1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:14,240
All right, it is August 18th. Our
chairperson, Ray Kger, is not here, so I

2
00:00:11,360 --> 00:00:19,119
will be chairing this meeting of the
community development authority.

3
00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:22,240
Uh, I am calling it to order, and we
don't really need to call the role. So,

4
00:00:20,480 --> 00:00:26,800
the first item of business is to approve
the minutes from the from the meeting

5
00:00:24,160 --> 00:00:30,480
July 14th. Anybody have any comments
about

6
00:00:28,320 --> 00:00:34,399
» approval? Thank you, Dick. Do I hear a
second?

7
00:00:32,320 --> 00:00:36,399
» I'll give it to Mike.
>> He was quicker than I was.

8
00:00:35,360 --> 00:00:41,120
» Yep.
>> Uh, any further discussion? Hearing

9
00:00:39,280 --> 00:00:46,079
none. All those in favor say I.
>> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next, we

10
00:00:44,800 --> 00:00:49,840
will move on to discussion.
Recommendation on the Silver Spring

11
00:00:47,520 --> 00:00:56,559
entrance signs to be paid for by private
development projects. Wonder who those

12
00:00:51,760 --> 00:01:01,920
they are. Um, Kelsey sent a memo. So,
wait. Uh we have something in our

13
00:00:58,559 --> 00:01:02,879
packets, but we also have a new email.
Correct.

14
00:01:02,399 --> 00:01:06,799
» Yep.
>> That's correct. Uh so this is really

15
00:01:04,559 --> 00:01:13,760
just a continuation from a conversation
that started at the at the um most

16
00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:17,759
recent CDA meeting. The village will be
replacing uh the two monument signs on

17
00:01:16,320 --> 00:01:22,880
Silver Spring, one in front of the
Sendix development and the other at

18
00:01:20,240 --> 00:01:27,040
Lidell and Silver Spring where uh the
new bank as well as the apartment

19
00:01:24,799 --> 00:01:32,720
complex will be going in. Both of those
signs will be paid for by the private

20
00:01:29,439 --> 00:01:38,079
developments. Uh however, we the village
needs to approve what those um sign

21
00:01:36,240 --> 00:01:42,560
signs will look like. Both of the
private developments had proposed their

22
00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:48,479
own designs and then there was um
clearly a desire to have them look more

23
00:01:44,960 --> 00:01:53,920
cohesive. And so um with that in mind,
we engaged groth um who is the company

24
00:01:51,840 --> 00:01:58,479
who is doing the design for the floating
warming house and ask them to develop

25
00:01:56,079 --> 00:02:03,680
some independent options which I sent
over today and Anna has up on the

26
00:02:00,640 --> 00:02:11,120
screen. This topic has been um has now
been discussed at village board CDA and

27
00:02:07,759 --> 00:02:14,720
bid. The only group that has seen these
updated designs from growth was bid

28
00:02:13,200 --> 00:02:20,000
because they had their meeting this past
Friday. Uh so I took the feedback that

29
00:02:17,280 --> 00:02:26,239
they provided from that entire design
concepts which there were four of them

30
00:02:22,400 --> 00:02:31,040
and um gave that feedback to Grath who
designed an up or provided an updated

31
00:02:28,879 --> 00:02:35,680
design which was that second PDF I sent
out this morning and those are the

32
00:02:32,800 --> 00:02:40,319
designs on the screen um that Anna
shared. some feedback that I've heard

33
00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:45,680
that's been pretty consistent. Um, Arc
and Bid both talked about the idea of um

34
00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:53,440
an inlay or something consistent within
the signs. Uh, both groups wanted um

35
00:02:50,560 --> 00:02:58,480
consistent form. So, basically the signs
physically looking similar. Um, at least

36
00:02:56,160 --> 00:03:02,879
bid preferred that the materials match
the development behind them. Their

37
00:03:00,959 --> 00:03:06,560
reason being is that they're in such
close proximity especially that Lidell

38
00:03:04,959 --> 00:03:12,560
Silver Spring. I forgot how many feet
Joel, but it's very very close.

39
00:03:10,239 --> 00:03:17,200
» Yeah. Um to the development behind and
so it just felt like aesthetically that

40
00:03:15,200 --> 00:03:21,920
that would look better and they felt
like there would be enough cohesion as

41
00:03:18,800 --> 00:03:26,800
long as the signs in form were the same.
Um Ark was a little bit more split. they

42
00:03:24,720 --> 00:03:30,400
seemed open to both the materials
matching the two signs having the same

43
00:03:29,120 --> 00:03:36,400
materials and not matching the
developments behind them or having um

44
00:03:33,680 --> 00:03:40,799
the materials match the development
behind them. Uh so I guess all that to

45
00:03:39,120 --> 00:03:46,159
say is I'm looking for some direction
from CDA. This will be presented again

46
00:03:43,360 --> 00:03:50,480
to village board likely on August 31st
and then ultimately um it will also go

47
00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:55,280
to ARC as well. So, it has a few other
bodies to go through, but just looking

48
00:03:52,560 --> 00:04:02,239
overall for your feedback.
>> Okay. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to

49
00:03:59,280 --> 00:04:08,159
share something I I did get
uh emailwise uh about 1:30 this

50
00:04:05,519 --> 00:04:10,879
afternoon from Ted Ballastr.
>> There was a meeting. Is

51
00:04:09,040 --> 00:04:17,680
» he working? Is he working the crowd?
Well, jury may be, but I'm I'm going to

52
00:04:14,000 --> 00:04:22,919
serve as a relay uh water boy here in in
this and read just read it to you. Um,

53
00:04:23,840 --> 00:04:31,040
and this came in at 1:24 and I did
forward it uh when I saw it about 2:30

54
00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:35,680
to uh to Kelsey just as an info matter
of information. But he sends an email.

