Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CITY OF OSHKOSH LANDMARKS COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 14, 2012 PRESENT: Todd Clark, Dennis Arnold, Arlene Schmuhl, Steve Cummings, Shirley Brabender Mattox, Robert Hughes and Karen Heikel EXCUSED: Vicky Redlin STAFF: David Buck and Allen Davis INTRODUCTION OF KAREN HEIKEL Mr. Buck introduced Karen Heikel, the new Landmarks Commissioner. He stated that he had met with her the day prior to get her up to speed with what the Commission has been doing for the last few years. The Commissioners introduced themselves and Ms. Heikel stated she works at the University and came to Oshkosh from Billings, Montana. She also has spent years in Duluth, Minnesota and stated that this community is similar to Oshkosh as far as historic structures and history. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Arnold called the meeting to order at 3:00 pm and a quorum was declared present. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 2012 MEETING MINUTES Ms. Schmuhl motioned to approve the February 8, 2012 meeting minutes, which was seconded by Mr. Cummings. Minutes were approved unanimously. Ms. Schmuhl motioned to approve the February 14, 2012 meeting minutes with the correction that “Romanesque classic style” be changed to “garamond” in the discussion on text. The motion with correction was seconded by Mr. Cummings. Minutes were approved unanimously with change. BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW & DISCUSSION Mr. Buck presented the list of building permits that were issued in the month of February and described work done. Mr. Buck stated that one was a reroof and two were interior. 669 Franklin did receive vinyl siding on the home and garage and Mr. Buck mentioned that with the education element that the Commission hopes to employ that owners of such properties may come to realize that painting may be more appropriate, especially with utilization of the 25% tax credit. There was a question of what issues that lead paint would cause with the tax credit program. Mr. Buck stated that this is not a government grant or loan and it is a tax credit and he suspected it would be dealt with by the State at the project approval. FISHING SHANTIES DISCUSSION Mr. Buck gave some background on the item and stated it is a discussion item that has been on the agenda several times in the past but that people are here to discuss it this evening. He stated it is labeled as a discussion item without action requested. Mr. Buck went over a short PowerPoint presentation showing the location and pictures of the fishing shanties and stated that many more were in place throughout the history of Oshkosh. He further stated that they are located on the river itself and are not located on individual property so there are no records within the City in regard to taxes being paid, permits being issued, permissions or property rights to be there. It is his 1 of 5 understanding that several individuals wanted to come to Landmarks to discuss the future of the structures and their context with Oshkosh History as there was a general feeling/fear that they may be removed as part of the riverfront development. Mr. Buck recommended that the Commission hear from the interested parties and absorb what they have to say and possibly put the item on for some type of action on their next agenda, whether a communication to the City Manager, request for staff research or simply a statement in general. Mr. Bob Poeschl (912 Bayshore Drive) stated he does not represent the owners but wanted to register the statement that he felt the shanties are a significant part of our past and present history. He stated that the cabins existed as a lease from the railroad to the workers near the railroad bridge for a fee and when the City had gotten the property the leases ceased to exist and the City would not accept payment. Mr. Poeschl associated the cabins with the depression and food gathering as well as vacation homes and also that these are part of Oshkosh fishing history and he hoped there could be some preservation effort or at a minimum their story can be passed on as riverwalk historic signage/plaque. Mr. Poeschl asked that the Commission give some direction or opinion to the city on the shanties significance as a first step in understanding how they fit into our present and future. Mr. Buck stated that if staff is to research the shanties or if even the Commission is to have an organized effort that it must be directed from management or Council. Ms. Schmuhl asked if these are unique to Oshkosh or if there are others in the state or country. Mr. Jeff Decker stated that Sheboygan has incorporated these types of structures in to their redevelopment efforts on shore. Ms. Schmuhl asked if they were available for individuals to use for fishing purposes. Mr. Decker stated that they are business users. Mr. Davis added that the DNR allows them in two spots within the state: parts of the Wolf River and the Mississippi River. Ms. Schmuhl said she was inquiring to determine if other communities may have regulation on the uses that we could look at. Mr. Davis stated that the Attorney’s office must make determination on the legality of the situation. Mr. Buck asked that the Commission try to focus on the issue of the shanties in relation to historic significance not ownership. Mr. Elijah Henning (4E Black Wolf Ave) stated he is an owner and that he does not understand why they would need to be removed as he has not seen any plans for the east side of the fishing pier in relationship to redevelopment. Mr. Clark suggested that this is a bigger question than what the Commission is here to address and he personally felt that the Landmarks Commissions focus should be the historic context. Mr. Hughes asked how