Landmarks Commission

Meeting Summaries

• 2025-03-10: Recommended approval of landmark designation for the Benjamin and Amy Butts House, located at 633 East Johnson Street. Approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to St. Bernard’s Catholic Church, located at 2450 Atwood Avenue. Discussed a proposed development adjacent to the Mansion Hill Historic District and a proposed demolition of buildings located at 2604 Waunona Way.

• 2025-02-10: Discussed the Lamp House, development adjacent to an established historical building, and additions to historic districts. Reviewed the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Mackenzie House, located at 2525 Marshall Parkway. Discussed a proposed addition in the University Heights Historic District, specifically 2006 Van Hise Avenue.

Meeting Details

March 10, 2025

By Diane Zenz

Official Minutes

The commission members met virtually at 5pm with all present except Katie Kal, who arrived at 5:20 pm.  Richard Arnesen chaired the meeting until Kal’s arrival. Only one item was moved to the consent agenda, which passed unanimously:

• Request for Certificate of Appropriateness regarding exterior alteration of signage in the Third Lake Ridge Historic District for a property located at 315 S. Blount St in District 6 Legistar 87365.

Benjamin and Amy Butts House

The first item of the night was approving a landmark nomination for the Benjamin and Amy Butts house, located at 633 East Johnson Street in District 6 Legistar 87159. Staff recommends this property for nomination indicating it meets Criteria A & B. 

Regarding criteria A, the House is associated with the broad patterns of cultural, political, economic, or social history of the nation, state or community. The nomination makes a well-documented case for this property’s association with the early era of Madison’s African-American community. Madison’s Underrepresented Communities Historic Resources Survey identifies this period as spanning from Madison’s first recorded African- American resident in 1839 until the early 20th Century.  The activism and community - building undertaken by the Butts family while they lived at this home had a significant effect on their community as Madison grew.  

With regard to criteria B, Staff indicate it is associated with the lives of important person, and/or with important events in national, state, or local history. The nomination primarily document’s the story of Benjamin Butts, but also includes details of the community activism of Amy Butts.  Both were leaders in Madison, serving as founders for key African-American cultural institutions, such as the St. Paul’s AME Church and the Capital City Lodge #2 of the Prince Hall Masons.  While Amy and Benjamin lived at this home, they took in African-American borders as people moved to Madison to live and work.  They also partnered with other leaders to establish Madison’s first African-American neighborhood located at the  600 block of E. Dayton St. 

While reviewing the substance of the nomination in order to advise the Common Council, the Commission heard from several members of the public. Bob Klebba spoke in support of the nomination. Klebba was also the person who initiated the nomination process. He notes the building came to his attention when a preservation planner suggested this building was worthy of a Landmark Nomination.  The building is not attractive, doesn’t have notable architectural features and the inside has been remodeled. It also leans noticeably to the west. What makes this site important is who lived there.   Klebba goes on to say how landmarking this building was made easier than some sites because the history of the people who lived there was already documented. This made it cheaper for the Madison Trust to contract out the work as a lot of the background information was already documented.  Klebba continued, stating how as a voluntary organization it is difficult and too expensive for the Madison Trust to do more than one nomination a year. Klebba “would ask the Commission to keep this in mind when the Madison Trust and other historical preservationists are perceived as acting at the last minute when demolition applications come to the Landmark Commission and on to the Plan Commission.”  Klebba also states a typical nomination cost the Madison Trust between $3,500 and $7,500 to complete.  

Joe Lusson and Commissioner Taylor spoke in support as well and stated the owners of the building also support the nomination. Commissioner Taylor added this house is likely to come before the Landmarks Commission again, as it may need some rehab in the future—urging some leeway on these potential rehab needs. 

While Elizabeth Miller was present for questions, there were none and the public hearing was closed. 

Motion recommend to Councial approval of the landmark nomination made by Maurice Taylor, which was seconded by Jacob Morrison before being passed unanimously.

