Landmarks Commission - Regular Meeting

She is not here yet, so I'm sliding over the role. My name is Mike Crissine, and I just got elected another term, to serve on Landmarks. I'm very proud to do that. So we're gonna do, call to order. Let's do roll call.

Marty Larson.

Linda Gordo. Andrew Dorantes.

Mike Krasin. Matt Ratzak. Tony Lonza. Alrighty. Let's get underway. So we have some people signed up for public comment. If when your name is called, come on up, state your address. We're gonna call up Lauren. Am I saying that right? Or both of you?

Lauren,

yes. I'm sorry. Yeah. Lauren, if you wanna come on up and state your name.

Mike? Yes. If they're here for an item, would you want them to speak during the item instead?

That's probably best. Okay. We can do that. Thank you, Doug.

Okay.

Okay.

So next we have, did anybody get a chance

to You have to speak now. Speak now, I don't think so. You wanted. Yeah. Okay. I need to do?

Not right now.

To go?

I guess I'm good to go according to Charlie. You.

Thanks. Welcome, Lauren.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Charlie. Yeah, just your item will come up.

All righty. I got to

stick. Where's that?

Oh, you probably don't want to. I got to stick to the script. Now is the time on the clock and the agenda when Charlie is

going to run to the parking lot. Who's timing him? Doug? He's got a record to beat. Forty two seconds. Come on. We're gonna tell Alicia, our great new mayor.

I'm sure they're having similar issues over in the Planning Room with IT as we speak. Doug, did he make it under forty two seconds? Yes. Fantastic. Charlie, you got a new record. Thank you. Alright. And, did anyone get a chance to, review the minutes? And we're looking for a motion for approval of minutes from April 1.

I had a question on the minutes. It says that the minutes from March were not approved, that there was not a quorum, but I don't see the March minutes listed on here. Or were they approved at a later time?

No. They weren't. So Yeah. We didn't have

a quorum. We had people, but because they were absent from that meeting, they abstained. So we didn't have a quorum to vote on it.

So they shouldn't have been on this agenda. We can put them on for

Next time?

Yeah. Next time.

For March. Okay.

Okay.

So those that reviewed the minutes from March and April. This April? Okay. Thank you. Did you guys get a chance to review or we can hold it over for our I

wasn't here.

Okay. June. We will hold that over for I do believe it's June 8 is our next meeting. No. That's that might be cemetery. We will hold this over for I think it's June 3. It is June 3. Okay. Cemetery is

First Wednesday in June, whenever that is.

Alright. We will hold the approval of the minutes for our next meeting in June. Both months. Yes. And I don't think we need to have a motion on that because it wasn't on the agenda. Yep. Thank you, Charlie. Thank you, Marty. That moves on to Landmarks Commission paint and repair grant funds. An update, Charlie?

Alright. So as you know, and repair grants are typically approved in an increasing scale, roughly 15% of the cost of a project up to a maximum of $3,000. Landmark's mission may use discretion to change award amounts based on project scope, overall impact, fund availability and any other circumstances. So this year, we had $25,000 was allocated for paint and repair grant funds. And we do have confirmation that we have that money available.

So that is good to allocate, and it will, for sure, be able to be distributed. But approvals will need to be conditional on approval from Waukesha County and the SHPO State Historic Preservation Office compliance that we have to send them the approvals so that they can review them as well. So far, we have $2,432 left over from twenty twenty five projects. That is a reduction from last month. So we did have one of the two remaining projects.

They were able to I don't think they had completed it, but they had gotten enough of the work done that they were able to get the grant for it. And so this is there's just one project that's remaining, and they had hoped that it will be done sometime this spring. And at the last meeting, you approved grants for a total of $4,500 which means you have $20,500 available.

Question.

When

we because we have some grants being requested today. Do we have to when we motion, do we have to say approval from Walkershed County and SHPO compliance? Or is that because you have that stated here? Or how are we

supposed to appropriately incorporate it? You certainly could. I don't think it's it's since it's stated here and you all understand, I think if unless one of you is to say, I don't want to wait for that. I I don't I don't think it would be you know, I think that's kind of understood.

Okay. So as long as the people requesting, it's on their form too that Yeah. They have to be approved by us and these other two?

Yeah. Okay. But if if, you know, it might help to state that just to, you know, put it into the record if you wanted to.

Alright. Thank you, Charlie. I do believe we need a motion on this to approve. We do not. It will just stay informational. Alright. Alright. Thank you, Charlie. That moves on to old business.

Alright. So this is a certificate of appropriateness, consultation for painting the house at 225 West Laughlin Avenue. This is in the Laughlin Avenue Historic District on the South Side of Laughlin Avenue, just two houses in from Grand Avenue. And this is the Nina and Richard E. Roberts house, which was built in 1920 and has craftsman style architecture.

And it is a contributing structure in the Laughlin Avenue Historic District. And as you can see, the house has stucco siding, which is currently colored gray. There is some wear and there are a few small cracks on the stucco siding. So the applicants had applied to both repair those minor do minor repair to those cracks and to paint the house. These are the colors that they had provided for the previous meeting.

They hadn't at that time settled on a color, but they were looking at those color schemes. And then they had also noted in the application that they had previously replaced the roof, and they didn't realize when they did that, that it required Landmark Commission approval. It does look like the roof matches Landmarks Commission standards, so that wouldn't be something that would be a cause for the that they would have to fix. So basically, this is repairing minor stucco cracks and repairing the stucco siding. And you didn't take any action on it at the previous meeting because the applicants weren't here.

They don't technically need approval for the painting. It would just be for the paint repair grant.

Since Matt is in the audience tonight, Matt, do you want to come up and say anything? You don't have to. But if you wish. Thank you, Matt. If you could state your, name and address.

Matthew Lane. 225 West Laughlin Avenue. Yep. We've been trying to get this house repaired for a while, and, painting is always second. It always came in second, so, there's other stuff we gotta do this year. We just finally started having water leak in the basin, we've never had it before. And it might have been because they paved the road, and it's slightly higher now. But that's gonna be about $10,000 to get it all waterproofed again. And that needs to happen sooner than later. But we keep putting the painting off, and it just gets worse and worse.

