Business Improvement District Board #2 (historic Third Ward) - Regular Meeting

For the regular meeting of the historic preservation commission for Monday, November 3 at twenty twenty five at approximately 03:03PM. I'm Oliver Baumann, chair of the committee. Please call the roll.

Anne Peeper Eisenbaum. Excused. Sally Here. Nicholas Hands Robinson. Here. District Keating Khan. Here. Matt Deros.

Here.

George Morales. Here. Okay. We

have a forum. Ann Peeper Eisenbrown will be joining us shortly. We'll proceed to item one. File 250,828, resolution relating to a certificate of appropriateness for rooftop solar panels at 2591 North Summit Avenue in the North Point North Historic District for Chris Singer.

Thank you. So this was one that we had discussed last month. The applicant was proposing to put solar panels on the front facade, the east facing facade, and HPC held it to have conversations with the applicant about alternatives to see if there was a compromise that could be reached. So this was the proposal that the applicant was originally proposing on the front facade only. They had also provided a mock up from their solar energy contractors with a system located on the rear facade.

In having conversations after HPC last month, staff suggested reaching out to the contractor to see if it would be feasible to increase the efficiency of the system by having it on the rear facade, but also adding panels perhaps to the south facing dormers on the front facade, just the dormers. So the applicant did reach out to their contractor who gave them numbers for just apparently the size of the dormer. They can only fit one panel. Are just showing the southernmost dormer having one additional solar panel and then the rear panel here. So taking a look at the numbers that they provided, the front facing system, the Home Home Team Energy is the provider that they would prefer to use.

The front facing system would be about $29,000 and provide 9,800 kilowatt hours in energy. With the rear facing system from that same provider, it would be the same price. It would be a larger system, four additional panels that would be 7,300 kilowatt hours, which is approximately 80% of the efficiency of the front only system. If they add one panel to that south dormer, it increases the cost minimally, I mean, dollars 1,000 and adds 500 kilowatt hours to the power generated, which would bring it up to that would be about 80%. Staff also found if they are able to add one dormer to the or one panel to that other dormer, it would bring the efficiency to about 85% of the front only system from this Home Team energy.

We reached out to the city attorney's office for some guidance. They had provided written guidance a couple of years ago when HPC was looking at a different proposal. Part of their guidance that they provided is that the HPC has granted authority to regulate historically designated properties from WSTAT 62.23, subsection EM, which provides in part the city as an exercise of its zoning and police powers for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and of the state may regulate by ordinance any place, structure, or object with a special character, historic, archaeological, or aesthetic interest or other significant value for the purpose of preserving the place, structure or object and its significant characteristics. The power to regulate solar and wind energy systems statute is in sixty six point zero four zero one. The authority to restrict systems is limited.

And I won't read this whole thing, but the relevant part is no political subdivision may place any restriction either directly or in effect on the installation or use of a solar energy system as defined or a wind energy system unless the restriction satisfies just one of the following conditions that it serves to preserve or protect the public health or safety It does not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency. Or it allows for an alternative system of comparable cost and efficiency. So in order to restrict their proposal, one of those must be satisfied. Okay. PowerPoint is being a little slow.

So as I mentioned, HPC must find that one of those three conditions is satisfied. The city attorney's office has said that the definition of significantly decrease is there is no definition in state statute. It is not spelled out in statute and the case law is such that there is no threshold. So HPC must decide and review this on a case by case basis, whether reaching 85% efficiency with a rear facing system and two panels on the front warmers would be a significant decrease in efficiency or a significant increase in cost. It would be, based on the numbers, approximately $2,000 more to get a system that's about 85 percent as efficient as a front only system.

Dollars 2,000 out of what's the total cost?

It would be about thousand $31,000 $32,000 versus the $29,000 for the front only system. So it would be about $2,000 more to get about 85% efficiency. Staff feels that that rear facing system with a compromise of having the two solar panels on the front dormers and just the dormers is a good compromise. Staff is still recommending the rear system and recommends a denial of the front only system.

Okay. Questions or comments from the commission? Anybody here on behalf of the ownership? There are any motions?

I had a quick question.

Yeah. So I know last time we talked about not having an instance to where they didn't have an actual front and back situation. Right? Obviously, this house is rotated, but both, you know, the roof is viewable on quote unquote front and back from the street equally. Correct?

Yes. It is. The front facade is is the primary facade. It's arguably the most important of the two. The rear facade doesn't face the right of way, but it would be visible from Bellevue still because it's a corner lot. So it would still be visible, but it isn't the street facing facade on that secondary facade either. It it does face the rear yard.

I got you.

Can you

go back to those images again where you show the panels on the roof, the two different versions? Okay. So the corner so the previous one you were just Yes. That. So the corner is down into the right. Correct?

The corner is to the upper right.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Let's see it. Let's see it. So the one on the right, are you saying that we would be okay with this one? Is that what we're saying?

The staff is recommending the rear facing system with the allowance for panels on on the front dormers, on the the Summit Avenue dormers only, not the not the entire roof face on the front facade.

Okay. And when you say so okay. They're gonna ask you for this front is to the okay. I got you. And then they have you said 85% efficiency, and it'll be a three thousand to three thousand dollars difference as far

as increase. The applicant provided a quote for just having one solar panel on the front dormer. Would apparently be room for another one on that north dormer which would bring it

to about 85% efficiency.

Okay. So there even going to be one more panel than what we see right now?

That's what staff would recommend to increase without with still minimizing the the the front

the ones on the front. So I'll be like, I got you. And the actual owner of this home, they're okay with this, or have they been embedded on this at all, or have we had any feedback from, like

Yeah. They they would still prefer to have the front only system because it is the most efficient.

Right. No. I understand that. I guess, did we get any other sentiments as far as with this secondary option where they were at?

Yeah. I mean, he after he got this this mock up, he still said that he would prefer just the front.

Okay. Will they still install if they did the back, though? That's, like, it's what I'm wondering. Is this, an okay, we'll do it if that's what we're allowed to do? Or was it I'm going to scrap this entire thing?

He indicated that they most likely would not move forward unless it was the front only system.

Okay. With question, with the right system, you can do staff approval with that. Is that correct?

Well, it would still need HPC approval with panel even with one panel on the front. Right. Just how the policy is written.

But he is not even asking for this on the right. Is that correct? He is more asking for this on the left.

He only wants what is

on the left. Yeah.

Okay. This is tough. I know we've never had where we, you know, we just couldn't actually have a true back and front situation. It's just like he's doing this. Okay.

So it's up to HBC. We

need a motion to either

I move to deny the original and approve of the new concept and if the owner wants to do it, they can do

it. Yeah.

And if they don't, well.

Right.

That's too bad. It's a big loss.

And is your motion based on the fact that the decrease in efficiency is not significant and the increase in cost is not significant?

A 15% decrease in efficiency is not significant enough to worry about. I would like a 110% myself, but I understand. Okay.

Alright. So the motion is to basically accept the staff report and deny the COA but indicate that there would be approval of COA for the plan proposed in the presentation. Is that clear enough?

Yep. Is there

a second of that motion?

I will second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye. Any opposed?

Okay. Passes seven zero. Okay. Thank you very much. Moving on item two, file 251,021

All right. So this is a continuation of a project that we had reviewed a number of months ago, I believe in July. We looked at this building. Stanislaw has acquired it for a parish center. They had come before HBC because of the severely deteriorated brick on the historic building. It has been covered in cementitious material and painted numerous times. All the brick faces were spalling, failing, the mortar was failing. It was it's kind of a mess. So HPC approved a Cream City brick esque. Was close to that as a new brick that the masonry contractor was able to find.

It's the Paul Knod meat market. It was designed by Ferry and Koss and Alfred Koss. These two buildings are combined now. The shared party wall is being removed for the parish center. Here are some historic color photographs.

So they are now coming through with a proposal to rehabilitate the existing commercial building on the corner and construct a three story rear addition that will provide additional egress, floor space and access for a new rooftop deck. Existing conditions now, as I mentioned, all of the exterior bricks proposed to be replaced with new brick. Part of this proposal is removing all of the paint from the masonry, rest of the masonry, the stone and restoring the exterior, including a new storefront system that we see in a slide or two. This was the brick that they had come through with located against the historic wall. So it was a pretty close match.

So this will be all on both the new addition and the historic building. The image on the left shows the historic two story building outlined in gray And the new addition is highlighted with a yellow box there. Zooming in on the right hand side, it just shows the footprint of the building addition on the rear. So it is about half as big as the historic building. It will be added onto the rear.

Behind the building portion is going to be a patio with the built in planters. There will be steps leading to the rear entry. The church has a parking lot across the alley from here, so people will be likely parking in that parking lot and walking into the building from the rear in addition to walking in from the front. There is a trash enclosure that consists of masonry walls and there is a pre existing curb cut which they will use for access for the garbage truck to remove the garbage on the rear. Landscape plans.

So they are going to bulk this up with some nice plantings along the street edge and the rear behind the alley. This is the primary facade, the primary elevation improvements here are numerous. It will have all new windows and they are going to use solid wood windows. All the masonry will be cleaned and restored. All new brick on the front.

Any of the stone coping that is going to be removed will be replaced in kind. Right now the turret is clad in asphalt shingles. Those all will be removed and reclad with cedar shingles. The existing conical roof will be removed and clad with a new copper shingle. So it should look pretty great.

A new storefront system, aluminum storefront system will be added with divided light transoms. This is the South 5th Street facade. So you can see the historic building on the right, which again largely will be restored with the new windows. You can see the addition located on the left hand side. It is stepped back from the historic building, there is a differentiation between the new and old, at least in terms of the plane of the building.