St. Bernard’s Catholic Church

The next item up for discussion was the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition to St. Bernard’s Catholic Church, a designated Madison landmark located at 2450 Atwood Avenue in District 15. Specifically,the request is to build onto the existing structure in order to construct a crypt.

The location of this addition would be in the courtyard between the church structure and the rectory.  The crypt is proposed as a single-story gabled structure with windows, attached to the church but separated from the historic structure by a smaller addition. The addition will stay with the architectural character of the historic building.  The project also includes replacing an ornamental concrete block privacy wall with a decorative metal fence. Detailed specifications for the fencing and windows for the crypt have not been provided at this time.  

Bradley Servin was available for questions and stated the roof for the crypt will have the same copper roofing of the original church and the same stone veneer.  

Staff believe the standards are met for granting the Certificate of Appropriateness and recommended the Landmarks Commission approve the project with conditions which relate to the specification for the new fencing and window details for the crypt to be approved by staff when available. The item passed unanimously, with conditions on the fencing and windows as stated.  

Mansion Hill Historic District

The commission shifted their focus to the combination of land and new construction at 124 East Gorham Street in the Mansion Hill Historic District, which resides in District 2 Legistar 87103.

Joel Koeppen, design leader of Kahler Slater INC,  submitted materials and presented the plans. This included:

• Existing Structures: The existing Carriage House is a historic resource and is intended to remain on site. The structure is to remain generally intact but reprogramed on the interior. 

• Proposed Lot Combination: The plan is to combine 124 E. Gorham St. with 116 E. Gorham, of which there is historical precedent. H. Bailey, City Preservation Planner, provided documentation to support this action.

• Proposed Development: The proposed development consists of a 5 story, 22-unit Multifamily Residential building with subgrade parking.  The existing Carriage House is to be renovated and reprogrammed as a community space and additional units.

The project type is new construction of residential apartments in the Mansion Hill District.  Staff have been working with the property owner on possible options for infill new construction on the property at 124 E. Gorham. This property is currently a gravel parking lot with an 1860’s carriage house on the rear of the site.  While the lot was once part of the adjacent landmarked Brown House property (112 E. Gorham) by the mid - 20th century, it operated as a separate parcel. The project is exploring two options: (1) keeping the lot separate or (2) combining the lot with the adjacent Brown House lot.

Keeping the lot separate with a new residential structure at the front, which would have to comply with Historic District Standards and have review for Development Adjacent to a Landmark. Alternatively, combining with the Brown House lot would require a Certificate of Appropriateness for land combination and the new construction at the front of 124 East Gorham would need to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard for Rehabilitation. 

The informational presentation explored the feasibility of the second option. Staff have concerns about the massing, contextual setback, and architectural character of the proposed new construction. Connecting the new structure to the carriage house will also raise problems with Zoning standards. The historic carriage house needs space so that it is not obscured. If the property is a part of the landmark site, then the new construction will need to look like it belongs to that site, but with significant separation from the historic resources so that the new construction does not overwhelm them.     Commissioner Morrison commented the lot sizes need to be considered and look at comparable structures in the area.  The carriage house connector can be tricky and recommend making the connector look like it could be removed. The lowering of the roof line to 4 stories helps a lot.  Proportion of window space to wall space seems off and makes the windows look small. Similarly, Commissioner Kal stated the porches look too modern and suggests making the front of the building more pronounced and less like a driveway.

Bob Klebba spoke in opposition. Klebba also owns the Governor’s Mansion Inn, a boutique hotel located at 130 East Gillman St. Klebba explained the current Brown House and carriage house resembles the original look of the area with the buildings on the large lots, using historical maps to give the Commision a visual representation. Klebba further complained how neighboring lots have been filled in with 1950’s apartment buildings as well as the 1970’s Verex Plaza building, which provide no context to the National Landmark buildings.

