Landmarks Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright.

Everybody ready?

Good.

Glasses.

Good evening, everybody. This is the city of Waukesha, and we are the Landmarks Commission. Today is Wednesday, 10/01/2025. I'm calling this meeting to order, and we shall start with roll call. Marty?

Marty Harrison.

Linda Gordo. Andrea Dorantes. Carmen Delapaz.

Mike Krissy. Matt Retzak.

And moving on to any public comment. Do we have any public comment today? Please step forward. State your name and your address, please.

Hi, everyone. I'm Lisa Selb from 434 Madison Street. And I would like to talk a little bit on the review of the proposed changes to the landmarks section of the city ordinances. Some of you are newer in just a little background, I was the chair of the Landmarks Commission for six years. So I just wanted to bring a little bit of from my viewpoint of how we did things and and just some of these changes.

And and for the most part, I think some of them are good, but there are some that that I just wanna bring to your attention, and then you can take a look at them, and see what you think. Okay. So, let's start here. Okay. One of the the things that's new is putting the the terms, the term of the chair, in there. And we, we used to just kinda come to that time of the year and say, okay. Who wants to do it? Oh, no one wants to do it. Okay. So so it's good that that you're voting on it.

And when it says that it's it's for a year, that's fine. I just wanna make sure that it's that if they wanted to do more than a year, there wouldn't be anything from having success succeeding years with that. And we always had a vice chair too, and it doesn't say anything about a vice chair, it just says that if the chair is absent, the commission members would select a substitute. It was kinda nice to have the vice chair because then you always knew. But, I mean, you could keep it that way.

It was just it was kinda nice that we did it that way. I'm also questioning the date of May 1, for that vote. It looks like everyone except for the older person, started in on July 1 or June 30. And it and it could be because, if it's May 1, then the new older person could possibly become the chair. We do have, like in 2030, May 1 is on a Wednesday.

So if it says after May 1, then that would kinda mess that year up. I don't know if that's a big deal or not. But so I was just questioning why they they chose that. That's probably the reason, but that's might be something to look at. Maybe if they said after April 30, then May would always be included.

So that was that. I was a little bit concerned about, with the application. So we were always trying to help the people that came in to get them to the easiest way possible for them to do their historic preservation. And the way this is worded is a little bit concerning because it says including on the COA application, including but not limited to estimates or contracts from a building professional detailing the project. So if they're applying for a paint and repair grant, they probably already have an estimate with that information.

But if it's if it's just a homeowner, for them to have to pay to get professional detailing of the project might make the project something that they can't do. It also says elevation drawings and or site plans. So so we just wanna make sure that we're not gonna make it too hard for people to be able to to do. I mean, we did allow sketches at one point, and I know some of the sketches were like the kindergartner person did it. But typically, they were not.

They were pretty good. So whether or not that has to be a building professional, that would be the question there. And then also, let's see what we have here. There was a number three that it was stricken out, so there's nothing on that number three now. And I know that it had said too that the city attorney's office has reviewed several drafts of these code changes and provided input.

They are still reviewing the most recent draft, so some change may occur before the draft goes to the planning commission. I would ask, couldn't they wait until they have their final draft and then let you guys see it so that you know what you're actually, giving comment on? That that I mean, it's there doesn't seem to be a hurry for this, so why not give you the final info? Because like I said, number three is totally missing. What they did strike out though was in the case of any property located in a historic district, whether the proposed construction, reconstruction, exterior alteration, or demolition does not conform to the purpose and intent of this section and to the objectives and design criteria of the historic preservation plan for said district.

I'm curious as to why that was stricken out because it's kind of important, and I'll come back to that in a little bit. So that was a question there. There was also in section it was number five, lots of pages, of 28 o five. It it only says and it's this way in our code now. It only says regulation of demolition, but it has absolutely no information after that.

When you look at chapter 66 of the Wisconsin code, there's a whole big section of what it would require for demolition, and I think that should be included in ours. It it shouldn't just have a title with no information. So that's another reason to wait until there's a final draft. Perhaps they're still working on that, but maybe see what it is that they wanna put in there so that you can can give your comments on that. Right above that in number four where it's talking about the sale of landmarks in a landmark site, This isn't being changed necessarily according to the red line, but in d, it says following any such rescission, the subject property may not be redesignated as a landmark or a landmark site within five years following the date of rescission without the owner's permission.

Waukesha is a certified local government, and one of the requirements, and this this isn't federally, but it's a state one that was added. Number five, the designation must not require owner consent, but this is saying that it would require owner the owner's permission. So I'm thinking that that may be a conflict that may need to be addressed. Also, in b, it talks about, if at the end of a period not exceeding two months from the petition date, no such buyer can be found. Two months to be able to find a buyer that's willing to to restore or rehabilitate a historic property, two months is nothing.

So I would like to maybe have Marty give his opinion on what the average time might be to try to find a buyer for a property. Because if we say, hey. If you can't find a buyer that wants to do this historic property within two months, well, then you can demolish it. Just doesn't it seems to be against what the historic preservation is trying to maintain. K.

Some of it, like it said, is just verbiage that's making things more clear, which is good. One thing that I I don't understand, and that is, oh, that 28 o six. And then this one is I'm sure too that when they redo this, they'll part of it has part of a page and then none of a page, and and so they're gonna be working on that too. But it's b, and it's that four b. We're taking out a whole section, and it's just all being removed.

And it's the criteria for the development of historic districts. It must ensure that the following aspects of structures and or improvements are visually compatible with the buildings and environment with which they are visually related, and it includes the height of new structures, the gross volume of new structures, the design of the roof, the materials, textures, colors, and patterns used on the facade and trim, and architectural details should be incorporated as necessary to relate the new with the old. All of those things that I just mentioned are in the lawsuit that we have against the city trying to put apartments in a historic district, and this is trying to be removed from our ordinance. So, that's just interesting. So maybe if you wanna take a look at that.

And I think that that is all that I have, except it did say on the cover sheet that it was going to, in regards to staff, clarify specific types of work which do not need approval, Clarify staff's responsibility for providing application and fees, and update the approval to conditions to reflect the standards the Landmarks Commission actually uses. Just as a reminder, it wasn't too that long ago where when the commission voted to not give staff more power over the COAs. We had voted that we wanted that to come to the commission and bring it forth like it's supposed to be according to what the historic preservations are saying in the interior standards. And when you go through that whole list of what your job is, we wanted when I was there, we wanted to make that decision. We didn't want staff to make the decision for us because we're the ones that are held accountable for it.