So the cracks are starting to appear. So I had somebody look at that, and they said they can patch that up pretty good. And on top of that, they'll blast all the old paint off and then paint it with the new paint. We really like the the historical look. This is this is the one we're going for, the colors were on there, but this would be the actual color scheme of the house.

Outside of that, other than it's an old house, and it needs more than I have. The fence will probably go up this year. And, yeah, I didn't know the roof had to be looked at before, and I think it looks pretty good. The old roof was pretty much the same thing. So I I think the the color matches pretty well with the historic or at least what I know, the color was anyway. So

Matt, how long have you been in the home?

Since 2011.

Okay.

Yep. So I was there before the family.

Okay.

So they came later. Alright.

Well, we appreciate you preserving it and working you're assuming you're working with a contractor?

Yep. Yep. Contractor. We had the college CollegeWorks. I'm sure somebody's been visited by him. So all the college kids are gonna come out, and I think they said it would be about two weeks two two week long process depending on how much they have to repair with the cracks.

You definitely have to have that dried out before you top coat it because that's just sealing in moisture and I'm glad we're glad you're taking care of the cracks and stopping the water intrusion because that never never gets better. Do you guys have any questions? Okay. Charlie, do you have have any comments? No.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

And then stick around because we're still going to talk about a little more. Charlie, you want to go to the next phase of this?

Yep. Sure.

Do you wanna I guess

A motion to approve the COA 26 o 3189.

Marty, that sounds like a motion. Sounds a motion.

Well, I got a motion that, the roof do we have to state that you've approved it already after the fact? Or should we just say motion we do approve the roof that was installed and the painting?

I would suggest the roof in there because now that we know about, we talked about it. And he says it's like for like and he is what's on it. So

Yeah. Motion to approve the roof that has been completed and the paint job as stated.

Thank you, Marty. Do we have a second? I'll second that. Alright. To a vote. All in

favor. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Alright. That passes unanimously. We're gonna get a sign from Doug before we move on. Alrighty. That brings us to ID26Dash03190. Charlie?

Alright. So this is just a not very good screenshot.

It's not a good option, Charlie.

But it does show their estimate. The estimated cost is $16,573 for the paintwork. So 15% of that cost is $2,485.95 And as Alderman Kruse noted, sealing the cracks and preventing moisture from getting in will prevent further deterioration of the stucco. So hopefully, that will keep the house in good condition and that would be a prevention of future blights, I guess.

The only question I had before we move on other discussion was, I hope the college youth are not doing the repair stucco work. Okay, thank you.

Are

there any other questions?

All

right, with that we're looking for a motion.

I'll make motion to approve the 15% cost allowance on the project.

All right, do we have a second? Alright. We'll wait to get a sign from Doug. Alright. Now it's time to vote.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Alright. That passes unanimously. Thank you, and thank you for keeping up on your house and getting those cracks fixed. Alright. Let's move on to new business, 260-3483. Charlie?

Alright. So this is 912 North Barstow Street. It is on the West Side Of Barstow Street between Main Street and the river. This is the William P. Sloan House. So just so you can see the map there. This is the William P. Sloan House. It was built in 1841, actually originally at the Northeast Corner Of Barstow, which was then Bridge Street and Main Street. So that's the discount liquor parking lot now right across the street from where it is now.

It was moved to its current location in 1890. And this was the first stone building constructed in Waukesha County. It's one of the oldest buildings in the city. William P. Sloan was a law partner of Governor Alexander Randall and was also Waukesha County's first treasurer.

So as you can see, there's the main section of the house is a stone building, but there is a small addition onto the rear, which is wood siding and it has a chimney that well, there's a chimney on the main house and then there's another chimney on this rear addition, which is not currently used for anything. The applicants have been informed by the contractor that it's in not very good condition and that the best option would be to remove the chimney and then just to patch the shingles on the roof in its place. The chimney is this is a secondary portion of the building. It's in the rear. As you can see, there's very limited visibility from Barstow Street certainly.

This photo is from Riverfront Plaza. It's across the exit ramp for the apartment building there. So obviously, it's visible from the apartments themselves, but not really from any public area very much. So the applicants are requesting to remove that chimney and just patch over the roof in its place.

All right. Is the homeowner or those taking care of the property here tonight? All right. It does not appear to be here and I do believe that we have attrition of if they're not here, we don't move forward on this.

Alright. I I guess it's mostly just been for paint repair grants.

Right. We want them here if they're requesting money to take down. And since they're not doing that, I think we can have a discussion if we think it's appropriate or not.

Okay. I'm fine with that.

This is a nonprofit that has an office there, so they are they're not eligible for payment repair grants.

Okay. Thank you. So any discussion?

I have a question just on the back end. Do we know when that was added to the house? I mean, is it kind of a non contributing part of the house or is it a contributing part of the

Unfortunately, the applicants didn't have any information on that. And I wasn't able to find anything in the historic in the national record record for it the National Register record. It did look like there was a photo from, I think, the 1970s or early 1980s. It looked like this it was still there, but it was slightly different. It hadn't been it was this kind of squared off side was it wasn't like that.

It was just a roof that a slope roof. And it was painted white. So I think this section maybe was redone or restored. And there was also an enclosed porch on the front of the building that was removed at some point after that. It looked a little different in the '70s, but the structure itself may be historic.

It may or may not

Okay. Have no definition.

My input on this is if it is a it's not a working chimney, it looks like it could use some repair and probably some flashing and if they're going to do some roof repair, I would say this is a detriment detriment to the roof repair if it's a non functioning. I'm assuming the city has verified it's a non functioning. I mean, they're not doing a permit to fix any mechanicals or anything. So I have no issue with them removing the chimney.

I don't I our house had a non functioning chimney in the back, we took it down because it served zero purpose. So I don't I don't I can't imagine that that serves any purpose. So I'd be I agree that I don't think there's any reason that we wouldn't allow them to take it down.

