The high profile Sydney Hih building and Downer Avenue redevelopment project were the main items on the agenda for this commission meeting.

The initial item regarded the proposed interim historic designation for the Sydney Hih building. The developer requested it to be held over and as it had been previously presented the developer had no immediate intention to demolish the building. Although Sandra McSweeney questioned how many times it could be held over and whether or not there was a limit, it was held again.

The highly contentious and overly litigated Downer Avenue parking garage came before the commission again. This time it was to request a change to the Certificate of Appropriateness (”COA”). The request was actually prompted by future tenant Associated Bank. The bank has taking issue with the lime green color that much of the building is slated to be stained. Specifically the request was to allow the developer to paint the scored panels white instead of the green stain. Although paint wasn’t the first choice for the building because some of it has already been stained the only option available is to paint it. Also discussed at length was if this change would impact the wall facing into the neighboring properties’ backyards. This request wasn’t addressing that side other than to stop it from being stained green. Throughout the discussion there were hints to the troubled history of the project as Sandra McSweeney claimed the color was part of the “muddy water” and Pat Balon said “we have several dangling issues regarding this project”. In the end it was approved with Sandra McSweeney abstaining from the vote.

The last item of interest was a slight change to the COA for another building that is part of the Downer Avenue redevelopment project. Of interest was that the first portions of the Mulkern Building to be redeveloped will be the two vacant storefronts and then will proceed as tenants depart the building. Because the requested change was minor it was approved quickly.

This Historic Preservation Commission (”HPC”) meeting included agenda items for the high profile projects, The Palomar, The Brewery and the Goll Mansion redevelopment.

Original plans for the Palomar project involved the redevelopment of the Sydney Hih building as part of a new Kimpton Hotel. Over time these plans have changed and now Gatehouse Capitol and Ruvin Development intend to demolish the buildings to a develop new a 22-story building.

Milwaukee resident, David Somerscales, nominated the Sydney Hih building for an interim historic designation that would last 180 days and would give time to determine if this building should be permanently protected. An extended presentation was giving connecting the building to a Dr. Nicholas Senn. Dr. Senn had been a fairly well known doctor who made many medical advances in the late 1800’s. This was relevant because one of the criteria for the nomination of a building is connection with a historical figure. Additionally it was presented that during the 1970’s it became the home to the counter culture, prompting Alderman Bauman to remark that it’s “almost an iconic building of the counter culture”.

There was some questioning regarding the motivations behind the people supporting this historic designation because of their potential ties to the union, UNITE HERE, which is currently negotiating with the developer to insure union workers are employed in the hotel once it is completed. This came to light as Alderman Bauman questioned the occupation of many speakers and he made his feelings clear stating that “I’m also concerned this is another example of the historic preservation process being abused”. Despite that belief and efforts by the development team to show how this building doesn’t qualify for protection, Alderman Bauman went on to say that “it may be moot what the motivation is” indicating his belief that the Sydney Hih building might be a good candidate for historic preservation regardless of motives. This item was held and will be brought back up and the next Historic Preservation Commission meeting.

The Brewery project was requesting a change in the material for a pedestrian walk way that runs along a pocket park and behind some buildings. Mike Mervis, assistant to Zilber Chairman Joseph Zilber, was proposing the project use a colored and scored concrete instead of the salvaged pavers as originally planned. Alderman Bauman was upset over this downgrading and suggested that if a trade-off is to be made that the park should be cut back on as once the sidewalks are paved it isn’t likely they’ll ever be redone with the pavers. Alderman Bauman went on to suggest that “the park can be enhanced incrementally over time”. The meeting became pretty heated when Mike Mervis fired back that “I’m not willing to cut the quality of the park”. It was suggested that the developer at least use the pavers along the park section and not all of the pathway which finally found agreement by both parties.

New Land Enterprises was scheduled to present minor changes to the parking structure of its proposed 26-story tower located behind the Goll Mansion. The changes included using a colored concrete behind the green-screen and adjusting the pattern of the green-screen to mimic that of windows to provide some articulation and so that during the winter the building would appear better than concrete block. Despite that these changes had been worked out with city staff, no action was taken on this item because the meeting had ended abruptly as there was no longer a quorum of commission members.

This meeting was the much anticipated combined City Plan Commission (”CPC”) and Historic Preservation Commission (”HPC”) meeting regarding New Land Enterprises’ development proposal for the Goll Mansion site.  New Land Enterprises was looking for two separate approvals at this meeting to move the project forward.  First a Certificate of Appropriateness (”COA”) from the Historic Preservation Commission and a change in zoning from RM-7 to Detailed Planned Development (”DPD”) from the City Plan Commission.

Scott Kindness, of Kindess Architecture, explained that the existing zoning would allow unlimited height, up to 186 units and a volume of approximately 112,000 square feet.  He showed a variety of renderings and examples that pointed out that the change in zoning request is “basically just a re-allocation of that volume” because under current zoning it would require a building with wedding cake style setbacks so instead they’ve proposed a taller thinner building that would be about 60 feet wide.  He also noted that they have reduced the design by a story and a half since the neighborhood meeting.  The design now calls for a 26-story building with a maximum of 35-units and five levels of parking.  The parking garage would include windows looking into the parking area to lesson the impact on the eastern side.  He also explained that they didn’t design it with underground parking because it would be impractical without access to the site from the east and that underpinning the mansion would likely be unworkable.  Further he pointed out that “if we go down below one level we undermine the structure to the north”.