So as this coming through, please just take a look at that part as well. Okay? Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Great. Any other public comment today? Moving on to the approval of minutes, item number two five Dash02206. This would be for the minutes of 09/03/2025, and I'm looking for a motion, please.

I make a motion to approve the minutes from 09/03/2025.

Do I have a second?

I'll second. Thank you. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Meeting minutes have been approved. Moving on to Landmarks Commission Paint and Repair grant funds. Item 25Dash02227, paint and repair grant funds summary, and Charlie will get us up to date.

Alright. So as you as you know, paint and repair grants are included or approved typically in a sliding scale up to a maximum of $3,000 but the Landmarks Commission may use discretion to change award amounts based on project scope, overall impact, fund availability and any other circumstances. Our total fund for this year was $25,000 and we have, as of this week, actually received the contracts for that fund finally. So we are able to start allocating the start getting the money out to people. Previously, you've approved $17,238 in grants, and that leaves 7,762 And I did talk to the person who has the $1.20 24 grant for $350 leftover, and he told me he does expect to have that completed by the end of this fall.

And again, as usual, approvals need to be conditional on the approval of the from Waukesha County in SHPO compliance. And then here's just a rundown of the grants that have been approved this year along with the three that we have on the agenda tonight.

Great. Thank you so much. So we're going to move on to new business. Item number 20Five-two196, Landmark's commission certificate of appropriateness for 323 McCall Street. Review a request to replace the chimney cap. And this is the McCall Street Historic District.

Alright. 323 McCall Street is at the corner of McCall Street And Charles Street in the McCall Street Historic District. And it was built in 1885 and has Queen Anne style architecture. And as you can see, there's sort of a decorative chimney on the front of the house and a more simple chimney closer to the rear. And the simpler chimney has a clay cap currently.

And the applicants want to add a new chimney liner to that chimney as well as a new cap. So they have a couple of photos of close-up of that one. And then also of some of the chimney liners or the chimney caps for the houses nearby. So as you can see, there's sort of a variety there. And the one furthest, three houses down McCall Street has a cap that's very similar to the one that they would like to use.

So here's a photo that they provided of a version of it, it would be a cylindrical metal cap. And I thought I had the had sent a slightly modified photo and depiction of it. I thought I had added it to the agenda, but I guess it didn't get included. So it will look similar to this, a little bit shorter, but it will be a cylindrical metal cap. And then we've provided two estimates for the cost of the work.

One is for $10.95 dollars and one is for $12.15 dollars These both include the chimney liner, which is not something that is subject to Landmark's Commission approval since it's interior. But in this case, I did encourage them to apply for paint repair grants and it's really a sort of a gray area as to whether work this minor would actually require a COA. But I encourage them to apply because in the past, these applicants have turned down some paint repair grants when we were low on funds. So I wanted to give them the opportunity to get any funds that were available when we have them. And they did note that the contractors had told them that the bulk of this cost is the cost to set up scaffolding to get up to the top of the chimney to put the cap on.

So that is related to the exterior work. So again, they're replacing the chimney liner, which is not subject to Landmark's approval and replacing the chimney cap. New cap will be cylindrical aluminum similar to the photo that was provided. So the estimated cost of the project is $12.15 dollars

Great. Do we have a representative here from the Houghton? If you'd like to step forward, state your name and your address, please.

Hi. Hi. Mary Lou and Darren Lillian, 323 McCall Street, Waukesha.

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you.

Is there anything else you'd like to add that Charlie already shared with us? Anything more for that?

I think he did a great job.

He always does. Yes.

And that I was we really appreciate him inviting us to to do this. We were going to look for the approval, but he encouraged us to

Great. Perfect. Come and see what you have to say. Does anybody have any questions regarding this?

No questions. I'm just wondering if we do have any guidelines from the state or, you know, on caps.

Right. Well, from their street, it looks like there's five styles

Right.

Going across the houses.

Just wondering if it just doesn't it's really nothing on any radar, so it just is what it is.

The two caps that we had pictures of look very much like the house that is I think it's third from us on McCall Street.

Right.

That one right?

Yeah. So one kind of in the center of

the photograph. That's right.

Because I just don't remember ever having somebody come in front of us without a cap.

And as far as I know, there isn't any specific guidance on what kind of caps are and aren't appropriate. I think they would just say nothing that stands out really as distinct.

I believe that the aluminum one will outlast the steel ones with the bird fencing on it. But if you have four inches ductwork going inside four inches tube, certainly four inch would not be oversized or undersized.

And I don't know if you can see these. You wanna hold that one up? Mhmm. Yeah. They're very the two the two companies, they were very similar.

Matt, any thoughts?

Part part of the reason for the liner is so that the chimney doesn't deteriorate from the inside out and also to keep chimney swifts from flying down our chimney, which we had one in our basement just this summer. Make

sure you get it done before they come back because they're protected and you can't do anything if you have a chimney swift there.

And that's what one of these companies told us. They said that we've got, we should get it done this fall.

Great.

Any other questions?

No? More or less a comment since I'm one of the newer ones around here. I'm just the scope of work seems relatively small, though it's important. If all I had to do was agree with that aluminum versus the more historic looking ones, I I'm fine with the new one, but I'm just concerned that the scope of work is actually too small. It's still important, but I'm

You mean for a paint or pear grant?

Yeah.

Yes. Let's deal first with the certificate appropriateness, and

then we'll get on to that one

for sure. Let's get them approved and

Okay.

We'll work from there.

I'll motion to approve number 25Dash02196, the chimney cap as, presented.

I'll second that.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Great. You have been approved. Good. Thank you. And then we're moving on to item two five Five-two197 Landmark Submission Paint and Repair Gram for 323 McCall Street.

All right. So again, there's $7,762 available, and their total estimated cost of the project is $12.15 dollars And again, I encourage them to apply even though it is a small amount, mostly because in the past, they've been very gracious when we had a meeting where we were coming to the end of the grant amount and they said, we'll kind of bow out of this grant cycle in order to allow other people to get more. So since we have the money available, just wanted to give every opportunity to at least give them a little bit.

Comments? Thoughts?

We're all about giving away money today.

I am all about it.

I would just like to say I appreciate them coming back and following your advice.

Thank you. You know what? Anybody who cares about their house and they come here and they do go through the steps and the processes in my mind deserve something, especially when they, in the past, have been gracious to allow other people to get funding. My opinion? Mhmm. So we can either go 10 or 15%. If it's 10%, it's a 120. If it's 15%, it's a 180.

Thoughts?

I'd make a motion to go all in at a 180.

Great. I will second Matt's motion for a 180 paint and repair grant.