And the height of it alone, it's like someone went through a lot of trouble making a a high chimney, and it's actually if they were to fix it, they probably would make them raise it another 40 feet because of the buildings around it for a code on that. But since it's a nonfunctioning chimney, I have no problem with the way it's presented. So do we have a motion?

I motion to approve COA 26 dash o three four eight three removal of the chin back chimney on the William p Sloan House.

I will second that. Alright. And when Doug gives us a nod, let's put it to a vote.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. That passes unanimously. All right. Charlie, you want to move on to 26Dash3501?

Alright.

This is a certificate of appropriateness application for 127 Randle Street. The house is on the East Side of Randle Street, about four houses in from, from its intersection with Madison Street, and it's part of the Madison Street Historic District. This is the Gustav Gurke house, which was built in 1888, and it has Queen Anne style architecture. The applicant would like to do a number of small repairs. First, he wants to move the roof vent from where it's currently located on the ridge of the roof down to a part of the way down the slope.

It will also replace some of the interior piping in a way that he believes will be will improve the waterproofing on the roof. And he plans to replace the gutters. They're currently the house has K style gutters, so he'll be using that same style. I think a slightly larger version, but it should be a very similar style of gutter to the existing ones. And then there are a number of spots on the house, which have rotted or cracked wood that he would like to replace as well.

So you can see there's some cracks on that section of shake siding. So he has a close-up here around these the trim around the windows in this section and then a few other spots throughout the house where the wood has started to rot and he would like to replace it. And he has stated that that will be the replacement wood will match the size and the dimensions and the style of the existing wood. So again, that's replacing gutters. New gutters will be K style, slightly larger than the existing ones, placing or repairing wood siding where it has been damaged, moving a roof vent from the ridge to the roof slope and patching the roof to match the existing.

All right. I do believe Mitch is in the audience. I don't know if you both want to come up and speak or okay. We'll come on up in case we have some questions. You were nice enough to come on down. My first comments are, looks like you have a combination of four inches and three inches gutters. They may want to definitely with all that roof area oversize that a little bit.

Yeah. We get a lot of splash over. So all like, where we have five inch gutters everywhere, we're putting six inch on. Oh. And then on the back half of the house, there actually are no gutters. So that's causing a lot of water intrusion issues against the foundation. So we'll be adding gutters on that back half. The back of the garage doesn't have gutters, so adding gutters there and then replacing the garage gutters as well.

Alright. And you're working with a contractor on that? Nope. Okay. Alright. Well, commissioners, you guys have any questions or comments? It's a beautiful house. I'm glad you're stepping up. How long have you guys been in the house? Like, three years. Okay. Yeah. Getting wood taken care of, and gutters are a big a big thing that a lot of people don't realize until we get big rain. So thank you for coming tonight. Alright.

So we'll be looking for a motion, ID 26Dash03501. I will make a motion, ID 260000351, for the certificate appropriateness of 127 Randle Street. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Alright, Doug. Will we get a the go ahead? Alright. Let's take that.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. That passes unanimously. Alright. We move on to ID 26035033.

All right. So this is the paint and repair grant for 127 Randle. Total estimated cost of the project is $2,492.74 and that is for materials cost only. The applicant is planning to do the work himself. So that's just the cost of materials.

So 15% of that cost will be $373.91 In the past, sometimes when an applicant is doing work themselves and the grant is just for materials, Landmark's Commission has gone above the 15% to make it a little bit more substantial. You could approve a grant of up to 50% of the total cost. But in that case, if the cost came in that 50%, we wouldn't be able to or below the estimate, we wouldn't be able to approve the whole grant.

I'm impressed with all these numbers. You must be very frugal or a good shopper because my nineteen eighty four house would cost me more with gutters on that. So I'll make a motion for 20% of that. I don't have my calculator up unless that's it. Okay. 500. I'd like to make a motion for 500. And with a second, we can have comments if we wanna make that a different amount.

I'll second that $500.

Alrighty. Thank you. So once we get the nod from Doug.

Go ahead.

Alright. Let's put it to a vote.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Alright. That passes unanimously. Thank you.

Alright. We move on to ID 26Dash03564.

Alright. So this is a of course,

I forgot 02. Put in numerical order.

This is a certificate of appropriateness for 215 North Charles Street, which is on the East Side Of Charles Street between Wright Street and McCall Street in the McCall Street Historic District. This is the sorry, the George and Anna Kniepfull House. It was built in 1902 and has Queen Anne style architecture. And the applicants would like to replace the roof. As you can see, it has an existing K style asphalt shingle not K style, three tab shingle roof, which is gray, and you can see there's some wear on it, so they would like to replace it.

The roof style that they are proposing is a CertainTeed Landmark series. It's a gray color. The Landmark Commission has approved that roof style before in the past. They would also like to add some gutter guards. This is a kind of a very close-up photo, but they would like to add gutter guards to the gutters.

And then they also would like to repaint the house. You can see there's the existing paint job is kind of worn there. The proposal is to reuse, to use the same colors that they've used all throughout the house. So it look essentially the same just with a refreshed paint job. So again, they're replacing the shingles. New shingles will be CertainTeed Landmark series shingles, and then that would be a complete tear off of the existing shingles, adding gutter guards and repainting the house using the existing colors.

All right. I believe the homeowner, Lauren is in. The audience, Lauren, you want to come on up and answer some questions since you were nice enough to visit us tonight. If you could state your name and your address.

I

know Charlie's heartbeat still pounding from chasing you down.

That's Lauren Timon. 215 North Charles Street. Thank you, Lauren.

Mhmm. Beautiful house, and glad you're putting some fresh paint on that and taking care of everything else. And, of course, loving the gutter guards. And are you working with a contractor on that?

Yes. I am.

Okay. Yeah. Did they help you pick out the shingles?

Yeah. He's the guy that's he's in the area and knows old houses. And so I brought him in

and he knew what to do.

Sounds like you made a good choice. Yeah. Are there any questions for Lauren? All right. With that, I'll be looking for a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the COA for 215 North Charles for replacing the roof and adding gutter guards and repainting.

Alright. I will second that. And after we get the nod from Doug, All right. Let me move on to 204.

