Architectural Commission & Historic Preservation Commission

City of Oconomowoc Architectural Commission Meeting Minutes February 13, 2019 The meeting was called to order by the Deputy Clerk at 5:04 pm. Members Present: Anne Krogstad, Paul Schultz and Jeremy Flint Members Excused: Kurt Schrang and Kent Johnson Staff Present: Jason Gallo, Kristi Weber, Ald. Charlie Shaw and Chris Dehnert Due to the absence of Chairman Johnson, motion by Schultz to nominate Flint as Chairman pro-tem; second by Krogstad. Motion carried 2-0-1 (Flint abstained). 2. Approve the January 9, 2019 Minutes: Motion by Schultz to approve the January 9, 2019 minutes; second by Krogstad. Motion carried 2-0-1 (Flint abstained). 3. Brisk Residence – Consider/approve Accessory Building Plans at 307 N. Lake Road: Weber explained this applicant is planning to build a carriage house on their property located in the Isthmus zoning district. The applicant converted their home a few years ago into a historic single-family residence and had this property reviewed by the Architectural Commission on several occasions. The members determined the standards of the Isthmus district were met and granted approvals for the house, front porch and car port. It is staff’s opinion that the plans and materials for the proposed accessory building resembles the previously approved architecture and meets the standards of the Isthmus district. The building will be 24’ at the midpoint and 27’ at the rooftop, consists of the same materials and colors as the house and includes some landscaping around the property. Lighting will match what is used on the house, and HVAC equipment will be located on the north elevation by the pool equipment. Weber questioned the wrap-around roof at the midpoint of the building shown on several drawings but not on others. Staff prefers the wrap-around roof at the midpoint, is comfortable with the proposed roof height as the building will be 160’ off the roadway and requested that all venting be minimized and painted to match. Weber recommended approval along with the considerations listed in the background. Mary Schroeder of Miller Custom Homes was present along with the home owners, Joe and Katherine Brisk. Joe Brisk said the roof will be Owens Corning Duration (Driftwood); the 2nd floor deck will have a Mr. Spindle railing system the same as the house; and showed the members a sample of material from their house which the brackets will be made of. Brisk concluded it is their intent that all materials be the same as the house; the scale of the building to match with the home; and the carriage house should look like it has always been there. He added the wrap-around roof was intentionally included on some drawings and not others, and Brisk accepts whatever design the members prefer. Members questioned the height of the building; the intended use of the space; noted it can’t be a second dwelling by code; questioned the minimal landscaping; and the wrap-around roof is not an architectural period piece and suggested a flare roof instead. Schroeder pointed out the shingles on the wrap-around roof would be white instead of black, and the members suggested scalloped or cedar shake shingles painted to match the siding and flared. Gallo added that the zoning code was updated to allow flexibility for accessory buildings in the Isthmus district and provided that any building exceeding code requirements must be reviewed by the Plan Commission, which it will be later tonight. Katherine Brisk said she loves to garden; is particular about the plants she chooses; plans to add some maple trees but it got too late in Fall 2018 to plant them; and there will be evergreens between the house and the church property. She said they do not intend to rent the space but that it will be a private area for guests or themselves to enjoy. Members said the building is missing some detail (decorative trim) on some drawings; the 1st floor doors on the east elevation look very modern; and questioned if the members can approve this application based on agenda Item 5 (the other project in the Isthmus district from the 1/9/19 meeting). They liked the proposed carriage house but questioned if they should postpone action as they are not comfortable without the other item being resolved. Joe Brisk said they will replicate the trim from the house on the carriage S:Clerk\Committees-Commissions\Architectural\2019\ACMin 2-13-19 house, and the doors on the east elevation are only visible from the lake. Katherine Brisk added they didn’t include grids in the glass to have a clear view of the lake. Gallo talked to the City Attorney about the process this evening and he said based on the past history of this property and prior approvals, if the members are comfortable that the proposed building meets the required standards of the Isthmus district they can act on it. Motion by Schultz to approve the plans for an accessory building at 307 N. Lake Road, subject to the banding at the midsection of the building, not roof shingles, be the same color as the siding with a slight curve, and that the four patio doors on the east elevation are to have grids similar to the north elevation; second by Krogstad. Miller noted that the doors on the north and south elevation do not have grids. One member said they are not personally comfortable voting on this item and that it should also be reviewed by a third-party expert. Motion carried 2-0-1 (Flint). 