Heritage Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Right? Yeah.

See, it's a good reason why I keep these two, and I don't throw these away when someone's

off because now he's coming back

saving taxpayer money.

Oh, I'm like, I wouldn't Alrighty.

I don't know.

You do what you hear.

Alright. I have my agenda.

Regular mom thing.

Good evening. It is Thursday, 09/25/2025. It's 06:01PM. I'll call to order this meeting of the Heritage Preservation Commission. We have commissioner Ryman, commissioner Gaughan, commissioner Gallagher. Right. Yep. And council member Mandel present here in the granddad room. We have one ex two excused, one vacancy. Correct. First, we have the approval of the 08/28/2025 meeting minutes.

It's a move.

Motion to approve by commissioner Gallagher. Second I'll second. By commissioner Gadden. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion, please vote by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Seeing none, that passes unanimously. Thank you, Tim, for doing those minutes.

That was an easy one to do.

Next, we have 24Dash1543, review of her certificate of appropriateness for the property located at 118 3rd Street South in the Downtown Historic District. You can see the signed plan, staff report, additional plans. Oh, referencing the plans from a year ago and the staff report from a year ago. So this has become come before us before.

Are you looking for me to say something?

Sorry. I thought you were gonna share your screen.

I am, but didn't know. What do want me to do?

So to bring that staff report up, and two of you, I don't think, were on the commission when it was before us in 2024, so we can overview that.

Right. So the property's at 118 3rd Street South. Here is the facade as it sits now, which is on the left. The applicant is proposing to install a circular blade sign that is three feet in diameter. It will be hung from one existing sign pole that is currently there, which you can see here in the picture, and then represented here.

Cabinet made out of a polycarbonate, which is a composite plastic material, and it will be internally lit inside the cabinet that is there now. And so here is a representation of how it'll be hung, from the existing pole on the facade that was provided by the applicant. So in our design standards for downtown, there's specific criteria regarding signage that we review these by. And so they're right here. I won't really go through them individually.

But in terms of my review, I will say that, the sign is being placed historically where a sign would go. Hanging signs like that are his you know, historically appropriate. It's on existing pole, so no new, no no new, like, holes being drilled in the brick or no new, you know, impact to the existing building will occur. It's not covering any existing architectural or prominent architectural features or ornamentation. I will say that, while the colors may or may not be compatible with the building, they are limited in the color palette to only three colors.

And it is sort of consistent with this is sort of not a a current picture either of how this looks. The the current picture, do think, is black in nature, and a

lot of storefronts are black. So it is consistent with the colors of the business that's in

there rather than the building itself. It is a composite material, though. And as you can see here, that type of material need must be approved by the preservation commission specifically. It is not necessarily permitted, outright permitted material to be used. It is also not, backlit. It is internally lit. And so I recommended approval of the sign, as I felt it was in conformance with the design standards, though, with the condition that the sign face material or the cabinet material is approved by this body and that it does meet any other sign code requirements by our building inspections department.

Thank you, Tim. Questions prior to a motion?

We're just talking about the sign at this point.

Correct. Just the sign.

Tim, the signs cannot be backlit, but they can be internally lit?

Yeah. The code here says they cannot be backlit. So it doesn't say they can't be internally lit, or where does it say that? Here.

Oh, dude. You sure it says that? The National Park Service says the opposite.

It doesn't matter. Our standards that we have we have not opened this for a public hearing, mister Marcus Zeller. So here are our actual standards and our code for our district does say that backlit signs, animated awnings, or electronic billboards, and signs with general letters are prohibited. So it doesn't it doesn't say this is what's prohibited. By the way, that's worded, and anything else is permitted.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between truly lit and backlit?

Backlit would mean you'd have, like for instance, if you had a wall sign, you'd and have all these lights behind it that are sort of backlighting behind it, internally lit means the lights inside the cabinet, and it's being internally lit that way. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just the way it's worded. Okay. I haven't quite found, like, why actually, what I haven't actually figured out is why backlit wouldn't be a permit in the first place either for allowing internally. Yeah. What's the difference? I thought they were just

by the words, but I don't have a problem with the sign that I say personally. I just because one wanted that clear

It's a good question. I haven't quite figured out

Okay.

The dip like, why there'd be so much of a difference, why one would be permitted and one wouldn't. So I'm kinda with you on that.

In our code, does it reference following the Secretary of Interior Standards, or does this like, can it be both?

Our standard we have design standards now, which that's what we follow. Now if this was a tax credit project or something like that Yeah. Then they would be held to those rather than ours because we are we do not they don't have to go through our process and our standards if they're doing a tax credit project and required to to meet the Secretary of Interior standards because they're already held to a higher standard for that. Right. I don't know. I know, the people online, mister Tim Vee, is for a different item. Mhmm. I'm not sure who 1507 is, if you wanna ask who that is.

The number 1507 ending in 168, are you here for the Taco Bros project?

Can you guys hear us online, Tim? Or that's fantastic. Sorry. I just

had to figure out to unmute. Yes. I can hear you.

Okay.

Okay. We just wanted to confirm the number ending in 168 wasn't for this project.

I'm Tim V, so I have no idea.

Okay. Okay.

He's for a different item. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That's the answer. So

And then the composite material also needs to be approved.

It just it just calls for an art code that that specifically has to be printed by the preservation commission.

Okay.

Like, make this part of your approval.

Okay. Is there anything any reason why we shouldn't allow composite on a sign?

Honestly, majority of the signs that you see made today is some things similar in that nature.

Mhmm.

Whether it's a cabinet or not, it's fairly common. And a lot of others most of the other signs downtown are probably some sort of composite material in some way.

Okay.

That's plastic or something else or vinyl or something along those lines.

Okay. Other questions? If commissioner wants to make a motion, you can.

I make a motion that we approve the sign.