55
00:04:33,280 --> 00:04:39,600
Uh, Mike, I understand the CDA will meet
today and discuss the proposed sign at

56
00:04:38,080 --> 00:04:43,280
the corner of Silver Spring and Lake
Drive. Unfortunately, I'm unable to

57
00:04:41,520 --> 00:04:47,360
attend the meeting. However, it is
important to us that the brick match our

58
00:04:45,280 --> 00:04:52,000
building. Could this be relayed to the
members?

59
00:04:48,880 --> 00:04:54,639
And I agreed to slay it. So,
>> I' I've heard that message a few times

60
00:04:53,840 --> 00:04:59,680
from Ted.
>> Okay. I figured you probably relayed.

61
00:04:57,199 --> 00:05:03,040
» But now, h having done that, I've got a
couple other things I'd just like to to

62
00:05:01,440 --> 00:05:09,120
offer just as as a couple of
observations. One is um and I I think I

63
00:05:07,680 --> 00:05:14,880
made this point at the earlier meeting.
I don't feel uh just in in my sense of

64
00:05:12,960 --> 00:05:19,680
it that we need to be consistent with
the buildings that are next to it next

65
00:05:17,039 --> 00:05:25,600
to it. Either we could be, but we don't
have to be. What I do think is important

66
00:05:22,560 --> 00:05:32,720
is that we be consistent in relationship
to establishing that format as a

67
00:05:29,360 --> 00:05:35,840
uh recognized uh village brand. You
know, something that people will say,

68
00:05:34,160 --> 00:05:39,520
"Okay, that's a village thing. That's a
village. That's the village sign." and

69
00:05:37,440 --> 00:05:43,840
it's consistent and wherever you put it
up throughout the village. So I think

70
00:05:41,520 --> 00:05:49,120
that it would be well whatever you and
the board and the others decide on that

71
00:05:46,639 --> 00:05:55,039
would make sense in relationship to the
adjustment here. I I do like uh what uh

72
00:05:52,240 --> 00:06:01,520
was done here in the sense of uh one of
the refinements that the bidded or

73
00:05:57,120 --> 00:06:07,600
whoever asked for the change. uh if you
if if you do end up using uh the red

74
00:06:04,639 --> 00:06:14,240
brick or any darker color like that, uh
the earlier version of that in the first

75
00:06:09,919 --> 00:06:17,680
iteration had a sort of gray uh
background with a somewhat gray

76
00:06:16,080 --> 00:06:20,720
lettering where in the letter, you know,
the White Village of White Fish Bay

77
00:06:19,120 --> 00:06:25,600
lettering blended in with the sign, you
really couldn't see it. This iteration I

78
00:06:23,440 --> 00:06:30,400
think has the as I write has the good
contrast of the dark lettering with the

79
00:06:27,680 --> 00:06:34,800
light background and and it's bold. I
like the uh the uh announcement of the

80
00:06:32,960 --> 00:06:42,160
village's founding underneath
establishing it as a more of a

81
00:06:37,360 --> 00:06:45,520
recognized village uh monument and so I
thought that was helpful. Out of

82
00:06:43,440 --> 00:06:51,199
curiosity, what do you think of that
particular shot where Sendix has

83
00:06:48,080 --> 00:06:56,160
established 1926 on their facade and
then here we have established 1892?

84
00:06:54,400 --> 00:07:00,880
Like, does that is that at all? When I
saw that, I'm like, "Oh man, we have

85
00:06:57,840 --> 00:07:04,639
both of these establishment words within
10t of each other."

86
00:07:01,840 --> 00:07:07,919
» Well, if nothing else, it it it causes
the reader to think about the fact that

87
00:07:06,400 --> 00:07:11,280
maybe they're two different things,
which is what you want.

88
00:07:08,960 --> 00:07:14,479
» Okay, fair enough. Uh now the other
thing that I thought would be worth

89
00:07:12,639 --> 00:07:22,639
throwing out to the consideration of the
group uh you know while I I don't have

90
00:07:19,199 --> 00:07:28,160
objection per se to the uh if you could
flip to that second sign the one with

91
00:07:24,639 --> 00:07:33,759
the landing stone on it. Yeah, that one.
Uh to me that blends in too much.

92
00:07:31,759 --> 00:07:42,000
more more importantly what what concerns
me there is uh what is occurring on the

93
00:07:38,479 --> 00:07:44,720
other corner kitty corner from it. Uh
>> what else?

94
00:07:42,800 --> 00:07:51,840
» If I took I went over there just before
this meeting took a took a photo of that

95
00:07:48,319 --> 00:07:57,039
uh corner and that sign across the
street and it's almost it's very very

96
00:07:54,319 --> 00:07:59,919
very similar to what what you've got
here. I'm going to forward this to you

97
00:07:58,479 --> 00:08:03,680
and maybe you can put it up on the
screen. Kelsey, let me just

98
00:08:02,160 --> 00:08:08,479
» I think and I can probably pull up
Google Maps.

99
00:08:05,120 --> 00:08:13,520
» Okay, but I can pass this around too. I
mean, I should

100
00:08:10,800 --> 00:08:16,639
» you just hand it down the line and look
at it, but

101
00:08:15,520 --> 00:08:21,199
» Okay. I
>> mean, that's pretty dog on close to what

102
00:08:18,720 --> 00:08:26,160
we're talking about here. And I I would
prefer to have something that's

103
00:08:24,160 --> 00:08:29,160
not that similar to what Glendel's
doing.

104
00:08:31,919 --> 00:08:37,200
That's all I got. Do
>> you have an international plan here?