It is a three story building. It will have stone lintels and headers. The applicants are proposing, I believe, clad windows and staff is recommending solid wood windows also for the addition. There are some rooftop mechanicals. They have provided sight lines showing that those won't be visible from the right of way and we will see that in a slide or two.

This is the back facade. So this is entirely the rear addition. So that is the trash enclosure with a wooden closure door, some egress doors and then the primary entry door. Right now they are proposing coach lights. Staff is recommending just a different light fixture on the rear. The coach lights don't really match the time period of this building. And then this is the west facade. It is very utilitarian, minimal window openings. There is a vacant lot next door. Were that to be developed at some point, this won't even be visible at that point.

But it is a large mass, that three story solid mass of the addition. There are going to be fire escapes located there. So not really necessary to have window openings. In the presentation, staff didn't include all of the floor plans, but this is just a look at the rooftop terrace. So there is a little kitchenette area and then this rooftop terrace area on the roof.

It's stepped back enough that you won't really be able to see the railings. It won't be that visible from the right of way, and it does provide a nice view of the church from the rooftop terrace. It will be a nice amenity for parish members. This was the sight line, again, provided showing that the mechanical systems won't be visible from the right of way. And a few renderings.

It is going to be quite an improvement from what is there and what has been there for quite a long time. And I am taking a look at the rear addition. It is larger and it is taller than the historic building, but there isn't really another way to do an addition with the property without encroaching on neighboring property lines. So this makes sense for them to go up at the rear. It shouldn't be very visible from Mitchell Street, which is the main thoroughfare of the historic district.

There was one area where there were historic windows visible on some of the old street views. This multipart window with a cottage window and then this multi light window. If those are still present, staff recommends that those are retained. We are only asking that those two windows be retained. The rest of the windows were one over ones that were fairly plain and staff is okay with replacing those like for like with wood, solid wood one over ones.

But if these are still present, staff would like to see just these two windows restored. So staff is recommending approval with the following conditions, that they submit a detailed window schedule for approval, the windows be a non clad wood with simulated divided lights and internal spacer bars if they are proposing divided light windows, that those historic windows on 5th Street facade be restored, that the rear entry lighting be changed to not coach lights, and that exterior masonry and cleaning, paint removal, we'll just need to take a look at what they're proposing for the cleaning of masonry. Staff, following the release of the staff report, has added this last condition, and this just came to light at the last minute. But they are recladding the historic building. Staff is recommending that they retain the six course common bond that's currently on there.

Right now the mock ups just show a running bond, which would be fine for the addition, but staff would prefer that the historic coursing of the brick be maintained on historic portion only. That would be a nice differentiation too between the addition having perhaps just a running bond and keeping the six course common bond on the historic section.

Okay. Questions on the staff report? Property owner is represented. Yeah, Nick, go ahead.

So can we go back to the image that showed, the sidelines from the street? Okay. So they're basically saying it's more so the actual addition, the height of that and the angle that's going to be more so blocking not the actual turret on the corner. Right?

It's just the the view of the mechanicals. The rooftop mechanicals won't be won't be yeah. I mean, the the turret is gonna block what's on the historic roof and then what the mechanicals that are on the addition shouldn't be visible because the the three story the rooftop addition essentially will block block that from

just the height of it and how much they're set back from the edge is what it is. Because I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't arguing that the turret was gonna block much because that's just one circular object down the corner. You know, there's a whole Yep. Length of the building that's there. Okay. No. I just wanted to make sure I looked at that angle again. I know the mechanical screen is the thing. So okay. Now that that looks solid.

The property owner and their team are here. You guys have anything to comment? Identify yourselves for the record, please.

My name is Patrick Wesley. I'm the architect.

Isabel Jardis, one of the designers.

And I am the property representative.

Okay. Very good. No, we don't really have any comments. We just it's a very important project obviously for the parish and they are very committed to it, doing it well. And we just think it would be a great gateway entry point to South Mitchell Street.

Agreed. Okay. Is there any motions?

Can there be comments first?

Yes, please.

And questions? Looks terrific. It's nice to see this. Definitely in favor of it. A couple of questions. Normally, on a kind of side elevation like this, it tends to be kind of a zero lot line matter and you don't see it much, but you do see this from the expressway. This is very side the And to

of we're

does your property a ownership go further west? Because you have windows on that, it's a fire rated, you got to

have a fire rated wall. I believe the current property line is right on that west wall, if not maybe a few inches

off. Because you can't have operable windows on zero allowing. Okay. That's kind of a minor thing relative to what we're dealing with here right

now.

Matt, will they be able to think fire shutters would if they absolutely Yeah, want

to they keep have them something. You can't just leave those as open windows. Andrew, when you were describing it, was particularly interested in hearing it when you said to separate the new and the old, it stepped back. I think you said that. But on the plan, I don't see it stepped back. It's flushed. Like, as Nick had asked, that elevation from the street, that perspective, if you can get yourself to that.

Yeah, to the overhead plane?

To that rendering.

To the rendering?

The rendering of the building. Sure. From 5th Street looking north. And then go one more. I think it's supposed to be the next one. Yes. There is no step back of that facade. It's flush with historic building, stepped

back minimally. So you can see right behind the chimney area. It's not significant, but it is stepped back. And there will be a change in the foundation, too. The historic building has a stone foundation and they're proposing brick for the foundation. So it will look slightly different. It isn't a huge step back, but in order to maximize the building size, they really weren't able to push it back any further.

Yes, the whole facade. But oftentimes, we do with existing store abilities we're adding on to, you at least have a little bit of a shadow box or a step back of a couple of feet just so you don't have that kind of condition of a new thing hitting an old thing flush, which is what it looks like here. So I would say that that connection should be investigated a little bit further so that it doesn't seem like you're making a new building look like it's part of the old building, which leads to my next question because it's fairly significant Park Service standards that one wouldn't do an addition that could be misunderstood as part of the historic building. Okay? So, what you do are things like change the brick color, sometimes even change the material to sort of the new one.

We're about that?

We did. I think that from early on though the client really wanted to have more of a cohesive look. So it's kind of fighting with the demands there, but then also the demands of what's historically appropriate. And we figured maybe differentiating the addition and the existing could be done in other ways.

I know you explained the brick coursing, but that's pretty subtle. Sure. You can't detect that unless you're two feet away from the thing. Right. But I'm saying, you know, a more distant view from the expressway from a couple blocks away. And it's an important thing in National Park Service consideration, you know, that there isn't a confusion about and you know I've said this before in the commission. We've had these other kind of proposals. And I just sort of challenge the applicant to think a little bit about that and to think about this matter of a kind of a preservation, clarity, the rest of the work looks great, looks terrific. I'm excited about it. It's a really good thing.

But maybe that's my question for you or commissioner. Should that addition not seem like it's trying to be, I don't know, original because of the desire to use the same kind of beige color and so on? And would there be a purpose to looking at some potential options for a different color?

Well, in their mock ups, when they provided the brick mock ups in July, one of the options that they had then was so what we ended up what HPC ended up approving was that cream color, but in sort of a more rusticated, almost kind of beat up historic appearance. It's a little bit rougher. They did show an example then that was vaguely the same color but kind of a smoother finish and more clean-cut on modern looking brick that's of that. And I'm not sure if that's an option that the applicant would like to explore, but

Good. Thanks. No, I'm just curious with architects what their thinking is about that matter of reading authenticity in historic buildings and those additions that are one hundred and twenty, one hundred and thirty years later, addition comes to the thing. And that a careful design and a sophisticated material brick is a good material. I know we're going to add a building that's final site. I mean, it's a good durable material. So that's good. I think the last step is do we want this this thing to appear, you know, of its of its time. That that it was put now in 02/2026, not in 1890. So.

I think also I got you.

Oh, sorry.

No. I just wanted to piggyback off of Matt really quickly because I know that there's lots of different ways to achieve what he's talking about. My first thought is some sort of a gasket. Hunter Weber, longtime professor of my architect in Chicago, always talked about gaskets. Right? Sometimes when two things meet, you're putting, actual, like, let's say, it's a piece of glass that's vertical that goes entire, you know, width of wherever those two things connect, you can kinda see the new and the old type thing, or maybe it's just actual recess in the material, or maybe it's just a material difference. I think there's a lot of different ways to achieve what Matt's talking about. But the important part is, like, he was saying that and you guys are architects. You're gonna help. It's, like, being able to differentiate things.

Right? Another thing that popped into my head, you're talking about brick coursing. Does this thing have it to where the brick, you know, maybe switches coursing? Maybe I'm not getting into the design because you are. Obviously, you guys fear, you know, fear what's appropriate. But is there a world where maybe that coursing is now using a different brick color so that you're actually seeing a different, at least, motif for this is still an allusion to what's going on in the past, but it's being done in a different way now. So then you can very much say, hey. This is that and this is this. Like, I don't know. There might be different ways where you all can just play with it because I understand the bigger thing.

It's what I heard at the beginning is where you said, hey. We need x amount of square footage to make this thing viable. So we don't wanna physically recess, you know, anything, meaning making things smaller. So then if that's not the case and we're still trying to, you know, kinda jump at the bit of what Matt's talking about, then it would be a materiality thing, but it doesn't have to be probably as drastic as what might one might think. You know, it's just a matter of how things are kind of delicately treated. But I'll shut up now. You guys should definitely go for it.

I'll just say that probably not inclined to get this in-depth in this, but you're going to see that from the expressway. I know this site. My grandfather owned a grand studio right next door for many years, so I'm particularly sensitive to that corner and to the church and so forth. We're going to see that from the expressway for a long time. It would be nice if it were carefully thought out and carefully considered and discussed with the commission.

What do you think about that? It looks like the current setback is like an inch.

Yes, it is like a core scene.

It is

like four inches.