Bruce Bosben of Apex Properties spoke in support his company, as Apex Properties owns the Brown House in addition to the Carriage House and 124 Giillman to the north. Bosben overall owns five buildings listed on the National Registry—which he claims is more historic buildings in Madison than anyone else. He has owned the Carriage House for at least 20 years and would like to build on this lot. 

Commissioner Arnesen stated their belief that the proposed building is too large for the site and crowds out the carriage house. They further voiced concern about brick size for the project, which proposes using a modular size brick rather than a utility size brick. Alternatively, Commissioner Taylor stated he likes the way the building looks and argued the owner is making an effort. 

Alder Latimer Burris mentioned wanting to take a look at the property, stating the proposal is a lot to digest expressing the desire for more time to get additional feedback. She asked whether the Madison Trust has weighed in at all, to which Heather Bailey responded the Madison Trust has not weighed in, but the Commission will hear from them when an actual application is completed. 

Commissioner Harris spoke on how the Carriage House is not designated a Historical site, only the Brown house—drawing attention to how the primary consideration at hand is the new construction.

Koeppen thanked the Commission for their input and comments before stating they will continue to work towards a design that will meet the needs of the city while maintaining the integrity of the historical significance of the area. 

2604 Waunona Way

Proposed demolition of buildings located at 2604 Waunona Way in Distract 14 was also on the evening’s agenda Legistar 86033. Having been built between 1901 and 1902, Staff recommended a finding of historical value related to vernacular architecture; however, the building itself is not historically significant. This property is also located within the boundary of the Waunona Mounds site and any ground-disturbing activity would need to secure a Request to Disturb from the Wisconsin State Archaeologist and notify the Ho-Chunk National Tribal Historic Preservation Office.

The commission determined there is no historical value to the home, but acknowledged the Waunona Mounds site and the need to secure a Request to Disturb. A motion was made to approve and unanimously passed.

Short Items

With the meeting nearing a close, the Commission quickly reviewed historical value for 6105 South Highland Avenue and 2326 Vondron Drive.

Although 6105 South Highland Avenue is a single family home built in 1875, Staff recommended no historic value. Similarly, 2326 Vondron Road was not recommended to have historic value as it was built in 2000. Notably, 2326 Vondron suffered a fire, which has lead the Madison Fire Department to submit a request to demolish the commercial building.

The Commission agree with Staff, and a motion finding no historic value was unanimously passed.

Secretary’s Report Highlights

The Secretary’s Report then reminded the Commission the new demolition process went into effect March 9, 2025, but the Landmarks Commission will still see all demolition applications.

February 10, 2025

By Diane Zenz

Official Minutes

On Monday night, the City of Madison’s Landmarks Commission met to discuss several proposals and items: a proposed amendment to the Lamp House Report, a development adjacent to an established historical building, and additions to historic districts. Among the consent agenda:

• Legistar 86590: Land Combination/Division at 1937 Arlington Place and 2013-2021 Chamberlain Ave in the University Heights Historic District located in District 5
• Legistar 86668: An addition to a Designated Madison Landmark, namely St. Bernard’s Catholic Church, located at 2450 Atwood Ave in District 15 

Amending the 2013 Report of the Lamp House Block Ad Hoc Plan Committee Legistar 86824.

The Lamp House is a Frank Lloyd Wright building situated two blocks northeast of the Capitol.  It was built in 1903 and is the oldest Wright building in Madison.  It was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1978.  The mid-block location (unique among Wright’s works) is bound by East Washington, Mifflin, Webster, and Butler Streets.  It is only accessible from Butler Street via a narrow, ascending driveway on a right of way between two homes. The keyhole lot then opens up, producing a compression/ release dynamic encountered frequently in Wright’s works. Although completely landlocked, the home originally provided viewscapes comparable to lakefront residential buildings. It has always been surrounded on all four sides by residential buildings and although the southern viewshed towards Lake Monona has been cut off by a high-rise on the adjacent lot and the westward view toward the Capitol was blocked by new construction in 2015, the penthouse enclosure (added on the roof) still has a view of Lake Mendota to the North and west.  This three story building has exposed basement windows and a rooftop garden.

