The City of Waukesha Landmarks Commission on Oct. 1 reviewed a staff-drafted rewrite of Chapter 28 of the city ordinances that would formalize application requirements, allow the commission to impose conditions and time limits on approvals, and add a written appeals procedure. The discussion came during the commission’s regular meeting and followed a public comment from a former commission chair who urged caution about some proposed changes.

The draft ordinance would add language requiring staff to provide application materials and establish fees, allow the commission to impose conditions to ensure work is consistent with design guidelines, and permit deadlines of not less than 90 days for corrective work when work has begun without a certificate of appropriateness or is inconsistent with an approved certificate. Charlie, a Department of Community Development staff member, told commissioners the plan is to present the ordinance to the Planning Commission in October and to the Common Council for review in November and December.

The changes matter because they would give the Landmarks Commission explicit enforcement tools it currently lacks. "Some of you might remember we had an applicant a couple years ago that did work without approval… the Landmarks Commission gave them a deadline to get it done. They didn't meet the deadline," Charlie said; the draft aims to make deadlines and conditions enforceable. The draft also clarifies that routine, inherently temporary work such as repainting already-painted surfaces typically will not require a certificate of appropriateness, and it cross-references the city’s fee schedule for development reviews.

During public comment, Lisa Selb, a resident of 434 Madison Street and a former Landmarks Commission chair, praised parts of the rewrite but flagged specific concerns. She told commissioners that several proposed application requirements—"estimates or contracts from a building professional detailing the project," elevation drawings and site plans—could make small projects unaffordable for homeowners. "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," Selb said.

Selb also urged the commission to wait for the city attorney and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to complete their review before finalizing language. She identified three areas she said need clearer drafting: (1) the proposed date for an annual chair selection (May 1), which she said could misalign terms; (2) a redacted section that previously described design-compatibility criteria for new structures and improvements; and (3) a section on demolition that she said currently contains only a heading while Chapter 66 of the Wisconsin Statutes includes detailed demolition requirements.

Charlie said portions of the draft reflect required updates and longstanding staff clarifications. He told commissioners the Planning Commission will hold a first-reading review at its October meeting and that the commission’s feedback could be relayed to the Planning Commission and Council. He also said the city’s CLG (Certified Local Government) advisor at SHPO reviewed earlier drafts and found them generally acceptable but raised a technical concern about one clause related to relief from landmark designation and advised further research.

Commissioners asked for additional time to review. Several members suggested a special meeting or a follow-up packet with the finalized draft before staff forwards it to Planning Commission. "It's a lot for us to take in," one commissioner said, asking staff to circulate a final version and to accept written comments. Charlie agreed to supply a consolidated packet and to consider scheduling a special meeting if commissioners wanted more time.

No formal vote on the ordinance changes was taken at the Oct. 1 meeting; the item remained in the review/comment stage. Charlie characterized the immediate next steps as staff moving the draft to the Planning Commission for first-reading consideration while accepting comments from the Landmarks Commission.

The commission’s discussion also touched on enforcement mechanics: current municipal practice allows for citations and daily fines for continuing violations under the municipal code, but staff said the draft would make it clearer that the Landmarks Commission itself may set corrective timelines and impose conditions as part of a certificate of appropriateness. The draft removed a direct citation of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards from the approval factors at the city attorney’s advice; the standards remain referenced in the commission’s published design guidelines but in a modified form intended to allow flexibility when strict application would be prohibitively expensive.

Commission members asked staff to circulate finalized language before the Planning Commission hearing and to clarify whether any additional changes might follow SHPO or city-attorney review. Charlie said the most likely remaining change would be minor wording adjustments and that he would notify the commission before the item appears at Planning Commission.

The item will be considered next by the Planning Commission; commissioners were invited to provide written comments or appear at the Planning Commission and Council readings.