Oh, it that much. Oh, it is four inches. It is hard to tell from the rendering. Then the floor plan showed but there is no measurement.

I am sure you hear this a lot but it was a challenge fitting all the program onto. So we were really trying to maximize the space.

Yes.

It depends on how you define noticeable, I guess. But yes, that's why there is that kind of soft joint that. Little to be that's do display, energy, surveillance, security, all that kind of thing. I look at it now and I just see pretty much brick on your addition. I see that one window.

Is there any capacity within your programming to have a window there? Is that an office of some kind? You know what I'm talking about, right, Yes. When you look at And again, if it weren't so visible, which it will be, kind of a friendly 1st Floor is sort of what we try to promote. Relative to the south and west elevator. You can leave them all blank if you want. I don't care about that. But when you're on a public right away street, we do like to get the 1st Floor to be a little bit more friendly and the light of something happening. Can always kind of have the kind of opaque security that you need. Sounds like it's bathrooms. Yes. That's what I figured as much. It looks like the bathroom. Right. Listen, those are my comments.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? So you see no way of increasing that sense of separateness from the new and old construction?

Well, I mean, I

could

of course, we could look at it and try to if it's more so just some sort of materiality change of some sort, there's probably something we can do. In terms of the actual setback, that's going to be more of a challenge programmatically and that goes all the way from to the beginning of the design when we're trying to make it work.

Yes. And that's why I kind of threw out my comments. So there's, as you said, material ways of achieving what Matt's talking about, and that's why I was kinda like, as in so I'm an architect as well. So one thing that I absolutely despise within the whole process is having to redo work after you figured it Right? You feel really good about it, and you're like, oh, man. Like, I gotta, you know, do something that's gonna set up a whole bunch of chain reactions. Right? So, ideally, I guess what I'm trying to do is maybe translate, and maybe Matt can kind of chime in on this. This can be handled as a materiality thing. Right, Matt?

Yeah. I mean, there's probably a number of gestures that wouldn't reduce your square footage in the building proper, which I think is your concern. You've said that a couple of times, but that you could make somehow something that's sensitive to the existing. You know, we don't want to go I think we need to go in the direction of being sort of drastic confrontation of old and new. Mean, it can be sensitive.

But I guess I'm just thinking that maybe just a slight bit more investigation about some of the points that I've set now. I know you're probably in a hurry to get this thing done, but I would suggest to the commission that we would have the option of holding it per just some a little exploration with staff, you know, about sort of addressing couple of these details. I'm good enough with Andrew reviewing this. I mean, if there needs to be full commission in a month or if you want to look it over, I'm fine if he looks it over in a couple weeks. Issues that?

Would you guys be open to that sort of thing? Well, I'm not going you guys make the motion.

Did you have something to say? Yes. I was just going to add that we did explore different ways to differentiate the addition. And we kind of, from a formal standpoint, I think it is differentiated because it's very boxy, which is different from the existing building. And then also the level of ornamentation in the window build outs are also different. And the level of like limestone additions on the trim pieces are also different. So we were exploring it. We can explore it more if we need to. But I guess I just wanted to advocate for us that we did look at some of those things.

Yes. That's a good explanation. Do you guys know that small church on the Pabst campus? It's not a church anymore. It's a Midwest Brewing beer.

It's been a church in one hundred and forty years there. Well, church on the Pabst campus, yeah.

Yeah, you see it from the expressway. Because they had added a kitchen operation there. So it's a big beige addition going south. And they were using tax credits. So the feds got in and said, in some ways, you have to do it this way. And it kind of gets close to what you were saying. In other words, it's really kind of clean, modernist looking box. Right? Go take a look at it next time. See the PAPS logo is on the side of thing.

And there is kind of a beige of the beige color of the church proper, but clearly there is no attempt to use the scoring or the materials of the old church. It's just sort of, you know, this is the addition and we just built it and that's that. So, as I'm saying, it's a funny, it's difficult little kind of middle ground between being very clear that that's 's not part of the old church but also feeling comfortable. An old building and a new building sort of feeling comfortable with each other. So that's a little bit of example.

So actually, I kind of like your explanation. You know, I just think that maybe more image that's fine if I let you show them, but imaging from across the expressway. I'm a little obsessed with this expressway. I'm going to be looking at that thing until the day I die going, oh, yay, yay. So, I think it's a pretty good explanation.

The one thing that the Park Service too is particularly sensitive is actually not to repeat the same historic window of the old building. That's deliberate on a number of buildings. You can see that on that ice cream thing by the Deer District on the side where they put in new windows. It's an intention not to somehow repeat the old same dimensions, proportions of double hung, that you really do something quite different. Kind of modernist that you sort of said that, that kind of modernist rather than historic looking view to think. And you call this thing actually a very simple and straightforward modern addition to a historic building.

Any other comments? Any motions?

Matt, you better make the motion.

I just want to say a little bit more in terms of renderings and so forth. So I'm going to say that I want to I'm going to say that we hold this to next month's meeting.

And we can work with the applicant. Right.

Work with this on that particular spot. The rest of the building, you can do what you want. But it's just too important to Milwaukee. It's too important to that church. Stanislaus, it's too important to the beautiful job that you're doing with the turdent, you know, historic building, which I applaud you for that. I'm going to say hold over to next month and I'd be happy to lend comments and so forth on a subcommittee and then bring it back next month and we'll see what we have.

So then the question that I have is, is that workable for you? Because I like the idea, in terms of what Matt has said. But I also wanted to take all of your work into consideration. Is that workable or are you gonna get jammed up? Anybody wanna answer that?

Well, it is the motion. Need a second in order for us to vote on it.

I hear you.

I'll stay free when we get to it.

Okay.

Can you answer?

I'm sorry. What was the question?

Are you open to working on this for the next month and coming back? Or does this jam you up?

We would like to proceed. It's a big investment.

In terms of winter, the cold weather, is that type of your thinking?

As soon as possible.

Okay. So Matt, let me just ask you. Is there any way for them to

start

and to continue to work with the staff?

Yeah. I mean, that's a suggestion five minutes ago. The hourly One option is to wait for another month before the whole commission Without

hourly coming back.

Plenty of times in the past, we've said, you know, if we have minor changes, we've given the staff authority then to advance the COA or the approval. And that would be fine with me. That

would Well, COA, be fine with my full COA in hand to apply for building permits? Is that the issue you are concerned about?

Yes. Just getting final, yes, certificate of appropriateness to be able to then pull permits. We are expecting plan review back. Actually, I think he was holding off until he heard back from this meeting.

So somehow, I know we used to do this often in the past per staff approval. However we want to word that, Linda, word it the way you want.

Per have staff

approval come back

Right.

Next month,

which is really a minimal disruption.

Yes. You want to make changes, modifications, that a couple of Andrew could look at. You want to make that tomorrow and come by and talk to Andrew, you could have COA on Wednesday.

I think that would be perfect.

And I would be happy to share with the commissioners as well.

Thank you.

We have

had a good, I think, working relationship so far. Yes.

Very good. The Okay. Language would be a motion to approve the COA contingent on the applicant providing additional information regarding the separation between old and new construction on the East facade?

I think that's a way to do it, call it additional information, which of course we've done plenty in the past. So we'll say we'll conditioned on some additional information details and images that

And you're primarily concerned with

the east facade? East facade. That's it. That's right. That staff can approve. Staff can approve. Right. You certainly we have subcommittees all the time. So just let me know and we'll take a look at it and work with them. Okay.

I'll second that.

All in favor?

Aye. Any opposed?

None opposed. Okay. You're good.

Okay.

Thank you.

We began item three, file two five one zero two seven, resolution relating to his activity of appropriateness for demolition of a shed and home at 1835 South Layton Boulevard in the American System Built Homes District, historic district where Frank Lloyd Wright's Burnham Block Inc.

Alright. So we have got American system built house model c three completed in 1916 to the designs of Frank Lloyd Wright. They are essentially wanting to do a restoration, bring it back to its appearance at the time it was constructed. The proposal includes demolishing this backyard shed, dates to the mid-twentieth century and is of no architectural importance or concern. Staff is A Okay with that.

The rest of the proposal includes replacing the roofing with new cedar shingles, replacing the synthetic stone with historically correct stucco, concrete block foundation walls and precast stone cap will be checked for integrity and waterproofed. Wood trim that's rotting and decaying will be replaced in kind. And all the wood trim will be finished back to the nineteen sixteen color scheme. Old glass will be used in restoring the windows. The planter box will be reconstructed to the specifications.

The porch will be opened up per the original designs by Frank Lloyd Wright. And all new mechanical systems, including plumbing and electrical, will bring the building up to code. So this is the building on the corner of Layton And Burnham. So it is in a lot of ways the most visible of the American system built homes on the block, on the Burnham Block. So these are two views of the house as it looks today, heavily modified, heavily altered from the original design.

The floor plans exist. The elevations drawn by Frank Lloyd Wright exist and will be used in bringing this building back. This is how it appeared in its early days and the goal here is to largely bring it back to its original appearance.

Is a rendering Picture with the Model T, where do you find that?

The applicant provided that.

Original tenants, the woman was still alive. She saw us on an Associated Press feed at her local newspaper in Florida and she said I grew up in that house. But what she really meant to say was I was one year old when I was born in that

house. Wow.

No kidding.

So yeah, the photograph still existed and we were able to get a copy of it.

Wow. So this owned by a foundation or a nonprofit or is this a private party that owns?

Nonprofit organization called Frank Lloyd Wright's Burn and Block Inc. 501C3.

Very good. Got it. Okay. And all those homes are owned by that entity?

No. There are six homes on the Burnham Block designed by Franklin Wright constructed between 1915 and 1916. Our nonprofit now owns five of them. We do hope to acquire the sixth one at some point but we've been acquiring them since 2002.

