighs the value of “older” neighborhoods when looking at the impact of solar panels and wind turbines on historic sites and structures. He stated that many times installations of these types will be in conflict with historic preservation efforts. Ms. Leslie stated that each chapter of the draft plan will have some type of item that would apply to older neighborhoods. She further stated that Madison tried to restrict the use of solar panels on historic structures but that the state said they could not. Mr. Arnold stated that at a certain level sustainability efforts can leave a larger carbon footprint than a historic structure or neighborhood would. 1 of 3 Mr. Clark suggested that the re-creation of the Landmarks Commission website have a section on sustainability and historic preservation to show how both goals can be met without destroying the integrity of a structure. Mr. Arnold asked if the life-cycle of buildings were taken into account in the document. Ms. Leslie explained that the concept deals with how a structure can be built to last longer than a “typical” structure constructed these days which could be addressed in an infill policy to build “long-life” structures next to historic “long-life” structures. Mr. Arnold stated that even though no one likes to hear it, sometimes the “carrot” doesn’t work and a “stick approach” is needed. Mr. Clark suggested that the plan include language that new sustainable developments capture the flavor of the historic context in which they are located and suggests that a preservation subsection be included in the land use chapter. Mr. Buck suggested that as the Commission has more time to review the plan that any future comments/suggestions by individuals be e-mailed to Ms. Leslie and she could return in January or February to let us look at the changes. Ms. Leslie said she could do that and also that any changes will go back to the steering committee. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2011 MEETING MINUTES Mr. Hughes motioned to approve the October minutes, which was seconded by Mr. Cummings. October minutes were approved unanimously. In review of the November minutes, Mr. Arnold asked that his name be removed on the last item in Commissioner statements as he had not commented on the condition of the fishing shanties. Mr. Arnold motioned to approve the November minutes with the proposed change. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mattox. November minutes were approved with change unanimously. BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW & DISCUSSION Mr. Buck presented the list of building permits that were issued in the month of November and described work done. The Commission discussed the permit application with special discussion on the sign at 407 North Main Street. Mr. Buck stated that the proposed sign would be applied in such a way as not to damage any of the historic transom or vents. RIVERSIDE PARK INTERPRETIVE SIGN – UPDATE Mr. Cummings gave an update on the status of the Riverside Park interpretive sign and stated that a concept of the sign with text will be presented to the working group later in the week. He further stated that if the design looks good that the sign concept and text will be brought before the Landmarks Commission to review and comment. It is hoped that once designed and fabricated that it will go up in City Hall and used as an example of how these will look and possibly garner public interest and possibly more new funding sources. Mr. Buck stated that the residential flyer was completed and that the next step is to get an example from Erie. Ms. Redlin suggested that Sunnyview Cemetery would be a good candidate for an example plaque. Mr. Buck stated that these are to be for structures and an interpretive panel may be more suitable for the Cemetery. He suggested that we purchase a plaque for our landmarked property and use as an example but that he will check with Erie to see if they would be willing to provide a loaner as an example. POTENTIAL DOTY STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT – UPDATE Mr. Cummings stated that there was nothing to report. Ms. Redlin asked if the historic survey supported a historic district at the location. Ms. Mattox stated it did not register as a state or national eligible district but it may be a local example of historic as it is important to the City and shows the use of certain materials and styles of the time period. 2 of 3 LANDMARKS COMMISSION LOGO Mr. Buck opened the discussion on the creation of a Landmarks Commission logo by stating that with the creation of the sign programs and the reengineering of the website that the logo for the Landmarks Commission is being frequently requested and currently the only thing we have close to a logo is the acanthus leaf. Ms. Mattox expressed interest in another type or addition to the leaf that better represents the Commission and the City. Ms. Redlin suggested that the Oshkosh Wave be incorporated to show we are a City agency. Ms. Mattox suggested using brick or architecture such as a freeze from the Presbyterian Church and that we keep it simple. Mr. Buck said that the “Landmarks Commission” name should be included. Mr. Arnold thought the wood trim above the Morgan House would be good. Mr. Clark suggested that we give Ms. Schmuhl a copy of our discussion and let her create a few examples to bring back. The Commission agreed. GOAL SETTING/PLANNING CALENDAR - 2012 The discussion of goal setting and calendar creation was postponed to the January meeting agenda. AGENDA ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETING/COMMISSIONER STATEMENTS Mr. Buck stated that topics for the next meeting include discussion on the goals for 2012 as well as the fishing shanties, the heritage parkway, logo, interpretive sign, Landmarking Mt Vernon and possibly Mainview Apartment redevelopment. He stated the agenda will be large. Mr. Clark asked that designating a workshop date to redesign the website be included as well. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn at 4:53 pm was made by Mr. Arnold and seconded by Ms. Mattox. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck Principal Planner 3 of 3