Motion to approve the sign by commissioner Ryman subject to approval by inspections.

Second.

Building and inspections department. Second by commissioner Gallagher. Any discussion on that? To clarify, the motion includes approval for the composite sign face. Is that correct? Okay. Any discussion on this? Okay. Seeing no discussion, then the motion on the floor is to approve with the composite face material subject to approval by buildings and inspections department. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. Aye. Any noes? There are no nos. That is approved unanimously.

Next, we have twenty five dash one one five one review certificate of appropriateness for new signs on the property located at 410 Main Street in the Downtown Historic District.

And this is the one Tim online is for? Just so you know.

Okay. Perfect. This is for you, Tim.

Hey. Well, me first, but, yeah, I'll do whatever you want.

Have question before we get started.

Sure.

Is it would you are you gonna have a problem if I recuse myself from this particular one? I don't think I can be objective.

Okay. If you do not think that well, Mr. Acton, we will lose quorum.

If reduce yourself, we will lose quorum, and we can't act on this item.

Do you gain anything financially?

No. Just have a personal problem with that type of business, and I don't feel like I would I it makes me uncomfortable voting on it. Maybe I could just recuse myself from voting.

Well, you can't make a decision on something on anything but using the standards.

Right. That's why I just I don't wanna I don't want my personal bias to interfere with my duty. That's my concern.

I don't know how to I don't know how to answer that. I I think

I mean, technically same from voting. That's the same thing. Mhmm.

So It's it's not

I mean, abstention

I don't think so.

Or no vote is

Oh, a neutral vote.

You just have to have a majority.

K.

So you have to have majority of the vote.

That'll be my my opinion.

Yeah. I don't wanna so should we just go through it and just see what happens, I guess? Here. Let's just go through it, and then we'll just see. Is that that let's just do that. No. No. It's okay.

I just wanna be honest.

And the and the

If

that comes up in the future, though, just give me a call ahead of time if you felt like it, and we can kinda see if we can work out how that would work. And maybe I can contact, like, our legal department and see what that how that works and Okay. Stuff like that.

So Okay.

This particular item, they're requesting two signs at the facade at 4 I believe it's 410 Main Street. Correct? Yes. And so here's the existing facade. The applicant is proposing to install a new awning, on the storefront, and it's a 200 foot, 20 foot long, three foot high, three foot with, awning.

It's a black canvas material with green lettering in the facade over the storefront. Currently, there is no, awning as well. They're also proposing to do a blade slime, which is about eight, eight nearly eight and a half feet high and two and a half feet wide, and you can see a picture of that here. This is what it's gonna be sticking out from the, building. They would like to remove this existing beam here, which I'm assuming is where previous blade signs were hung, but it's so that the awning can go here as well.

And then, of course, the sign itself is also a composite material, I believe, we talked about. It's like a vinyl composite, which is another plastic material, with green lettering as well. The awning itself will be attached to the building via some aluminum tieback clips. It's usually the black canvas canvas is going over a metal aluminum frame that then will be attached to the building. It's fairly typical with these aluminum tieback clips is how these are typically mounted into the facade of buildings.

The blade sign itself, I believe, is going to be installed. I cannot believe I didn't write that in here. Where is that at? Mister Tim did tell me how that would be installed when we talked on the phone. I don't think I wrote that in here.

It's not on the right there.

Believe it's expansion bolts is what we talked about.

Expansion bolts. That's what it was. Right. So it'll be four four of them in each in the top and four of them on the bottom. And so those are the two signs that are being proposed, and then the, blade sign is gonna be in the right upper right hand side of the facade.

In terms of the conformance with our design standards, our awning, there is no existing awning. However, it is being proposed to be located where historically awnings have been located. It would not cover any significant features or orientation because, as you can see, those were long covered up years ago by a very inappropriate facade, whatever material that is. So that was not a concern for staff. And then only two colors are being used, so it's a very limited palette, which I would also say is in conformance with the existing building because this is black as well.

And, it is not being lit in any way, and the the material is appropriate. It's canvas. It's typical of awnings. I've missed my sentence there, and it's not backlit at all. So, we recommend approval of the awning, as that is conformance with our design standards as long as it is approved by the building inspections department.

The blade sign itself, there is not an existing sign. As I said, there was a beam where one likely occurred at one time, and it's unknown if that's the original location where a beam sign was as many of the features are likely covered up by what's here. It is likely, though, that was probably where it was just due to the nature of that beam sticking out. I seem sort of weird that a beam was attached in that way at a later date. But without really seeing what's behind that facade, we would not have any we would not know.

Again, I don't believe putting this here would cover any significant architectural features ornamentation as, again, that's already occurred. It is a composite material, so it will need to be approved by the commission again. And the sign will be internally lit and not backlit like the previous sign. So, again, we recommend approval of both of these signs and find them in conformance to the design standards with, with the conditions that is approved by building inspections as part of the permitting process.

Questions. You're always able to ask questions if you need answers before you make a motion. If there are no question do you have a question? Yeah. They look into, like, if any damage would be

done by removing the old one or removals and then.

Removing this beam?

Yeah.

They'll they're going to saw it off right where it reaches the building. So it's not like they're gonna remove the beam. They're gonna saw it off at the at the building, and then it'll be covered up by the awning.

Any other question? Okay. And I do need a motion.

Well, you got the guy online if

he wants to add any motion. Sure.

Tim, do you wanna add anything? We need

a No. I think Tim did a great job covering everything.

Okay. Excellent. Alright. There's no further questions then. We do need a motion on the floor to have discussion. I move for approval. Motion to approve by com commissioner Gallagher with the condition that is approved by building inspections department. And this is this including the composite material for the blade? And it includes the composite material for the blade sign. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second by commissioner Goggin. Any discussion?

You say Goggin?