All right. So this is the paint repair grant for 215 North Charles. So the estimate for the painting or for the roof replacement, sorry, is $24,300 And then painting, the estimate is an additional $12,000 So the total cost of that is $36,300 So 15% of that would be $5,445 which exceeds that $3,000

All right. Thank you, Charles.

Both of these, again, our roof replacement is obviously needed to prevent future water intrusion and painting the same essentially the same if the house is not painted, it it becomes blighted. So

I think it's a great idea. Hopefully, dries up enough so we can get caught up. A lot of contracts going on in the city. I'll be looking for a motion for 03564 Charles Street. I will make a motion, ID 2603564, to approve the paint repair grant for 2015 North Charles Street. Do I have a second?

What's the dollar amount?

I'm sorry. For the $5,445 is my motion, which is 15% of the estimated cost project. Do I need to restate that motion?

Is it common to do when it's above the 3,000 that Charlie mentioned? Is it common to do the full amount?

3,000 was kind of a line in the sand to save some for later on in the

It still is early on in the year. I mean, we just opened this up because we just got our funding.

So I would adjust your emotion and and you can tell me if you agree or not to the $3,000 or the paint and repair grant, of course, subject to the approval, finally saying it, Waukesha County and SHPO compliance.

I will second that. If we have any other comments? Alright. We will put it to a vote. Once Doug gives us the go ahead.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. That passes unanimously. Alright. Hopefully, for some dry weather so you can get started on that. All right. Our next item, hopefully you guys had a chance to read the email, but Charlie is going to give us a presentation on twenty six-thirty five-six-three. When you're ready, Charlie.

Yep. Alright. So this is, 445 West Newhall. This is on the South Side Of Newhall Avenue just to the east of the railroad tracks and, just to just to the east of West Avenue also. This is a water utility building, which was formerly a pump station and reservoir. It hasn't been used for as a pump station for many years, but the water utility has used it for storage. And it is on the National Register of Historic Places, but it is not a landmark. It's not a local landmark. So the again, it's a one story utilitarian structure. It has an L plan design with the two distinct wings.

You can kind of see them there. There's the one that extends towards the street and then the smaller one in the rear, the square section. And it has white concrete siding, concrete block siding painted white with Art Deco style vertical columns at each of the corners around the whole building. So you can see this is that side, metal roof on the slope roof section. And then around the rear, it's the same style with a storage area in the rear that the water utility has used.

They do not need the storage anymore, so they're considering demolishing the building. And again, this is not a local landmark. So the demolition would not require Landmarks Commission approval. It would still have to be approved by the water utility and possibly also the council. But it would not come to the Landmarks Commission. So the water utility has started the process since it is on National Register, since they are a public

utility.

They're required to negotiate with the State Historic Preservation Office related to the demolition of the building. The ship boat does not have the authority to prevent the demolition or to really require any alterations to their proposal. But they can request mitigation. So typically, that's something like they could request preservation of a portion of it that's that has some significance when City Hall was demolished, requested that the Franklin Boggs mural in main stairwell be preserved. And we did our best, I guess.

Moore Downs Building when that was demolished, they had requested that the county would provide an exhibit and a website, I think on the history of the property. County has not done that, but that is that was the agreement that they had come to with the SHPO. So they can request some sort of a mitigation. So essentially, the community gets something back in exchange for the loss of the historic resource. And the Landmarks Commission, the state the consultant is required to contact the local historic preservation commissions and historical societies.

So they did that. The Landmarks Commission can choose to be involved in the SHPO negotiations. Basically, the conversation that I had with the consultant, she said, since it's a demolition, it will be found to be an adverse impact. That's sort of their the finding that triggers the mitigation. That's just sort of a foregone conclusion.

So there will probably be a meeting with SHPO. Landmark's commission can choose to have somebody in attendance at that meeting. Usually, they like to meet over Zoom, but there could possibly be a meeting in Madison. And then they will they'll have results, the Landmarks Commission could comment on the results. So you could choose not to make any comments, you could choose to be a part of the negotiation.

If you do want to have somebody at the meeting, I would recommend that you nominate one of your members to attend that rather than having me do it since I have a little bit of a conflict of interest. I would probably could still be in the meeting if you'd like, but it'd be good to have one of you there as well, if possible. So and then we did get an e mail from Mary Emery, who's the President of the Waukesha Preservation Alliance. And she asked that, that e mail be read. So I'll just do that.

So again, this is from Mary Emery. Commissioners, in regards to the demolition of the water utility building on Newhall Avenue, I am very much opposed to it. I want to make sure that you are aware that the Waukesha County Historical Society has a policy not to comment on demolitions. So their silence does not mean they are supportive of the demolition. It merely means that they can't comment.

Once the former police station is torn down, we will have lost five historic structures to government entities in the last ten years. They are the Lion Cottage for the Industrial School for Boys, demolished by Waukesha School District, the Casper Sanger Mansion, demolished by Catholic Memorial High School, which is that's not a government entity, but it is an institution. More mud baths demolished by Waukesha County, Waukesha City Hall, eligible which is eligible for the National Register. It wasn't on it, but it was eligible. And that was demolished by the city of Waukesha And the former police station on Delafield Street, also eligible from the National Register and will be demolished by the City of Waukesha.

The water utility building will be the sixth historic building lost to a government entity. The loss of all these buildings in such a short time is very concerning. But what is even more concerning is that they have been demolished by government entities that should be protecting our historic structures. The reason some buildings are National Register only was because past commissions did not pursue local and landmark designation due to political reasons. It has nothing to do with eligibility or worthiness of preservation.

Even though the building is not a locally landmarked, Landmark's Commission can and should advocate for its preservation. One good way to do that is with the commission to write a letter to compliance at the State Historic Preservation Office as soon as possible. Here's their e mail address, that's compliancewisconsinhistory dot org. A copy can also be sent to the woman who the water utility hired to document the building before demolition, but definitely send it to compliance first. Individuals can also write e mails and letters to compliance.