H. Russell Zimmerman spoke about the historic preservation efforts that will be undertaken in this project.  He pointed out that at one time the site that 1522 On the Lake sits on was home to Governor George Peck’s Manson, so this development proposal saves the Goll Mansion unlike previous high-rise developments.  As he did at the July 17th community meeting he pointed out that there are similar examples of this style of preservation throughout the world, most notably the Villard Houses in New York City.  Specifically the rehabilitation of the mansion would restore the first floor essentially to its original design with the addition of access to the new tower.  The second floor of the mansion will contain two guest suites and possibly a care-taker suite.  The third floor will restore a large meeting room and convert it into a club house or community room.  He also pointed out that they have most of the original barge boards which had been removed by a previous owner and that they were literally saved out of the dumpster.  He made a strong case for the project by stating that the “bottom line, I think this is the greatest possible solution for one of the few remaining mansions on Prospect Avenue”.

Martha Brown, of the Department of City Development (”DCD”), laid out the three parameters specified by the city attorney that HPC should consider as part of the COA’s approval.

1. If the work on the structure will have a negative impact on exterior features.
2. If the connecting structure fits the guidelines and has no negative impacts.
3. If the tower constructed in the “back yard” will have a negative impact on the exterior features.

The city staff made the recommendation to approve the COA if the developer were to meet these requirements.

1. The tuck-pointing is limited to only those areas that need work, that the mortar matches, and that staff reviews the mortar work before it begins.
2. The front porch is rebuilt to its original design.
3. The developer will provide shop drawings of additional features.

Many residents and interested parties spoke out regarding this project, both for and against it.  Randy Bryant, from Preserve our Parks, indicated that New Land Enterprises had met with Preserve our Parks and he in spoke in favor of the project saying that “everything we have requested has been incorporated into the project”.  Kevin Donahue, one of two architects on the City Hall project and a board member of Milwaukee Preservation Alliance (”MPA”), spoke in favor of the project and reminded the audience that “once these buildings are gone, they’re gone”.  Todd Farris, an attorney representing the 1522 On the Lake Condo Association pointed to the historic preservation guideline study report and claimed that regardless of designation of site that HPC has jurisdiction.  He went on to say that “this would violate the constitutional rights of his clients” and that the commission should “rise above the politics because it is inconsistent with their guidelines”.  There were residents who spoke to their concerns regarding the impact to their views, property values, and preservation of the Goll Mansion as well as a long list of people who put their names in as opposed but didn’t wish to speak.  Part of this opposition included Dawn McCarthy, Peter Kovac and Thea Kovac all of which are still involved with a lawsuit between them, the City of Milwaukee and New Land Enterprises.

After hearing hours of public testimony HPC took the issue into the commission for discussion.  Sandra A. McSweeney, an HPC member, spoke in opposition because the parking structure would be higher than the ridge line of the Goll House.  She also didn’t approve of the proposed AC locations on the new tower, thought the connector was to small and “too shed like”, and she didn’t understand how the access from the Mansion would work.  Other HPC members saw value in the project and added their support and comments.  Ann Pieper Eisenbrown, an HPC member, added that “we could continue to let the building to sit” or approve the COA and allow for its preservation to occur.  Sandy Ackerman, an HPC member, added that “I want to save the mansion” and went on to say that “I do believe that the next step would be demolition”.  Indicating her belief that the way to save the Goll Mansion was to support this development because otherwise it would likely be lost.  Alderman Bauman, an HPC member, explained that if they didn’t approve the project, the property owner could apply to demolish the property, and that even the lawyer for 1522 On the Lake admits that “it would be better for 1522 if he just demolished the building”.

Although much of the discussion revolved around historic preservation, New Land Enterprises had worked out a memorandum of agreement between itself and the Milwaukee Preservation Alliance regarding the project so these concerns should of been alleviated and this called into question the true reasons for opposition.  Alderman Bauman went on to say that “all this talk about historic preservation, not by everybody, but by many people this is all phony”, that “most of the argument are smokescreens” and “I’m not sure we heard honest testimony as to why people really oppose this project”.  This line of discussion upset the residents, as audible groan could be heard, but the point he was making was that much of opposition and the discussion around historic preservation was possibly a cover for other motives.

Alderman Kovac spoke neither in opposition or support but mainly wanted a guarantee that if this project was to go forward that the Goll Mansion truly would be preserved.  Boris Gokhman, of New Land Enterprises, explained that the Goll Mansion would be restored as it was “one of the major reason people will buy it”.  Indicating that people buying condos in the development will expect the entrance-way to their condos to be completed and see it as part of their reason to buy.  Further New Land Enterprises agreed to have the memorandum of agreement added as the fourth criteria to the COA.  Ann Pieper Eisenbrown made a motion to approve the COA with the additional condition that the restoration work is consistent with the memorandum of agreement.  The COA was approved with the additional condition with only HPC Member Sandra A. McSweeney voting in opposition.

After the Historic Preservation Commission approved the COA the City Plan Commission took up the DPD.  Whitney Gould started off CPC’s brief discussion saying “I think it is an usually creative solution to a preservation problem” and then she gave a great discussion on how similar preservation projects have happened in many cities around the world.  She made a motion to approve the DPD with two conditions.  First, the architect will work with planning staff to tweak the garage, to hopefully lesson its impact.  Secondly that any significant changes that effect the Goll Mansion itself will go back to HPC.  The DPD was approved and will now go before the Zoning, Neighborhoods & Development Committee.