I almost said Goggin. Goggin and Goggin are very close. Alright. This is the second composite blade sign, which makes me want to do some research on sign material, see if we need to add that to or look at our design standards. So I'll just make note of that.

And I will add that as we're going through our update to our zoning code, that's in the zoning code. And so Okay. I as a future agenda item, I would like to maybe bring all of our code items to this body for us to decide if now is the time to discuss whether we wanna make any changes.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Alright. If there's no further discussion, then the motion on the floor is to approve including the composite material and with the condition that's approved by building inspections department. If there's no further discussion, then all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. There is three ayes, one abstention. The motion passes. Thank you, Tim. We appreciate your time.

Thank you. Have a wonderful evening, guys.

You too. Take care.

Thanks. Bye.

K. There's that one.

Alright. Next is 25Dash1152. Review of certificate of appropriateness for a new sign on the property located at 333 Main Street, Downtown Store District.

Right. This one's pretty straightforward. As you can see, this is existing facade here at the corner of, 4th And Main Street, which was the former Mex Mexical restaurants. The proposal is to remove the vinyl signs that are sitting there now and replace them with the new name of the new restaurant, which is Hacienda. So there is existing substrates that are sitting behind there where those signs are placed into. And so they'll just be the the new old sign will be removed. The new sign will be placed right into that, into that existing space. The sign will, size will be the same. It will not be lit. They are of a vinyl composite material, so this body will have to, prove that.

Mexical sign is of the same material. This one, again, meets, our existing design standards, and so we recommended approval with the condition that is approved by building inspections. And the reason why I put that in there is because we review sort of the standards. Design standards are in place, but there's other sign parameters, like how many signs you can have on a on a building and things like that that are part of the sign permit they have to get. So just sort of a little background as I always make sure that it's also in conformance with our sign code.

Thanks, Tim. Any question? Do we have the applicant online? That

might be the gentleman.

Street person?

That might be the gentleman for the the high level building, the the Brewery Building.

Alright. It doesn't appear that the applicant is here. So if there's no questions, then I need a motion.

I move to approve, pending, approval by the inspection department.

Thank you. That's a motion to approve with condition that's approved by building and inspections department by commissioner Goggin. Do we have a second? Second. Second by commissioner Gallagher. Any discussion? Alright.

Who seconded that?

Commissioner Gallagher. K. Alright. If there's no further discussion, please vote by saying aye. Aye. Aye. That is unanimous. Approved.

This is an aside. Cheers.

What's that?

So the next item is 25Dash1150. Right? I'm not messing that up. That's right. Yes. That's right. 25Dash1150, review of a certificate of appropriateness for the exterior changes to the property located at 1307 16th Street South, the South Branch Library.

Alright. So this is a designated individually designated structure. It was a former South Branch Library. The new owner of this building is looking to convert it into six apartments. Majority of the exterior changes are window changes, or replacements, but there is a lot of tuck pointing and some other, minor repairs as well.

There is a removal of a door as well on the on the, rear side of the building, but most of it's a lot of it's tuck pointing and masonry cleaning as well. So we can start by facade by facade. So this is the existing, facade that's facing 16th Street right now. And as you can look at the drawings that were provided, this window, there's a you can't see it, but there's a little addition on this side where this window is. It's just being replaced and not the window not being opened, with a new wood window.

This window is being replaced with a new wood window. There's a window up above here that you can't see very well that's also being replaced with a new wood window. And then the biggest change is that these three right here are being, replaced, and the window opening is being widened, as you can see here, to accommodate larger windows for the residential apartment that's in there. And the new, stone sills will be, installed at the bottom to match what is already existing with the windows, that are there now. So that's that facade. And then I do believe there was, no. That was it.

Do we wanna

Oh, there was also the new the doors are getting new. There's gonna be new doors that are in place there and frame.

Do we wanna ask questions as we go just to

It's entirely up to

you.

Okay. Let's do that just because there's a few components to this. Are there any questions on what you see here?

Just what what are the I I probably read it, but I forgot. What are the new front doors? The old front doors are all glass. The new ones seem to be half glass. What are they made of? Are they steel?

They're aluminum entry doors. I don't know if they're aluminum entry doors. There's aluminum. Right? Is that right? Yeah. And the applicant is here as well. The architect's here if if there's any questions for him as well. So

So they're

just some more energy efficient type of idea there?

Basically, the old ones are warm, so it's a one for one replacement. Okay. And for the windows, it looks like you tried to get to mimic sort of We are trying to hold the horizontals on the building. So we do have a fatter horizontal mullion that separates the main window from the transom up above that goes to at the sill height of the existing windows.

Excellent. Perfect. Okay. Any questions on this part? Okay. Let's go.

Alright. So the Ecellvision, I provided two pictures, one from here and then one from the other side just to kinda get a better sense. Here's the drawing. So for the most part, every single window, on this side is all staying the same. It's just gonna be new.

There is a door right here. That is this door that is being removed, and a window is being replaced. And then the rest of it will be infilled with stone and mortar to match the existing, exterior material that's there now. And then this bill this window is just getting replaced, and then there's only just one window, which is this one right here that is being widened, as it is on the other facade to for a larger window to accommodate the residential unit that's there. And so this is the only one on this facade that's getting enlarged. The rest of it has just been replaced, and then the door is being removed.

Okay. Any questions on that? Okay.

And then on the south elevation, there was a window that is on this addition that's over here that's getting replaced. And then, basically, there's a window up in here that you can't see very well. But on this facade, it's essentially all windows just getting replaced. There's no window enlarging window enlarging as well. So with all new wood windows.

Questions? And then on the north facade, again, there's only one window that's getting enlarged, and it's right here to match how it's being enlarged everywhere else. There is lots of tuck pointing in various places around the building. It is using a mortar that is going to match that allows them to match the current color, texture, and aggregate of what's currently being used on the or what was used on the building.