In my opinion, the water utility should sell the building at a very low price and save the taxpayers the demolition cost plus save the historic structure. This building could be reused for storage or office space, and it is eligible for the historic tax credits. Purpose or I'm sorry, perhaps the business that is adjacent to the building could utilize it. Although compliance at the state has little control over the demolition, they can suggest to be sold, and it is important that compliance knows there is opposition to its demolition. Thank you, Mary Emery. And then she's president of the Washoe Preservation Alliance, and her address is 221 North James Street.

Thank you, Charlie, for reading that. And I got a chance to review. I took half day of work off today to do some other paperwork. I toured the facility all the way around. It is not in my district.

The alderman that that is in his district, he is on vacation this week, and so he couldn't be available for comment. It's it's interesting that if it wasn't for the molded concrete columns, I I don't think there would be any anything different than a lot of the other buildings. Think 16 or 18 buildings through decommissioning our water department. The very things that make it an interesting looking building are also the things that are actually failing. Up close, it's there's a lot of spalling going on.

I don't know how many years that water has been getting there and churning out or popping out those interesting columns. The other comment I have is the city of Waukesha water utility has not anything to do with the City Of Waukesha other than it's located in the City Of Waukesha. That's my my comments on that. Street side, it looks a lot better. But once you get within two, three feet of it, you can really see how deep the spalling on that.

As far as anything inside, she talks about the mansion on CMH property and the Waukesha mud bath. That was something interesting happened there. On the inside, I've seen some other pump houses in the city of Waukesha and its big pieces of concrete and large electric motors and lift pumps. And since it actually hasn't been a pump house in a while, I wouldn't think those things would even be in there. They are using it as storage out back. There's a lot of pipes, sanitary sewer pipes and fire hydrant parts. So it's

I think from the water utility, they told us that the actual well section is still they don't use that as storage. I don't know if the if any of the equipment is still in there, but it wouldn't be safe for anybody to go into.

Right. Well, and actually that's another aspect because we just counsel has worked on this a couple of times. The DNR actually asked to do their work and decommission and deem that and then cap it and concrete it. So it is officially no longer a water source. It can never be used as a water source again. That may have happened, that may not have happened. So that's my input. I took a lot of pictures of it today, but I think you guys could see if you zoom in on your seats all warm for you. Come on up. Thank you. I'm so sorry.

I was had a late work with the camera crew today. We've not

Alright. Tell them to go home.

Thank you. Charlie was just giving us up to date on a point when you get here. Ladies and gentlemen, fellow commissioners, Carmen. Thank you. That ends my comment.

My apologies. My apologies. My apologies.

Right on time.

For the last thing.

Charlie read the letter, and I visited the site today and gave some input on that. And one of the questions Charlie brought up would have to go to letter. Anything on this property would ultimately have to go to common counsel for their approval as far as keeping it, demolishing it, or even the sale of it because we just literally did that with someone who may or may not be in this room. End of comment.

I drove past the building, so I

Yeah. Go ahead.

Go ahead. No. No.

No. No. I was just my comment was, since it is on the National Historic Registry, is there some documentation of why they

put it?

I mean, you don't just put every building on because it's old. So is there something that says why particularly that building is in the national?

I think it was it was just sort of a unique the Art Deco style columns made it kind of a unique for that sort of building. And it was related to the history of the water utility.

So was it like one of the first water utility buildings or something that?

It was a yes, I think it had to do with the build out of the that it was transitioning the city was transitioning to the transitioning to a water utility, I guess, in the early 1920s. There was a build out of a number of wells over the course of the city or throughout the city. And there is, I think, one that I don't believe it's still being used, but there is another pump house that is on the National Register too, so in a different part of the city.

Just out curiosity, like if they demolish it, what is going to be put on that? What is the long term plan?

I think the intention is to sell it. And I don't know if there's anything more that, any more information that we have at this point that's definite.

So I don't know if, as our group would say, then why don't we suggest that they try to sell it before they demolish it? And if you can't sell it, then you go to the demolishing state. You know?

An interesting note, the manufacturer, pretty good sized manufacturer, been in the business a long time. LVR, I'm not saying it right, but they just built a new building. So I'm assuming they are vacating that building and then Yeah. KDV. That's it. Yeah. They got a beautiful new building. They opened up, and I'm assuming they'll be looking to sell the property. I I don't know that for a fact, but it is something noteworthy

that There is a for sale sign out there for that building.

Oh, thank you.

Yes.

There we go. I have not seen their new property, but we saw two presentations on it yesterday.

Any other comments, concerns?

What exactly do they want the landmark condition commission to do?

It's Do

they want us to say, yes, that's really a good idea, demolish it? Or would they like us to say, pause and reflect a moment. Have you considered selling it as is? What's your long term plan for it? Maybe if those things were also out along with the demolition consideration, it would be easier to get some feeling of what's going on.

Right. I guess if you ask the water utility what they want, it would be not to say anything. The and that's an option. But the what the SHPO would say is you have the opportunity to be part of the negotiation over whatever mitigation that they come up with. So whether that's saying we are opposed to the demolition, we would that there really isn't a way as the Landmarks Commission to prevent the demolition.

But what could potentially be agreed upon as a mitigation would be something that that you Do could have some input

we make the assumption, which puts us in a really bad place, that they've already looked at all the options of we could sell it as is. We could sell it. And if it doesn't sell as is, then we can say, okay. Then we'll turn the building down. We plan on using the land for this. That's why we need to have the building come down. It just seems very open ended that you don't know you need the next step before you can decide if this is a good logical step.

Right.

Do we know the structural integrity of the building as a whole?

They've told us it's not in very good shape. I guess if it was a designated landmark, that wouldn't really be a major factor because it's always been a water utility building. So that would be sort of a self created you know, if it's in if a building is in bad shape and you've always been the owner, then that's

Is is the inside, like, full of tanks and pipes that need to get cut out? Or or it like a big open warehouse space? Or

The meaning main section, the larger section is open storage right now. It had been, I think, a reservoir at one point, but for many years, that's been empty. The smaller section, they had said that they don't use for storage, and that may still have some of the old equipment in it.

Like what kind of stuff would you store in there if the building isn't structurally I mean, if it's deteriorating, like what can you keep in there that would be safe? Because I'm sure you can't, like, store furniture or you can't store like, there are probably a lot of things you can't store in a building like that.