Aye. Thank you.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, shocks. That was was very sweet. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. You guys are the sweet ones. Okay. Moving on to item 25Dash0 two one nine eight, Landmarks Commission Certificate of Appropriateness for 114 East 114 South East Avenue. We're gonna review a request to to repair and paint the wood siding and replace gutters. This is the College Avenue Historic District.

Alright. So 114 Southeast Avenue is on the west side of East Avenue just at the intersection just to the north of the intersection with Fountain Avenue. We have the one to the south of the intersection of Fountain Avenue next. And it's in the College Avenue Historic District. And this is the Mary and Robert Beggs house.

It was built in 1885 and has Queen Anne style architecture. Robert Beggs owned a hardware store at 920 Clinton Street, which is itself part of the 5 Points Downtown Historic District. That's the the RC Begg store. So this was his his home along with his family. And the applicants have recently purchased the house from Carroll University, and they've discovered that there's a pretty significant rotting on the siding.

So they would like to both repaint the house and then repair the siding. They also plan to replace the gutters and downspouts. So as you can see, existing gutters are the standard K style, so they would like to use that same style for the replacement. And they've noted a few spots in particular where their wood rot has been identified so that those sections of wood will have to be replaced. And the intention is that they'll be replaced to match dimensions of the existing wood and then repainted as well.

They don't have a color scheme as of yet, but they are hoping to go with color that's similar, but does add some more color than what's there right now. You can see there's a section, it looks like possibly a beehive that will have to be removed and there'll be some repair there as well as an area where some of the wood is broken away and allowed water to get in behind it. And then there'll be also repairing the chimney flashing as well. So you can see the existing flashing that will be removed and repaired. Some sections of the roof shingles will have to be removed, but then they'll be replaced with as close of a match as possible.

So for the roof the gutters, downspouts and the chimney repair, the cost estimate is $8,014 And then for the painting and the carpentry repair, the estimate is $22,138 But that the estimate notes that, that cost does not include the carpentry repair, which is needed. That repair, since they won't be able to they can't estimate it before they actually start working. That will be billed at $95 per man hour plus materials at which is cost plus 35%. So that's similar to other wood repair that we've had. And the applicants estimated that that could be a couple of thousand dollars extra.

So again, they're repairing the wood siding, scraping the paint, replacing the wood with light wood where necessary, repainting the siding, the color scheme hasn't been decided and replacing the gutters and downspouts and the new gutters will be K style to match the existing and replacing the chimney flashing. And the estimated cost of the project is $30,152 plus the cost of carpentry repair.

Great. Do we have the homeowners here today? Hi. Hi. Step forward, state your name please and your address for the record. Thank you.

Sure.

I'm Nathan Copine. My address is 114 Southeast Avenue. My wife is sitting back there, Sarah Timler.

Mhmm.

Great. Is there anything that you'd like to add to what Charlie already shared with us?

No. Okay.

Okay. Good answer. Does anybody have any questions?

We really appreciate you tackling this project.

Yeah. It's a beautiful house. It's got a lot of roof surface at a big pitch. I love the idea of the five inch going larger with the downspouts, but the excuse me, the gutters, but the downspouts and extensions are three and four. I don't know if maybe you should get a look at a little larger. But, again, thank you for this house and getting it up to where it needs to be. It's got beautiful detail everywhere.

When are you thinking about having this work done?

Well, it's either before winter or after. So it's when we can get on their schedule, basically.

Yeah. You got the the flexible schedule discount.

Right. So, you know, he told us that could maybe happen this month, but I'm uncertain at this time.

Wonderful. Good. Anybody else have any questions? No? Looking for a motion.

I motion to approve number 25Dash02198 for the gutter replacement and painting with some wood repair per proposal.

I'll second.

I.

I.

I. I.

I. I.

Great. You've been approved.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Moving on to 25Dash02199 paint repair grant for 114 Southeast Avenue.

All right.

So $30,000 $30,152 is the estimated cost of the project plus the cost of the carpentry repair. So it'll be more than that. And again, dollars 7,762 minuteus the small grant from the previous applicant. And 15% of that $30,000 is 4,522 which exceeds $3,000

Thoughts?

Well, I think it's a big project and we do have the discretion to go above the 3,000. And I think being on the street it is and where it is and the presence amongst those other beautiful homes around it deserves, you know, maybe a little bit more money.

Great. Great. What would you suggest? I

would suggest 4,000.

Okay. Any other thoughts?

Yeah. I agree with Marty. I mean, knowing that there's carpentry repairs on top of that, you know, already quoted number, I think it makes sense to go above the the 3,000.

I agree. Once you start removing, there's gonna be some mysteries behind there that are gonna get, need to get addressed. And I think this increase in funds will help fix it and preserve it.

Mysteries have a price point.

I didn't think a mystery was even a

quick story.

Great. I'll take a motion on that, please, then.

So I motion to approve board number 2502199, a $4,000 grant.

I'll second that.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Thank you so much. We look forward to seeing your beautiful home. Keep up the good work, and we shall continue to support your process.

Thank you so much.

Take care. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to 25Dash02200LandmarkCommission certificate of appropriateness for 122 Southeast Avenue. This is we're gonna review a request to replace the roof and gutters, and this is the College Avenue Historic District.

Alright. So 122 Southeast Avenue is also on the west side of East Avenue at the intersection with Fountain Avenue. This is just to the south of Fountain Avenue. So it's basically next door to the one that you just reviewed. And this is the Harter House, which was built in 1892 with an addition in 1910.

The materials that I have don't specify the style, but it appears to be Queen Anne to me. And as you can see, it has a kind of a classic three tab asphalt shingle roof, and the applicants would like to replace that. They've stated that the last time that it was replaced was 2001. So it's due for replacement. And as you can see from that photo, the house does have the style gutters currently.

So they would like to replace the gutters as well and the new gutters will be K style as well as they proposed. The proposed shingle is CertainTeed Landmark shingles, which have been approved by the Landmarks mentioned in the past. And the color that they're proposing is driftwood. And the estimate for the roof replacement is $19,800 for the roof and $3,200 for the gutter, which comes to $3,000 So again, they'd be replacing the roof, the new roof would be CertainTeed Landmark series shingles, the driftwood color and the new gutters would be K style to match existing.

Great.

And we don't have anybody else here, so I don't think we have a homeowner here today. Would you all like to proceed with approval of this? Or would you like to

I don't have a problem with approving.

Right.

It's the repair that we have. Mhmm. So

I'm looking for a motion then.

I motion to approve. Get the right one. 250 2200 for 122 Southeast Avenue for gutters and paint. Roof. Roof, not paint.