And with this building being from the fifties, it does have modern strength bricks, so we are able to use a type end mortar instead of softer type mold. So we can use regular standard mortars that we use today. So,

honestly, like, the style that this was designated under was prairie. It was a very simplistic form of prairie, though, and, really, it was the addition of the larger roof that really made it more prairie than anything else, and that was added to a much later date much, much later date. But I do think even with and so one of the other characteristics of prairie is the horizontal windows. And while some of those windows are being enlarged, they did the architect did do a good job of still trying to show a separation, which is what you try to do with when you're making changes or adding additions. You still try to show that separation between what originally was there and what's new.

And so just, and I also even with the the window, window openings that were enlarged, in my opinion, I don't feel it was enough to really detract from what the appearance and style of the building really was. And then, again, I don't think the removal of the door and then filling it for another window was enough either to, was inappropriate to the the building and in style itself. So staff recommended approval of this and felt that the proposed, changes were appropriate.

We do have the architect here. Are there any other questions for him? You can ask that as well.

Yeah. The new limestone sills

where you're sourcing the limestone from. That'll probably come from Visa and something along with the other strand that bluff is still no longer an active. Right.

That that's what I figured. That's why I wanted him. It's a good query.

Let's see.

Marcus, do you know this does not really dictate any decision. But is the only entrance the front of

the building? No. We're keeping one back entry and one front entry. So we still have the code required two entry points. Excellent.

There's a door that'll still be here. Got it. There's a door here, and there's a door here, and they're removing just this door

Okay.

Which I don't think you can see. It's this door right here.

Okay. Yeah. That's what thinking. Oh,

no. The other one's right here

Yeah.

With the ramp. Yeah. Then this is here. Yeah.

Okay. The owner of this property is the same one that redid the red balloon

Yes.

Day care. I believe so.

Yes.

Okay. That was not my thought.

Okay. That was very well done. And I am very grateful to the owner for making this the next reuse project. Okay. If there are no other questions, then we need a motion. Do we need sorry. Just to clarify for the motion. Can we just approve as stated in the

Approve as submitted?

Yeah. I make a motion to approve as described. Okay. Second.

Okay. So that is motion made by commissioner Reiman, second by commissioner Gallagher. Any discussion? Alright. There's no discussion then. Motion on the floor is to approve as recommended in the staff report. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye. That is unanimous. Thank you. Thank you again.

Thanks, Marcus.

Can't wait to see it. Can't wait. Also, we were at building. I usually don't veer off, but since you're here, I just want you to know that the entire APA Wisconsin conference well, there were some there was a tour of the lighthold building. It was well received. Great. Pretty awesome.

Abby Abby spoke highly of you?

Very.

You would have been I'll tell you what she did afterwards. It was it was fun what she did when she accommodated our tour. So I'll tell I'll tell you after the meeting, though. But she spoke highly of you. So

It was great. 25Dash1154, review of certificate of appropriateness for the property located at 925 3rd Street South Of Hileman Building.

Right. So this, the applicant is the Heilman House, which is next to the brewery. This is where they have their offices, for the city brewery. They are looking to make a lot of roof repairs and replace their roof, and they showed me a lot of pictures and then do some other, alterations to the roof. So they this is the picture they took of the roof.

There's currently two different types of shingles that are on the roof now, one or three tab shingles, which are no longer made or sold, or they're no longer sold in Wisconsin, Minnesota is what they stated, and they do believe it's an inferior product. They'd like to replace them with a different shingle, and keep the same color of what it is now. There are currently EPDM shingles on other parts of the roof as well, and we like to replace it with black one black black as well black shingles as well. So, they wanna do counter flashing over the termination bar. I don't know what that means, But to better protect the interior of the building from leaks in the future, I have to believe that's something to do up here, to be honest.

I'm sure Marcus could probably help me with that, but I'm pretty certain it's it's the stuff that's up here. They're also requesting to remove two features. There's an old skylight, which is this, and there's a roof hatch that's here that no longer feels functional to the building and linking. And I've stated the reasons for that, that the skylight, there's no way to even really get to that anymore, It's not seen, and you have to it only goes into the attic. And they would like to re reeliminate the the the roof hatch as well just so they can seal it off better from any sort of rain or weather as well.

And so they can see here there's a lot of counter flashing in the brick that they wanna replace, and there's some asphalt shingle shingles that are failing, and they would replace with color the same color and style. And these are pictures of where parts along the roof are rotting, and they would like to fix all that as well. This was a little tough for me, but a lot of the current because it's of there's a lot of minor things in here, that aren't necessarily even permit related. So, we do have purview in some sense, but, basically, their overall proposal was to replace the roof shingles, which aren't original to the house. It's not like they're some sort of Mediterranean style tile shingles.

So they're trying to do that. They're making repairs to a lot of the features around the roof to help eliminate the leaks with repairing it and then replacing it with in kind and like materials where they are doing that. And then I had no issues with that and recommended approval of those particular items. The roof hatch and the skylight, to me, I was unclear whether those original features to the house. You could probably maybe make the case the skylight may not be.

I don't know. But the roof hatch to me seems more likely that was original to the building. And while there may not be a need for it, not necessarily supportive of I'd like to see if other opportunities can be explored for them to keep this aspect of it, of this house. You can't really see it anywhere from the street, though. That's the other part of it. I I I'm less concerned about the skylight. Maybe it's original or not. I don't know. But this just seems more of an interesting feature that we explored to be kept alive.

But they're two separate.

Yeah. This is the roof hatch, I believe, and this is the

skylight. Same thing.

No. They're two separate things.

Yeah. It almost looks like the hatch was converted to a skylight to me.

This might be the skylight too. I don't know. It's maybe it is. Maybe that's what this is. I don't know. He wasn't very clear on that.

K. And just to ask, is the 168 number the applicant?

The name's it was Steven, I think.

Okay.

