HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

200 E. Wells Street City of Milwaukee Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Meeting Minutes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ANN PIEPER EISENBROWN, CHAIR Ald. Robert Bauman, Marion Clendenen-Acosta, Brad Hoeschen, Matt Jarosz, Anna-Marie Opgenorth, and Blair Williams Staff Assistant, Linda Elmer, 286-2231, Fax: 286-3456, lelmer@milwaukee.gov HPC Planners: Carlen Hatala, 286-5722, chatal@milwaukee.gov; Paul Jakubovich, 286-5712, pjakub@milwaukee.gov Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:00 PM Room 301-B, Third Floor, City Hall Meeting convened at 3:01 p.m. Present: 6 - Bauman, Pieper Eisenbrown, Opgenorth, Williams, Hoeschen, Clendenen-Acosta Excused: 1 - Jarosz 1. Roll Call. 2. Approval of the Previous Minutes of December 30, 2013. Mr. Hoeschen moved approval, seconded by Ms. Opgenorth, of the minutes of December 30, 2013. There were no objections. 3. 131201 Resolution relating to a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new 4-car garage at 3220 N. Sherman Blvd. in the Sherman Blvd. Historic District for Veronica Bell. Sponsors: THE CHAIR Mr. Jakubovich gave an overview on the proposal to rebuild a four car garage on the same foundation of the previous garage at 3220 N. Sherman Blvd. The previous garage was demolished due to its deteriorated condition. The main property on the lot is a 1951 four flat property and one of the newer buildings in the historic district. It is a brick building with a hip roof and maintains some revival style features. The walls of the new garage, which seem to be 8 feet in height, have already been built without a permit and certificate of appropriateness. The wall blocks are 10 inch blocks. There are four bays of glass windows that have been installed on the south elevation of the new garage. The old garage was a concrete block structure, had a very low pitch hip roof with no overhang, had four individual one car doors, and was built a year or two later after construction of the main property. There are two design options. The desire of the owner is to approve the first design option that would simply duplicate the original garage with simple panel doors, have bare block on the side walls, have a lower roof pitch, and have no overhang. The walls are proposed to be EIFS, an exterior insulation and finish system with board trim, which has not been City of Milwaukee Page 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Meeting Minutes January 14, 2014 COMMISSION approved in the past. On behalf of staff, Mr. Jakubovich recommended approval of a second design suggested by staff. The second design would not be a simple replication of the original garage but rather have some modifications. In this design, the garage would have upper acting doors made to resemble swinging or sliding doors, a steeper roof pitch and gable typical with hip roof garages that often accompany 20th Century homes, different wall finish such as cement board siding applied over the side walls, an overhang, and taller side walls. The walls should be nine feet in height. If EIFS is approved by the Commission, it should be noted to be a one time approval and not a general approval for use elsewhere. Mr. Jakubovich added that secondary buildings that have been removed have oftentimes been built in a different fashion to be better companion structures for the main structure and the district. The second design would adhere with the guidelines in the historic districts, with commission precedence, with materials in the guidebooks, and with other similar structures built in the area. Mr. Hoeschen said that he was concerned that the second design would create a garage that was not from the 1950s era. He asked staff the reasoning for the second design? Mr. Jakubovich replied that the original garage appeared to be one of a kind, was not seen elsewhere, and was not typical of construction in the 1950s. Rebuilds of companion structures oftentimes were redesigned to look better with the main structures due to being built poorly originally. The second design was a 1950 era design and something universal. The only difference was that the side walls would be a foot taller to give the garage a better proportion. Mr. Williams said that the second design seemed dissonant to the existing architecture on the parcel. The first design of a lower pitch roof with an overhang would make the new garage and house more consistent with each other. Mr. Jakubovich said that there has never been a requirement in the past that the roof pitches of garages and houses match each other. There are many examples where either the roof of the garage or house was steeper than the other. Ms. Clendenen-Acosta said that the roof pitch of the first design worked better proportionally. The proposal should be altered to have the side wall elevations and overhang of the second design and a 4’ x 12’ lower pitch roof. Veronica Bell, property owner, appeared and gave comments. There are only two glass block window sections, and the previous garage had the same glass block windows. She wanted the overhead doors with wooden panels and not the new doors. The garage was being rebuilt exactly to the original with stronger thrusts. She did not understand what was wrong with the original garage design. The previous garage did not offend anyone. She liked her original garage design and had owned the house and garage there for over 15 years. She lives there part of the time and will live there permanently some time in the future. The reason for the rebuild was due to the roof collapsing on the garage due to heavy snow. The insurance company would only pay for an exact duplicate of the original garage. She does not have the funds to build a differently designed garage as suggested by staff. Commissioners questioned why the garage was being built before any permits or certificates of appropriateness were obtained, if the insurance company understood the historic designation limitations on the garage, if the garage would be eligible for City of Milwaukee Page 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Meeting Minutes January 14, 2014 COMMISSION state tax credits, how the matter came before staff, if the garage would be repaired or built exactly to the original if it had no structural problems or was a contributing structure, what the result of the garage would be if it was rebuilt differently, how did construction start without approval, and if the cost implications of the altered design had been determined? Ms. Bell replied. Discretion of the rebuild was left to her contractor. She thought that approval wasn’t necessary unless the garage was being changed. She