105
00:08:35,120 --> 00:08:40,399
» Yeah,
>> I do. If you need if you need to use my

106
00:08:38,800 --> 00:08:47,200
phone for something, you're you're
welcome to.

107
00:08:43,279 --> 00:08:52,080
» And and that's such a memorable sign
that until he passed his picture around,

108
00:08:49,360 --> 00:08:57,279
none of us could picture it.
>> Right. Right.

109
00:08:54,480 --> 00:09:03,040
» Yeah. There you go,
>> Mr. Chairman. I'll if I can kind of

110
00:08:59,920 --> 00:09:10,000
follow up behind uh behind Mike's
comments. I I pretty much agree with

111
00:09:06,160 --> 00:09:15,200
with one exception, but um I I I think
the this second iteration of the red

112
00:09:13,680 --> 00:09:22,640
brick
um with the large field of pre-cast

113
00:09:19,839 --> 00:09:29,040
where where the lettering goes. I think
that I I hold on I you know my my

114
00:09:26,080 --> 00:09:33,839
instinct was to say I don't think it
that that the bricks should you know

115
00:09:30,720 --> 00:09:42,480
should match the brick in the in in the
sendex but I'm I'm I guess persuaded

116
00:09:37,839 --> 00:09:49,760
frankly by uh Ted's email
um and looking at this I I do think that

117
00:09:45,839 --> 00:09:54,959
that kind of white pre-cast background
um will and and when this is actually

118
00:09:52,880 --> 00:10:02,240
seen in 3D
um should should help. I'm not a fan of

119
00:09:59,440 --> 00:10:07,040
the footnote there established in
whatever 1992.

120
00:10:05,040 --> 00:10:13,839
I kind of like the way the first
iteration where it said village of in

121
00:10:10,880 --> 00:10:19,200
small letters and then Whitefish Bay and
that was it. That takes care of any

122
00:10:16,160 --> 00:10:27,200
confusion over who established what
when. Um, so I I

123
00:10:24,959 --> 00:10:31,279
with with that with that exception, I
I'd agree and I and I do think that it's

124
00:10:29,760 --> 00:10:37,760
important
whatever we do here should be what we

125
00:10:33,920 --> 00:10:42,320
also do uh at the corner with Lidell and
if we decide we want to put it up on

126
00:10:39,600 --> 00:10:46,480
Lake Drive at school road or down on
Hampton or something, you know, that

127
00:10:44,320 --> 00:10:50,720
this becomes the,
you know, the the the gateway to to

128
00:10:49,200 --> 00:10:55,680
Whitefish
So I think are you also saying that if

129
00:10:53,680 --> 00:11:00,000
if we had something like that and you
would also want the exact same uh at the

130
00:10:58,240 --> 00:11:03,680
lightel and silver spring. Yes. With the
brick

131
00:11:00,399 --> 00:11:08,480
» and wherever else we decide to or or you
know maybe a miniature version of that

132
00:11:06,320 --> 00:11:13,920
» but but you know something consistent
with it. just bec I'll ask the same

133
00:11:10,240 --> 00:11:18,880
question of everybody, but um if if we
weren't doing these developments and you

134
00:11:16,240 --> 00:11:23,920
had your choice between the the lamb and
stone one and the brick and imagine not

135
00:11:22,000 --> 00:11:30,399
just Silver Spring but also Hampton and
Lake and all those other places, which

136
00:11:26,560 --> 00:11:32,560
of the two would you pick for regardless
of, you know, matching some new

137
00:11:32,160 --> 00:11:36,079
developments?
>> Kind of representative of the

138
00:11:34,160 --> 00:11:39,680
» What's your favorite? I think I'd say
the brick.

139
00:11:36,720 --> 00:11:44,320
» Brick. I personally really like and I
and I very much like the the

140
00:11:41,440 --> 00:11:50,399
incorporation of the stone into that
apartment building.

141
00:11:46,640 --> 00:11:59,040
Um, but I think for the, you know, the
the gateway to White Fish Bay,

142
00:11:54,560 --> 00:12:04,480
um, articulation that the brick and the
and and the brighter, as you put pointed

143
00:12:01,920 --> 00:12:08,800
out, pre-cast,
>> I think it's pretty much unanimous, and

144
00:12:06,480 --> 00:12:13,200
tell me if anybody else would say, I
think that what we've been calling the

145
00:12:10,399 --> 00:12:16,720
inlay, the the rectangle in the middle,
>> um, it's unanimous that everybody wants

146
00:12:14,959 --> 00:12:17,839
that to be Yeah,
>> the same.

147
00:12:17,360 --> 00:12:21,760
» Yeah,
>> where wherever we go, that is going to

148
00:12:19,760 --> 00:12:26,160
be consistent for sure.
>> Um and and the wording I

149
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:30,320
» I think we can debate that. But Colin
wanted to

150
00:12:26,639 --> 00:12:35,920
» So So my two cents, um one, I actually
strongly prefer the limestone over the

151
00:12:31,760 --> 00:12:41,040
brick just aesthetically. Um, but two, I
think

152
00:12:37,920 --> 00:12:46,000
you you either have to I think you
either want to make the material the

153
00:12:43,760 --> 00:12:51,839
same as the building behind it or you
want them to be dramatically different

154
00:12:48,480 --> 00:12:55,360
like having a different color brick I
think look will look really

155
00:12:54,399 --> 00:12:59,680
unplanned.
>> Yeah. And so either they have I think

156
00:12:57,680 --> 00:13:04,480
they either have to be both very
different and the same and I think that

157
00:13:01,839 --> 00:13:07,200
makes sense. But I think doing the red
brick in front of the limestone, the

158
00:13:05,680 --> 00:13:12,079
limestone in front of the red brick may
look a little weird.