Ald. Bennett made a request to Council to amend the Report of the Lamp House Block Ad Hoc Plan Committee to remove or change some of the recommendations to restrict building heights around the Lamp House. Although Common Council later decided not to restrict building heights in existing plans, the recommendations in the Lamp House report have a status similar to city plans and so may restrict development. Landmark’s role is advisory only and the issues at hand consist of viewing to and from the Lamp House and Reference to Building Height. 

The first proposed change to the initial report of 2013 focuses on which views should be prioritized for preservation (Page 3 of staff report). The report assesses View 1 (North Butler Street) should be preserved, whereas Views 2 and 3 (East Mifflin Street) should be preserved if feasible. The feasibility of preserving Views 2 and 3 should be determined by the Plan Commission during the review of a development proposal, subject to Common Council approval in the case of a planned development. View 4 has been partially accommodated in a redevelopment project undertaken after the adoption of this report. 

The second proposed change (page 4 of staff report) focuses on the maximum building heights in the downtown plan as adopted in 2012 and subsequently incorporated into the zoning code. In summary, this would eliminate Lamp House viewscape restrictions in the area that effectively restrict buildings to 3 stories. 

Alder Bennet (who made the requested change) spoke in support of preserving the Lamp House viewscapes, but stated if the requested changes are not made, 452 properties in her district can not be developed above three stories. Alder Bennet also stated she loves the Lamp House and the views are amazing, but we should be able to build houses and preserve history at the same time.  She additionally indicated she has developers contacting her all the time. 

Nan Fay - who spoke in opposition- believes there is no need to make changes to the current plan. Alternatively, Bruce Bosban (of Apex Property Management - developer and landlord in Madison) spoke in support of the  changes. He stated he is one of the largest providers of natural affordable housing in Madison, owning 2,000 units in the city with the majority renting to low income families. Bosben informed the committee he has been buying old buildings to restore and renovate for over 40 years, owning five buildings on the National Register of Historic Places including the Lamp House. Last year, Bosben spent over $12 million  restoring buildings that are over 100 years old and has also been involved in new development—having completed five developments in the last five years. Bosdan would like to build smaller efficiency units that will be priced as low income, as well as market priced buildings. The Lamp House complained that he “can’t get a plan past Staff in Planning” due to the low building height requirements and argued lower story buildings are not financially possible.  There was a bit of a back and forth between Bosban and the chair of the Landmark Commission in regard to his statement that he doesn’t take TIF money or historic tax credits to build. The chair asked “is that because you don’t want to have to follow the standards?” In a  sarcastic tone, the chair asked if he needed help getting that information.  Finally,  Alder Bennet asked if this questioning of Historic Tax Credits was relevant to the question at hand.  The chair continued to explain her rationale for the questions until Staff Heather Bailey broke in to say that the line of questioning was out of order.

Commissioner Maurice Taylor asked Bosdan how many buildings he was planning to raze. Bosban replied with his goal of four buildings that face Mifflin Street and one that faces Butler Street, with about 50 units each. At this point the chair reminded the commission it was not their role to ask about future projects.

Kurt Stegge spoke in opposition, stating that the proposal is rewriting history. No one should add to a report done over a decade ago. Linda Lenards further voiced opposition, claiming the changes will impinge on views and if this change is made there will only be one view down a 12 foot wide alley.  Alex Saloutos then urged the committee to not make the proposed changes, stating the Staff report does not address compliance of the proposed changes with the city’s historic preservation plan and their impact on this site. Saloutos further claimed the change fails to analyze the impact of the proposed changes of the Lamp House site.

