Architectural Commission & Historic Preservation Commission

City of Oconomowoc Architectural Commission Meeting Minutes August 3, 2022 Chairman Flint called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Members Present: Johnson, Flint, Krogstad, Schultz and Schrang Staff Present: Weber, Gallo, Magnus, Duffy and Dehnert 2. Approve the July 6, 2022 Minutes: Motion by Krogstad to approve the July 6, 2022 minutes; second by Johnson. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Olympia Fields-South Development Monument Sign – Consider/approve a special exception for the development’s monument sign at 1408 Summit Street adjacent to WIS 67: Weber explained this request may not require a special exception; however, it depends upon the location of the sign in relation to the delta of WIS 67. The property has a monument sign from the previous development, and it will be removed. The sign request meets all setback requirements and easements. Based on the delta, the sign will gain 4’ in height which was included in the application. The total height would be 24’ which is their requested height of 20’ plus the additional 4’ due to the delta. The letters on the sign will be a white font, and the color of the development’s name was changed from a white font to charcoal gray. The base will be faux stone and it will be landscaped. Weber recommended approval of a special exception for the development’s monument sign. Members questioned how power will get to the sign and suggested that the junction box should be kept low on the sign; they like the dark font color for the development’s name; and questioned if there should be 4 sign posts at the top of the sign instead of 2. Cameron McFarland from MSI said power to the sign will be located toward the bottom of the sign and painted to match. Motion by Johnson to approve a special exception for the Olympia Fields South Development monument sign at 1408 Summit Avenue adjacent to WIS 67 subject to any and all electric connection equipment for the sign are to be painted to match surrounding material; second by Krogstad. Motion carried 5-0. Krogstad excused herself for the next two submittals due to a conflict of interest. 4. Lifetime Oconomowoc – Discuss building plans for the lot on the northwest corner of Blue Ribbon Drive and Blue Ribbon Circle North, Lot 3: Weber explained the applicant is requesting feedback on the design, materials and colors of their 246,970 sf building. The property is zoned Business Park which allows a maximum height of 50’, and the building reflects a maximum height of 54’ at the highest point by the front entrance. Staff recommends they reduce the height of the point to conform to code. The applicant is also requesting approval of a 90’ tall flag pole which also exceeds the allowable height per the City Zoning Code. John Kutz from MSI General explained the building will have a nautical theme; the average building height will be 34’ – 35’ with the peak of the flare at 54’; materials include precast concrete wall panels, a wood grain metal panel siding product, cable railings, and a curtain wall of glass. The building will have step backs, 4-sided architecture, and precast fencing panels and landscaping berms as a buffer around stormwater ponds. Members questioned why the city has a zoning code if applicants keep going over requirements; the building is attractive; and like the curved wall. Gallo agreed with the members’ concern because the request violates the zoning code; there is a 20’ difference between the average building height and the peak; and the Architectural Commission does not have the authority to approve the additional 4’. Kutz respects the members and Gallo’s comments and will work to reduce the height of the peak with the next submittal. Gallo said there is an issue with the request for the 90’ flagpole as code allows up to 40’ in height. Members pointed out the issue with the 90’ is that a flagpole must allow for the same length to fall without impacting property or roadways, which it will. Kutz said they will make changes and come back for approval. No action was taken. S:Clerk\Committees-Commissions\Architectural\2022\ACMin 8-3-22 5. Rockwell Development – Discuss building plans for 125 – 135 North Main Street: Weber explained several changes were approved by the Common Council at the meeting last night which affect the plans in the packet. Changes include: 5 stories but no height is provided; zero setbacks from property lines; a 99-year lease for public parking; boardwalk extension; public bathrooms to be located in the building as originally proposed; funds allocated for construction of the village green; and removal of a community room in the building. Gallo explained discussions held during the Council meeting last night and how Council is looking at this project as being a TIF. Weber continued there will be private parking under the building with public parking above; suggested making the public walkway 5’ wide instead of 4’, as 5’ wide is the minimum standard for sidewalks in the City; questioned the location of the main development sign; and no elevations were included on the plans, but they are suggesting 70’+. Weber noted concerns as listed in the background. John Kutz of MSI General requested clarification on the status of the bathroom location on the village green. Krogstad of MSI General said materials include cream city brick; base rock face of natural stone; precast concrete; bronze accents; and a 10’ high metal awning which will extend out 8’. There will be tenant space above the main floor; decorative railings on the 4 th floor; and some setbacks on all elevations. The 4th floor will mimic the North 48 building and the restaurant will not be allowed to have tables outside the restaurant due to the public walkway width and agreed with Staff’s 5’ minimum. Members liked the setback at the 4th level; agrees with the main development sign on the lake side; questioned the public walkway; cautioned using art deco versus historical architecture; struggled with the proposed height; stepping back the building makes sense; and the building is well done with a historical feel. Kutz said they have worked with the city the past 5 months to get direction on building height and said last night they received direction from the Council that the height would be allowed based on the overall design. Gallo questioned if the 70’ height was agreed upon, though he was not part of that discussion; building height has been a major issue and there are items on this building, which exceed the 70’ height (parapet / trellis / kitchen / restrooms / seating / elevator shaft etc.) Members said when the downtown design guidelines were approved, this area was in the 30’ - 50’ height which is similar to existing buildings in the Downtown; and this building wasn’t anticipated but it is to be located right next to the 40’ – 70’ building height as shown in the design guidelines. Mayor Magnus explained Council voted to move forward with a 5-story building and limit the height, but no height was agreed to. Gallo explained the project requires a planned development overlay to be allowed some flexibility on height. Those discussions are currently ongoing, and the Architectural Commission can approve the plans based on Council approving a planned development. Kutz said their next step is to submit for a PD and make any updates to the design. They will come back with approvals when they submit the final architectural plans. No action was taken. 6. Reports and comments from the City Planning Department: None. 7. Reports and comments from the Architectural Commissioners: Members questioned how long a temporary tent can remain in place, and Gallo reported it can remain 60 – 90 days with a temporary use permit. 8. Adjourn: Motion by Johnson to adjourn at 6:58 pm; second by Schrang. Motion carried 5-0. Chris Dehnert, Deputy City Clerk S:Clerk\Committees-Commissions\Architectural\2022\ACMin 8-3-22