159
00:13:08,639 --> 00:13:15,920
» Um, so I would actually do
the how they have it here. Right.

160
00:13:14,240 --> 00:13:18,560
» Right. So two you would not be
consistent.

161
00:13:16,639 --> 00:13:22,320
» Yeah. But you'd have the same consistent
thing. Um, or or you go to another

162
00:13:20,800 --> 00:13:25,600
design, right, that
>> uses

163
00:13:23,040 --> 00:13:29,519
» for the record
metal or something.

164
00:13:26,880 --> 00:13:37,040
» You're That's exactly what I think. Um,
I I don't worry as much about the

165
00:13:33,600 --> 00:13:43,040
similar sign on Lidell because on the
other the kitty corner because

166
00:13:40,079 --> 00:13:46,959
you see that when you exit as opposed to
when you enter. It's not like you have

167
00:13:44,320 --> 00:13:51,120
that on the same point of view, right?
You're going east on Silver Spring.

168
00:13:49,519 --> 00:13:55,600
You're seeing one on one side and one on
the other. It's you see one going east

169
00:13:54,079 --> 00:13:57,600
and one coming west. And I don't think
people will

170
00:13:56,800 --> 00:13:59,680
» swivel their heads.
>> Yeah. I don't think it's going to be

171
00:13:58,560 --> 00:14:02,639
that that big of a deal.
>> North and south on Lidell, you're

172
00:14:01,120 --> 00:14:07,440
hopelessly lost.
>> Yeah. Um I do I do agree with you by the

173
00:14:05,760 --> 00:14:11,519
way about the Sundex. If one says
established and the other says

174
00:14:08,560 --> 00:14:17,199
established, that'll be
I don't know if it's confusing, but it's

175
00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:19,920
it's
confusing, but confusing may be the

176
00:14:18,639 --> 00:14:23,760
right word, right? But so I'm
questioning do you actually like could

177
00:14:21,600 --> 00:14:28,240
they change their
>> do is that is that their plans is do we

178
00:14:26,880 --> 00:14:30,720
know that that's accurate because I'm
not sure it is.

179
00:14:29,199 --> 00:14:34,079
» Well you gota it says village
established village established.

180
00:14:32,880 --> 00:14:37,519
» Yeah I know but
>> can you look at zoom in on one of the

181
00:14:36,480 --> 00:14:42,959
first
>> but to me it's a weird parallelism. So

182
00:14:40,320 --> 00:14:46,720
this that feedback came from art, I
believe, um where they were concerned

183
00:14:44,959 --> 00:14:50,639
that people would read the established
date and think that was the village. And

184
00:14:48,480 --> 00:14:53,920
so that's why I believe it was that
group that commented that it should be

185
00:14:52,320 --> 00:14:58,880
on the sign.
>> Oh, I see what you mean.

186
00:14:55,600 --> 00:15:02,639
» Yeah. Zoom. Can you zoom in on No,
>> what would you like to zoom in on?

187
00:15:00,399 --> 00:15:07,839
» The the one of the first ones.
>> Oh, okay. The original design four.

188
00:15:05,839 --> 00:15:12,959
» Yeah. Yeah. If you can zoom in on that,
you can see where it says,

189
00:15:10,480 --> 00:15:15,760
see there it says village of village of
Whitefish Bay.

190
00:15:14,000 --> 00:15:20,560
» Can I let me explain that a little bit?
Could you go down to one of the liidel?

191
00:15:17,519 --> 00:15:25,399
» That's the only thing the original
>> like one of the last pages. Page five.

192
00:15:26,160 --> 00:15:31,800
» So this is the back and forth I've had.
Okay. Page four.

193
00:15:32,240 --> 00:15:38,639
Any any of the liel ones. So the back
and forth I've had with them is that the

194
00:15:36,800 --> 00:15:43,760
plantings so we have a restriction
because it's in the site triangle

195
00:15:41,040 --> 00:15:47,920
on height
the like it just the plantings grow into

196
00:15:46,560 --> 00:15:51,920
Whitefish Bay and if you actually look
at it right now some of that text is

197
00:15:50,000 --> 00:15:56,000
covered up. So some of the village board
members I think it's specifically Jacob

198
00:15:54,079 --> 00:16:00,160
was asking to have those letters as high
as possible to make it more visible. So

199
00:15:58,399 --> 00:16:04,000
this was like our attempt to try to make
Whitefish Bay higher. I'm not sure it's

200
00:16:02,560 --> 00:16:05,519
the right decision, but it was an
attempt at that.

201
00:16:04,959 --> 00:16:10,240
» Yeah.
>> Two two comments on my I actually kind

202
00:16:07,680 --> 00:16:15,040
of prefer these big just White Fish Bay.
That's what you see. Um I get the

203
00:16:12,560 --> 00:16:20,079
planting issue and so take that. I
whatever. Um I'm fine with the other. I

204
00:16:17,440 --> 00:16:24,639
think the one suggestion on the estab
could you just put 1892 as opposed to

205
00:16:22,560 --> 00:16:28,240
village established 1892?
>> Yeah. And then village of on top. Is

206
00:16:26,800 --> 00:16:29,759
that what you're saying? Or just not do
that.

207
00:16:28,399 --> 00:16:31,199
» Get rid of the word established. Is that
what

208
00:16:30,160 --> 00:16:35,920
» basically just get rid of the word
established

209
00:16:32,000 --> 00:16:40,160
» put a dash say wther's bay
>> or est maybe or something?

210
00:16:38,560 --> 00:16:41,759
» Yeah.
>> Census bounded.