Their statements were echeod by Robert Klebba, a well known preservationist with the Madison Historical Trust. Klebba urged Landmarks to not approve the amendment because the Lamp House is the only urban Frank Lloyd Wright site and mentioned there is already a plan for this block. Klebba boasted that it is an exceptional property.  The argument to make this block conform to city wide zoning so that Planning’s job is easier flies in the face of having a special plan for this block and for this landmark. Klebba argued conformity is not more important than preservation. Alder Bennet then mentioned working with the Lamp House’s property owner to develop natural occurring affordable housing in order to build market rate housing at significantly higher rental cost, which will decrease affordable housing options. 

After much discussion a motion was made to return the request to LEAD with the Recommendation to Place on File without Prejudice to the Plan Commission. The motion passed unanimously. 

Repealing and recreating Section 28.185 and creating Section 41.28 of the Madison General Ordinances related to demolition of buildings to update the approval process Legistar 86649.

The Landmarks Commission currently sees all requests for demolition to determine historical value then the application goes to the Planning Commission where a Public Hearing is held before being either approved or denied.  

Under the proposed process, all applications will still go to the Landmarks Commission first. If the building is determined to have “Historical Value” or is a “Regrettable Loss” it will continue in the normal fashion on to the Plan Commission; however, if a determination is made that the building has no historical value, the application will bypass the Plan Commission and the Public Hearing—going directly to city staff, where the approval will be issued administratively. 

In the proposed change, it is required that all materials provided to the Landmark Commission be provided to the Planning Commission.  

Proposed (MGO 28.185)

Two Standards must be met: Demolition aid plan implementation or purpose statement. According to the proposal, “what outweighs preservation may include, but not be limited to, conditions (including  city reports on the same), loss of historical features, plans for mitigating the impact of the lost building.” The Statement of Purpose was an area that the Landmarks Commission had a lot of conversations and concerns with.

Based on the data provided:

• 74% of buildings approved for demolition have No Known Historical Value.
• 18% of buildings approved for demolition have a determination of Regrettable Loss.
• 9% of buildings approved for demolition have a determination of Historical Value.

Eleven people from the community spoke against the proposed change. They expressed concerns over the possibility of lost property to demolitions and that this will have a sweeping impact on preservation. There was a discussion about adding language regarding the importance of archaeological value.

A motion was made to recommend approval of the revised language in the historic preservation ordinance with the addition of language regarding archaeology under historic value Criterion C (No Historic Value). The landmarks Commission requested that Common Council re-refer the item to the Landmarks Commission in order to have sufficient time to review the zoning section of the ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. 

1 South Ingersol Street

The Plan Commission continued their meeting, moving their focus to development adjacent to a designated Madison landmark at the Gisholt Machine Co. Manufacturing Complex at 1301 East Washington Avenue Legistar 86671. The historic property in question: 1 South Ingersoll St. in District 6. Proposed work is fairly extensive, including: 

• Construct new rear addition
• Replace non historic windows
• Masonry Repair
• Site work
• The site is connected to the Madison Metro Bus Barn
• There will be a facade change
• Rehab it back to its former historic look
• Add a bright colored mural
• Sawtooth area on roof (will not be seen)

A motion was made and the request was approved unanimously.

Mackenzie House

The committee reviewed the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Mackenzie House, located at 2525 Marshall Parkway in District 13 Legistar 86953. Not only does the home have distinctive architecture, but there is also an archaeological site on the property.

The nomination was supported by the Landmarks Commission, who will submit comments as the certified local government to the State Preservation Review Board and National Park Service.  A motion made and the passed unanimously.

University Heights Historic District

The commission also discussed an addition proposal in the University Heights Historic District, specifically 2006 Van Hise Avenue in District 5 Legistar 86669. After reviewing the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Mediterranean revival style home, which was constructed in 1924, the Commission went over the proposed work. This includes the construction of a new rear addition, replacement of non-historic windows, masonry repair, and miscellaneous site work. Ultimately, the Commission approved the proposal.