the supposed ownership of the property was come- by. Mr. Henning stated he purchased the property as part of a group from a partner’s family member with a contract. Mr. Buck recommended getting any contracts to the City Attorney. Mr. Hughes asked if there are any bathrooms facilities. Dan Henning (214 Prospect Avenue) stated he is a member of the “River Rats” and that they use off-site restrooms. He added that he feels it is a shame that the great number of shanties that used to exist on the river have slowly been disappearing. Ms. Schmuhl asked how close the riverwalk improvements are planned to the shanties. Mr. Davis stated that they are about 15 feet off the shoreline/waters edge but the riverwalk can be built independent of the shanties. He added that the amenities such as benches and lights will be on land and could be developed without touching the shanties at this time. Ms. Schmuhl asked why the shanty advocates are concerned at this point. Mr. Henning stated that they fear that the city’s overall goal is to remove them and that they are leery of doing any improvements or maintenance with the uncertainty that is out there. Mr. Davis said that he could build the walk with the structures there but they may be a topic that is part of the redevelopment of the Boatworks property. 2 of 5 Mr. Arnold stated that he felt it is important to go to the site and check out the structures in their context as it gives you a sense of place and perspective of distance and placement. Mr. Buck added that he felt that was important as research has not been done, which must be directed. Mr. Cummings stated that the legal rights must be determined so the Commission can determine what they have the ability to do. Mr. Davis stated he has been in a “holding pattern” until the legal determinations from the DNR and the City Attorney’s Office. Mr. Arnold asked if it is okay for the Commission to make a statement of their historical, cultural and/or social value. Mr. Buck stated that there are a lot of little topics and the legal issues should not be discussed however the historic and cultural point should be. Mr. Henning stated that the Fox-Wisconsin Heritage Parkway are interested in the significance of the cabins that they would like to renovate one and have gatherings or other tourist activities. Mr. Henning also stated that the fishing pier/former rail line is not in the way of riverwalk construction and he does not see how the cabins are in the way. Mr. Buck suggested that the Commission put the item on the next agenda as an action item to have a communication to the City Manager. Mr. Cummings said there are three things to communicate to the City Manager: 1) stay as-is, 2) remove and have sign; 3) showcase and keep open to public. Mr. Davis added that the DNR will not allow reconstruction. Mr. Decker said a move would be difficult but manageable with a public/private partnership but that it may be a moot point at this th time as there are no complete plans by the city to remove. Mark Witty (226 W 12) stated that if they are moved off the water they lose all functionality. Mr. Decker said at that point that it would be a commemorative item not a functional one. Mr. James Tuttle (5455 Nichols Road) stated that there must have been over 50 shacks between the bridges and was almost like a historic village. Mr. Tuttle discussed his memories of the river cabin community over the last 50+ years and that in his opinion it is a historic site that if removed can never be brought back. He also believes that there are documents within City Hall acknowledging the rights of the people who occupy the cabins. Mr. Clark followed-up that there is a spirit of place that is Oshkosh that is partially lost if structures are gone. He felt the Commission should make a simple statement but was unclear if the Commission wanted to do it now or at a future meeting. Ms. Brabender Mattox suggested that the Commissioners go to the site and do research as to be able to make a logical and meaningful communication. Mr. Davis recommended communicating with the occupants/owners. Mr. Henning asked that the Commissioners look at the information provided to them at the meeting in their research. Mr. Buck warned that no more than three Commissioners can go or be in discussion on the topic at any time without proper notice or it could be an issue with open meetings law. Mr. Arnold made the motion to put the item on the next agenda as an action item for comment, which was seconded by Ms. Schmuhl. Motion passed 7-0. ANTENNAE COLLOCATION ON CITY WATER TOWER – 460 MARION RD Mr. Buck went over the request (Section 106 request) for placing antenna onto the side of the City water tower on Marion Road. He explained that the water tower is within 1 mile of all of the City’s Historic Districts and most historically identified properties. Mr. Buck went over the photos in the packets and explained that there are currently between 6-9 antennae on the side of the water tower and Edge Consulting is requesting a review on the impact placing three more would have on the historic districts of Oshkosh. Ms. Schmuhl stated she walked around the area and did not even see the existing antenna on the tower so does not suspect three more will be noticeable from a close proximity much less the ½-1 mile away that the historic districts are located. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the water tower were to go down, would the antenna need special approval to go back up on there own tower. Mr. Buck responded that was true and any new tower/antenna would have to come back through unless it was a municipal structure, which does not need an approval-just a lease. Mr. Clark expressed his opinion that these antenna are not a big deal as they are not visible. Mr. Arnold also believes that the structure it is on is not the most attractive of structures anyway. 