Second that.

That'll next be visit.

Yes.

I. I.

I. I.

Perfect. So that's been approved, and I think we're all in agreement that without a homeowner here, we'd like to delay a paint and repair grant consideration for the next meeting. Thank you. So we're gonna skip over that one. We're gonna move on to item 25Dash02208 landmark marks commission certificate of appropriateness for 300 West Main Street. Review a request to add a mural to the east wall facing Friedman Alley, 5 Points Downtown Historic District.

Alright. So 303 Hundred West Main Street is right at the 5 Points Intersection of Broadway and Main Street and Grand Avenue. And it's adjacent to Friedman Alley, which runs from 5 Points Intersection back to Riverfront Street. So it's the building on the left here. It is the Brem store, which was built in 1880, and its architectural style is commercial vernacular.

So there's another angle of it. And you can see the building to the left. This property is specifically the store right at the corner that ends here. And as you can see, the wall facing Friedman Alley is a wall, which is believed to be a later addition, not historic. And there it is from another angle.

It's a tan color. It has been painted in the past. And it as you can see, there's a it's in need of a little bit of some cleaning. The city has a proposal as part of a project to revitalize Friedman Alley, very quarter

had

of '19, And And then a specifically of the alley from the period of historic significance. But again, that wall is believed to be not historic. And the proposal is to add signage and murals and other installations to sort of make the alley more of a vibrant place and to draw people from downtown to the riverfront and from the riverfront to downtown. There will probably be some additional proposals that will come for work on the building. On the other side, where that wall is believed to be it is an original wall.

In that case, any installation in any mural would be added would be on a board basically added to the wall there. But in this case, the mural is proposed to be painted directly onto the wall. So the proposal is for a mural that would be a large colorful fox depiction. It would be about 24 feet wide by 20 feet high and would kind of curve over the front window of the store. And the proposal is to wash that wall, to power wash it before adding the mural.

The artist that has been selected has done a number of other murals, including this one in Black Cat Alley in Milwaukee. So in this case, this one is painted directly onto the wall. It's a cinder block wall. And then the one next to it was also included in her proposal. That one is on looks like a board that's attached to the wall. So the proposal is to paint new 20 by 24 foot mural directly on stucco East wall of 300 West Main Street in Friedman Alley and then to power wash the wall before painting it.

We don't have anybody here, obviously. Yes.

Actually,

Is do it the city?

Yes, this is the city that's proposed.

Oh. That's

that's what I'm thinking. Yeah. Cool.

Is there anything else you'd like to add to what's already been stated? No.

I helped Charlie kinda give him the stuff to put it together. But this is part of a broader, it was part of a place making plan that was a part of the central city master plan. The Friedman Alley was approved at council for all these type of additions. We've worked with the building owners, or the property owners to get their permission. We're working on MOUs contracts with them to get that.

As Charlie mentioned, anything that is not or that's original facade, it will be professionally painted on the board and affixed to the wall so that not to damage or ruin the integrity of the building. This just so happens to be stucco that was replaced or over the original building. So the property owner and we saw fit that this could be painted directly onto the wall.

And I guess just to clarify also that normally painting on already painted surfaces wouldn't need approval. Just for instance, Joey's Diner two doors down on Main Street is in the historic district. When they painted that, we got multiple calls about it, wondering if that was something that could that the Landmark Commission would approve and they didn't have to bring it in. But in this case, it's such a large installation and it's a mural, so we figured that it is best to bring it to you.

Does anybody have any questions, thoughts?

Art's subjective, so I don't know if it's a proof

of the

piece of art or not.

The concept of the overall alley, I mean, it's I think it's great for the city.

Multiple people that submitted that.

Had 21 applications for two mural spots. Another one was selected, but that's being on a board and put on the wall. And this one was selected by they were selected by the public art committee through ranking and looking at them taking it over. So that that was selected. It's a they found it as a great photo op opportunity and some of the people in Nashville and other places where people can stand under and take photos and things like that.

Believe in the public art committee.

So

like when you're paying for the proposal for Freedom Alley, due to all this, are you planning to have also events in that space too? And who is responsible for having events in that space like they do at Black Hat Alley?

Yeah. So our goal is to have events. It used to be a farmer's market in the past. Charlie showed the pictures. There were vendors and other things like that. Freeman Alley is city owned, so it could be potentially like we did with the old the Farmers Market before it moved to the Waukesha State Bank site. They used to do it on Riverfront Street and other areas. So it would be something people could use. We're thinking of people could play music in there, other things. It's it's gonna be a space that's activated together with people.

They can enjoy art. They can listen maybe people performing. They can sit in some chairs. It's it's just a and it's a good connection to the from the riverfront to the downtown. And it's something that was deemed as unsafe and not very attractive in the past and now it's gonna be more vibrant.

It's used and decorated by the city for the walk of lights, and council approved that. And so it's the the funds have already set for that purpose, but that was the whole goal is to have it more more year round like that alley in Milwaukee you're talking about. The other comment I had was it'd be nice if they could do something with the, I'm gonna call it black coaxial cable, the artist rendering to show painting right over that. It'd be nice to, you know, I don't think you're gonna bury that cable, but is that cable even used anymore? That, you know, it may be something to think about. And sometimes stucco doesn't like being power washed. Those are my comments.

Yep. I just got have a question. Probably doesn't pertain to us, but you had a lot of other signage that you were gonna be putting up there. So is that something we look at or we don't look at? Or, you know, as you talk about putting since that's a historic area, which is the signage

Signage would have to be approved by it would have to meet the sign code requirements. So it it would most likely have to receive a sign permit.

Alright. But is it anything we look at It's We're probably doing this painting thing when we really don't need to per se. Right.

That's what

I'm just saying. The other

Yeah. I I guess that would it would it probably wouldn't come to the Landmarks Commission just because it, you know, wouldn't normally for any business. But there is a standard for the downtown sign area that's a little stricter than it is for other districts that, for instance, the signs in the downtown area are not allowed to be backlit. They have to have indirect lighting. And there are some requirements of that they have to be in sign bands when that's the when they're present.

So I guess there are stricter standards that apply to the downtown sign area, which are there because it's historic that that

would Only because you did show some pictures of Of sign. The front of that entering from the five points going down. That's a pretty big sign. Right. You know?

A lot of those things Charlie shown, the city had a consultant. They worked with a consultant on a lot of these ideas and also the place over by La Estacion. So that's where a lot of those drawings came from. So they were reviewed a lot even before we even saw this stuff here today, but you have a great point on that. But that was

so is my

question is is that the consultant that's seeing over the old to make the design cohesive? Or are you guys just mishmashing a bunch of different concepts together?