Right. I I think it's

They're storing pipes.

You

know, all

kind that type of thing right now.

No. Right now. But I'm saying if they sell it to to say you can use this

for storage, you'd have to

let

they'd be very specific on what you would be selling.

No. No. You you sell it as is and you let the buyer do their due diligence and see. It just doesn't I'm just looking at that. I drove by it too. It's like it's commercial zoning, most likely. So to tear it down, what are you gonna do? Build a little drive through Coffee shop. Coffee shop or you know, there there's no there's no practical reason for them other than to get it off their backs, you know, to tear it down.

Storage wise, they're not gonna store it anymore because they're building a newer, bigger, better

Facility.

Facility. So and the fact is that they could store items inside, they're actually storing things outside, which makes me wonder, like, why aren't they storing them inside when they

Well, as he said, they are storing stuff inside the big part, but

not Yeah.

I think a

lot of it's ease of pickup. They're gonna use the pipes. They're gonna use a crane instead of five people to pick it up. So and zoning is going to change in two weeks or four weeks depending how you look at it anyways. But it's The

zoning for there?

The well, the the zoning code is, you know, there's that's up for the council to vote on. That property would still be zoned institutional. So if it was sold to a commercial tenant, it would have to be rezoned to something that's appropriate.

Location, location, location. It's right. As soon as I was talking to some people that are in the area and the first thing they said, isn't it by that low railroad track bridge?

So

it's know, I'm not a city planner, but as far as use of that, it also puts a limit to how far of property you maintain to the tracks, near the tracks. So, you know, it is next to a low bridge. Right. So it's something else to consider.

Right. Well, and that's part of the thing is that building, you if you tore it down, you probably couldn't put something that big on that lot with how small that lot is. So it's again, you got all these catches here. So I guess I'm just thinking as a commission, if we just don't wanna. There's a reason it's a historic national historic landmark. So and if there's money available for people who want to redo that property, let's give them the opportunity before we just say, okay, take another building down.

Well, the way I understand it is is that we would just be saying to SHPO. Right? Is it where we would be we would just be commenting and saying that we recommend that there are other options be presented before this building be demolished because that's all we've got. We don't Right. We can't say, no, we don't want it. Yes, we want it. Right. What we don't because we don't know.

Right. Basically, we're just getting on the record, like,

It's it's it's for yeah. We've and it's the same thing that happened with the Moore Mudd House. You know, it's just we're we we go on the record with the Blair House. We go on the record, and that's all it that that's all it is. And, you know, quite frankly, it hasn't made us very popular or well liked amongst the common council and other places because it's just been like, this is what's gonna happen and we need you guys to just go with it.

And in some ways, I'm okay with that. In some ways, I'm not okay with that. I wasn't necessarily okay with that with the Moore Mudd House. This building, where it's located, what it would provide to somebody, for somebody to buy it, it's a huge investment to bring it back to something. You know? And because it's not in an ideal location, it's a hard sell in my you're the real estate agent. You know that better than I do.

Right. Well, it's right across the street from my field.

Yes. I love that field, which is very cool. So, you know, I think it's it's more a matter of us going on record, but also as a commission being very conscious that we really don't have any leverage in the situation. It's more of like statement that will go into the abyss.

I agree with Carmen.

That's honest. That's just

My candid. Whole hinge pin on linchpin on this is regardless of what is inside the building, is the building any integrity whatsoever? And that's the part I I would love to see the insider have photos of it. That's being a buildings guy, facilities guy, that's what I need to know. If it is structurally sound, it makes sense. But for all we know is if that if someone is a van backs into that column one more time, it's gonna fall down. I don't know. Or it's a great Is

it sellable?

That's where I come from. I I can't make an educated decision because I don't know the condition of it.

Right.

Everything that Marty and Carmen said is valid. It a national landmark property and it could be reutilized and turned into something really neat. But I don't it's not if it's not cost effective.

Yeah. So I I guess the water utility hasn't provided all that detail necessarily. They did tell us that it they, you know, they said that there there are some issues with the roof and things like that. But they haven't given a ton of specifics. They're not obligated to provide the Landmarks Commission with that. They will ultimately have to provide that information to their to the Water Utility Board. We have if they do go ahead with the demolition. But basically, it's yes, they don't have to provide that detail. It's just kind of does the Landmark Commission wanna wanna comment on it

or wanna be like a negotiation. 10 steel corrugated roof. That's what I looks like, but that's regardless.

It has some kind of

Clay tile look?

It's not clay tile. It looks like metal, but it has some kinda, like, particle goofing stuff, like, sprayed over it Yeah. I took close of

took close ups of it, but it's something

I drove. I drove there. I drove right into the parking lot, and I looked in the back, and I drove out. And that column right there was the one main thing that way concerned me.

It's like we all had our own field trip.

Yeah. Yep. You know, I'm I'm I'm in the middle of the road, you know, because I feel like

If we're just giving advice

We're not even giving advice. We're just saying, hey. You know? K. It's not

We like to see it if somebody could use it for something and keep it in the National Historic Registry of Buildings. That would be wonderful.

Is there any way we can make that comment to common counsel and the water utility as as opposed to going to SHPO and making it this big deal? Is there any way that we could say, is there more information we could give before we go hesitant to because we don't really have any information to give SHPO about what we're standing for. You know what I mean? Like we, I think, we look like fools on both ends. You know what I mean? We're fighting for something we don't know about, but yet but yet we'd like to know. So is there a way we I don't know. I'm just trying to be I'm trying to be Switzerland in this process.

I can help with that.

Yes.

So based on staff recommendation, Charlie could be in the Zoom meeting with a scheduled SHPO meeting. Is there someone, a fellow commissioner, that would like to attend that and advise on behalf of Landmark Commission. Do we have

When is this?

Well, so there's this that's what the consultant that the water utility has hired has said that the negotiation, it's what happens is it has to go to the SHPO. They make a determination of if there's an adverse impact since they're demolishing that, that's a foregone conclusion. It will be an adverse impact. So in that case, they can request the negotiation to what basically what kind of mitigation option is it. So there might be some kind of a memorial or record of it.

