Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes1 of 4 CITY OF OSHKOSH LANDMARKS COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 01, 2014 PRESENT: Dennis Arnold, Shirley Brabender Mattox, Sharon Kipetz, and Steve Cummings EXCUSED: Vicky Redlin, Angela Merrill and Karen Heikel 1. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Arnold called the meeting to order at 8:34 am and a quorum was declared present. Mr. Arnold requested that the items on the agenda be taken in reverse order. Request was seconded by Ms. Kipetz. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Buck explained that this special meeting was taking place because two redevelopment projects are going before the Plan Commission for exterior improvements to historic buildings and the Landmarks Commission recommendations were needed. Additionally, another historic building’s grounds have had an emergency and they are requesting that the Landmarks Commission advise them on the best way to proceed on needed immediate safety repairs. 2. REVIEW OF REPAIRS OF WINDOW WELLS AT 224 STATE STREET (NORTHWESTERN BUILDING) Mr. Buck explained that the glass block used to cover a window well located between the pillars of the west side of the Daily Northwestern Building has caved in/collapsed, creating a safety hazard for pedestrians and exposing the basement window to the elements. The property owner does not need the well to be retained and the below grade portion of the building is not used but they are asking if the glass block has any historic significance and if covering the window well would have a negative effect on the building itself. The Commission reviewed the site itself, multiple photographs of the building and the condition of the window wells as well as reviewed the Wisconsin Historical Society Inventory on the building. The Commission examined the information and stated that the window wells themselves were not actually part of the building. They also determined that the multiple window wells of the building had been covered, potentially multiple times in the past, with a variety of products including concrete, glass block and grating and that the lower is not visible by the pubic or accessible. The Commission discussed to what degree the window wells had on the historic elements of the building and discussed multiple options to safely secure the well. They suggested that the use of the block was not historic and suggested simply closing them off at grade with concrete to match the walk and other previously closed wells but that a historic grate system would also work if desired. If more specific suggestions were desired, the Commission recommended the owners temporarily secure the situation and contact a preservation architect and the Wisconsin Historical Society for guidance. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW FOR AN EXCEPTION TO PROVISIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT; 570 NORTH MAIN STREET (VARSITY CLUB) Mr. Buck stated that the property owner is requesting an exception to the building design standards of the Downtown Overlay District. He added that this is a contributing property within the North Main Street Historic District and was the site of Gibson Auto Exchange, which was constructed about 1921. The front facade has been significantly altered over the years, with the removal of all glass window storefront and the garage door and the addition of a double door entry, two awnings and an exterior insulation and finishing system first floor façade with three fixed windows. 2 of 4 Mr. Buck stated the applicant is proposing to remodel the interior with the area adjacent to the entrance being used for dry storage and a walk-in cooler for the existing bar/restaurant. With the interior work, four exterior alterations/changes are being proposed that will require exceptions to the design standards. The four exterior changes include: 1) Removal of the existing double door entrance on the north and replacing it with a faux wood garage door, which is consistent with garage service doors of that era; 2) Replacement of the single door entrance on the south with a double door entrance. This change will make these doors the only entrance to the business. Handicap accessibility improvements will also be included in this modification; 3) Relocation of an existing wide signed awning from the north entrance to the south entrance. With the relocation of the double door entrance to the south entrance, the petitioner proposes to move the awning from the north entrance to the south entrance, and remove the single door awning on the south; and 4) Replace two-thirds of the exterior insulation and finishing system (EIFS) with glass storefront windows. The original historic storefront consisted of a set of four full story glass windows separated from the rest of the building with vertical columns. The current storefront consists of 3 smaller square windows and the applicant proposes to remove 2 of the windows and install four windows that would be similar to the historic storefront look. One small square window is proposed to remain as this area is adjacent to the kitchen. Regarding the doors, Mr. Buck felt the faux wood door on the north and the double door entrance on the south would greatly improve the looks of the exterior and bring it closer in looks to its original historic appearance though a photograph of that door was unattainable, the owner has researched garage doors of that era and is attempting to replicate what was a common style. Regarding the awnings, Mr. Buck noted that both awnings are considered legal non-conforming. Removing the smaller of the awnings will bring the property closer to compliance. If approved, the double wide awning could be moved to the south entrance and retain a legal nonconforming status thereby requiring it to be removed or brought into compliance with the code if the awning were to be damaged or replaced in the future. Regarding the front window replacement, Mr. Buck expressed staff’s opinion that unless all the exterior insulation and finishing system were removed in its entirety and the storefront windows installed across the center section of the building that, even though the new windows would be more historic in nature, that leaving one window surrounded by exterior insulation and