I don't know. I didn't have an issue with all the work that he wanted to do. The skylight, I was less concerned with, but the roof hatch, I felt you know, it may not even be the roof hatch. Maybe that is this now that I'm looking at it again. It was kinda hard to tell.

Yeah.

But we can certainly get more questions out of them. The the unfortunate part was this one was submitted to me, like, right right at the end of the day, the the deadline day, and so I didn't have a lot of time with this one to get more questions. I had questions too. But

From this angle, Tim, where is the hatch approximately? Is it on the other side of that tower? Yeah. Let's do this. Is it behind the chimney?

I don't know. Maybe I can find it on the aerial.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Because if it can't be seen from the street interesting. It's right in the middle of that bridge there.

It's probably these things in here. I can't get any closer than that. So it might be on that other picture, though.

It looks if it had three images on it, it looks like this is a one two three because there were three things.

That might be the chimney.

Oh.

So that's this, I think.

Yeah. Yeah.

And so if you look at here, like, this might be the skylight, and here's the roof hatch right here.

It's it's a bit of. Very very low.

It's not there?

I mean, there's just it just

doesn't say anything about the room. Yeah. I mean There's symbols on it, so

I know. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there's, like, the dot to show. It was, like, I actually have to click through it. Hang on. Uno momento. Go for more. Go for you. I

don't know who to show.

What's the best way to search that market?

St. Bournemouth? Like, to show what type of roof. Yeah. This is 1910.

Now if you go back to earlier ones. Yep. These are Landsat photos? Got that one too.

Sandboard maps are the original, like, insurance rate fire insurance rate maps from, like, the eighteen hundreds where they actually had the outlines of the very building and showed, like, all the features.

So it's photo. It's a architectural plan. Kind

of that.

The best.

But it really it's like the best it's a really amazing record of how buildings were actually built during the day. You can go back and go, that's not that edition wasn't there in 1880. Paperback. Yeah.

Can do digital. You're not gonna find it.

It looks like this is the hatch. Yeah. But that

is supposed to be there. We're not

So we're saying no. It wasn't there originally?

It's It was It's not listed.

It's not so it's still unclear.

And I didn't see anything like that. What's

Yeah. I think this is the skylight, actually, which looks because if you see these these rectangles here, that's what probably what these are here. So I think I I misunderstood that. And the hatch is if we go back to this, it's like that's this piece. Yeah. The hatch is this rectangle right here, I think, which is at the top of the building and the top of that ridge part, which is here. So I think this is the hatch, and this is the skylight.

Personally

Which if this is the thing, then that would mean that it's way back at the top up here, John, that you can't see from the street.

Think this the skylight. I wouldn't be opposed to removing that, but I do believe the hatch should stay. That's just my thinking out loud.

You know, I'm I'm really not clear on that that's two different things.

Well, the skylight

They both look the same to

me if you look at it.

Yeah. Oh, we

have another thing.

There's not the main thing. Because there used to be, like, a

Sorry. I was muted and couldn't get through. There we go.

Oh, hey. Hello. Sorry.

I had to press 6. I didn't realize that.

That's alright. Are you Steven or Stefan? Stuart. Stuart. That's right.

Stuart. Okay. Yes.

Yes. Stuart. So, yeah, the roof hatch is basically just a couple pieces of two by six that they've framed up on the outside edge and then just put a piece of plywood over the top, and then they've taken just black EPDM and laid that over the top. It's not a true roof hatch. It's honestly, I don't know when they would have done that, probably when they redid it with EPDM.

But that's it's leaking water on the inside. Like, a normal roof hatch would be built up and have a metal opening on the side of it, be able to securely lock it, and not just be a piece of wood with some material over the top.

That would tell me that the the the access was probably original, but the actual hatch itself has been completed. That's what that would tell me.

Are there stairs leading up to that?

There's a kind of jankety ladder on the inside. Yes.

That sounds about right. That's that's the ladder's probably original.

Yes. That helps a lot.

For the skylight or the roof hatch?

So, Stuart, there was a question. Mhmm. Is the skylight and the hatch separate?

Yes. They're they're about, seven to 10 feet apart from each other.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks for it. Mhmm.

The skylight?

Or did you find something out there?

No. She was just confirming. Like, this this is this this right here, this is the skylight.

Got it.

The roof hatch is probably whoever took the picture, its head's popping through the sky the hatch Yeah. To take that picture. That's probably exactly what that

is. Yeah.

And the roof hatch from the skylight is towards oh, I'm not sure the street name, but the main street in front to the west there.

3rd Street. Yeah.

Yeah. Alright.

I mean, based on that information, I I don't necessarily have an issue with them trying to fix remove that, and that's me moving that and make tighten up the roof.

Okay.

Is it gonna have an all entire roof redone?

Yes. So it's with exception, we're giving them the option to do a couple of the small, porch overhangs. It's they're not necessarily needed at this point. But since we're on-site and mobilized, giving them the option to do that, and we would just replace it replace it with light tiny, black EPDM. And then so the termination bars, and they kinda had a question about that.

Let me kinda review my photos. But there it's just like a silver bar at the top of the black rubber material that is that's how it seals to the wall, and that really should have a piece of metal over the top of that that that they call so they'll call it a counter flashing. And we can make it any color, copper, black, whatever, but it it really needs to have it over the top of it to help seal, any edges and material there.

So just to clarify, because I think you cut out at the very beginning, the larger roofs are being done, but it's just the smaller roofs over the porches, not necessarily maybe parts of it, but the

large okay.

Correct. Yep. The main all the shingle sections and then the upper flat section of EPDM and then the valley in between the shingles that has EPDM as well that dives into that upper tower. We would replace all of that, and then so it just be a couple potentially couple of small canopies that we may not do. It's totally up to them.

Other questions?

I'm not clear of the flat part of the top that you can't do shingles on that. What what's that going to be?