Nope. That's the they had created an overall place making plan for that site. It's now in our hands to to do the things similar to what's in that plan.

Cool. I just wanted to know. Great. Do I have a motion for this? Never, never motion too much. Anybody else? Come.

I'll make a motion to accept the Landmarks COA for 300 Main for the mural to be added to the east side of the building on Friedman Alley.

I will second, but with some comments. Are the city gonna investigate that black coaxial cable or just paint the mural on moving, jiggling coaxial cable? But I second it. But it'd be nice to have that fixed.

Yeah. We won't be painting over that. We'll we'll make sure that that's out of the way for that.

My second stands. Thank you.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Great. It's been approved, Robin. Moving on to the alderman's report.

Alderman's report is fall is almost here or may maybe it is on the calendar, but looking forward to the change of ceilings, sea seasons. There's a lot of stuff going on in Waukesha Park and Recs. The city has a new website, and one of my favorite features of the website is it's called report a concern. If something happens in your neighborhood, if something happens your garbage isn't picked up, if you have a street light out, there's something wrong with the infrastructure of the City Of Waukesha, go to the city of Waukesha website, do a report of concern, and with the modern science of computers that I don't know too much about, it'll actually know your address, and you just type in, I have a street light out. And rather than calling somebody, it goes right to that department and a work order is generated. So

Awesome.

Make sure we visit the

new website and make use of report a concern.

Just to note, do have one more ID item on there.

Oh, of course. We do, don't we? Sorry. We're just gonna move right along. Backtracking, my apologies. 25 dash zero two two zero seven review and provide comments on proposed changes to sections two eight zero two, comma, two eight zero three, comma, two eight zero five, and two eight zero six of city ordinances.

Alright. So, chapter 28 of city code is the, landmarks commission ordinance, And there are a number of changes to the ordinance that staff is proposing. Mostly, there are a lot of different goals here. Basically, we had one thing that we were told that we had to do, and then I threw in a bunch of stuff that I've wanted to change for many years. So the the most significant part, at least as far as I'm concerned, I think all of you will be concerned, is to allow the Landmarks Commission to enforce its ordinance, which imposing conditions specifically in time limits.

Some of you might remember, we had an applicant a couple of years ago that they had done some work without approval. They had replaced a window with two panes that were very different from what was there before. And the Landmark Commission gave them a deadline to and when they brought it in, after significant pressure to do that, they the Landmark Commission gave them a deadline to get it done. They didn't meet the deadline. They ultimately did the work eventually.

But when I talked to the city attorney's office about, can we start sending them citations again because they hadn't met the deadline, They said the ordinance doesn't really give the Landmark Commission the authority to enforce deadlines or even do impose conditions. And conditions are a thing that Landmark Commission does all the time. So that's something that we wanted to rectify. On top of that, I would like to make the ordinance consistent with other city ordinances. So a couple of the things that that we're doing there are clarifying the staff's response responsibility to provide applications and set fees.

That's what we were told we have to do. Adding the language about the chair and a board And add a a

bit detail

on the board. And then clarify the ordinance so that it matches the actual practice of the Landmark Commission, including the approval standards, items that don't need to review, putting and putting applications on hold and then cleaning up a lot of typos and confusing wording. So the way that process will work is there's a first reading at the plan commission. They'll make a recommendation to the council. Previously, that would have gone to the Ordinance and License Committee, but that was changed a couple of years ago.

So any ordinance that has to do with development, including the building code ordinances and fire code and things like that, all get reviewed by the plan commission for the first reading. The second reading is at the council, and then that'll be a discussion but no vote. And the third reading is also at council, and that'll be an up and down up or down vote. Unless the council the council can waive the third reading and just vote at the second, but they don't typically do that. So and then the Landmarks Commission isn't isn't necessarily involved in in the ordinance, but we do wanna since it's your ordinance, we wanna bring it to you guys for advice and and comment on it.

So you shouldn't make a vote, but you should provide your feedback on what you like and don't like. And if you really love something or really hate something, you are more than welcome to make comments at any of those other readings or send something to me that I can relay to those boards. So to get into the changes themselves, in the definition section, which is 28.02, again, there's a lot of just wording changes. Any ordinance that you can kinda tell any ordinance that that Brian running, our current city attorney, has had his hand in updating because he always adds the word means in into definitions. So he wanted to do that here.

We did note that an improvement, which is the standard for what needs a COA, that doesn't include landscaping, paving, fencing, retaining walls or other site work, It does include accessory buildings. So that's just the standard that the Landmark Commission applies. There was a time in the past apparently when the Landmark Commission would bring landscaping to be approved. And I think it was a kind of a big it opened up a lot of cans of worms that we didn't want to open up. So we just wanna be have it clarified in the ordinance so that that doesn't come up as something that that needs to happen in the future.

And then we added in a definition for the Department of Community Development because because that's referenced. And I have a definition for the Secretary of the Interior Standards, but that actually might be removed. That was the the we did get comments back from the city attorney's office on the most recent draft, and that was their only comment is we have been referencing that in the the the decision factors. But the one that's specifically referenced is is the standard that's used for basically determining whether something gets a state or federal historic preservation tax credit. And the one that's in the design guidelines is a little bit it's worded a little bit differently to allow a little bit more flexibility on your part.

So that might be removed from well, and it is in what I've got here removed from the decision making factors currently. So I can get to that too. So for the composition, just clearing up confusing wording again, it calls for one person known to be interested in historic preservation. And then later says each member shall have to the highest extent practicable known interest in historic preservation, which seemed a little redundant. And I wouldn't be able to tell you which one of you is the one person that's known to have an interest in historic preservation.

So we've removed that. And then adding a chair for the term, this is basically, a, we really would like to have a chair. Currently, the ordinance doesn't require it. So we'd like to add that in. And then adding in a term so that the so we don't have to kind of get to the point where Marty has to suggest, hey, should we vote on this?

I picked one year and the date. Basically, I copied this wording directly from the wording for the Cemetery Board Chair or the Cemetery Commission Chair. So if you if you do have opinions about the date or about the length of the term, that's certainly something that would be open to change. The I think the I think the idea is May 1 is right after the April election, so that would always be when the

fall can confirm that. Yeah. Because the new any new people who came on the common council would be the third Tuesday in April.

Yeah. Exactly.

So then the usually, the mayor would set up his committees and commissions after that.

Exactly. Yeah. So so if there was a change, that would always happen then. I believe all of your terms are in July. I think that might just be coincidence or when the Landmarks Commission was originally formed or something like that.