And are they occupied or just run as museums

basically? There are three different examples or models of the Frank Lloyd Wright design homes. Three of them will be reserved as museum and the rest of them could be occupied.

Currently,

there is two tenants on the block and one of them is the one we don't own is operated as a VRBO site and the rest are museum or are waiting restoration.

Very good. Excellent. Okay. Any questions or comments on this?

Just a quick question.

We're little

market And

more

think, see find out hot the things that even the stucco market on the exterior in and so forth. Would you just come back to our commission? Or do you have Save America's Treasures grant? What?

Yes. So this is funded by a Save America's Treasures grant. In July, we learned that the National Park Service had approved this set of plans and specifications. So we are our oversight is from the National Park Service as well as HPC.

Yes. Okay. Okay.

Question. The changes that went on in this, it's a multifamily, isn't

it? No, the single family.

Occurred before there was an HPC? Yes.

It it was occupied. Someone was living there, and and he bought it and rented it. So

And and the and these changes

Yeah. The red the kind of Pizza

Hut roof on its own. I mean, without I

think they yeah. Were yes. No.

There was no evaluation of stuff they put on it.

The PD

is the code.

Yes. That's correct.

The stone dates to the 1950s. The roof is the '70s, we think. And the enclosure we are not sure about. It could have been the 1950s as well.

When did HBC, when was it established?

I think seventies. '85.

Well, it was called the Landmarks Commission back then.

But then then it was changed.

Shifted in the mid eighties then to

the preservation Thank

Plankton. Yeah, Plankton. Mansion demolition.

I see. Thank you.

Yeah, the Mideast.

I think we might have had something to do with it too because one of the houses on the burning block is aluminum sided.

It what?

Sided. So we're constantly telling people, yes, we have the only Frank Lloyd Wright house in the world that is aluminum sided. Personally, I think it's mothballed at least for the time being. It's our low priority for restoration. Plus we have one other model of that home already restored so people can come to the block and see an example of that. There are four identical buildings. One is restored. They can come and see the

restored Are you locally Yeah. Is this where your offices are?

I'm from. Yeah.

The only deal with Milwaukee?

Just these six buildings.

Yeah. Just these six buildings. But you're tied into, in terms of grants, etcetera, to a national foundation?

No, no. Where you apply? Apply for these grants on our own. This is our third Save America's Treasures grant. We apply for them on our own. They're highly competitive. Our Board supports us. Rick is on our Board. And we not the last one, but the one before, there were 41 grants given out of 400 applicants. So if you want to think about something really cool in Milwaukee, think about the Birnam Bock because the National Perks Service sure does. They think of it as part of the fabric of our nation worth protecting at the highest level.

Wow. Terrific.

Impressive. Very

good. It's an extraordinary thing. No question about it.

Do any motions?

Do have one question. Please.

You want to take it?

No, you go ahead.

So there was listed a recommendation to approve with conditions. There is a condition that we haven't talked about. If we leave that off, that would be fantastic. I think that's just a misunderstanding. I talked to Andrew about it a little bit.

The condition is about removing paint and it would be we think that the only place there is paint at the site is the foundation. And the foundation has paint. It was painted at some point in the history of the home, but that paint is supposed to be removed so we can parge it. So the specifications you have to consider would have a concrete, a new concrete finish, which is basically a monolithic coating of mortar mix at the end of the day. And that's what you would see in the historic photograph, which dates to 1924 or the early one with the Model T, which dates to 1917.

Mr. Sheriff?

Yes, please.

Did I miss it or usually you march up here and say exactly your name Linda for the record. If you three could do that, that's Mike.

Mike Lulek. I am the curator and President of the Board of Directors.

Rick Donner, Board of Directors.

Steve Wellenstein, Ramblstein Architects.

Okay. What about that? I am reading this condition. It was kind of buried in the header here a little bit. So it reads exterior masonry cleaning, paint removal is a separate construction. Permit from D and S or permit from us?

Staff is fine with removing that. It is only going

to be that foundation. It is going

to be parted. We are fine with proceeding.

Okay. So then the motion would then be to approve the COA without the condition a listed in the staff report. Alright. Acceptable? Yeah.

So quick thing really quickly. I just realized I didn't see you sitting there, Steve. So these are the guys this is, like, the first people that trained me. Like, I got an architect position as an intern at 17 years old. It was Elon Wilson at the time. It was Steve and Scott and Nat and all those guys. I didn't even see you sitting there, Steve. Yeah. Actually, they have you working on one of these Vernon houses way back in the day. So definitely, I've got some of my training on these houses. They've been doing this for a long time.

A long,

long time. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

Okay. So is that Matt's motion?

That's my motion.

Your second? Second. All in favor?

Aye. Any opposed? Aye.

Okay. It passes. You're good. Thank you very much. On to item four, file two five one zero two six resolution relating to a certificate appropriateness for storefront replacement at 235 South 2nd Street in the South 2nd Street Historic District for the Borger Building LLC. The applicant has requested a hold. They they had a

change in staff. Their architect left the firm. They're they're redrawing some plants.

So, Maturo moves to hold this item to the call of the chair. Hearing no objection to that, order. Moving on to item five, file two five zero nine nine five. Resolution relating resolution granting permanent historic designation to the Milwaukee Auditorium and Milwaukee Arena, 412 West Kilborn Avenue in the four hundred and five hundred blocks of West Kilborn Avenue in the 4th Aldermanic District. Okay. We have a staff report on this one? Yes. Please proceed with the staff report.

Thank you. So we are discussing permanent historic designation of staff

will

be referring to them in their historic names. So the Milwaukee Auditorium and the Milwaukee Arena, now known as Miller High Life Theater, and the UW Milwaukee Panther Arena. Hopefully, HPC is familiar with these buildings. Are pretty prominent and hold a pretty prominent place in Milwaukee's history as we will discuss. Just for reference, if you need it, it's located in the four hundred and five hundred blocks of West Kilborn, formerly Cedar Street, originally Cedar Street in West Town, Kilborn Town area of downtown located in the heart of what is Milwaukee Civic Center, we'll discuss that a little bit further in our presentation.

So located just south of where the Bradley Center was and south of where the Fiserv Forum is, just north of the Baird Center and the new addition, West of City Hall and the river and east of the courthouse. The Milwaukee Auditorium was designed by the architectural firm of Ferry and Claus in 1907, constructed 'seven to 'nine in the neoclassical Beaux Arts style. And the Milwaukee Arena designed by Eshweiler and Eshweiler, constructed in 1948 to 1950 in the international style. Am taking a look at the history. It's quite a lot of history to cover, so staff will attempt to be quick.

I'll do my best. But the land where the auditorium stands now has long been used for public purposes. It was donated by Byron Kilborn, one of the founding fathers of Milwaukee in 1835, given to the city as a bequest with his stipulation being that the land be used as public grounds, house a public marketplace and that a specific part would not be built on. The first structure constructed was the West Market Hall, which stood from 1867 to 1880, shown just below Byron Kilbourne's smiling face there. The building was torn down and the Exposition Building, the crown jewel of the city of Milwaukee was constructed in '18 opened in 1881, designed by Edward Townsend Mix, a grand Queen Anne Exposition Building that was built

following

the centennial and the Exposition Building in Philadelphia in 1876. As early as 1903, 1905, there had been talk of replacing the aging structure, then only about twenty years old. But that was all made moot when the Exposition Building suffered a catastrophic fire in 1905. So this really kicked into gear the need for a building, and it was decided that the auditorium would be constructed. After some debate, was determined that since the city already owns this land, the new Auditorium Building be rebuilt where the Expositions Building was located.

It's conveniently located on the streetcar line right downtown, easy access. There was a nationwide architectural design competition announced which drew responses from architects all over the country. 12 entries were received and anonymously reviewed. And surprise, surprise, a Milwaukee firm ended up winning. Ferry and Cost ended up winning the design competition largely because of their interior designs best suited the use that the city wanted for the building.

Staff attempted to find their original design submittal. The blueprints weren't held in the Wisconsin Architectural Archive, but it was the exterior designs were modified to a more neoclassical Beaux Arts design. But the firm, Farying Koss, operated for twenty two years. We have discussed their buildings numerous times here at the HPC, but they were one of the juggernauts of Milwaukee architecture during their partnership, designing wonderful English influenced residential commissions and grand public buildings such as the Milwaukee Public Library, the Frederick Papps Mansion. They also did the Wisconsin Historical Society in Madison, which is a gorgeous neoclassical building.

The Milwaukee was extremely excited and hungry for this building. There's great excitement for the new building including days and days of celebrations. An estimated 10,000 people attended the Cornerstone Lane in 1908. There were parades, festivities, music, celebrations, jubilees, not only when the cornerstone was laid but also during the three days of dedication in 1909. The auditorium was the first building constructed in what was the grand new idea in the city of Milwaukee for a civic center.

The civic center idea was centered on the idea that public buildings would be grouped around park like malls meant to impress visitors with their beauty and instill pride in the residents of the city. This movement was known as the City Beautiful. It sprang up following the World's Exposition in Chicago in 1893 and later used in the plan of the National Mall in Washington, D. C. City leaders first contemplated having a civic center in 1905.

As mentioned, the auditorium was integral in developing this concept. In the year that the auditorium was completed, the first civic center plan was brought forward by architect Alfred Claus, Oferian Claus. It included the auditorium in this design that spanned from City Hall on the East all the way to a proposed courthouse located on 9th And 10th Street along Cedar Street, which was designed in a park like manner. There was a 1920 referendum officially designating this area for major civic buildings and it included the Public Safety Building. Eventually Cedar Street, Kilborn Avenue was widened and boulevard and beautified.