That's EPDM.

What is

That's what's up there now. It is a it's a synthetic rubber membrane, 60 mil membrane, designed for low slope situations. So anything under, two twelve pitch and under, that's what they they do for those to watertight it because there's no way shingles Right. Can stay watertight. Good one.

Thank you. I think that's fairly typical of all flat roofs on town too. Right? Yeah.

Alright. Other questions for the applicant? So, Tim, just to confirm, you were saying from your viewpoint, you would be fine with removing both the hatch and the skylight? I mean, I There's no reason why.

Well, I mean, based on the additional information, it doesn't sound like that, you know, the existing material over the hatch, they don't wanna maintain access from a hatch. Right. You know, it's not like we're preserving some feature of what the hatch used to look like. Right. Right. On the interior, that would still be existing in some way. I'm sure on the inside, they'll fill it in some way.

Mhmm. Mhmm. Okay. I just wanted to clarify. Alright. If there's no other questions, then I'll entertain a motion.

Yeah. If I move to approve.

Motion to approve. See. And, Tim, we're no longer having the condition. Is that correct on the finding?

Right. Okay. Just be approved as submitted.

Okay. So motions to approve as submitted by Commissioner Gallagher, second by? I'll second. Second by commissioner Goggins. Is there any discussion?

Any discussion? Alright. There's no further discussion then. The motion on the floor is to approve as submitted. Please say aye if you are in favor.

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. One opposed. Three yeses. The motion passes. Thanks, Stuart. Thank you. Did you hear the vote?

I did.

Okay. Thank Thank you so much.

Take care. Thank you. Yep. Thanks.

So Right.

Can I ask just a general question for for future decisions? And and that is when dealing with a historic structure and the removal of a feature, it is not visible. Well, how do we weigh the the asset of the part of the nonvisibility?

It depends on what that feature is.

Yeah.

Whether it's original Yeah. Is is part of the factor. Because and also too, like, is it a defining feature of why it's historic? Is it a defining feature of its architectural style? Just because you can't see it doesn't that's not necessarily mean that it should be okay to remove.

That's what I'd say. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

So I think it's a case by case sort of yeah. So then the idea would be is

We'll

contact Stewart.

I'll give you his contact info.

Right. They might regret taking that hatch out too because you need access to the roof. There's times you need to get up there, and they're not gonna have access to it without going from the other side.

Mhmm. So

case by case. Yeah. I mean, it's it's so that if you feel like those were warranted to be kept, then that's what you should ask the questions of and require of them. You have the ability to do that. We just have to make sure that if we do do that, it's there's some basis for some yeah. It's something that we can like, if they challenge it, we have some Yeah. Criteria or some reason for it.

Mhmm. Mhmm. K. Alright. Last agenda item then is a discussion on the demolition delay ordinance.

Excuse me. Don't we have something left on the first

the first one.

We there was two aspects to the first one, the hanging sign and then the

The Taco Bell's one? Window. So last so if I'm not mistaken, last year when they submitted, they submitted the sign that was on the the business the building face.

Which one are you referring to?

The item? The on 3rd Street,

the Taco Heaven, Whatever it is.

Taco Bell.

Bell. Come on.

No. So so if you look at the date so so I kept that's the same file I created because it's the same project. Yeah. So they originally came to this body with signs back in 2024. It was just the ones in the windows. That's between. We referred it because we didn't like it. And

Based on our standards.

Based on our standards and where we were trying to get them to place it. And then the actual building owner

Are you taking the quote?

Asked us to withdraw it or asked Wasn't the mistake. Said, can you refer it or withdraw it for now? Because he didn't like it, and he wanted to have a conversation with Taco Bros. About it. And so, that was months ago. And then so this is the new one they came back with after that. And so I just kept the file together so that I didn't create two legislative files. It was all one. Nice. Because it was the same project, just a different plans now.

And so we're not concerned about this window at all?

No. Because that wasn't what was before you anymore.

Yeah. They brought this back as a response, though. It's not like you

didn't have missed that.

No. It's okay. No. Yeah. You may I'm not were you on the commission then too? Or yeah. That might also be why. That's a that's a valid question.

It was

a good question. Yep. So that you might see sometimes where I have files where, like There's, we get plans, and maybe this body says, no. We're referring this because you're gonna go back to the drawing board and give us new plans. And then the item will be on the agenda the next month when I have new plans, and you're gonna still see, like, every record that we had gotten as part of that project, and that's the same case with this.

Yep. It stays part of the legislative file. Yeah. Alright. The last item then is that discussion on the general delay ordinance and talk about where we go from here. Also, any I think you wanted to hear any

I think the biggest thing

is just comments and feedback from that. It was a long meeting. You know, if you wanted to

There were some differences.

If you wanted

to have that conversation now.

In my notes, I noticed that I seem to like the way Milwaukee had it set up rather than Madison.

Really? Okay.

I did. I felt Madison's was too subjective. I didn't feel like it was

I agree.

Objective enough or specific enough. The one thing about the Milwaukee one that made me nervous, though, is that gentleman seemed to have a lot of power where he made decisions proactively or ahead of time that I think should have gone to a committee just for discussion. But that was just my gut feeling. He says, well, in that neighborhood, there's no chance of saving. I didn't like that.

Yeah. I wouldn't feel comfortable with that either.

No. I felt that was too much power for one person, and he was making decisions carte blanche. That was my Yeah. But I did like I like Milwaukee's better than Madison's as a as a as an overall.

I don't

Mhmm. So, yeah, my sense too with the Milwaukee preservation planner was I couldn't tell if he was being totally serious or not or if he was just speaking that way because he was in, like, the right audience. You know what I mean? Sure. But, yes, that also made me go. Let's see. Got some notes.

I felt like when he made that comment, it seems like he was a little too drunk with power about that.