If you wanted it to be later into the year, that would certainly be fine. And as far as one year, the intention is that any a chair could be reelected any number of times. And one year, that was both what that other Board does. And it just seemed like that's rather than trying to link things up with somebody's term or something like that, that seemed like the easiest. But again, if anybody has a strong opinion or wants that to be different, that would be something that would be very open.

And then lastly, the so there's a note about the members of the commission receiving no compensation except as necessary. We thought that was worded a little weirdly, and none of the other boards have in their ordinances have any note about that. And it's all kind of handled the same, so we didn't think that was necessary to keep in there. Then getting to the staffs, the applications. This is wording that is consistent with the, I think I took it from the signed ordinance.

It's it's consistent with some other ordinances. The city attorneys had told us that we we need to have that, in the ordinance that staff is responsible for putting together the applications and the fees and everything in order to be able to keep so that we can keep modifying it as we have been. And then just noting site work, minor repairs and work of an inherently temporary nature, such as repainting surfaces that have already been painted, doesn't require a certificate of appropriateness approval. So that's as it is those kind of things already don't require a certificate of appropriateness. So that is just basically adding that into the ordinance so that it's so that it is clearly stated.

Charlie, could you go back?

Yeah.

Just to confirm that any fees that are through this commission are not listed in the ordinance. They are listed in a separate fee schedule.

Right. Yeah, they are required to be listed and we have a fee schedule for all development that's updated every year. So yes, that would be listed separately.

And

then going to the factors for approval. So for this so the basically, the reason for deleting that that section about being consistent with the design criteria of the historic preservation plan for a historic district. We don't actually, in practice, have any historic preservation plans for the historic districts. What we do have is design guidelines that are applied to all of the districts. So that's so basically removing that and replacing it with whether the proposed work is consistent with the design guidelines published by the commission and amended from time to time.

So that that would kind of take the place of that section. And I did have with the Secretary of Interior Standards initially, but I took that out again at the at the advice of the city attorney. We have the Secretary of the Interior Standards in the design guidelines. But again, it's a slightly modified version that uses usually uses the word will rather than shall. And it has a note about the standards have to be applied with eye to the cost of work and to not being too extreme, too prohibitively expensive.

So that allows you to have a little bit more flexibility than they would apply for the tax credits. And Brian Running, in particular, is a longtime owner of a house in the McCall Street Historic District. And he told me he remembered from many, many years ago when the Landmarks Commission had a much was not as polite as all of you are, basically, that people would say, these are the standards. We're bound to apply them. And, you know, they would kind of use it as a as a way to be, you know, very hard on some homeowners.

And then that that's not something that we would wanna encourage. So I just have those factors again in the clean version. So it does have that number that won't in the case of construction of a new improvement is moved into number three, and then it has the section about the design guidelines there.

Charlie, on your information for demolition, do the city building codes cover demolition already?

They do. But for historic property, it would have to come for for a certificate of appropriateness if somebody wanted to demolish

So raising a building or demolishing is already covered under the regular building code for the city. Are you referring back to that, or are you restating it in this?

Yeah. So, I mean, if if somebody wanted to demolish a historic building, they would have to get a certificate of appropriateness to do it. And then in addition to that, they would also have to get a demolition permit that you know? So that I think there is a there's a section in the ordinance in the in chapter 28 that states that any that nothing will in this ordinance will allow people to not get required building permits. So, yeah, that is referenced.

Okay. So again, yeah, this is just the all of the the factors. Just in the clean version, that's the same as the previous page, just without all the red. So then the section that I really wanted to change is this review and approval, where currently it says that if the applicant determines or if the commission determines that the completed application is consistent with the character and features of the property, it shall issue a certificate of appropriateness, and it doesn't have anything about conditions or about timelines or anything like that. It does actually say that the commission has to make a decision within forty five days.

So we're adding in note that the commission may impose conditions to ensure that the work will be consistent with the factors in that previous section that I just went over, that the commission should have find that an application does not include sufficient information, that it can be put on hold for a period of up to one month. But in some cases, when there's not somebody here and you guys have questions, you've put it on hold. And you just wanna make sure that somebody doesn't come back and say, well, there's forty five days and I'm past that. So you have to approve it now. And then in cases where work has begun without a certificate of appropriateness or is inconsistent, that corrections can be required commission may impose deadlines of not less than ninety days for that corrective work.

And then lastly, I believe in this section, I kind of reworded the section about appeals, which just basically says the department shall provide notice in writing of any decision, which is what we do. And then it does still allow appeals to the council, which is required by state law. And it does still include the note that the council has to apply the factors in the same factors that the Landmark Commission applied. But I did add in a procedure for the appeals as well. So and then the sale of landmarks and landmark sites, that's not that's left as it is for now.

I did send this to the our CLG adviser at the at the State Historic Preservation Office. And he looked it over, and he said it it all meets their standards. He said his one comment is on this section, the National Park Service, if if we were a new if we were enacting a new ordinance, they wouldn't allow us to use this this method to kind of allow relief for landmarks. So this is basically if a homeowner is upset about having their property listed as a landmark, they can try to sell the property. And if they can't sell the property, the designation if they can't sell it specifically because it's landmark, then the designation would go away.

It's something that we have we've had really only in the case of county had when they wanted to get the designation removed from more downs. That's the only time it's been used. And what they say is what the National Park Service says and the state says is there are a couple of better methods for how to provide that relief without having a complicated and messy process like what's described here. I just haven't really done any research on those and would like to do a little more of that and maybe have some discussion on it before bringing that back. So that's something that we might

We might see more red lines here is what you're saying.

Eventually, yes, that might So be changed as

to backtrack slightly, you're making these changes or you'd like to make some changes. Was there a timeline because you showed us it's close to here, here, here, but is there a timeline is this a year process going between all these things, six months? What is

The hope is that we would go to the planning commission in October. They have their meeting at the end of this month. And then the council could review it in November and December. So it'd be end of this year, I guess.

Okay. So it's just right. It's this is just a lot for us to take in, and this is this is what we're here for. Right. So I I it's good to get the overview, but I'm just wondering if we should look at this and maybe hold a special meeting just to solidify this because right now tonight, there's too much for us to even probably comment on.

You know? So I'm just wondering if that is gonna hurt the timeline here. I mean, it's not saying we have to wait till the next meeting. We can call a special meeting sooner. But since this is our job, I think we all wanna know pretty much what, give the input if you're going to make the changes. Yes, that makes sense. No, that doesn't. But right now, it's way too much. Right. I guess

why don't we I'll just finish this out. I've got a little bit more and then we can so the other section that has changes is 28.06, which is procedures. There's just a lot of wording that that the city attorney's added. The we changed the section where it says that after historic district is is approved that the commission has to apply for historic preservation overlay status. The process is the same for adding that historic preservation overlay.