And ultimately the Civic Center plan culminated in our grand neoclassical imposing Milwaukee County Courthouse located up on hill on 10th And 9th Street. Gorgeous vista if you're looking west up Kilbourne. It was a really stunning plan and pretty well executed in the city. These are views of the auditorium as it was constructed in 1909. The original front of the building faced 5th Street.

5th Street no longer goes through. It's now located where the hyphen connecting the arena and the auditorium is located. But that was the original front facade and Kilbourne then Cedar Street was a secondary facade, though now as of the late 1940s, the primary facade of the building. But designed in a neoclassical design, it's got a great dental cornice, wide stone cornice, ionic columns and detailing pilasters, a really well proportioned grand building that represents the Beaux Arts neoclassical style well. And that style, as we'll talk about later, was strongly associated with the Columbian Exposition and the City Beautiful movement.

It was used in a number of the designs in City Beautiful. The auditorium was a hit. It was a smashing success from the moment it opened. Through the 1920s, both the auditorium and its annex, which had separate facilities, separate sized facilities, they were hosting between 801,000 events per year. So out of three sixty five days between the three or four spaces, they were hosting upwards of 1,000 events annually.

Early performances included singers Enrico Caruso, John Philip Sousa and his band performed, Louis Armstrong performed. Later, it was it housed rock and roll concerts such as Hermann's Hermits. The auditorium housed political rallies, including some controversial rallies. The Ku Klux Klan spoke in the 1950s much to the ire of Mayor Daniel Hohn. It was also the home for many, many years to the Milwaukee Auto Show, Milwaukee Sentinel Sports Show, the Annual Home Show, Holiday Folk Fair were all held at the auditorium for decades and used for housing soldiers getting ready to go off to World War I, welcoming them back following World War I, and for holding rallies and fundraisers during World War II.

It was used as a hospital during the Spanish flu in the late nineteen teens. One of the most famous incidents that kind of brought Renown or at least still brings up the auditorium It was in 1912. Theodore Roosevelt was scheduled to speak on the Progressive Party platform, then ex president. He was running for president again as a Progressive Party candidate. Half an hour before his appearance outside of the Gilpatrick Hotel, which is the higher regency now, where that is located, he was shot shot in the chest and the bullet penetrated his eyeglasses case and his folded up fifty fifty page speech.

So if you think I'm wrong Absolutely. You've heard that story. Yep. And there are photographs of bullet holes through his speech, his blood soaked undergarment and the bullet that penetrated into his chest and remained for the rest of his life. But he refused medical attention, went to the auditorium, and spoke for fifty minutes.

He exclaimed, I don't know if you realize I've just been shot, but it takes more than that to kill a bull moose. There have been commemorative books written about the event. And again, it's sort of an infamous part of American history of which the auditorium played a role when he gave his speech. As early as the nineteen thirties, there were there were rumblings about what to do with the auditorium. It wasn't large enough to house the sporting events that they wanted.

There there was need for greater convention space. So there were already rumblings going back eighty years, ninety years. Ultimately, during the Great Depression and then the onset of World War II, those plans were shelved. But there was a tremendous appetite, a pent up desire for large civic improvements following the Great Depression and World War II. And starting in 1945, the city began to raise money for a new structure devoted to sports and enlarging convention center space.

In that year, 1945, the nineteen forty eight Corporation was organized, named to honor the centennial of the state of Wisconsin. The group later changed their name to the Greater Milwaukee Committee. They were a nonpartisan, nonpolitical, nonsectional group that was committed to community improvement. And among their big initial undertaking was an indoor sports arena. But other ideas that they floated were an outdoor stadium, a war memorial, a museum, modernization of the library and new zoo facilities. All got done. Pardon me?

All of that got done.

They all got done, thanks in large part to the success of the arena, which proved, as we'll talk about, that Milwaukee was ready for modernization, for progress, ready to jump into the twenty first century fully. Alexander Jr, A. C. Eshweiler, was chosen as the architect and planner of the arena. His father, Alexander Eschweiler Sr, designed the UW Milwaukee Downer Quad, residences for wealthy Milwaukeeans on the Upper East Side, buildings for Harley Davidson, numerous banks and churches.

The junior Eshweilers, his three sons, joined the firm in 1923. The firm operated until 1972. Operating as Eshweiler and Eshweiler with the senior Eshweiler sons, They designed buildings in the Artecco, international, modern style, including TMJ for the WTMJ Radio's Radio City, the Zeidler Building right next door here and the Milwaukee Gaslight Building, a gorgeous Artecco design from 1930. The cornerstone was laid in 1949 to tremendous anticipation. The building continued through 1950.

Newspaper articles and editorials during that time were refusive in their excitement for this new auditorium. Businesses such as Gimbals and Pabst, the Heil Company, Schrader Hotel all took out advertisements celebrating the opening of the arena. The Milwaukee Sentinel asserted that the arena is, quote, the embodiment of hope and dreams of forward looking citizens who would not be defeated. It alone is the city's most important step forward physically and psychologically in many years. It's the best possible proof that steps can be taken.

Tremendous excitement when the arena opened in April 1950 despite frigid, frigid temperatures, a sellout crowd of over 11,000 citizens attended. The weeklong celebration was known as Progress Week. Dignitaries and elected officials, including Senator Clemente or Congressman Clemente Zublaki, former Mayors Daniel Hone and John Bohn attended. Speakers touted, quote, the new conventions, new and bigger sporting events, more spectacular shows and events that heretofore had bypassed Milwaukee that would lie ahead because of completion of the new Milwaukee Arena. The Arena, much like the auditorium, was a smashing success right off the bat.

It was in the black in the first year of operation. It was home to Milwaukee's first NBA team, the Milwaukee Hawks, which relocated from then the Tri City known as the Tri Cities, now Quad Cities in Illinois. The Tri City Blackhawks relocated to Milwaukee, thanks in large part to Fred Miller of Miller Brewing Company and his financial backing. Major League Hockey, exhibition games and regular season games, the Chicago Blackhawks played at the arena. Later, the expansion Milwaukee Bucks made the arena their home for twenty years from 1968 to 1988.

Starting in the 1970s, it was home to the Milwaukee Admirals, Marquette Warriors, then known as Marquette Warriors men's basketball team played there. It's also home to Milwaukee's first professional women's basketball team, the Milwaukee Does, who performed or played there in 1978 through 1980. Later, the Milwaukee Wave would make their home there. The UW Panthers UW Milwaukee Panthers men's basketball team would also play there. Starting in 1977, pop artist Robert Indiana painted the brightly colored Mecca Floor, which would he was famous for his love, both sculptures and prints.

But this was the brightly colored floor would remain from 1977 until the Bucks relocated to the larger Bradley Center in 1988. In addition to sports, it's home to numerous political rallies. John F. Kennedy spoke there as President in 1962. It's home to numerous rock and roll performances. The Beatles only performance in the state of Wisconsin happened in April or excuse me, September 1964. First concerts by the Rolling Stones. Led Zeppelin performed in 1973. My first concert in 1995, seeing the Beastie Boys happen to be at the arena, a great concert. So very important for that reason.

So again, or more recent political rallies were held by Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. Throughout that time, though there continued to be questions about what to do with the auditorium, that was a common thread, again, starting through the 1930s. In 1960s, there were plans to modernize the auditorium. They were deemed too expensive to undertake at the time. Plans called for adding air conditioning and streamlining the exterior.

By the 1970s, the functionality of the auditorium was again put forward. The city opted to keep and renovate the auditorium with new improvements such as new sound systems, new lighting systems, air conditioners, conditioning and exterior renovations. But programming started to change with the development of the Performing Arts Center in the mid-70s, the Mecca Convention Center and later the Bradley Center to house larger sporting events and then the Midwest Wisconsin Center, now the Baird Center development from the '90s through today. In the year 2000, again, theme with the auditorium. There was discussion on what to do to mothball it, demolish it, renovate it.

Ultimately, there was a major renovation project which included reducing the size of the main hall down from 6,100 to 4,000 people. It can be further converted down to 2,500 people to better align with the needs of smaller events. The renovation created a sloped seating area, upgraded balcony seating, modified secondary ballrooms and created a new gallery rotunda at the Kilbourne Avenue entrance. Exterior modifications including a whole new northern facade, the pilings had failed, so they had to redo the State Street facade largely. Other modifications included a metal canopy on the annex and the Kilbourne entry of the main hall.

The grand stair was modified to accommodate ADA compliance and having ramps. So there were some exterior modifications, but largely the building remains intact and its appearance relatively unchanged all these one hundred and fifteen years, one hundred and sixteen years later. So these are some views of the interior modifications in the main theater. The secondary theater or the secondary halls were modified as well. And here is the Grand Rotunda.

In terms of the arena, they also underwent a $3,000,000 upgrade starting in 2014, adding a new scoreboard and new seats. The Wisconsin Athletic Hall of Fame, Walk of Fame project was relocated to the exterior of 4th Street and Aubell Phillips. You can see on the photograph to the left here. In 2001, that was moved from the interior of the arena to the exterior. Other modifications include upgraded locker rooms.

But largely, the buildings are both intact as they were when they were constructed. Staff recommends approval of historic permanent designation of the arena and auditorium for the following criteria. For F1, it's exemplification and development of the cultural, economic, social or historic heritage of the city, state of Wisconsin over The United States. It's really difficult to overstate just how immensely important both of these developments, the auditorium and the arena, were to the overall development of the city of Milwaukee. Though built a generation apart, both of these buildings were instrumental in ushering in a flourish of civic improvements.