3 of 5 Ms. Brabender Mattox feels that these types of structures should be encouraged for antenna placement rather than on new towers as they are already present. Mr. Clark suggested that the response be that it would not have a visual impact on a historic district based on the location on the water tower. Mr. Arnold motioned that a communication be made stating that they are within ½ mile of historic districts/structures but since they are not visible and are located on the utilitarian structure/water tower that there is not concern over negative impact. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hughes. Motion carried 7-0. [Mr. Cummings leaves the meeting at 4:20 p.m.] MAINVIEW APARTMENT REHAB REVIEW Mr. Buck explained that there were four elements to the Mainview Apartment building rehabilitation project that are being asked to be reviewed by the Landmarks Commission: 1)Proposed Awning; 2)Addition of windows and vents on north and south facades; 3)rooftop HVAC unit placement; and 4)proposed rooftop garden. Mr. Buck updated the Commission on the stealth plan for the rooftop antenna which had been a previous item for discussion and that is currently at the State Historic Preservation Office for review. The Commission viewed historic pictures from the 30’s and the 50’s to use as a reference for the building façade and window placement as well as the historic awnings, both fixed and cloth. Mr. Buck stated that the awning does not completely match the historic ones and the placement of the fixed awning may be an issue because of utilities and street trees including new vent grates. Mr. Brabender Mattox questioned if historic building codes could override the regulations affecting the awning. Mr. Buck stated that these are items that extend over the right of way and would not get relief from historic interpretation. Mr. Buck explained that the windows proposed on the sides would substantially match the historic windows though some may be faux windows and that the vent grates would look much like the historic medallions on the front. The HVAC equipment is proposed to be located on the roof in such a way that they would not be visible from the street within the block but as you get farther away it would be visible but as it is so far away it would have minimal impact. Ms. BrabenderMattox asked about the height and how far away they would be visible. Mr. Masterson stated they are about 6 feet tall and square in shape. Mr. Brad Masterson (530 Main Street) stated that a lot of interior renovation is being done and they are now addressing the exterior. Mr. Masterson added that they are looking to receive around $750,000 in historic tax credits so are working with SHPO on renovation plans and are seeking input from the local Landmarks Commission to forward onto SHPO. He stated that the window st element may not be affordable in the 1 phase of rehab or not at all but they were looking at it as actual or faux and waiting for SHPO feedback. Dan Meissner (1230 E Calumet St, Appleton, WI) introduced himself as the architect of the project. He mentioned the use of the architectural historian Kevin McGowen and also is working with antenna stealth contractor Edge Consulting. Mr. Meissner said that SHPO comments to date have been very good but an actual review and official comment has not yet been given. Mr. Meissner stated that the windows, whether faux or real will have steal frames similar to those that were popular in the Art Deco area of the 20’s to match the existing and showed photos of the proposed design. Mr. Meissner explained the functioning of the awning to possibly address concerns by the Dept. of Public Works but those have not been finalized either. He also wanted to ask if an immediate decision can be made on the HVAC because they are necessary to get the apartment units in-line for occupancy now. Mr. Meissner showed photographs of an orange sheet placed on the rooftop at the location of the HVAC equipment to demonstrate how little visual impact it will have from a distance. The Commission agreed that the HVAC units will not be very visible. 4 of 5 Ms. BrabenderMattox stated that she had been at a preservation conference and had heard about the project so the State is aware of it and is hoping for good things and wants to use it as an example. Mr. Masterson and Mr. Meissner hoped that they are at about 90% towards approval of the tax credit resources. [Mr. Hughes leaves the meeting at 4:30] [Ms. Schmuhl leaves the meeting at 4:35] Mr. Meissner showed examples of the grills as placed on the building to get an idea of the size. He explained that they may be turned to be as a diamond but that may not be possible depending on the duct work inside and the function of the HVAC. Ms. Schmuhl asked if the vents could contain an outer shell that mimics the medallions while the functional part is still straight. Mr. Meissner stated that they could but would need to be designed. Ms. BrabenderMattox felt that there should be an attempt to match the vent with the medallions. Mr. Arnold motioned that the rehabilitation (four items) as proposed and shown on the submittals are acceptable to the Landmarks Commission and that a letter be formulated for comment to SHPO. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. Motioned carried 4-0. All other items on the agenda including the State of the City display, plaque program/interpretive sign program update, and goal setting/planning calendar will have to be on the next agenda as the quorum was lost with Todd Clark leaving. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn at 4:48 pm was made by Ms. Heikel and seconded by Mr. Arnold. Motion carried 4-0. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck Principal Planner 5 of 5