211
00:16:41,360 --> 00:16:47,040
» Sure.
>> Like is the is the word village

212
00:16:43,120 --> 00:16:49,600
important? It might be but
>> as opposed to a city.

213
00:16:48,560 --> 00:16:53,199
» Yeah.
>> I I get that. But town, city, village, I

214
00:16:52,079 --> 00:16:56,680
get all
>> think about. But

215
00:16:57,519 --> 00:17:02,720
» this get this gets into the branding of
the village itself, which is above my

216
00:17:01,519 --> 00:17:05,760
pay grade.
>> But do you do we want to be the village

217
00:17:04,640 --> 00:17:09,679
of Whitefish Bay or do we want to be
Whitefish Bay? How do people think about

218
00:17:07,120 --> 00:17:13,679
us? And how do we
It's a great question. I don't think we

219
00:17:11,199 --> 00:17:19,760
have like this official document that
explains our branding techniques.

220
00:17:15,919 --> 00:17:22,640
» Um I It's interesting if you ever go
outside of Wisconsin and you and I'll be

221
00:17:21,679 --> 00:17:26,000
like, "Oh, you know, I live in the
village." and they're like, "What you

222
00:17:24,400 --> 00:17:33,760
what a quaint little town you have
there." A hamlet of what I should say.

223
00:17:29,760 --> 00:17:36,559
Um, so you know, in Wisconsin branding,
typically you you do have those.

224
00:17:35,039 --> 00:17:38,240
» There's more to it than that because
there's statutory.

225
00:17:37,760 --> 00:17:41,120
» Correct.
>> We are a village. That is correct.

226
00:17:40,480 --> 00:17:43,280
» What these are.
>> Yeah.

227
00:17:41,520 --> 00:17:45,760
» We we are a village. I'm not we're not
changing.

228
00:17:43,760 --> 00:17:50,000
» Well, but I'm just making a point.
>> But are we more to it? Do we want to

229
00:17:48,000 --> 00:17:53,200
position ourselves as the village of
Whitefish Bay or do we want to position

230
00:17:51,840 --> 00:17:57,919
ourselves as White Fish Bay?
>> Oh, let me check the agenda. Oh, that's

231
00:17:54,799 --> 00:18:01,360
not on here. So, we're going on to Brian
now.

232
00:18:00,000 --> 00:18:05,600
Sorry.
>> I mean, my comments are I like that they

233
00:18:03,200 --> 00:18:08,480
added the second column. I think that to
anchor both sides, I think it looks a

234
00:18:07,039 --> 00:18:11,520
lot nicer. I like what they did. I I
frankly I like the decorative ball,

235
00:18:10,080 --> 00:18:15,039
honestly, that they eliminated. Okay.
Okay. And I I understand it may get

236
00:18:13,360 --> 00:18:17,360
broken off at somewhere along the line,
but

237
00:18:15,600 --> 00:18:20,720
» I like the decorative something. Whether
it's a ball or are you okay with other

238
00:18:19,840 --> 00:18:23,120
shapes or something?
>> Whatever. Whatever that is.

239
00:18:21,600 --> 00:18:26,960
» Something on top.
>> Say it's over to something. It looked

240
00:18:25,120 --> 00:18:30,480
nice on there. I thought nice way to do
it. And then my last comment, well, two

241
00:18:28,799 --> 00:18:33,760
more comments actually. The the fish on
the side. We should do that in white and

242
00:18:32,240 --> 00:18:37,760
blue like kind of our white fish bay
colors in my opinion. I'm not sure why

243
00:18:35,280 --> 00:18:42,320
we chose gold and whatever other color
we chose, but an idea. And then also

244
00:18:40,880 --> 00:18:45,440
like for plantings, it looks like there
is no plantings at all in front of the

245
00:18:43,760 --> 00:18:50,240
sign in front of Sundex. I I'm fine with
that. I would eliminate or limit the any

246
00:18:48,480 --> 00:18:54,080
plantings in front of the one to the
west to either be ground cover or no

247
00:18:52,480 --> 00:18:58,960
plantings at all to eliminate that from
growing into the White Fish Bay sign.

248
00:18:56,400 --> 00:19:02,880
However that is done be my two cents. If
you cook any grasses there, it's going

249
00:19:00,559 --> 00:19:06,960
to overcome that sign with how short
that is.

250
00:19:04,160 --> 00:19:11,039
Um, well, along those lines about the
plantings,

251
00:19:08,640 --> 00:19:17,120
I I thought at one point we were under
the assumption that this the Sendex sign

252
00:19:14,080 --> 00:19:24,400
had to be 42 in, but that one did not.
Do we know? Have we definitively

253
00:19:21,840 --> 00:19:28,240
» said
triangle

254
00:19:26,640 --> 00:19:32,480
at the other?
>> So, let's raise it up then. So raise it

255
00:19:30,320 --> 00:19:35,280
up, you know, six inches a foot and then
we don't have any planting problems.

256
00:19:35,039 --> 00:19:37,840
» Yeah.
>> And I don't think anybody's going to

257
00:19:36,480 --> 00:19:41,360
say, "Wait a minute, this one's a foot
taller." You know,

258
00:19:39,280 --> 00:19:46,559
» make it just taller than windows.
>> Yes.

259
00:19:43,840 --> 00:19:50,960
» Be aware of the of the window sight line
of sight there. I don't know if that you

260
00:19:48,480 --> 00:19:54,640
care about that or not, but
>> it's it's it's a consideration if you're

261
00:19:52,720 --> 00:20:00,559
looking off from the building.
>> My guess is that that's the lobby of the

262
00:19:56,640 --> 00:20:02,720
bank. And so I'm not perfect.
>> This is Sendix.