The auditorium was the first building constructed in the newly conceived Civic Center plan. It was a catalyst for additional developments such as the Public Safety Building, the Boulevard Of Kilborn Avenue and ultimately connecting City Hall to the grand new courthouse that was constructed in 1932. Likewise, the arena provided excuse me proved that Milwaukee was hungry to shake off stagnancy and despair that had befallen the city during the Great Depression and World War II and that Milwaukee was ready to move fully into modernity and progress. The arena jump started a reawakening and civic pride that resulted in the construction of many large scale citywide civic improvements such as Milwaukee County Stadium, the new terminal at Mitchell Field, a new Milwaukee County Zoo, the War Memorial Center in addition to Central Library, and the Milwaukee Public Museum. The Civic Center idea would continue on with additional buildings such as the Mecca Convention Center, later the Bradley Center now demolished, the expansion of the Baird Center and the Fiserv Forum.

I'll go back one. Also for F2, it's a location as a site of significant historic event. The auditorium will always be featured in American history texts for its association with the attempted assassination of ex President Theodore Roosevelt. As mentioned, when he was in Milwaukee to speak, he was shot by John Fleming Schrank in October 1912. Then he made his way despite a bullet lodged in his chest, he made his way to the auditorium to speak to a set out crowd of over 9,000 people for over fifty minutes.

Also, the site of the only Beatles performance in the state happened at the arena, which I also find to be pretty significant. Also for F5, it is embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or specimen. When the auditorium was dedicated, Mayor David S. Rose at its opening called it, quote, a monument to the triumph of optimism. In it is manifest the spirit of progress, for it incomparably excels all that have preceded it.

And the auditorium shows that spirit of progress in its interpretation of the neoclassical and Beaux Arts style, which was popular following the World's Fair. These classically designed buildings were chosen for large civic projects, including the Central Library, the Northwestern National Insurance Building, Central Office and the County Courthouse. Likewise, the Milwaukee Arena showed its spirit of progress in its style, the international style, which was popular starting in the mid-twentieth century and really eschewed classicism and architectural precedent. It's a very clean streamlined design that has skewed the past, relying mainly on clean lines and the bulk shown in its mass, its red brick, its telescoping roof. So both of these architectural styles are well represented by the two buildings.

Also for F6, its identification is the work of an artist, architect, craftsman or master builder whose individual works have influenced the development of the city. Both the auditorium and the arena were designed by arguably the top architectural firms of their respective eras. Ferry and Klas were one of the most prominent architectural firms in Milwaukee, known for their fashionable residential commissions and elegant public buildings. And Eshweiler and Eshweiler was known for both its handsome and stately residential commissions as well as its large scale commercial and institutional designs, many of which we've discussed previously. And finally, for F9, its unique location has a singular physical characteristic, which represents an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the city.

The auditorium and the arena are notable landmarks and have been destinations in downtown for over one hundred and fifteen years and seventy five years respectively. The auditorium and arena are anchors of the Civic Center and are where generations of Milwaukeeans and Wisconsinites have gathered for entertainment, rallies, education and meaningful experiences where they've created personal memories. Both of the auditorium and the arena stand as physical embodiments of the most important history some of the most important events in Milwaukee history.

Thank you. Any questions of staff on the staff report?

I do have a question. What is zoning?

I don't know the underlying zoning of the city. Think it's Downtown C9 zoning?

I mean C9. Which is covers all of downtown in various gradients but basically, it's pretty general. Pretty generous on me.

Ken. Thank you.

Okay. This does require a public hearing. So is there a motion to convene the public hearing?

So moved.

There a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. It is a public hearing. We have one individual at the table. Please give us your name and who you represent.

Good afternoon, commission. My name is Josh Levy. I represent the owner of the Wisconsin Center District.

Very good.

If I may proceed. Please. We all know these buildings and we have traveled past them numerous times. The reason I am here, which I will explain maybe not at the length of staff but for some moments, is objection and request that you reject this application. And let me go through that.

The owner requests the rejection primarily for timing of the application and the criteria for the commission adopting or approving the application. And as I sit and listen to staff, before I get into my prepared information, I am proud to be a Milwaukeean. And I went to Milwaukee Public Schools. I went to my first concert at the arena, which I believe was Billy Joel. After that, I saw Boston there.

There's a period of concerts I don't remember too well, but that's a different story. I went to the auditorium and saw the Allman Brothers. I have the ticket stub. I don't remember that concert that well either. But as I listen to staff, there is just a few qualities of the application in the buildings I want to address before I go through some of the more criteria based items.

With all of the attention given to these buildings as we've heard staff communicate, the timing question is one that comes to the fore in my mind. It's 2025. We've heard a presentation and in the materials there is a recitation of a century of history or more for the auditorium. And as I listened to what is really a remarkable chronology of the origin of the buildings, the theme that I hear is how they both came after a demolition of other structures in order to jump start development in the area. In fact, I hear that the auditorium was there to jump start the whole idea of a civic center.

I see where you are going and that's technically not relevant to this proceeding. This proceeding is solely to determine whether these two buildings qualify for designation under the criteria contained in the ordinance. Going to the issue of what stood there before and that demolition led to redevelopment, which led to demolition redevelopment. I get that. That can still happen here. As you well know, I'm sure you've studied this ordinance backward and upside down, and inside out. That can happen. But it entails a process. A process that all of Milwaukee should be able to participate in through its elected representatives and the common council. I get all that.

Yes. Both of these buildings were born out of demolitions or one case a fire that was that destroyed a building. Fine. It's possible there may be broad support for redevelopment at some point in the future based on the plan that comes forward. Today there is no plan. So please confine your remarks to the criteria that was outlined in the staff report as to how these buildings qualify for designation.

I appreciate the focus of the additional owner remarks. I was merely commenting on it because staff commented on it. I thought staff thought it was important. We'd address it. So we will go into the details of the application. I have it

in front

of me. So first of all, the agenda says permanent historic designation. The application itself says historic designation application and criteria is a detailed analysis, sir. I agree Alderman Baumann. So I am here for paragraph four of the owner.

Paragraph three of the application has a classification. It says buildings and at the top we have the property name, the auditorium and the arena. So the classification itself out of the boxes you can check is buildings and I think that that's important to note. We have the ordinance that we are here under and the ordinance itself three twenty-twenty one addresses this commission under the eighth article called functions, powers and duties and this is what really struck me as I prepared for today. I am an attorney.

When there is a shall in an ordinance that's a requirement and under eight it says functions, powers, duties in addition to such other powers, duties, and authority as are set forth in this section, the commission shall. The first thing the commission shall do is 8A, maintain or cause to be maintained a comprehensive survey of sites, structures and districts in the city identifying its historic cultural and architectural resources. I looked for that and didn't find that online. It's probably somewhere else, but it wasn't online. Then 8B really struck me.

Prepare or cause to be prepared a current list of potential sites, structures and districts as determined by the survey to be designated as historical, cultural or architectural sites, structures or districts. And I haven't seen anywhere, it's not in the application, any indication that that section was fulfilled and had identified these buildings as potential sites for designation, which again is why I did question how is this arising right now. And then HC says prepare a cause to be prepared a master plan based on the survey that will delineate the proper course of action for historic preservation planning in the city, which again I don't want to suggest irrelevant information as I have been admonished. But there was a master plan for the Civic Center and I don't know what the historic preservation planning master plan from this commission is because it's not published on the website or anywhere I could find it. And that gets me to a little bit why I think there is some relevance to this.

I defer of course to esteemed chair. But under 9C of the ordinance, today the commission's got several options but it's deciding whether to deny the request or recommend historic designation. We're asking you to deny it. It says that the commission shall set forth written findings which constitute the basis for its decision and shall also recommend preservation guidelines for the site if it does recommend the designation. If that were to happen, it goes to the common counsel and that's why there is to be a written record of the findings.

And that's why I am saying some of what I am saying so it can appear in the record. So I will go on now to this actual application again and whether it fulfills the criteria and there is notice given to the owner. There's notice to given to owners within 200 feet and those obligations were fulfilled. There is on the site the Milwaukee Arena permanent historic designation report November 2025. So that's a new document.

And that's where I think some of the criteria items are inconsistent. Page two of that report for what you're asked to approve right now, Under classification says site. That's a different consideration entirely. The application is buildings. There's boxes under category buildings, structures, objects, site. The report isn't a report on a classification of buildings. It's a report on a site.

And when you read through

that report, again, you get the wonderful history staff has just elaborated. But the classification is inconsistent. And if you go to Page 33 of the report, that's where I believe staff addressed the guidelines requirement. But again, it's Roman numeral nine guidelines for new construction which is why I think it is somewhat relevant of what I said earlier. But under 9A, first under nine it says it is unlikely that there will be a new large scale construction on the site which doesn't have to do with buildings, that site.

A says site work. New construction must respect the historic site and location of the building and then B goes into new construction again on a site basis and it expressly limits development that can happen in that area. Representing the owner, it's the Wisconsin Center District that has commenced development activities. And again, I think that raises the timing issue. At this point and I have got a few more items to discuss, but it seems that given that the application is for buildings and the report is for site, perhaps more care shall be given to reintroduce an application at a later time which can reference back the survey whether this was on any either building was on a potential list of sites and how they figure with the master plan so that the impact described in the proposed guidelines can also be reviewed.

So the application itself did come as a surprise to the owner and I did try to understand where that came from.

Excuse me. Can I ask a question just before I lose it? A 100%. Thank you. Lose my train of thought is what I meant by that.

Are

you suggesting that the commission can only consider buildings that would have one

rejection and a more deliberate measured approach to considering other this application. That I see. And that's why I'm bringing up timing.

I

see. Because they're historic.

Yes.

From the events that took place. I'm not sure that the architectural significance of the arena is necessarily meets the criteria and I would reserve some of those issues at a later time if this was brought back before the commission.

I see.

But to answer your question, there is not a box that's checked to say this was on the list of potential sites for consideration.

I see. Okay. Apologies. Continue.