4. Tower Ridge – Consider/approve Garage Building Plans at 265 Thurow Drive: Weber explained this item was previously reviewed by the Architectural Commission in December 2018 at which time the apartment complex was approved but action on the garage was postponed. The applicant made changes to the roofline of the garage based on sketches made at the December meeting. He added one large and two small gables on the roofline on both elevations and added cement board panels and a circular louver to the larger gable and shake siding to the two smaller gables on the front elevation. They have also increased the number of evergreens on the berms to minimize the view of the backside of the building; built up the berm; and exposed the foundation wall. Staff suggested having the block base turn the corner onto the side elevation and recommended approval with considerations listed in the background. The owner, Dave Hoffman apologized to the members for forgetting samples of the materials and colors to be used and noted they will be the same as the apartment building. There will be no detail added on the back of the building to minimize attention to it. Hoffman added the split face block will turn the corner; however, the issue is with the cement foundation wall which he suggested be painted to match the adjacent siding. He said if the wall still looks too stark they could possibly add a tree or bush to take attention away from it. He also suggested bringing the berm forward a little more so that the wall would not be as exposed. The members questioned if the exposed wall and berm will be higher than the siding on that elevation; suggested stepping back the footer to a certain point close to the dirt; adding some landscaping; okay with painting the wall to match the siding; and the updated plans for the garage are a big improvement. Motion by Krogstad to approve the garage building plans for Tower Ridge at 265 Thurow Drive with the side of the foundation wall painted to match the adjacent siding color; second by Schultz. Motion carried 3-0. 5. Consider/approve Resolution Recommending Retainer of Hearing Examiner and Adoption of Findings, Conclusions and Determination for WaterView Condominium Project: Gallo reported at the last Architectural meeting two things happened: 1) the members directed staff to hire an independent architectural firm to determine if the WaterView Condominium project meets the City’s Isthmus design standards; and 2) members of the board recused themselves which resulted in less than a majority being left that could act on the project. As a result, the City Attorney reached out to an individual to act as an independent hearing examiner who would preside over the public hearing, hear all testimony and based on evidence issue Findings, Conclusions and a Determination on the WaterView Condominium project. Gallo noted City Code doesn’t give direction on who can act if the Board cannot so a resolution is necessary saying that the Board gives up their authority to hear this matter and appointing an outside hearing examiner to decide the issue. This individual will be acting on behalf of the Architectural Commission to bridge the gap. A member said this is a precedence setting decision and should be set for all projects in the Isthmus District going forward; believes there should be multiple firms reviewing the project because one firm could be swayed; and recommends that a second firm be hired in order to get two opinions on the proposed project. Gallo explained he researched several historic architectural firms along with reaching out to the State Historical Society and got the names of 22 firms. He sent out a scope of services to all the firms and received 4 responses. Of the 4, one firm did not give any pertinent information; one firm from Milwaukee acknowledged they knew the applicant; and the two remaining firms were qualified. The firm selected, Isthmus Architecture of Madison does this kind of work, had the lower cost of the two and claimed to not know the S:Clerk\Committees-Commissions\Architectural\2019\ACMin 2-13-19 applicant. Members didn’t like giving up their power to act; were concerned with having only one person make the final decision on the project; and thought there should be two firms making the recommendation. Gallo explained some of the concerns being raised are not about the hearing examiner but the consultant reviewing the plans which is not what this resolution is about. The individual proposed to be the Hearing Examiner in this case has acted as independent counsel for other communities. Motion by Schultz to approve the Resolution recommending the retainer of the Hearing Examiner and adoption of Findings, Conclusions and Determination for the WaterView Condominium Project; second by Krogstad. Flint stated he was not voting in favor of this Resolution because he believes the Board is capable of make their own decisions. Motion carried 2-1 (Flint). 