263
00:20:01,679 --> 00:20:05,200
» Oh, I apologize.
>> This one has to stay the same height. So

264
00:20:04,640 --> 00:20:07,679
if you go to the
>> light 142.

265
00:20:07,120 --> 00:20:11,679
» Okay.
>> This one can be

266
00:20:09,120 --> 00:20:17,120
» Okay. Yeah. No. And and they've got at
least the way this one is drawn, the the

267
00:20:15,520 --> 00:20:25,520
recast
apps at either end is what's 42 in. Mhm.

268
00:20:21,840 --> 00:20:31,039
» The the the bulk of the sign is probably
more like 38 or 39 in.

269
00:20:29,360 --> 00:20:33,039
» See that dotted line there?
>> Yeah. And

270
00:20:31,679 --> 00:20:38,880
» that's the 42 in.
>> I had a comment on the fact that this

271
00:20:36,000 --> 00:20:45,760
this I think it's landing stone. Um it's
42 and the the gap between the column

272
00:20:42,159 --> 00:20:50,880
cap and the field looks like maybe an
inch or something versus the SendX one

273
00:20:48,400 --> 00:20:56,720
where it's like 4 in. So if you go now,
if you flip back, let's see if I

274
00:20:53,600 --> 00:21:01,360
» Yeah, I mean it looks like
>> so like right this little piece, this

275
00:20:59,679 --> 00:21:05,520
little piece right there I think is like
one inch versus

276
00:21:04,080 --> 00:21:09,679
I don't know four or five
>> which is and my guess is that's they

277
00:21:07,600 --> 00:21:13,120
wanted to keep it the cap at 42 and they
wanted to raise the limestone one up as

278
00:21:11,360 --> 00:21:16,320
much as they could above the plantain.
>> That's my hypothesis.

279
00:21:14,880 --> 00:21:20,320
» I think it's because I had a few last
minute changes. probably was just an

280
00:21:17,919 --> 00:21:24,880
over.
>> Yeah, exactly.

281
00:21:21,360 --> 00:21:29,440
» But the point is look that the 42 in
height

282
00:21:25,840 --> 00:21:33,600
» is achieved at those two outbound kind
of columns column

283
00:21:31,120 --> 00:21:38,720
» with the pre-cast cab and and you know
whatever whether there's a 1 in or a 4

284
00:21:35,840 --> 00:21:45,039
inch drop down to the to the pre-cast
band across the top. Um and if we

285
00:21:42,559 --> 00:21:49,520
» it's slightly lower if we put a ball on
it. Are we violating the sight triangle?

286
00:21:48,320 --> 00:21:52,799
I mean,
>> yeah.

287
00:21:50,720 --> 00:21:57,280
» Yeah. I mean, you are, but I believe
there's a provision in that code section

288
00:21:54,720 --> 00:22:09,080
that gives the police chief in relation
to allow to be missed. So, we can

289
00:22:04,799 --> 00:22:09,080
» depends how big the ball is. Maybe

290
00:22:09,360 --> 00:22:15,840
» or what I was going to say was
everything should be 42,

291
00:22:13,360 --> 00:22:20,000
» right? make everything 42 and then and
put some kind of shape. I don't know if

292
00:22:17,919 --> 00:22:24,000
it's a sphere. I don't know if it's a
squashed

293
00:22:21,679 --> 00:22:29,520
elliptoid or some some kind of
decorative duad that goes on top of it.

294
00:22:26,400 --> 00:22:33,600
Um, generally like I I'm not a designer,
but I I like things that are not plain.

295
00:22:32,880 --> 00:22:35,600
Um, and
>> yeah, but you don't want to get too cute

296
00:22:35,120 --> 00:22:40,400
either.
>> I get it. And this is something pretty

297
00:22:38,000 --> 00:22:47,200
particularly subtle. Yeah,
>> I'm going to outline what what I would

298
00:22:44,000 --> 00:22:51,039
what I would cast as a motion if I could
ever get somebody to second it.

299
00:22:50,559 --> 00:22:54,480
» Sure.
>> But but let me let me let me just share

300
00:22:52,880 --> 00:22:57,919
with you what that would be and then
then maybe somebody thinks it's good

301
00:22:56,000 --> 00:23:04,080
enough, they can either alter it or
second it. But I would for me what I

302
00:23:01,280 --> 00:23:09,039
would mo move would be the
>> endorsement of of this sign with the

303
00:23:07,280 --> 00:23:17,440
modifications
being uh that you change that to add the

304
00:23:13,200 --> 00:23:22,400
words village of above Whitefish Bay. Uh
eliminate the village established and

305
00:23:19,120 --> 00:23:27,679
just put 1892 below it.
So it would read village of Whitefish

306
00:23:24,320 --> 00:23:33,760
Bay 1892. And then you modify, you take
and put the blue uh fish on there the

307
00:23:31,360 --> 00:23:38,480
way that Brian had identified it and a
ball of appropriate size as could be

308
00:23:36,240 --> 00:23:44,400
approved by the chief
on the ends and uh that would be what I

309
00:23:41,600 --> 00:23:47,120
would would
put off

310
00:23:45,200 --> 00:23:51,600
» comment on that as a pro prospective
seconder. Yeah, the the thing is is like

311
00:23:49,440 --> 00:23:56,240
we there's what you just mentioned was
probably 80% of what everybody else has

312
00:23:53,600 --> 00:24:01,760
mentioned, but 20% that is not and and
so it's kind of difficult to have that

313
00:23:58,640 --> 00:24:05,679
kind of motion that's unan that's any
kind of unonymity.

314
00:24:03,360 --> 00:24:08,960
» That's why I threw it out there
to be honest. I would want to see the

315
00:24:06,799 --> 00:24:11,039
markup of it just to say
>> yes or no. Right.