There might be if they do find something that's worth some portion of the building that's worth preserving, the Franklin Boggs mural was from City Hall, they could request that some effort be made to preserve it. So that'll be most likely based on the way SHPO operates, most likely that'll be a Zoom meeting at some point that will be scheduled at some point. And I would be happy to participate. But if you do want to participate as the Landmarks Commission, I would suggest that you have one of your members there. You nominate somebody to be involved just you know, because I have I have also I'm a city employee, so I I have a little bit of a conflict of interest.

So Do we have a time frame on that at all?

We don't. They haven't they they're waiting to get comment from the Landmarks Commission before they submit it to the ship out. So so basically who's they specifically? The consultant for the Cultural Resources Management is the consulting company that that the

It's not in my district, so it's not in my best interest unless I talk to the alder of that area to be on that. So I'm I'm not saying I don't wanna do it. If it was in my district, I I would gladly represent the people of my district. But since it's not in my district, I I feel it's not in good faith for me to speak. I could listen to the meeting, but I I don't think I should speak on behalf of landmarks or common council, again, because it's not my district. Not trying to be wishy washy. I'm disrespectful until the alder gets back from vacation because they're not aware of it.

I I I Marty, would you be able to to take that? I'm I'm just taping a lot Mhmm. Shows and things, and so I can't commit to when I could be on a call. And I'm afraid that I'd be scheduled doing a production, and then I can't make it, and I've committed to you guys. So I'm just I can't. So I'm gonna nominate Marty to if you can for us.

I would support on my role here on the commission having someone from Landmarks, a representative at this meeting when it gets scheduled. It's just I for various reasons I stated, it can't be me. I mean, it could be me, but I don't think it's a good idea. But I do believe Landmarks would be I hate the word due diligence, but I think we really should have someone there if that is what the commission wants.

Well, I mean, I think it's fair for us to have a representative there to to hear and to to be able to comment within that structure and not have it be this whole formal hoo You know, I I want to play nice. I want to participate in what is best for our community, our city. I am not a common council member or utility executive to know why these decisions are being made and why they're so adamant of to just knock it down. I'm not privy to that information, but I do think that it would behoove us to have one of us there to at least represent what is the smallest part of our responsibility in the process. Did I say that eloquently?

You did, and it matches what the letter sent to city staff and Charlie read it to us. It does echo what our concerns are. You know, what happens if it was, you know, one of the many eloquently homes in our district. We would, you know, literally wanna have a say in the matter on that. But because it's someone isn't living there, because it is a utility building, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't have some type of passion for it. If it was built in 1979 and it was, you know, like a temporary building, that's another deal. But it is on that historic registration for a reason. I think we should, you know, definitely have some say in the matter or at least be there when it's discussed.

Alright. So we don't beat the horse even more. I will be at that meeting or Zoom call once we know when it's going to be. It's just what I say has to be what this group agrees to be saying. And so have we come to an agreement of what

More than anything, I think it's we just would like more information before it's deemed to be just demolished. And and that we feel that we don't have enough information to comment either way, just to hold ground of saying yay or nay. Either way, it's not fair to make that decision without further information.

Since the utility hired a consultant, they know more than the city utility did. At least they should because that's why they paid a consultant. So they're gonna have a lot of answers that I'm sure will come out in the light. And I will let the alder know in email tonight what has happened so far. So we we support historic buildings and those whether they have the landmark city landmark status, we support the buildings that have the national historical registry.

So we we support that, we embrace that, But like Harmon says, and no more beating the dead horse, we need a lot more information. So Marty, I trust you. We've been around a while long enough that you know The gray hair. That I don't represent everybody, but just at least we do have representation there. And that's what that letter was really written about. It's like, I'm glad it was brought up tonight. I really do. And I say that from a city resident, a commissioner here and as an alder too. If this was, you know, if this water utility did something we didn't know about it, that would be a real problem. So at least we are it's on public record.

We're talking about it. We're supporting the idea, and we're have a thanks to Marty, a representation of us there. So I'm fine with all that.

Great. So we continue to thank you, Marty. I really

appreciate it. So is this a motion we have to state and approve?

You could make a motion if you want. Otherwise, you know, I that's, I I guess it would be it would be a good idea to make a motion to be included in the negotiation process.

Great. I make a motion to be included in the negotiation process with Marty being our representative at the SHPO meeting to further investigate and get more information. The water utility Of the water Of the decommissioned water utility bill building at no. I'm sorry. At 445 West Newhall Avenue.

I will second that.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

I think that's pretty fair, right? That's like we're not calling war or anything. I promise.

It's a good idea. Pass unanimously. We're all in agreement on it.

That's how

it works. Good. Thank you for your leadership, Farrah.

No. I just I I think it's fair, and I think it's right. And it's okay. It's it's okay to want want more information. I think that that's why we are commissioners in any commission is to get further information on behalf of our community. And we're moving on to the alder report.

Hit it.

Last time I jumped the gun on that and Charlie had more to say. Mayor Havaslavin appointed me another term on the commission. I'm proud of my first term and I'm very glad to be back working with you guys. I was a little sad in my little speech last time, but I'm back whether you guys like it or not. I'm here for another term. So other than that, we're continuing to do great things. If you know of any Waukesha go ahead. Waukesha unlocked is again this year, if you know of any historic homes that would like to be part of the Waukesha unlocked, it's basically like an open house. Let the mayor's office know, and they will get you in that selection process. Waukesha Cemetery is on it, and it's kind of a neat tour.

So other than that, it's good to be back, and thank you.

Do you have a date for the Waukesha unlocked? It's like October,

something Yes. Second, I think it's the tenth and eleventh.

Used to do it every year, then it now it's every other year.

Yes. And we are planning to do the Springs tour again. So hopefully, we can if some of you are available to help with that tour, would be very helpful.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to the Springs report.

The only thing that I have is we last time, it was a tentative date. Now it's more set in stone date. We are planning to have the spring cleanup on Saturday, May 30. And Tony has mentioned that he has a group that can help out with that. So I'll be sending out a sign up and some detail on that hopefully in the very near future.