Yeah. But

I'm glad it wasn't the only It felt

that But but I think he was being trying to be funny about it, but it just but I I agree with, like I don't know if, like, the power power he had, I don't know, I would want. I like the aspect of the Madison part where she's like, I make a recommendation to the preservation commission, and they can help decide then that, yes, this this has some significance that then gets pushed on to either the planning commission or something else, I think. Or or at least there's a committee that is involved to decide, no. We're pausing this one or or whatever it is.

You know, there should be more than one They'll think

of something else.

Based on it.

Yeah. Yeah.

So the Madison it's interesting that you say that, John, because I I actually kinda felt like the Milwaukee one was too, like, not stringent enough. Like, it felt too squishy to me, and the Madison one, It kinda aired on, like, the, wow. That seems like a really specific, and I could see people in the community not wanting that, especially, like, build property owners not liking that. I wrote down that there was only, let's see, a sixteen day minimum for the Milwaukee demo delay. Mhmm.

All demolitions are reviewed by HPC, permanent holidays for sixteen days minimum. That doesn't seem like very long, for better, for worse. But the Madison one, there was no specific time range.

They did say the Milwaukee could be as long as a hundred and eight days.

Okay.

So they If somebody from the public complained about it. Right? Or they they Yeah. Once they posted it. Ask for a hearing

Good point.

For a $25 fee Yeah. About historic value, and then the delay can be as long as a hundred and eighty days. So those are semantics, and we could come up with our own numbers, obviously.

Yeah. But I did think it was strange that well, I don't know if I'll say strange, but it surprised me that they would only review it for historic value if someone from the public had requested it. Right? Correct. That seemed bizarre to me. Because even if a public person doesn't reach out, that may just be because they didn't hear about it. Or

That's for the process that I was kind of leery about from that gentleman. Like, he would get to decide which one would get put up for the public hearing, and then he then made the point of saying that he would call organizations and say, you need to do something about this one. Yeah. Which to me, I felt was a huge conflict of interest. It's like, I think I would get reamed if I did that. Yeah.

It was almost wink wink. Yeah. Type of

So didn't like

But those aspects of it I was concerned about, but it doesn't mean that overall, like you said, we couldn't make the tweaks where those parts we can iron out that wouldn't occur, but it was still you know?

Yeah. I

think there was good parts about both of them that I thought we could grab and then make it our own.

I have a few other things that I wanna make sure you guys can book if you have any input. Laura, did you have any thoughts? Yeah.

Yeah. I thought, you know, there's good things about both. You know, I I I had to leave during the Milwaukee one, but I I mean, it's a PowerPoint and stuff. But yeah. Yeah. It seemed like maybe a combination of things. Mhmm.

So one actually, at the APA Wisconsin conference, Tim, there was a conversation on population decreasing in Milwaukee. And it was very fascinating because I looked at it census block by census block, and I kind of dug into it a lot. And I wondered I didn't get to ask him. He did go on that historic tour, by the way. But I didn't get to ask him, but I wanted to ask if he felt the demo delay ordinance had unintentionally led to any properties that weren't being reinvested in.

And so one note I have down here is that you have to prove financing and plans. I think it would be interesting. Like, in Milwaukee, it sounds like you can't demo unless you prove financing and plans to get rid of the, like, surface parking lot phenomenon that we have. Like, people will demo this amazing building, and then it's just surface parking or green space, like grass and no development. We definitely don't want that.

But I also wonder if there's a way that we can ensure you know, it's hard.

I know where you're going with that, that they actually are they like, it's a shovel ready project. It's ready to

go. Yeah.

But

I think that'll be tough to sell because people aren't gonna wanna get that far if they have no guarantee that building's coming down. Yeah. That would be tough for any developer.

Yeah. That's true.

But I understand what you're saying.

Because what we don't want is to end up with a historic building that nobody will buy and restore and take care of, and it just doesn't come to There's always somebody. There's always that. I can name a few, but I won't. But you know what I mean? So I don't I don't know how we deal with that, and I think we're lucky in this community that we have

But I didn't get the sense that that was our purview. Our purview is to make the determine or this body's purview is to make the determination of whether a certain building has historic value and should not come down. Sure. Not whether or not there's somebody waiting in the wings to purchase it to save it.

Of course. I just don't want to cause unintentional consequences. I really want a demo delay ordinance. That's why we've been talking. We bought it so much. But I'm also a city council member who wants population and development to continue to go in the right direction so that we can maintain beautiful city that we have. So I'm just sort of, like, weighing all the things in my head. I also believe that preservation minded city is one where people wanna be, And I'm not in favor of just demoing for slapping up new things. So

Well, I think part of it is then part of this ordinance needs to come up with very clear criteria of what would make a building have historic value. Mhmm. Mhmm. And if we can have a strong criteria for that that we can apply to it, then that isn't necessarily meaning that it can be locally designated either. Just like Right. It can be criteria beyond that. And that way, we have we decide or this body decides to delay or save something or however you wanna look at it. Mhmm. Then we have that criteria we can document as part of your decision to back what's in the ordinance. And if the council approves that ordinance, then that means they're buying into the fact that we have this on the books. You bought into why we did this.

Mhmm. Mhmm.

Here's the decision that was made by the preservation commission or council or planning commission or whatever we send it to. Yeah. So I think we just have to have a strong ordinance that we need to convince the council to pass. And if they do, then they should be following it and not.

Well, we have this developer here that wants to do whatever. It's like

Well, surely, there's other cities besides Madison, Milwaukee where we could For sure.

Yeah. You know? Yeah.

I'm from education where we, you know, we beg, borrow, and steal from everyone. There's gotta be another city somewhere. It's gotta be a decent ordinance. That we can

There there is. There's not too many, if any, in Wisconsin, I don't think, because I've worked I've checked in with our Wisconsin Historical Society. Mhmm. And then if you start going outside the city, though, that's where you start getting the naysayers. They're like, well, that's Minnesota. That's not an that's very hard. It's very hard. I was telling you it's very hard to try to say that the city does this.