So basically this will say if if and when if we ever have a new historic district, once it goes through the whole process of council approval, then it would just get that status. And then removing the criteria. Again, haven't had a new historic district in many years, think since 2004. This seems very specific and I don't think we have what I've seen of the previous designations, I don't think this was referenced. I don't really know how it would relate to the current historic districts.

Typically, when we've had historic districts in the past, they've been similar to the National Register historic districts. So we have some criteria and some understanding of it. So that and there obviously is quite a lot of discussion that has to happen to make sure that the districts are consistent with all the standards. So we just thought this was very specific and doesn't necessarily apply properly to any to every district that might come up in the future. So then lastly, we had added in a process for appeals.

As you might be aware, we've had very few appeals since the since the appeal process was has been put in place that there have been two since I've been with the city. And one of them for the counties, the Moore Downs Building was a very, what I would say, was a pretty ugly process that took till 11:00 at night. There were lawyers on both sides that were sort of after every section of it, they were asking people a bunch of questions that were difficult. And I don't think it added anything, frankly. And so this procedure would kind of lay it out so that it's an orderly process, but that it doesn't include that kind of cross examination or any of that.

And then it would have to be a vote in open session. And it would be similar to what what most most things that would come to the council similar to the process for most things that would come to the council. So and then this section was moved from further up down to that appeal section. So, again, the goals are to empower the Landmark Commission to impose conditions and timelines on approvals, clarifying the ordinance to reflect the actual practices of Landmark Commission, which includes the approval standards, items that don't need review, cleanup confusing wording, typographical errors. There were a few of those sprinkled in and then that new procedure for appeals.

And then again, the ideally, it would go to the Planning Commission in late October, and then the council review would be November and December.

I'd like to thank Attorney Running and his staff for bringing all our ordinances in line. It's just much easier to read. The other comment I had is I've been on the cemetery commission for five years, and it works very similar with our team that we have here. So I have no issues with following something very historic and unique to our city. So I like your idea of following. It works very well on the cemetery side of things. Those are my comments.

Yes. Just to echo what Marty said. I mean, it's great to get the context from you, Charlie. It's a lot of information. But hearing what you said, I mean, of Lisa's comments too, What's our deadline for any responses, questions, concerns as far as the overall process goes?

Now. Tonight's the night. I

mean, we I could discuss that with, you know, with the rest of the with basically the department director about whether they want to delay it until November. Otherwise, if you guys want to schedule a special meeting, could try and do that. Or if you look at it further and you have questions, you could also just direct those. You could if you have questions, you could direct them to me. If you have comments that you want to be relayed to the plan commission or to the council, you could either bring those to the their all of those will have public comment.

And the plan commission, it'll be it's a similar format to Landmark's where you can get up at each item and comment on it. Or you could just send me an e mail and I've we've read comments, even ones that disagree with what we're doing all the time in planning commission. Any of those options, again, we could hold a special meeting if you want.

What are the parameters for changing anything additional? Or is like this pretty much it? Like what's the window of is there more changes that will happen that we won't know about? Or is this pretty much it?

This is pretty much it that would go to the Planning Commission and Council. If anything, I might take that definition for the Secretary of Interior Standards out. That would be the only thing that might happen.

If there were any changes that we wanted to discuss after it went through, the plan commission and their review at common council, I would bring it up and I could still make a comment, an addendum to strike or add comments. So there is some time. I'm not saying I'm basically answering your question on that. So there is some of the reasons they have a a common council member on on this board and all boards. So, in a common council meeting, if there's something that wanted to be voiced, they certainly would voice that at that time.

I mean, I think that there there there there are changes that are good, and there are things that that there's enough maneuverability of it may be that word is used where we can still kind of work our way around things if we need to work our way around things like specifically to asking for people to bring in renderings, drawings, whatever. It says may it may need to that. So that means we don't have to hold to that standard if people are coming to ask for certificate of appropriateness. I think that there's maneuverability within all of this, you know, down to the chair a year or not a year. I think everybody should be a chair for at some point just to experience it and do it and share the wealth and the fun.

Mhmm. And That's

why we voted for

you. Yeah. Thanks.

And and share

the pay. I'm sorry?

Share the pay.

Yeah. Share the pain. No. But I mean, you know, I I just think I think that everybody should consider it in the future and I'm not like I I think it's good. So I think that there are within what's written I think there's maneuverability that if we do have issues or wanna discuss something further, there's open windows within all of these facets, I in my opinion.

And I guess there was one thing that I had forgotten to mention. Just to clarify as far as the requirements, the idea that currently, the application says you have to have all of those things. And most applications don't need it. So the idea is it might be required for some projects, but for others, there's flexibility to not require it. So for instance, some of the work that Carroll does on its buildings, they clearly need to have elevations.

They need to have professionally drawn plans to show to you. But if it's somebody replacing a gutter, we take what we can get. And that's the intention is that that would be that we would keep it that way, basically.

City's

It's better to ask for more information and then you can sift through.

Right.

So far with city staff's work working with the applicant even before we see this, it's always very complete with PDFs, cut sheets, drawings. You know, if thanks Thanks to the Internet and PDFs, it's always literally at our fingertips. So that's to piggyback off what Carmen said, it's great to have that stuff, and it's usually attached to the application before we even see it.

I think you can have a different filter on your lens to look at this in different ways. And I think that Charlie's intention is for the good. And if there are bigger issues, those those can be addressed at a later moment. I just don't believe in making kerfuffles out of non kerfuffles.

And you can't prepare for every contingency that will come up. Always gonna be something nobody planned on.

Yeah. Just I'd love to see it when you lock it in. Like this is the final draft, you know, just as a courtesy to us. We obviously don't vote on it. We're just making comments. So for allowed comments would be good to know and to see it. That's all I would like to request.

And that that's absolutely is something that we can do.

Perfect. Yeah.

Do we have to have a motion so we can? No. Well, hang on. What I'm saying is before it goes on to the next plan commission, that was my only question.

You don't have to make a motion. Yeah, I guess it would be better if you didn't.

Well, didn't want to because we had so much other input we wanted. Everyone here would like to add something. It's just a question.

What I'm wondering is if since it's such a to work with that website to get these things off, if you could print off a packet for everybody, you know, instead of because each one you go in and then it takes you back out and you gotta go back in. Mhmm. It takes forever to do that if you've got it in a better format that you can just I can it as one PDF that we could just print it ourselves versus all those separate?