6. Reports and comments from the City Planner: 2018 Annual Report: Weber said Planning staff processed 174 applications in 2018 with a two-person department. The members have reviewed 12 major building projects and 13 signs with 8 involving master sign plans and 3 special exceptions. She noted because there are more approved master sign plans, staff was able to administratively approve 38 additional signs. Weber appreciated the members for the time they give reviewing the applications and said the additional feedback they give on larger projects makes for a better overall finished product. 7. Reports and comments from the Architectural Commissioners: None. 8. Adjourn: Motion by Schultz to adjourn at 6:18 pm; second by Krogstad. Motion carried 3-0. Chris Dehnert, Deputy City Clerk S:Clerk\Committees-Commissions\Architectural\2019\ACMin 2-13-19  Department of City Planning Kristi Weber | 262.569.2173 oconomowoc-wi.gov/planning Architectural Commission Background March 13th 2019 : 5:00 pm at City Hall in Conference Room #3 Item #3 – Mann Block Building; Master Sign Plan The Mann Block Building had received approval by the Architectural Commission on November 8th 2017 for a façade update. At that time the Property Owner was informed that a Master Sign Plan (§17.609(3)(a)) would be needed if the building has more than one tenant. In February 2019, Planning Staff was approached by a tenant for signage in the Mann Block Building. Planning Staff notified the property owner that a Master Sign Plan is needed prior to approval. Now the Property Owner is requesting approval from the Architectural Commission for a Master Sign Plan. 110 N. Main Street Planning Staff would like to note that although110 N. Main Street looks like it is a part of this multi- tenant building, as it has also undergone a façade update, is a separate tax key and is not a part of this Master Sign Plan. 110 N. Main Street is a single tenant building and will have its signage reviewed administratively. Projecting Signs (§17.607(3)) The applicant is proposing projecting signs, with a consistent tubular steel bracket. Based on the location of the building, projecting signs maximize each tenant’s visibility to N. Main Street and W. Wisconsin Avenue. The designated tenant signage area for each of the businesses allows for flexibility in materials, shapes and colors to coordinate with their branding. Planning Staff supports the proposed projecting signs. Window/Door Signs (§17.603(1)(h)) The applicant is proposing window/door signage for the street level tenants only not to exceed 20% (City code allows up to 25%). Planning Staff supports the proposed window/door signs. Exterior Lighting The applicant has proposed exterior lighting shown in Option A, Option C, and Option F. The preferred lighting in the Downtown is gooseneck. Planning Staff encourages the Property Owner to incorporate gooseneck lighting whenever possible. Tenant A (102 N. Main Street) The applicant proposes ‘additional wall signage’ for Tenant A shown as option D, E, and G. Option D and E are at a highly visible, prime location at the four corners. Planning Staff does not support wall signage at this location. However, general directional signs menus/operational hours/open/closed/valet parking/delivery could be allowed in this area. Commissioners to confirm. Staff would also like to note that Option G would be considered canopy signage (regulated under City Code §17.607(2)) and Staff has no concern with this option.  Architectural Commission Meeting Background March 13th, 2019 – Page 2 Tenant B (108 N. Main Street) The applicant proposes ‘additional wall signage’ for Tenant B shown as option B. Planning Staff supports this location for wall signage as this tenant entrance is pushed back off the sidewalk. Staff feels that in order to maintain the architectural enhancements and investment made into the building, that this wall signage should be offset 1’-0” from the edge closest to the sidewalk, and should be a maximum of 20 SF. Addressing Note: This building is currently under review by the Police Department for addressing. Planning Staff has included a diagram in the packet for temporary reference. When addressing has been finalized, if needed, the Master Sign Plan will be administratively updated to match the given addresses. Administrative Approval & Sign Permit Required: Pending approval of the Master Sign Plan, the