So then that will certainly include cleaning up at Meniscus Spring, Hobo Spring, we're hoping that the Parks Department can help with clearing that out because it's a lot of muck and it's not really necessarily something that we can ask volunteers to do. So we'll be having we'll look at some of the other springs to see what they need as well.

Have a question on the springs. Oops. I can pass this on. So where was that picture? I call it like hobo now. Okay.

Yeah. If

you wanna pass that down, that you know, it's kinda get to the ridiculous state. Yeah. I don't know why all these years that I've been on this board, which is not that great, but I'm sure it's been on for a long time.

Wow.

Why we can't you know, they the city's parks is redoing the formal gardens. They they brought a trencher and put a pipe in. Why wouldn't you have all that equipment? You would have not have done something for Hobo Springs.

It is something I talked to the I I don't know if that's current. Is that is that today?

No. That no. That was when we had the last rainfall.

Okay. Yes, I don't know if they've gotten out there yet, but I had talked to somebody at Parks. It was on their list that it's there's some coordination that needs to happen between parks and the streets crew because they have a big vehicle that comes and sucks it all out. But it has to be the streets crews have their street work, And that's their top certain times of the year, when they do leave pickup, that's going to be their top priority, which unfortunately, that's when the leaves tend to fall in the Jobo Spring Basin and clog it up. So that's when we've had it the last couple of winters that it's been clogged all winter.

And then those leaves rot in the water and there's just a bunch of muck. They've said that they would be willing to look at it and hopefully help with cleaning that out this year. Waukesha Unlocked is their event. So they especially when there's a when something like that is and it's in the park. So they are a little bit more willing to help with that than they are in some of the other cases. Well, wondering Yeah. Long term

We have to do a long term fix, not just these all these constant because it's costing them a ton of money. And Right. That I'm sure that that spring in the past probably had its own little creek or something natural way to bring that water out I do. To the river that maybe we should look at trying to do something like that instead of a pipe cleaning every time.

Right. Yes. I believe that is it did originally have some have a bigger connection to the river. That would be a very big project that probably would be portion of city budget, you know, would have to be allocated

Well, the the Springs does have and and then that comes to we do have a Springs Foundation, don't we? Or, you know, within the city foundation, there's just if somebody wanted to donate for the springs?

Yes. There is a donate donation fund that has about somewhere in the range of $10,000 on it right now.

Okay. So why not allocate some of that money for a permanent fix for Hobo Springs? I think, you know, we have an engineering department in the city. We have parks department. I I should say it's not rocket science. It's just let's do it. So is that something that we as do we have to we were we're supposed to be in charge of the springs per se, but then there's a springs committee. So should we go back to the springs committee and say, come up with some solution and bring it back to us, and then we'll present it to the city, you know, and

I don't think the Springs Committee has been they haven't met in a long time and

I know. But I'm just saying.

I think if it would probably be I could look into it, I guess, that would at some point or if one of you wants to take that on looking into some of the some potential options that would be a Right.

I mean, it would be great for the park. It'd be great for the parks department that they're not allocating manned sources to clean this every year.

And that is something that when I talked to I'm blanking on his name now from the parks, that it he's made the same statement that it's we don't like doing this, you know, over and over. So we

I'm sure you're referring to Ron.

It wasn't Ron. It was below Melissa.

I don't

Nobody knows anybody below the top people.

Right.

Well. I know. Yeah. I don't know. That's okay. I mean, you know, it's so as a committee, I don't know about issue, if I say, a motion to deep do a

deeper dive can speed this up. I will make a referral to engineering staff to see what options there are. This isn't necessarily to fix it, but just what the options are.

Right.

So that is my referral. That's how

Yeah. It's like, who do we talk to?

Yeah. Well, it starts with a local alder, and I will represent what we have just talked about. I will make a referral on our next the third Tuesday of this month. Perfect.

Thank you so much. That would be great.

Yep. Thank you.

I'll let them know that's coming.

Listen what he said.

He said I'll let them know that's coming. Take me

the fun.

Won't like The element of surprise is wonderful.

It is.

Moving on to communications and publications.

Alright. So this is the one thing that I have is this is obviously very late notice. I thought it was in June at the last meeting. I have sent a couple of emails on this, but there's, they call it camp training. I think it's commissioner assistance mentoring program that's put on by the National Association of Historic Preservation Commissions.

That's happening in Fond Du Lac on Saturday, May 16. I think it's a pretty much an all one it's one day, but it's a pretty much an all day event on a Saturday. So that's it's certainly, if anybody can attend, that would be great, but there is no expectation that you'll give up your Saturday for that. If you can make it, it's actually

And

do we'll that.

Helpful.

Great. And

That's all I have.

Awesome. Well, I think I'm on with you guys for another three years, so kinda stuck with me for a bit.

Do you practice that smile? That's nice. Yeah. Is that your TV smile?

It is my TV smile. Yeah. Thank you all, ladies and gentlemen. We'll see you next time. Alright. No. Seriously. Does anybody else have any comments, concerns?

You weren't here for it, Mike, but your presentation last night was wonderful, energetic.

Thank And

it was it brought the the residents who own these homes upfront and made them feel special than Beam. Besides the awards, this is your introduction and you. What they've done, that was really awesome. So I said that when you weren't here, so I thought, I'll say why you are here.

Thank you.

Thank It it was awesome.

I only get one tenth of the credit because Charlie wrote it. I just delivered it, and I'm used to delivering lines. You guys can all

see it's on the city website. You can actually see her in action.

No. It was fun. It was nice. I think that those things mean a lot to the homeowners. And so I think it's our one time to show common counsel that we take our position seriously and we're here to advocate for the homeowners. So people. Yeah. This is that's the one time of the year that we get to be in front of them. So I take that that seriously. And if it can be a little entertaining, why not?

And the the three the award recipients were all very grateful for it. So

Yeah. It was very nice. There was a there was a good feeling in the room, wasn't there? There was. Yeah. Was. Well, thank you everybody. My apologies for being late. We are adjourned.