Should we just email a copy of it?

Yes, the whole thing instead of these. Right.

Individual.

Right.

Yes, I absolutely can do that. At Granite, this is not the easiest thing to work with those agendas.

This

is just for my own,

because Maybe I don't understand.

When you are saying to impose conditions and timelines on approval, what are what would be an example of a condition? What happens if the timeline is not followed by the person, what is the consequences of not following those?

So the idea is, so for conditions, it would be something like it can be approved with the condition that, for instance, standard condition that's always kind of there for masonry replacement or masonry repairs that it has to match the color, texture and hardness as closely as possible. So there are a lot of conditions that are applied for a lot of different types of reviews. That's something the Planning Commission does, too, on their approvals. So that would be a condition. And then as far as the time line, there isn't a deadline on a standard Landmarks Commission approval.

It's if you do the work two years, five years down the road, it's still okay. And the idea is that that would stay the same. The I guess the way it's worded is it's basically should the let's see. In cases where work has begun without a certificate of appropriateness or where it's been has been inconsistent with the conditions of of an approved certificate of appropriateness, and they have to make corrections. So in that case, you know, the way it is now, I guess, in theory and apparently, according to the attorney's office in practice, the Landmark's Commission approves it.

The person says, oh, yeah, I'll do that. And then they never actually do it. There's nothing to really say. You have to if somebody does work without approval, basically, there's nothing to say you have to fix it. So this would just basically make it so that we could enforce a time line. So you say you've got to get your if you've taken off your port in the case that happened, put in a window that's totally wrong. You have to fix that within ninety days. And then if they don't, then it then we could start issuing citations again, basically.

Okay. That's what

I was thinking.

Do you have something in your building code for people who are taking out building permits, plumbing, electrical, for time frames that those permits are good for? And if they do work that's without a permit, is there an additional penalty that is put into that?

Yep. The building code, I think it was eighteen months, but it may have just been increased to two years for a building permit. And there's some there's the chief building inspector has some flexibility to extend that for projects that take a lot longer than they expect to.

So is that something that the Landmark Commission could look at and try and mirror so that there would be consistency in the types of work that's being done?

You could. There's also for site plan reviews for the plan commission, there's a deadline of two years to get the work started. And if it's not started in that time, it has to come back. So that is something that could be added. We haven't in the past. And we have had a few cases where people got approval and then started projects years later and we had to go back and look at it and say, oh, yeah, that actually is consistent with what they got five years ago.

Because I think if you at least modeled it after an ordinance that you already have in place, people are already expecting it. It's not

going to be different.

Right. So yes, I mean that would apply to any approval. We did actually have to add something into the planning commission ordinance, giving them the authority to impose deadlines too for similar reasons where people done work that wasn't.

And then do you have an additional fee? Know? You've started work with no certificate of appropriateness, because of that, here's the initial application fee and now there's an additional, you know, word.

We double it for you.

Doubling it or tripling it's usually.

That's, yeah, that's the standard for building permits and for some of the other permits. As of right now, there's not an additional fee. It would just be basically, if you do work without approval, you're liable to get citations, and those can be daily citations. So as as long as the violation continues, you can get $187 a day every day.

Who know?

It's community development staff. It's me, basically. And then

You didn't have anything else to do.

Right. Yeah. And then and then it goes to the the municipal court. So and they have their they have a schedule of the fees the citations for every

What's the percentage of people that you have?

That have that have gotten citations? I think I've only had to do two since I've been here. One was the case where the person had put in that window and they were just not responding, you know, for months and so we sent it. It was

The nasty gram.

Yeah. Well, nasty grams and then multiple citations. But so that's the most recent case.

So how do we I don't want to keep everybody here till midnight. Okay. Obviously, houses sell. And if somebody did something wrong in the past and now these people come in and they're trying to do something else, and we say, well, you know, this wasn't done with approval over here, so you have to do that to do this. I mean, do we have that?

I mean, you know, since it's a different owner, you know, like taxes follow the property. But I'm going, you know, somebody made this condition over here and now it's a different owner. Are we going to be is it clear that we have the right to because it's a property condition thing, not just because you didn't have anything to do with it, you're still now stuck with it?

I I think that is a bet.

Yeah. Okay.

I mean, I'm

So even even ours, I'm understanding building permits through the normal, but these conditions with?

Yes. I mean I believe that does if some work was done that wasn't legal, then you'd take on the liability when you buy a property. In practice, usually it's hard to prove if something was done before landmark was designated or if it was done ten years after. So usually we don't if there are windows that aren't consistent, we're not going to say you have to we're not going to I'm not going around and like looking at all the windows to find out if one is not.

You're not looking in everybody's windows. Okay. Right.

Good. Are we good with that? We're gonna get a copy. If anybody has any comments, but we're going to allow the process to proceed, and we do request to see a final draft.

Alright.

Great. Thank you. Moving on to the alderman's report.

Want me to repeat it? I don't mind.

No. You're good?

Yes. Thank you.

Awesome. Springs report.

So the only thing that I have is we'll be doing a fall springs cleanup on Saturday, November 8. And they'll send out a volunteer sign up for that. We'll also put it on the city website and everything and on social media. None of you are at all obligated to do that, but we have had Landmark Commissioners help in the past, and we really appreciate that. So if you want to and you're available, you're more than welcome to come help.

And it is kind of a nice thing to do on a Saturday morning. It's sort of physical work. That will be November 8, which hopefully will mean all the leaves will be have fallen in Frame Park and we can get those out from Hobo Springs so it won't clog up again this year.

Great, thank you. Any communications and publications?

I don't have anything.

Do we have this October open house thing or not this year?

You mean Watch Unlocked?

Every other year.

Yes, it's every other year. So it's not this year, it'll be next year.

Okay. Great.

Anybody else have any other comments, concerns?

A question.

Yes. A question. Quickly, when we were talking of the Friedman Alley project, had mentioned a neighboring business or two. And I know we've we've I'm not being judgy, but we've approved awning designs in the past. Do we approve statuettes on top of awnings?

So that is a good question.

You mentioned the paint, which paint is painted.

Yes. I think we've considered that a sign basically. Yes, we I think I had gotten a question about it and ultimately decided that there's probably it's something that can be taken on and put on and off depending on the business and Right.

I'm sure it's a gray area.

Yes. So it's probably not enough to actually get them to remove it.

That was my question when I first saw them, that's all.

And they did have a big kind of a similar thing when it was the bar there. So

Great. Anybody else have anything else? This meeting is adjourned.