Architectural Commission & Historic Preservation Commission

City of Oconomowoc Architectural Commission Meeting Minutes March 2, 2022 Chairman Flint called the meeting to order at 4:32 pm. Members Present: Johnson, Flint, Krogstad and Schultz Members Absent: Schrang Staff Present: Weber, Gallo, Duffy, Frye, Magnus and Dehnert 2. Approve the February 2, 2022 Minutes: Motion by Johnson to approve the February 2, 2022 minutes; second by Schultz. Motion carried 4-0. Due to the absence of the applicant, the members agreed to move on to the next item on the agenda. 4. Chili’s Restaurant – Consider/approve a building façade update at 1229 Corporate Circle Dr: Weber explained the applicant is requesting approval to change the color of their building but will not be painting the brick or stone. They plan to change out the fabric awnings to metal and add an LED border which is similar to the Dairy Queen’s. The Corporate Center Board and the property owner have approved the proposed update. Weber noted the light fixtures are currently white, and she recommends changing them out for new black fixtures instead of painting them. Signage will be changing, and staff will review it upon receipt to determine if it needs to come to the board for approval. Weber recommended approval with conditions listed in the background. Nandini Ramasesh, Restaurant Architect for Brinker International explained the awnings will be black standing seam metal, building colors will be neutral and earthy, and they will change out the white fixtures for new black light fixtures. The LED banding will be a reddish-orange color. Members questioned the condition of the dumpster enclosure; the man door should be addressed if updating the enclosure; and what color will the cooler panels and windows be. Ramasesh said they plan to paint dumpster enclosure and cooler panels the EP-1 (Half-Caff) and will paint the window trim if it is a wood material EP-3 (Iron Ore). Motion by Krogstad to approve the building façade update for Chili’s at 1229 Corporate Center Dr, subject to the following: include painting of the service yard enclosure, man door and cooler panels; verify if the windows are wood and if so, paint them (FW7069 -“Iron Ore”) and provide an updated signage plan to staff for review; second by Johnson. Motion amended by Krogstad; second by Johnson to include that the white fixtures are to be changed out for new black fixtures. Motion carried 4-0. Members questioned what the applicant intends to do if the window frames are not wood, and the applicant indicated they would not be updated due to the cost. Members requested they update staff accordingly. 5. Sendik’s Food Market/Unisource Center - Consider/approve building façade update at 1408 Summit Avenue: Weber explained this request is for approval of building plans for the former K-Mart building along with proposed plans for the rest of the Unisource building to ensure the entire building façade is cohesive and complimentary. Gallo noted these buildings will have 2 different owners and consist of 2 separate projects. The applicant provided multiple material sample boards for the members in their packets. Weber noted the plans only reflect the east and south elevations; the rear elevation was not shown; and questioned the wall on the north elevation. Weber requested the applicant provide drawings of the rear elevation; recommended the north wall (Goodwill) should at least be painted; the dumpster with man door will consist of similar materials as the Sendik’s building; the food tank on the rear of the building would need to be screened per code; requested a roof top plan for the mechanicals; questioned the timeframe for the build out and encouraged a 2-year sunset clause. Weber recommended approval with considerations listed in the background. Gallo added future tenants could change their building design as they come forward. Ken Krahe of MSI was present in person and David Parrish from RDL Architects was available through video conference. Parrish explained most of the south elevation brick will be painted along with the addition of a thin layer of stone along the bottom and thin brick on the SE corner which ties into the east elevation. The east elevation will have the thin layer of stone along the bottom edge, thin brick, fiber cement siding, aluminum awnings and some EIFS around the entrance and other parts of the building. Krahe said the west (rear) elevation will be painted, and they would prefer not to screen the food tank. The members agreed that the food S:Clerk\Committees-Commissions\Architectural\2022\ACMin 3-2-22 tank could remain unscreened; questioned the rear elevation; concern with the use of EIFS around the front entrance; would like to see some canopies or some type of projection between the Sendik’s and the next building; and questioned the use of thin brick, the lighting plan for the building and HVAC units on the roof. Krahe explained he has no concern with thin brick; and the goal is to have the HVAC units toward the center of the building and re-use some units if possible. Parrish said the concern about EIFS is valid; they could consider raising the base material higher; they will have exterior lighting to highlight the façade and downlighting at the entry points; and EIFS is the best backer material behind signage. Gallo noted concern of the units visually being seen from Hwy 67, but since the master sign plan must still be presented by the applicant, they could show the members at that time what the HVAC units will look like. Motion by Schultz to approve the building update for Sendik’s Food Market / Unisource Center as submitted subject to submittal of accent lighting and layout; rooftop screening; signage plan to come back; add canopies over the area by the vertical openings between Sendik’s and the next tenant; and no EIFS from the base up to 8’ along the length of the building; second by Johnson. Members further discussed the EIFS height around the entrance. Motion by Krogstad to amend the motion that the minimum height of the EIFS should be a minimum of 3’ by the entrance; second by Johnson. Motion carried 3-1. Members continued to discuss the thin brick; placement of EIFS in other parts of the building; want to see the lighting plan and all 4 building elevations; questioned the need for additional exits on the building; and said it was over all a very nice-looking building. Mark Lake of Wangard was okay with a 2-year sunset clause and showed where lighting will be placed on the building. Members agreed that a member of the audience could ask a question on the project. The resident asked about the use of LEEDS and carbon-neutral standards in the building and in the rest of the development. Lake agreed they will be including sustainable items the same as other parts of the project and will be using the same lighting fixtures throughout the whole development. Gallo noted the Plan Commission will be looking at the lighting at their meeting tonight which will include black fixtures, but no up lighting is shown on the building. Motion by Schultz for the north and west elevations to be painted to tie in with the rest of the building and approve a 2-year timeframe for the project to be completed; second by Krogstad. Motion carried 4-0. 3. 1360 Pabst Farms Circle – Consider/approve a master sign plan at 1360 Pabst Farm Circle: Weber presented the proposed Master Sign Plan (the applicant was absent but had been notified) and showed the building plans which were approved at the meeting in April 2021. On October 26, 2021 staff gave administrative approval for an expansion to the south tenant space. The sign plan was created to match the existing Pabst Farms Marketplace signage, and the applicant was allowed to have their logo in full color and white text. Staff is requesting text to be added to the sign plan to allow for 50 SF maximum per sign and noted that window signage was not included within the MSP, so it would default to City Code of a maximum of 25% of the total window area. In addition, the ground sign was not included in the sign plan though it was noted on previous site plans on the SW corner of the site. Weber added if the property owner would like one in the future, they will have to come back to the Architectural Commission for review. Weber is recommending approval with considerations included in the background. Members comments included the master sign plan was difficult to understand and wanted a graphic showing where each sign is allowed on the building and the maximum square footage for each; Starbucks is very particular in their ground sign standards and would be requesting one, if the opportunity existed; and support the white text and color logo to match the surrounding context. Motion by Flint to deny the application with a requirement that they resubmit with the following: graphically illustrate the locations of the signage on the building, with a 50 SF maximum; include details for a ground sign; and add text to include the 25% window sign area maximum; second by Johnson. Motion carried 4-0. 6. Reports and comments from the City Planning Department: None. 7. Reports and comments from the Architectural Commissioners: None. 8. Adjourn: Motion by Johnson to adjourn at 6:12 pm; second by Schultz. Motion carried 4-0. Chris Dehnert, Deputy City Clerk S:Clerk\Committees-Commissions\Architectural\2022\ACMin 3-2-22