So the daily report picked up on this and that's where I found some of the answers and published an article. And again, I want to emphasize one thing. It says tensions are brewing. We're not here with any tensions. But it does indicate that the chair said their development started with the Wisconsin Center District retaining Hunden Partners to perform a highest and best used study for the arena and auditorium.

And there is overlap with responsibilities between this board and some of its members in the Wisconsin Center District. But after learning that that development effort had commenced, apparently the applicant decided that this application should be filed and that's the timing item I was raising, the cause and effect and it's also interesting to me because when we did look into the history and I don't know if this commission knows this, it wasn't in the report or the application, but the auditorium was a property that was the subject of a similar application in 2000 and this commission rejected it. And I have got this study report and I have got the page from your website that confirms that the auditorium came up for vote in 2000 and this commission denied its application. And it was interesting too because when we read this report, it pretty much is the cut and paste with what you are reviewing today. And there was a 2008 similar, not this commission report, but there was a report on the arena and neither ever became historic designations.

And apparently from the time of the announcement of development activity for these properties, the application was put together to interrupt that process. And that's one of the reasons the owners expressing its position that this should be rejected. The news articles, don't know if the commission has read them but they say in light of the chair's concerns, the application was prepared and that's the timing issue I'm I bringing think that bespokes another issue with the process. You're stewards of our community. That's applauded.

There's a lot of moving parts. There's full ordinance value in a master plan. And using information from a 2,000 study where the application was rejected seems that with something as you have agenda as a permanent designation, more thought should be given to an updated set of information being presented to the commission that isn't just a repurposing of prior filed materials that led to a rejection. We believe that the commission at this point should reject the application. First of all, it should clarify, is it applying for two buildings and if so, it should file a report based on buildings and not a site Or is it applying as a site in which case that should be more specifically designated?

There should be a new report in either case. That's a 2025 report with the application, not a repurposed report from twenty five years ago. There should be, I believe, in the interest as has been mentioned for the fair public record, reference to the requirements under three twenty-twenty one 8A, B and C. We are especially here where the commission itself is the applicant, The Alderman is the applicant to let the commission evaluate how this would fit into the master planning which is its responsibility under 8C. And as is referenced in the news articles and I can represent the expectation is that the funding partners report that is evaluating the properties will be delivered in January.

And if the buildings have stood for so long, if they've never been identified for potential designation, if one in fact was put up for designation twenty five years ago and it was rejected, It seems like there is no urgent need unless the need is to interrupt development to have a more measured application and report.

I'm going interrupt you there. Interrupt what development? No development has been announced. He said the the CEO of the Wisconsin Center District has said publicly that he has no plan to redevelop the site. So what what plan are you what development are you talking about that's being interfered with?

Well, it's the development that if you were quoted correctly, you mentioned. It's a very standard practice that you've seen over twenty one years in government that if a property owner or a developer or a public entity wants to accomplish something, they will hire some outside consultant to conduct a study which will confirm what it is they want to do.

And then the other thing Yeah. 100%. And then in response to that, the CEO of your client said, we have no such plans. So I am wrong in that quote.

I don't think

that you quoting because that's what he said in the same article you're referring to.

No. I will continue.

I So you wanna have this given you you're you're your your this is totally irrelevant to the subject, but you can welcome to continue this back and forth with me as the applicant and

Well well, I would address that, sir. And and I think it is a healthy discussion. First of all, I do understand and this is interesting too because Hunden is the group that's doing that study, Hunden Partners and they had focus groups. And you were at a focus group and focus group for July 29 one and percent correct. And your quote was if WCD develops new land etcetera.

You were talking about them developing new land. And then when I look at the report, it does talk about development. What report? The report staff entered with and this it talks about guidelines for new construction and development as we have seen on the slideshow could be redeveloping the existing property in some different form, changing the uses of the existing property. In fact, as I heard staff mention and it's interesting because sitting here through the first four agenda items, you see how some historic buildings have work done to them before being designated and then to make them historic, there is development that goes right back into how you would restore them to the historical facades.

And so whatever happens after the Wisconsin Center District evaluates the results of the Hunden Partners report, there is a development that will unfold. And that process Well,

it's news to me and that's news to the public because that has been specifically denied by your client.

Well, I think that

just depends

on the topic. Media in the room. That is new information because your client has emphatically denied that there's any plan to demolish or redevelop either the auditorium or the arena. If you're selling at the thing that there is such a plan, that's news.

No. I think you're taking the words and changing them. Client in the I heard you developed. Quoted no. The client said there's no plan to demolish these buildings. He didn't say there is no plan for redevelopment. He said there is no plans to demolish these buildings and that's the truth. And as you know from being in the focus groups, they were looking at different ways to work on these buildings or other options for other buildings. And what my clients said and their public position has been consistent, there is no current choice on what we'll do. But what I mean all

the So I don't understand what the fuss is about to be honest with you.

The issue is the fact that when you hire a group like Hunden Partners, whether you call that predevelopment activities, it's the beginning of looking at development. And the Hunden Partners' highest and

best That's not what was represented at the time, but that's fine. That's your reinterpretation of why they were hired, that's not how it was represented. It was a due master. It was through a review of Wisconsin Center District facilities. No.

There was no talk about redevelopment. Well, if you you're basically exposing my whole point here and that is there is a there is a plan which has not been publicly disclosed that I think should be publicly disclosed. I think the public has a right to weigh in on buildings that have been such a part of the built environment for all of these years and has influenced generations of civic and cultural life in Milwaukee. The public should be allowed to weigh in in a transparent, open process, which this designation will facilitate because once designated, doesn't mean you can't demolish. It means any plan to demolish has to come back to this body and ultimately the common council for review of what that plan is.

And we may very well conclude that a redevelopment is appropriate based on what's ultimately proposed or not depending on what's proposed. The bottom line is there'll be a public hearing like this where all the public can commit. There'll be no public hearing at the Wisconsin Center District. There'll be 17 people making a decision regarding these iconic structures, period. End of debate, end of accountability. This is about transparency and accountability, which I think the public has a right to weigh in. We had enough to Wisconsin Center District as opposed to transparency and accountability. You should put that on the record. So we have that clearly established.

May I continue with? Okay. Well, it's the interruptions that I am not sure if I am to continue or await you to conclude. And I think it is important as I started under Article nine of the ordinance that there is written findings related to this. The Wisconsin Center District has not determined what will happen after it reviews the London excuse me, the report.

What they have initiated is that report from Hunt and Partners to determine the highest and best use for the district's assets and it addresses these two properties and it seeks to determine again what would be in the public's best interest for these two properties. And as your staff explained during presentation, sometimes it's to stimulate new items. Sometimes it's to preserve prior items. The timing of this application is clearly related to that issue and not the issue of whether these are historic properties.

Can I say something, please? Want to say something. We do this all the time. When there are historic buildings that are should be designated as landmarks, we jump in. And that's our job. And that's how we look at it morally and ethically. We just did it for what

was the The Salvation Army.

The Salvation Army was going to tear down a building. Did you read about that?

I did not, ma'am.

Okay. It was a very important building and we stopped them. They came back to us and redesigned the entire thing because they got it. They understood the importance of those buildings. What you're doing here, to me, is, you know, you're making a personal this personal with And it's not you know, what we want to do is do the right thing for the history of Milwaukee.

And this is not a forum for doing to pick on one of the members of our commission. What we want to do is save buildings that are really relevant and important. And that's all we want to do. And so you're going on and on and on with I want to ask Andrew. Andrew, did you take the report from twenty five years ago, copy it and make it and present it to us today?

Sections of the history, yeah, I do call that out too. I mean, HPC staff twenty five years ago did a wonderful report. The history of the buildings largely remains the same. The history is history. So staff Right.

But none of us are the same. None of us have been here, you know, have were there twenty five years ago, were we? Did we sit on this commission twenty five years ago? Matt, you were?

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

Wow, that's amazing, The staff doesn't

know that

the Was history I only one who voted in favor of it?

Edited, reorganized, edited for gravity, reorganized, and edited to include changes since it was originally written twenty five years ago, and to include additional information on the history

of the Well, point is I don't think what you're doing right now is relevant. And I don't know if you guys agree with me or disagree. I would like to hear your opinion on that. And I would like to get to the subject of whether these are buildings that should have a designation as historically significant. That's what I would like to do. Can we cut this?

Yeah. I guess I would like to know more by the criteria what point by point whether you think they meet or do not meet. To her point, I mean, people come in and save buildings all the time at the last minute before they're

And nitpicking about buildings versus site, that's irrelevant. We could make it the site including the buildings. All right, done. Change the report, please. Make the, you know, make it include both, the site and the buildings. And, you know

We could do a whole district. Mean

Yes, this could be a historic district.

Patty, the other and then I'll let you talk math.

I think you're dying to

talk too. Is often it comes to our attention when we are concerned that there might be demolition on a on a potentially historic building.

Right.

Then we dive into this thing to either save it or say, you know what? It doesn't fit the criteria. Let me ask you. Maybe you could educate me, sir. What is going on in terms of the review of this? Would it be in the public domain or would it just be with the board?

I don't know the specific answer to that. I could consult with someone that might know that's here, but I think the intent is that the results of the Huntington Partners study would be shared.

Okay. That report I've been

on the board

what's going on for thirteen years now. The Wisconsin Center District Board. Uh-huh. It would be a decision of the 17 members as it was to spend $458,000,000 on the expansion.

Okay. So it it would be nice for you to be able to say yes or no because it's really kind of a yes or no question.

Well

Would the public be included in this quote unquote development activity that is being reviewed?

All right. For your first question, which was would I think your question was would the results of that study be shared? I was addressing that.

Okay. And

I believe that they would be. I

think And has it? Has it been shared?