finishing system would appear piecemeal or incomplete in appearance and that staff would recommend the center section of the façade remain as-is if not done comprehensively. Mr. Buck noted that since the building is in the North Main Street Historic District, even though it has been significantly altered over the years, that the Landmarks Commission review will be forwarded to the Plan Commission and Council. The Commission agreed with staff’s assessment of the improvements and believed that the alterations were much more in keeping with the original look of the building but that it needed to include the entire class storefront over only a portion. They added that they are encouraged that the property owner is interested in bringing the look and exterior configuration of the original building back and hoped he would go a bit further. They suggested that the owner contact the State Historical Society to see if their work plan would be eligible for tax credits and that they should also contact Bergstrom's who may have a picture of the original Gibson Auto Exchange storefront, which might be helpful as the applicant makes the exterior improvements, especially the choice of the faux garage door. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the second story brick casing will remain intact. Mr. Arnold stated that it is shown on the plans but it has been discolored over time and he suggested staff inform the owner of appropriate cleaning techniques. Ms. Kipetz motioned to approve the 3 of 4 recommendation of staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cummings. Motion carried unanimously. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT; 401 NORTH MAIN STREET (NEW MOON CAFÉ) Mr. Buck stated that the property owners are requesting a conditional use permit for an exception to the building design standards of the Downtown Overlay District to replace windows on the second story apartments with windows that do not match the historic windows in size, shape and arrangement of panes and materials. He added that the property at 401 North Main Street contains the New Moon Cafe in the first floor, and apartments in the upper floor. The building is located in the National Register North Main Street Historic District and is considered a pivotal structure. After receiving complaints from the upstairs tenants regarding the poor condition of the windows, the owners contacted Lueck's Home Improvements to assess the condition of the existing upper floor windows. Lueck's determined the windows were in poor condition and that 22 of the 23 windows be replaced. The existing windows are 101 inches in length with an arched top and the owner feels to replace the windows with the same size would be cost prohibitive. Lueck's proposal is to install 72 inch vinyl double hung windows with a 26 inch fixed transom glass section at the top with filler to square off the arched top. In reviewing the request, Mr. Buck noted staff analyzed the window replacements from the standpoint of the buildings architectural integrity and style, as well as the character of the Main Street/Algoma Blvd. streetscape and overall conditions of other buildings in the downtown area, specifically window replacements that had been completed in the past. The petitioner is attempting to retain as much of the architectural integrity as possible and they felt the impact of the replacement windows is considered to be minimal as the structures window openings and casings will remain intact providing the ability to replace the windows with specialty windows in the future. Mr. Cummings asked if specialty windows that match the existing could be built. Mr. Arnold responded that they definitely could but at a higher cost. Mr. Arnold added that in his experience the lower sash typically go bad but the top arched area are often in decent shape and he thought the property owner has not fully investigated options for repair or more suitable replacement and that they should be looking for quotes from other companies to determine if the existing windows can be restored/retained. Mr. Cummings agreed that it did not appear that the owner did a suitable investigation. Ms. Brabender Mattox said she would like the opportunity for the Landmarks Commission to work with the State and the owner to find other companies and/or contractors that could repair the windows or provide a better match on replacement. Mr. Arnold said it is unfortunate that many other buildings in the district have had poor replacements done in the past but this needs to stop going forward. Ms. Kipetz also stated that she would like to see alternate options investigated as it is easy to say that the costs are too high when you only get one quote, especially from a window replacement company. Mr. Arnold said that the building is one of what he would say are five pivotal buildings downtown and Mr. Cummings added that the city should not manage by exception but hold true to the historic integrity of our districts. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the owners had investigated tax credits as a way to offset the cost of appropriate replacements or of repair and retention. Mr. Buck was not sure if the owners had investigated tax credits. The Landmarks Commission is of the opinion that it is a pivotal building and has significant historic value on both North Main Street and Algoma Boulevard. Ms. Kipetz made the motion to 4 of 4 request that the Plan Commission lay the item over to allow Landmarks members time to work with the owner in identifying windows that would be a better fit for the building and the Historic District. Motion seconded by Mr. Cummings. Discussion took place that the city can’t manage by exception and that the standards need to be upheld, especially on a pivotal building with two primary fronts being affected. They hope that the item is tabled to give them time to work with the owners to identify alternatives including repair and also to investigate the viability of utilizing State and Federal tax credits. 5. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Cummings motioned to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Ms. Brabender Mattox. Motion approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:29 am. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck, Principal Planner