316
00:24:10,000 --> 00:24:14,240
» Right.
>> So it's a little tight. Right. And this

317
00:24:12,799 --> 00:24:16,799
is really just a we're making a
recommendation which we can make a

318
00:24:15,440 --> 00:24:25,360
motion for and
>> Yeah. Yeah, the the one exception I

319
00:24:19,840 --> 00:24:30,799
would take to Mike's motion is the
incorporation of the 1892

320
00:24:28,320 --> 00:24:35,279
because I think what's going to happen,
you know, given the height limitations

321
00:24:32,799 --> 00:24:39,840
that we have at least on on the Sendex
end of town is you have a village of

322
00:24:38,480 --> 00:24:44,320
then you have large letters White
Fishbay and then you have small letters

323
00:24:41,600 --> 00:24:48,640
1892. you're going to run out of space
and what's going to happen is you're

324
00:24:45,679 --> 00:24:54,640
gonna you're gonna squeeze the size of
the letters that say White Fish Bay and

325
00:24:51,760 --> 00:25:02,080
if you just have village of in little
tiny White Fish Bay done.

326
00:24:58,960 --> 00:25:07,919
One suggestion would be if you have the
right column, you could put established

327
00:25:04,799 --> 00:25:12,000
EST 1892 on the right column
>> to balance the fish signal

328
00:25:10,480 --> 00:25:15,919
» or even just 1892.
>> Or even just 1892. I'm

329
00:25:13,600 --> 00:25:20,640
» I'm fond I'm fond of the I like
simplicity by the way.

330
00:25:17,679 --> 00:25:24,880
» I I I that would be my favorite is make
make a new inlay on the right column

331
00:25:23,360 --> 00:25:27,039
that just says 1892.
>> Yeah,

332
00:25:25,200 --> 00:25:32,559
» cuz I actually like the big letters like
now we have

333
00:25:28,320 --> 00:25:37,919
You say since 1892 or something
>> 1892 simple ide.

334
00:25:35,679 --> 00:25:45,679
» So I have one other curveball and it's
actually a curve. The current two signs

335
00:25:42,640 --> 00:25:49,039
are indeed curved. They have a arc to
them.

336
00:25:46,240 --> 00:25:58,000
» Yes. which I guess I appreciate that in
that it's it it looks well thought out

337
00:25:52,000 --> 00:26:02,720
versus a flat straight sign. Is is there
anyone joining in me with me saying, you

338
00:26:00,400 --> 00:26:09,279
know, be nice if it was like angled or
the the the the columns were offset in a

339
00:26:06,159 --> 00:26:11,279
angular way? Anybody along those same
lines?

340
00:26:09,679 --> 00:26:18,960
» I could support that. Yeah. At least the
the one at Sendex though it

341
00:26:15,679 --> 00:26:25,200
I believe you know it's it's depicted
here as straight not curved

342
00:26:22,799 --> 00:26:29,039
but it's at an angle that mirrors the
angle at the end of the true the new

343
00:26:28,480 --> 00:26:31,200
building.
>> True.

344
00:26:30,480 --> 00:26:34,320
So imagine
>> and I mean I I I think when you start

345
00:26:33,200 --> 00:26:39,120
doing that
>> so I'm what I'm trying to do is take the

346
00:26:36,400 --> 00:26:42,880
columns and and make it make them just
bend them so that it's off

347
00:26:41,120 --> 00:26:46,320
» so that instead of being square they're
they're

348
00:26:43,279 --> 00:26:49,200
» yeah they're just off by an angle.
>> Oh okay. So it's still going to be

349
00:26:48,000 --> 00:26:53,120
straight across.
>> I mean any of the above. I'm not a

350
00:26:51,039 --> 00:26:58,320
designer. It's more I just I like things
that are a little bit more complicated

351
00:26:55,039 --> 00:27:02,720
than this flat sheet like Glendalees I
guess is. Um and and so all you do is

352
00:27:00,880 --> 00:27:08,880
just kind of you can either have a
concave or a convex curve in this case.

353
00:27:06,720 --> 00:27:13,200
Sure. Which con convex or concave? But
just to rotate the the columns.

354
00:27:12,000 --> 00:27:17,919
» The inlay curve.
>> Fairly simple.

355
00:27:15,840 --> 00:27:22,880
» Inlay curve. No. No. The inlay would not
curve. The stays stays straight and the

356
00:27:20,400 --> 00:27:27,039
columns just go off by
>> Oh, you would put the columns at 45°.

357
00:27:25,760 --> 00:27:32,880
» Yeah. How would
>> So instead of the columns being flat,

358
00:27:29,039 --> 00:27:38,480
you'd have the column edge come out just
in this case the we had some Legos. Does

359
00:27:35,360 --> 00:27:42,960
anybody have any Legos?
>> So the fish is lose your sign.

360
00:27:42,159 --> 00:27:46,480
» Yeah.
>> If you're looking at it from the top, it

361
00:27:44,320 --> 00:27:49,919
looks kind of diamond shaped instead of
square.

362
00:27:47,440 --> 00:27:53,600
» And not necessarily that you turn it 45
degrees. You might turn it only 10.

363
00:27:51,760 --> 00:27:58,000
» Okay. Yeah. Then you're going to see it
at an on the fish

364
00:27:56,159 --> 00:28:01,039
» at an oblique angle
>> a little bit. Yeah.

365
00:27:58,880 --> 00:28:05,440
» Yeah. And I don't
>> again I I would prefer it to be subtle,

366
00:28:03,679 --> 00:28:09,120
you know, not not a massive, you know,
45 degree, but maybe it's 20 or

367
00:28:07,600 --> 00:28:12,880
something.
>> I'm all for the kiss principle here.

