Kenosha preservation commission recommends saving Eagles Club after owners ask to demolish

Jan Michalski, chair of the Kenosha Historic Preservation Commission, opened a public hearing on Jan. 29 to consider a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the Eagles Club at 302 58th Street and, after public testimony and staff counsel, the commission voted to recommend preservation and deny the demolition certificate.

The decision follows testimony from Eugene Brookhouse, a representative of JFMSM LLC, which owns the Eagles Club. Brookhouse said a catastrophic water-line failure on Jan. 28, 2024, caused major damage and presented independent contractor estimates placed in the owners’ packet. "These are not numbers that are made up," Brookhouse said of the contractor estimates he provided, arguing that repairs and required accessibility and code upgrades would be economically infeasible and that prospective buyers planned to replace the building with a multi‑story apartment project.

Why it matters: the commission’s recommendation triggers the procedural protections and timelines in City of Kenosha zoning ordinance section 15.11. Assistant City Attorney Jacob Pritke told the commission that if the commission recommends preservation the director of city inspections may delay issuance of a demolition permit for up to six months from the date a demolition-permit application is filed, during which the commission and owner "shall undertake serious and continuing discussions" to find a method to preserve the structure.

What speakers said and the context Eugene Brookhouse, speaking for the family ownership group, outlined the building’s ownership history and said the property had been financially unviable for years. He cited contractor estimates included in the packet (owners reported independent estimates that differ in magnitude across firms) and said work to meet code, add accessibility and replace a condemned boiler would add substantially to the cost. Brookhouse urged the commission to "recognize reality and issue the certificate of appropriateness for demolition."

Family partners Dan and Gene Madragrano reinforced that account, saying the owners had spent money on remediation and stabilization (Dan Madragrano cited additional remediation work and a condemned boiler) and that repeated attempts to sell or repurpose the venue had not produced a viable path forward.

Alderman Dominic Ruffalo said the exterior remains attractive but that the interior is "shot," voiced sympathy for the family’s financial burden and indicated support for demolition while noting the owners could salvage some exterior elements.

City staff and preservation experts urged a cautious approach. Staff stated there is no formal redevelopment concept on file with the Department of City Development, noted the property’s B‑3 zoning and historic‑preservation overlay, and said a straight seven‑story apartment building would require first‑floor commercial uses to meet zoning. A preservation consultant told the commission that retaining only a façade beneath multistory new construction typically undermines historic integrity and is generally not recommended under the Secretary of the Interior’s standards.

Legal and procedural points Assistant City Attorney Jacob Pritke reviewed section 15.11 and explained the commission’s role: the commission must consider the standards for demolition and preservation and may recommend preservation; if preservation is recommended and a demolition-permit application later is filed, the director of city inspections may delay a demolition permit for up to six months while the commission and owner attempt "serious and continuing" discussions to find a preservation method. Pritke also noted a disagreement between the city and the owner over the legal scope of a subsection of the ordinance, but said that the internal process and the six‑month delaying mechanism apply in the city’s view.

The vote and next steps After questions about the timeliness of cost estimates, the possibility of an on‑site tour, and whether a short deferral could produce a redevelopment concept, a motion to deny the certificate of appropriateness (i.e., recommend preservation) was moved and seconded. The commission voted to recommend preservation; staff noted that one commissioner who was not present had emailed support for the staff recommendation. If the owner applies for a demolition permit, the director of city inspections — not the commission — will decide whether to issue the permit after any applicable delay period described in section 15.11.

What remains unresolved Owners presented contractor estimates and repair figures; the transcript records differing amounts and names for those estimates. The commission relied on the record and staff counsel rather than independently commissioning new engineering estimates during the meeting. The practical possibility of integrating portions of the historic façade into a redevelopment depends on future, formal proposals by developers and on technical feasibility that would require further study.

The commission adjourned after taking the preservation recommendation and related procedural direction.