It's coming in January.

I see. Okay.

Publicly released. I have a funny suspicion it's been largely drafted. But that's fine.

Okay. Okay. So it hasn't been released yet. And you think that it would be released in January?

I do think so. But I

don't to for public would be involved with the bigger discussion.

I would defer to Alderman Baumann as he mentioned in. I'm not here attacking anyone. I'm asking about the timing of this.

Well, but you understand the timing.

I

do. The timing is totally appropriate because of the noise that is going on in regards to this report that supposedly gets disseminated to the public.

And that is a consideration I respect greatly, missus Pelz, and I think should be in the findings that this commission is considering the issues of development as part of its decision making and as

But is that the usual protocol of the board? I think that's what you know, that's concerning because it's I mean, is that history of this board? I I have to Of your board? No. Of your board. Of the board that you represent.

The Wisconsin Center District is an organization

I that know what it is. But I'm asking you in terms of process.

I don't think there's a necessarily a public hearing and I defer to Alderman Baumann who's on the board. And if he says 17 people are gonna make the decision, I don't dispute that. I don't dispute that at all.

That's the That's why we're here.

Well, mean, that is obvious. Yes. That is just obvious why And that's and behind why here. What it is.

So if that's in the findings, as Alderman Baumann just said, that's why we're here, to prevent that type of development.

Not prevent No.

I wouldn't say that.

Don't know how many times I have to say it. Not to prevent anything to decree transparency.

Okay.

You're essentially arguing for no transparency. Wisconsin Center District Board does not want the public involved in this major decision. They want to have the unilateral authority based on 17 members, many of whom are not even elected officials, and none are actually elected to that board. Rather than having it come through our process to consider COAs for demolition, which would be a hearing, public hearing, which would go to the council and ultimately the 15 elected representatives of Milwaukee would make this decision. That's what's really at stake here. The timing is totally irrelevant. If it qualifies as historic, it's historic. Period.

The timing being irrelevant is anybody's opinion. The timing being the fact that promulgated the application is just what it will go on the record. And as far as transparency

I've signed on the record. I've said it on

the record.

I don't know what the I don't know what's the what's the big deal here. Yes. The timing was two articles in the Wall Street Journal Sentinel. Period. Yes. 100% correct.

And in that regard, I am here to say that the process that this commission follows should be consistent with the master plan under eight c which there is no indication this is part of a master plan. Because again, if you go back to and that is for transparency for the public because preparing a master plan based on a survey of properties that will delineate a proper course of action for historic preservation planning in the city is really what we are asking for transparency. Instead of the application being timed on an individual and the commission's belief that it's necessary because of other activities, having it integrated

So you are arguing it as a plan. Because there's no master plan that created by the committee historic preservation commission as required under eight a. Yeah. Eight a. Yeah. Don't have the authority to designate this property? Sir. Is that your position?

No. I'm saying exactly what you said. It should be transparent to the public like you said. We Therefore, we don't have

the authority to designate. In other words, you're saying these provisions are are not severable.

Sir, you know that's not what I'm saying.

I don't know what you're saying.

You said earlier. Yeah. You said

These are not items that need to be checked. I said Then

that's why are talking about them?

Because I was talking about your value of transparency and it would be more transparent I think which is just one advocate's opinion to say this is how these two buildings fall into our master planning of historic preservation for the city. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that fulfills the transparency principle that you're articulating.

You're saying we should be proactively designating these sites as opposed to reacting to applications.

That's kind of what I did. That's

another way of saying it. That's another way of saying it.

Plummer, maybe that's our unofficial process because we have been doing it that way for a long time as far as I as long as I've been involved. And it's the process we've adopted. If you want to go back and look through all our agendas, you'll see many, many, many issues just like this one. Know, just read them all. Make a report. Tell everybody we're not doing it appropriately. It's been the process. It is not something made up for just this project. It's been the way we have done it for forever as far as I know. Not as long as Matt.

Well, why when you have you have been going on for forty five minutes, you have forty five of time at the public hearing and that's fine. But I would like you to close out by focusing on how these two properties do not meet the criteria of f one, f two, f five, f six, and f nine of section three twenty dash twenty one three of the code of ordinances. Tell us exactly why you do not believe they meet those criteria.

Well, he's thinking about that. Can I add a comment?

Yes, please. I

think I agree with just most everything that you guys have said. I particularly agree with Patty Keating Khan. However, there's one thing you got wrong.

Okay.

You said that we are here to protect and save Milwaukee heritage. And I think that that sounds right. However, we're here to create a circumstance where we can discuss these things and their significance. Okay? Certainly. It needs to be very clear that we are not here to save every historic building in Milwaukee, but what we're here for is to have a kind of forum that Bob's talking about to discuss this. We certainly you all know that we have allowed demolition of historic buildings. We've done it. I can give you half a dozen right now from the United States Coast Guard Station on Lakefront to the Giffel Brewery to the Belmont Hotel. Bob, it was before you joined us.

It was our best terra cotta building in Milwaukee. We allowed demolition because that's where the current convention center is right now. So, the point is, all we're, I think, trying to do here is to create a form of discussion where adults can kind of get together, talk about the significance of this thing, talk about future development plans, and perhaps even have influence on what those development plans might be in that certain parts of the complex just have to be retained. Other parts, maybe not. But the point is that we don't demo the we're talking about the Plankton Mansion before the meeting started.

That was demoed over the weekend in 1982. Okay? We know the Chicago Northwestern Train Depot in 1968 demoed without discussion, okay, at all. We're asking for discussion for something significant as these kind of these two buildings in this area. That's my clarification. Don't want a public forum to discuss this

And, Matt, I agree with you more, Matt. Thank you. And

I would just say, Matt, is is that in terms of the city of Milwaukee, it it it we would not be in this type of a dialogue if there was a sense of trust, openness, willingness and something you could you could really take to the bank that you, that the board of this organization and the city and the commission could work in concert. And I have not quite gotten to that point that we could believe that since it seems to be from one of its members that this is not necessarily the process of the Center District. I mean, I would love to be able I mean, are important buildings and it's been demonstrated by the staff. I don't think there's any disagreement on this. The question is, and you're asking, why is it why is it coming up now?

Is that what you're asking? When do you want it to come up? When would you like it to come up?

There's a couple questions on the table for me. So I would like it to come up again, be rejected and perhaps repackaged for next month, which still would be in advance of the release of that report. I think that on procedural grounds, it should rejected because the application is inconsistent with the report. I think that to answer Alderman Baumann's question on which of the Section three F, which is F1 through F10 criteria, or whatnot are not accomplished in the application. I think that putting in the application for the two buildings, the auditorium and arena is inconsistent.

I don't think that the arena checks the boxes with historic significance and architectural significance and that because the application in the owner's view, if the owner's view is to be credited, was somewhat hastily introduced with two buildings with a report referencing the site and with no new information from the past People

are getting into all the legalese. I mean, really, come on. Big picture. Big picture. Wouldn't it be nice for this to be an open process so we wouldn't have to be fearful that these two buildings in the dead of night disappear? So I'm saying if if if if you can bring your client to that position, I mean, my god, I'd say hold it off for a month.

I think that that is wise.

But I'm not going to be rejecting this and I want a continued discussion.

I think that is wise. I think that if staff wanted to meet with the district and return in a month, I think that's very wise and that is what we're looking for. We want as transparent

So why haven't you come in here and ask

make that any of this different?

None of it's different.

How is one month from now going to make any of this different? Asked the report. Let's vote on the Legrand Commission. What do you think would happen in the course of a month now and coming before us and having some sort of discussion about whether it's worthy or not to be listed locally?

I think that much could come out of a discussion as to how the application could be recast. I think that the two structures have a lot of differences under the criteria in sub F. I think that the plea for transparency and frankly the accusations that I don't believe to be substantiated about the process at the Center District can be discussed and there might be a uniform approach to a new application. And I guess, sir, that as the member mentions, why not have that dialogue? I think that's wise.

What would be different? I don't know. But what is the downside? I don't see one. I don't understand the urgency. And if it could come back in a month, I don't understand how anybody's, principles here, the well grounded presentation of the history or the owners' concerns are impacted at all by coming back in a month.

Okay. Have you finished your presentation on the F1, F2, F5, X6, F9 criticism. Have you finished your presentation on why those criteria had not been met? Yes. Okay. Then the hit then the then your testimony is finished. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Anybody else wishes to testify? Anybody on the big board? No one's in appearance. Is there a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved.

Do have a second? Second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Were there some letters submitted on this matter?

A letter. There was a letter received.

Who doesn't give their address?

No, he's on the Milwaukee board. Okay. We've already

Jeremy Lucas.

So is there a motion?

May I Please.

Say just one comment. This has been an excellent discussion. And as the point has been made, this is about having a discussion, an open forum, being able to go through all of this. And I appreciate the objective of transparency in this process. And as the point has been made designating the buildings or the site as historic does not mean they're going to be static and they're going to stay that way forever.

Nothing else can be done with them. That's not the case with designation. But it does give us a chance to have a forum and transparency on what happens going forward, Especially, the reason I asked about the zoning is because I feel the value of this is the site, which you made some points about in terms of application but it's all about that whole civic center that the staff reported on and that you want to have an open transparent discussion about and if it's owned, can do anything with it And it's when you intended to be that civic center as you pointed out in the staff report. So I think there's value in continuing this discussion and to making a motion.

Okay. So you're making a motion for designation?

I move to designate.

Is there a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Passes unanimously seven zero. Thank you. Alright. That moves us on to. Okay. The following items have been approved by staff. So our motion would be to ratify the staff approved COAs. That is items six, file two five zero nine eight two through item 16, file two five one one zero eight. Is there a motion to ratify the staff approved COAs?

So moved.