Mindset. It's such a breakthrough. I mean You do. I agree. A very historic preservation mindset. Yeah. The Boston area, I'm sure there's you know, their codes are pretty strict, and it was a very attractive place to live. So it stood the test of time. Mhmm. We just need to change that paradigm and don't use that as excuse. You know, if they're gonna be a tough sell, then we need to be better salespeople.

I'll have you come speak at

the company.

No problem.

Right, John. Awesome. I think it's valid, though, to it's always valid to bring up, like, the things that you think council will push back on, and council does tend to like examples from similar sized jurisdictions at least.

Oh, okay.

Even if it's not in the state. Yeah. But yes.

Not to find

something. Research all those bits.

University way, we find, like, similar, you know, universities. Yeah. It's like they don't have to be next door or anything. But Yeah. I forget. They have a word for it. Now I can't think of

it. I do have It's

a pretty small city.

I am on the NAPC listserv that you can ask, like, any preservation planner. If you're not on it, you really have to be. But it's a listserv where you can ask any preservation question, and all seems like, like, hundreds of preservation planners will answer back. Mhmm. It's fantastic. So I I ask questions from time to time, and then people always get back to me in, like, thirty minutes. It's like AI or something. Jokes aside. But I can ask who out there has demo delay ordinances to actually talk to real people about what works and connect them to you, Tim.

Mhmm.

One other couple bits. Madison talked about was approval with condition to reuse architectural salvage. I think we should do that. They also talked about being legally vetted. They said something about being the only legally vetted something or another in the state, which wouldn't be surprising if there's only two.

But we'll obviously need to work with our legal team on any things they could foresee. And then let's see the last note I have. We would have to determine who reviews. If it is so what is triggering a review is one question. Is it all of them? Every single demo triggers a review? Like Madison?

Milwaukee was too. Was it? Milwaukee, he everything that had a demo apartment went by his desk even if it was built two years ago.

Yes. So you wanna clog your system?

That's right. So that

is my Do intend to this commission continue the project that was being done while I was on the commission of going and documenting the potentially historic homes block by block? So just Goose Town is and South Lairs.

Whatever you've done is all that's done. Sorry.

I know David was talking about doing the North Side. I don't know if he ever did that.

No. He didn't. No. I don't think so.

But there is that part of town has been surveyed in the last eight years. So if you wanna narrow down the number of buildings, maybe you could continue that reconnaissance and then have a list.

And so then the property itself would trigger the

So you the HPC would have a list of buildings that were surveyed that were potentially culmable. Because when I was doing it, I was taking a picture of every single street address, and then there was three levels, like, not at all historic potentially or just cover up the vinyl siding and then kind of the historic. And we had we started to map that out while I was on commission. Got it.

So It was a

great Part of town has already been done.

It was

a great resource, but the one the one limitation on that was the basis was, like, exterior condition and architectural style. Yeah. It didn't get into whether it had any value for any other reason other than just the appearance and the visual aspect of it Sure. Which was what, like, Heather was talking about. And and and as you get to the the Milwaukee example, you know, those buildings that he showed on that one block to me weren't anything special from architectural standpoint. Mhmm. When you look at the history of that entire block about what it was, you're like, woah. That has a huge value. Yeah. Then, I mean, maybe the buildings were yes and no, but when you get to the social value of that block

Yeah.

That is what would be lacking. So he he what he did would be a great start, but I don't think would be let's just rely on that. Yeah. We would have to

There's there's four criteria for National Register's. Yeah. So So you have to decide if you're going to Mhmm. Add in a history component and who's gonna do all that research. Mhmm.

Mhmm. So, like, Madison, they they must have some param so I think Madison does have parameters. Like, if Milwaukee reviews a demo that's even two years old, I don't think that necessarily we have to I mean, two years old, that's pretty pathetic. I would never demo a two year old building.

What about 50 years old, which is next? Exactly.

So we talked to Heather we asked Heather about that. She's like, well, no. Because we're finding stuff that's less than that that has value in some way. Mhmm. And so not necessarily eligible for designation, but value. And so I think that's part of it. I think getting to look at other communities just instead of just leaving at Milwaukee and Madison outside of the state is gonna be helpful, and we can begin I can begin that research and try to find other things for you guys to look at and other examples, and, maybe what McKinsey can reach out to that list serve group. Mhmm. Mhmm. Then, what I think would be good then is to start getting, like, here's their ordinances. Like, actually give you

Yeah.

Also a copy of Madison and Milwaukee's and be like if you're able to start looking at it and going like, this is a good component. And, like, we start picking and choosing things we think we should be looking at more as a commission when we start developing our own ordinance might be the best way to start doing that.

Yeah.

For sure.

I think that would be a good good start. I think because I do think the commission in general gets a general understanding of what this is and what it can do, supposed to do and can do. Mhmm. And then how do we wanna tailor that for what we think we can get past, be effective, but also get past here in La Crosse Yeah.

Is what I think. Right.

And something is better.

Is

true. New past is better than what we have now.

Because we don't want to see historic houses.

The housing is is Buildings.

Yeah. Housing is, like, breaking my mind.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. It was the Cast Street example recently was like Oh, yeah. That's blocking.

Those two buildings on Cass. Yeah. Yeah.

That can't be happening.

So I think that's what I'll do for that.

Great. That sounds good. I don't think we need to I think we're I think that's good. I think that was a good start of discussion, and we'll continue that that conversation. Alright. We are at the end of our agenda. If there's no objection, we'll adjourn the meeting. No objections. We are adjourned at 07:09PM. Thank you all.

Thank you.

You. I was like, that was before this

was before COVID times. Yes. But I

started