thought that nothing was being changed regarding the garage. Her insurance company is probably not aware of the historic designation limitations on the garage. The new garage probably would not be completed if it was not approved to be rebuilt in the same design as the original. She was told that the garage could be rebuilt the way she wanted despite staff recommendations. The garage may not be on the same lot of the main building that is a part of the historic district. Mr. Jakubovich responded. Only the main building and not the garage would be eligible for state tax credits. He had initial contact with the owner regarding the demolition of the garage and later with the contractor regarding the new garage. The owner is aware of the historic designation status of the house and garage. The old garage was a condemnation and a threat to life and safety. It was in bad shape with unstable walls. Therefore, it was not brought to the Commission for review and was demolished. The garage probably would have been repaired to its original construction if a substantial amount of the structure was still there. In this case, the whole garage was gone. A contributing garage is not required to be built exactly to its original construction, but the Commission has the discretion to decide. Joe Bacich, contractor, appeared and gave comments. He had applied to get a permit for the new garage and had arranged to have a contractor set up the next day. There was a communication gap and the contractor started the work without being notified by him that the necessary permit was not yet obtained. When the contractor was notified, the walls were already three quarters completed. EIFS or stucco finish was not a good product, and another course would be needed for an overhang. No estimate has been made on the extra costs regarding the modified design that has been suggested. Mr. Hoeschen further commented. The address and entire lot includes both the house and garage. The garage is part of the historic district. Poor advice was given referencing that staff recommendations could be ignored. The owner still has to comply with the requirements of the historic district. Ald. Bauman said that the new garage is essentially a brand new structure and not a repair. Therefore, it has to pass muster with the design guidelines and process that a new garage would have to undergo. Mr. Williams moved approval, seconded by Mr. Hoeschen, of a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new 4 car garage at 3220 N. Sherman Blvd. based on design option 1, as described in the staff report, with the conditions to include the following modifications: the side wall and overhang details of design option 2 and use of cement fiberboard or wood cladding siding, as an alternative to EIFS or stucco, exposed no more than 5 inches to the weather. There were no objections. Mr. Williams added that Ms. Bell and Mr. Bacich should discuss the cost implications of the project, contact the insurance company regarding the limitations of the project, and may appeal the decision. A motion was made by Blair Williams, seconded by Brad Hoeschen, that this City of Milwaukee Page 3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Meeting Minutes January 14, 2014 COMMISSION Resolution be ADOPTED. This motion PREVAILED by the following vote: Aye: 6- Bauman, Pieper Eisenbrown, Opgenorth, Williams, Hoeschen, and Clendenen-Acosta No: 0 Excused: 1- Jarosz 4. 131318 Resolution relating to a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a new 8' X14' shed in the rear yard at 1105 N. Waverly Place, in the James S. Peck House, for the Immanuel Presbyterian Church. Sponsors: THE CHAIR Mr. Jakubovich gave an overview on the proposal for a new wood frame shed at the rear of the James S. Peck House, located at 1105 N. Waverly Place. There has been substantial restoration work done and investment on the house, which has been approved at the staff level. Some of the work included replacement of rain gutters and reconstruction of a porch and its railings. The new shed would be built roughly within the same location of an old metal garage that was removed in the past, which the commission granted. The shed would not be visible from the street. It would be sided and have no windows. It would have a hipped roof, modest overhang, a few double panel doors, and trim boards with siding. The specifications call for a grain finish on both siding and trim. Staff recommends that the cement board siding always be smooth to duplicate the appearance of the original wood clapboards. Azek® material is being proposed for the trim boards. It is a paintable and high quality product. It would be a grain finish but can be purchased in smooth finish. The use of the cement board siding as an option to wood is fine due to not being visible from the street. Plantings and pathways would be installed around the shed making it an attractive addition to the rear yard. On behalf of staff, Mr. Jakubovich recommended approval of the shed with the condition that that smooth materials be used instead of wood grain or rough materials for finish. Mr. Williams moved approval, seconded by Ald. Bauman, of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a new 8’ x 14’ shed n the rear yard at 1105 N. Waverly Place with the condition that the siding and trim be of smooth materials instead of wood grain or rough materials for finish. Ms. Pieper Eisenbrown and Clendenen Acosta abstained. There were no objections. A motion was made by Blair Williams, seconded by ALD. BAUMAN, that this Resolution be ADOPTED. This motion PREVAILED by the following vote: Aye: 4- Bauman, Opgenorth, Williams, and Hoeschen No: 0 Excused: 1- Jarosz Abstain: 2- Pieper Eisenbrown, and Clendenen-Acosta 5. Election of a Vice-Chair. Ms. Clendenen-Acosta moved nomination, seconded by Mr. Williams, of Mr. City of Milwaukee Page 4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Meeting Minutes January 14, 2014 COMMISSION Hoeschen as Vice-Chair. There were no objections. Mr. Hoeschen accepted the nomination. Mr. Williams moved election, seconded by Ms. Opgenorth, of Mr. Hoeschen as Vice-Chair. There were no objections. 6. Updates and Announcements. Staff announced that the process for the Cream of the Cream City Awards will be occuring in the next few months and for commissioners to consider nominations for the awards. 7. The Following Files Represent Staff Approved Certificates of Appropriateness: There were no staff approved Certificates of Appropriateness . Meeting convened at 3:50 p.m. Chris Lee, Staff Assistant This meeting can be viewed in its entirety through the City's Legislative Research Center at http://milwaukee.legistar.com/calendar. City of Milwaukee Page 5