tenants can apply for Administrative Approval from the Planning Department, and then a sign permit from Building Inspection located on the second floor of City Hall for $25. Recommendation: Approve the Master Sign Plan for the Mann Block Building located at 102-108 N. Main Street, with the following considerations: • Tenant A: No additional wall signage allowed for Option D and E. Commissioners to determine if this area is appropriate for directional signage (i.e. menus/operational hours/open/closed/valet parking/delivery). • Tenant B: Wall signage to be offset 1’0” from the edge closest to the sidewalk and should be no more than 20 SF. Item #4 – 712-714 Summit Avenue; Master Sign Plan The applicant is requesting approval of a Master Sign Plan from the Architectural Commission for 712- 714 Summit Avenue. Per Section 17.609(3)(a) of the City’s Municipal Code, multi-tenant buildings are required to submit a coordinated master sign plan to the Architectural Commission for approval. Wall Signs The applicant is requesting (6) six wall signs, (3) three per tenant; (1) one per tenant facing Summit Avenue and (2) two per-tenant facing the parking lot. Planning Staff supports the size and location of the requested wall signs. Ground Sign-Design The existing ground sign is a legal non-conforming sign, since it does not meet current code for setbacks, base design, base materials and landscaping. The applicant would like to place (2) two pieces of metal over the existing wood for the tenants. Planning Staff reviewed the signage along this portion of Summit Avenue and found that they all have bases with landscaping. Staff informed the applicant that we would not support the reuse of the proposed ground sign, that this would be a great opportunity to bring the sign into conformance with City Code. Planning Staff will be asking the Commissioners to determine the appropriate sign design. Administrative Approval & Sign Permit Required: Pending approval of the Master Sign Plan, the tenants can apply for Administrative Approval from the Planning Department, and then a sign permit from Building Inspection located on the second floor of City Hall for $25. Recommendation: Approve the Master Sign Plan for 712-714 Summit Avenue, with the following considerations: • Ground/Monument Sign: Commissioners to determine if the proposed design is sufficient.  MANN BLOCK BUILDING MASTER SIGN PLAN (MSP) Date: February 26Th, 2019 From: Caliber Property Investments LLC Subject: Master Sign Plan (MSP) Location: 102-108 N Main St, Oconomowoc WI, Zoned MC, Masonry Italianate building This Master Sign Plan (MSP) is for the property encompassing the above addresses. The property is currently occupied by the following tenants: 1. Lake Country Conservatory of Music LLC, 106 N Main St 2. Homebody LLC, 108 N Main St Purpose: The purpose of this MSP is to achieve design compatibility on a single ownership parcel that is occupied by two or more separate businesses. The following signs are permitted as part of this MSP at locations and configurations as designated below and shown on the drawings. Variations to this MSP may be allowed from time to time with the consent of the Architectural Commission. Tenants shall obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any permanent signage. All signage shall comply with the City of Oconomowoc Zoning Ordinance Subchapter 17-6. Projecting Signs: -Mounted on tubular steel bracket, provided and installed by property owner. -Bracket to remain black or Charcoal in color. -Signage may be illuminated with exterior lighting fixtures approved by property owner. -Maximum width of 40” -Maximum height of 40” -Maximum area of 11 SqFt -Material: Wood, metal, high density urethane board, PVC. -Shape: Square, rectangular, circular, or elliptical, curved edges or rounded corners optional. -Color: Tenant may select color(s) and/or texture(s) that coordinate with tenant branding. Fluorescent colors not permitted. Window Signs: Street level tenants may apply vinyl decal lettering and/or logo of a neutral color to the exterior of storefront windows. Total area covered not to exceed 20% of the total storefront window area. Font and/or images shall generally match other approved exterior signage in design and color. Fluorescent colors not permitted. ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE GUIDELINES 1. TENANT A – 102 N Main St -Projected sign to be mounted central to the curved corner detail above the storefront entry, or adjacent to one of the columns nearest the entry (Option I). -Exterior lighting allowed (Option C,F), exterior lighting fixtures shall be approved by property owner prior to installation. -Additional wall signage allowed (Option D,E,G) – total area not to exceed 40 SqFt. Font and/or images shall generally match other approved exterior signage in design and color. Fluorescent colors not permitted. -Canopy/Awning allowed (see Option H) in a neutral or black color scheme. Design, size, and color to be approved by property owner and subject to approval by the Architectural Commission. 