From: Barbara Finch Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 1:38 PM To: Elmer, Linda Subject: Proposals for Hackett Avenue, File # 220279 You don't often get email from finch.barbara@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Historic Preservation Commission 841 N. Broadway Ave., Room B-1 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Historic Preservation Commission: I am responding to the two projects on North Hackett Avenue. I hope that you understand that the two projects have unnecessarily been conflated within this single resolution: one for the improvement for St. Mark’s church and the other for an apartment building on land owned by St. Mark’s. If the apartment project was dependent on land currently occupied by an existing building, I could see how the two would have to be addressed simultaneously. But here, the apartment project stands apart from the church hall. Therefore, I am placed in an awkward position of favoring one portion of the resolution but not the other. I see the renovations to the St. Mark’s guild hall as well-crafted solution to the deterioration that has beset the property. The details of the proposal are inviting yet congruent with the historic nature of the 1911 church and 1949 cloister. The architect, Mr. Shields, has drafted a commendable plan that integrates the exterior of the new construction with the exterior of the original church building. He has creatively brought the new guild hall into the Downer Avenue Historic District. However, I cannot accept the massive 55-unit apartment building that squeezes itself into a space more suitable for something smaller to the point where it has even taken away a church parking lot. Clearly, the building does not meet the standards expressly stated in the “Guidelines for New Construction” [Section H of the Part XI of the Final Historic Designation Study Report, 2001] for the Downer Historic District. There the document says that the developer must respect the historic district and maintain the cohesiveness of the district. The size of the apartment building, especially its height, plainly is not “comparable with the goal of maintaining the integrity of the complex as a cohesive group of historic structures.” And in the case, “complex” can specifically mean St. Mark’s Church and the new guild hall as well as the apartment buildings across the street. Until the two parts of this resolution are separated or until the developer revises his plans with less imposing apartment building, I oppose the resolution and urge you to do likewise. Sincerely, Barbara Finch