2. TENANT B – 108 N Main St -Projected sign to be mounted central to the arch detail above the storefront. -Exterior lighting allowed (Option A), exterior lighting fixtures shall be approved by property owner prior to installation -Additional wall signage allowed (Option B) – area not to exceed 40 SqFt. Font and/or images shall generally match other approved exterior signage in design and color. Fluorescent colors not permitted. 3. TENANT C – 106 N Main St -Projected sign to be mounted above East entrance -Maximum width of 36” -Maximum height of 18” 4. TENANT D – Future 2nd floor tenant -Projected sign to be mounted above East entrance -Maximum width of 36” -Maximum height of 15” 5. TENANT E – Future 3rd floor tenant -Projected sign to be mounted above East stairway entrance including, -Maximum width of 36” -Maximum height of 15” -Additional projected sign allowed above South stairway entrance (Option J) including, -Maximum width of 40” -Maximum height of 40” Approved by Landlord/Property Owner: 2-27-2019 Signature________________________________________ Date___________ Nick Droessler _______________________________ 414-303-3474 __________________ Printed Name Landlord/Property Owner Phone Number Attachments: Sign plan drawings Pages 1-6, Building Plans and Elevations  110 N. Main Street * this property appears to be in the same building, but is a separate tax key 108 N. Main Street 108 N. Main Street (Tenant B) Entrance East Stairwell Entrance (1) Tenant C-at 106 N. Main Street on 2nd floor (1) Tenant D-on 2nd Floor (1) Tenant E-on 3rd Floor 102 N. Main Street (Tenant A) South Stairwell Entrance (1) Tenant E-on 3rd Floor 102 N. Main Street Entrance DIAGRAM BY PLANNING STAFF 03.06.19  REVISION HISTORY REV DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED 106 N MAIN ST 3-6 108 N MAIN ST Example 10-11 Sqft 3-2 3-2 9-2 8-0 NAME DATE DRAWN D3 Nick 02/27/19 SOLID EDGE CHECKED UGS − The PLM Company TITLE ENG APPR MSP- Mann Block Building MGR APPR UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SIZE DWG NO REV A2 DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS PAGE 1 ANGLES ±X.X° FILE NAME: Master Sign Plan - Mann Block Building.dft 2 PL ±X.XX 3 PL ±X.XXX SCALE: WEIGHT: SHEET 1 OF 6  REVISION HISTORY REV DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED 108 N MAIN ST OPTION A OPTION B TENANT SIGNAGE NAME DATE DRAWN D3 Nick 02/27/19 SOLID EDGE CHECKED UGS − The PLM Company TITLE ENG APPR MSP- Mann Block Building MGR APPR UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SIZE DWG NO REV A2 DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS PAGE 2 ANGLES ±X.X° FILE NAME: Master Sign Plan - Mann Block Building.dft 2 PL ±X.XX 3 PL ±X.XXX SCALE: WEIGHT: SHEET 2 OF 6  REVISION HISTORY REV DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED 102 N MAIN ST OPTION C OPTION D OPTION E NAME DATE DRAWN D3 Nick 02/27/19 SOLID EDGE CHECKED UGS − The PLM Company TITLE ENG APPR MSP- Mann Block Building MGR APPR UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SIZE DWG NO REV A2 DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS PAGE 3 ANGLES ±X.X° FILE NAME: Master Sign Plan - Mann Block Building.dft 2 PL ±X.XX 3 PL ±X.XXX SCALE: WEIGHT: SHEET 3 OF 6  REVISION HISTORY REV DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED SOUTH WALL STAIR TOWER OPTION J NAME DATE DRAWN D3 Nick 02/27/19 SOLID EDGE CHECKED UGS − The PLM Company TITLE ENG APPR MSP- Mann Block Building MGR APPR UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SIZE DWG NO REV A2 DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS PAGE 4 ANGLES ±X.X° FILE NAME: Master Sign Plan - Mann Block Building.dft 2 PL ±X.XX 3 PL ±X.XXX SCALE: WEIGHT: SHEET 4 OF 6  REVISION HISTORY -ALTERNATE- REV DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED 102 N MAIN ST OPTION F OPTION G OPTION I OPTION H NAME DATE DRAWN D3 Nick 02/27/19 SOLID EDGE CHECKED UGS − The PLM Company TITLE ENG APPR MSP- Mann Block Building MGR APPR UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SIZE DWG NO REV A2 DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS PAGE 5 ANGLES ±X.X° FILE NAME: Master Sign Plan - Mann Block Building.dft 2 PL ±X.XX 3 PL ±X.XXX SCALE: WEIGHT: SHEET 5 OF 6  REVISION HISTORY -BRACKET- REV DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVED 42" 3 1/2" 38" 1"x1" Tubular Steel 15 1/2" 1"x1" Tubular Steel 1/4" 2.5"x2.5" Tubular Steel NAME DATE DRAWN D3 Nick 02/27/19 SOLID EDGE CHECKED UGS − The PLM Company TITLE ENG APPR MSP- Mann Block Building MGR APPR UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SIZE DWG NO REV A2 DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETERS PAGE 6 ANGLES ±X.X° FILE NAME: Master Sign Plan - Mann Block Building.dft 2 PL ±X.XX 3 PL ±X.XXX SCALE: WEIGHT: SHEET 6 OF 6