368
00:28:10,960 --> 00:28:15,600
» Okay. That's and and that's the one of
the problems that we've got so many

369
00:28:14,159 --> 00:28:20,960
cooks in the kitchen here.
>> I think I think I could be convinced of

370
00:28:17,440 --> 00:28:23,679
that if you did like a a rounded sign.
>> And I'm good with that, too. in that

371
00:28:22,240 --> 00:28:25,520
scenario. But I think if you if it's a
flat sign, I think it's going to look a

372
00:28:24,880 --> 00:28:27,360
little wonky.
>> A rectangle is a rectangle.

373
00:28:26,640 --> 00:28:31,919
» Yeah. Yeah.
>> What the bid discussed with the rounded

374
00:28:29,200 --> 00:28:35,919
sign is there's there's chairs behind.
Now, obviously, it's Wisconsin, so

375
00:28:34,240 --> 00:28:40,159
that's not going to be all year round,
but there's proposed to be chairs in

376
00:28:37,440 --> 00:28:43,679
like a really small seating area. And
so, the concern is that it's going to be

377
00:28:41,600 --> 00:28:48,000
smaller. It's already going to be small,
but perhaps if that sign's narrow, it's

378
00:28:45,919 --> 00:28:50,880
probably just going to be a walkway. I
don't know if that matters.

379
00:28:49,120 --> 00:28:53,600
» Interesting place to sit.
>> Yeah.

380
00:28:51,919 --> 00:28:58,159
I think they have like four chairs and
all the renderings behind the sign.

381
00:28:56,799 --> 00:29:00,159
» How do you How do you get out there to
sit?

382
00:28:59,679 --> 00:29:03,840
» Sidewalk.
>> Sidewalk.

383
00:29:01,360 --> 00:29:06,080
» Oh, okay. So, it's just for walk passers
by.

384
00:29:04,320 --> 00:29:11,919
» Yeah. It's like a bench basically, but
it's chairs instead. Yeah.

385
00:29:09,279 --> 00:29:14,960
» Good place for a TV interview.
>> There you go.

386
00:29:14,000 --> 00:29:18,240
» Um,
>> okay. Could I

387
00:29:16,240 --> 00:29:21,919
» So, do do you want an official motion
from the CDA? I mean, you tell me

388
00:29:20,320 --> 00:29:25,600
because this is going to visit.
>> I mean, the problem is is it's also

389
00:29:23,520 --> 00:29:28,320
going to go to the Ark. It's the bid.
Did they make a motion? They did.

390
00:29:26,960 --> 00:29:33,840
» They did.
>> So, what they what they unanimously

391
00:29:32,000 --> 00:29:38,320
supported was this. There's some
alterations like Anna was the one that

392
00:29:36,080 --> 00:29:42,880
Anna Casper um is the one that sent me
like the the fish and the font. So,

393
00:29:41,440 --> 00:29:45,760
those changes were based on her
feedback.

394
00:29:44,240 --> 00:29:49,440
Uh, so there's a few other changes
incorporated, but for the most part,

395
00:29:47,760 --> 00:29:52,799
this is what they recommended.
>> You know, you're you're you're going to

396
00:29:50,880 --> 00:29:57,679
end up with a whole bunch of ideas here.
>> Oh, I have a lot of ideas.

397
00:29:55,760 --> 00:30:00,960
» This is strangely one of the more
complicated things I've done since I've

398
00:29:59,279 --> 00:30:04,880
got here.
>> So, you always call said that a camel is

399
00:30:03,520 --> 00:30:08,640
a horse that was designed by the
committee.

400
00:30:06,159 --> 00:30:12,000
» And so, we've got to be careful not to
>> But they do function pretty well when

401
00:30:10,080 --> 00:30:13,279
they're out the desert. So, what the
heck?

402
00:30:12,399 --> 00:30:16,399
» Yeah.
We need don't need a 300.

403
00:30:15,840 --> 00:30:22,240
» I don't know.
>> I'm happy I mean I'm happy to support

404
00:30:19,200 --> 00:30:24,799
this motion. Um I know that there'll be
many iterations.

405
00:30:23,440 --> 00:30:28,559
» I'm I'm going to throw it out there as a
motion just to get it over with and then

406
00:30:26,799 --> 00:30:33,200
somebody can either second it or not and
we can vote it up or down. I mean and

407
00:30:30,720 --> 00:30:36,000
then at the end of the day other
committees are going to have their say.

408
00:30:34,640 --> 00:30:38,080
So it's going to change. It's probably
not going to be what we recommend

409
00:30:37,360 --> 00:30:45,600
anyway,
>> right? But, you know, I for what it's

410
00:30:40,880 --> 00:30:51,840
worth, I think that this plan with the
fish altered as we indicated and then

411
00:30:48,159 --> 00:30:57,440
with Dick's changes that we talked about
uh and the inclusion of a ball to the

412
00:30:55,120 --> 00:31:00,080
extent that the chief could stomach it
>> and I think you said but both would be

413
00:30:59,440 --> 00:31:02,960
the same.
>> Yes.

414
00:31:00,559 --> 00:31:06,320
» Silver Spring, I'm sorry, Lidell and and
Lake the same.

415
00:31:04,320 --> 00:31:09,600
» Okay. Um both will be the same in terms
of the material.

416
00:31:08,480 --> 00:31:12,960
They would be identical.
>> They would be identical

417
00:31:10,720 --> 00:31:17,440
» except for the height. Can you add that?
>> Except for the height.

418
00:31:13,600 --> 00:31:22,559
» The material would be a dark brick
>> uh and and pre-cast.

419
00:31:20,000 --> 00:31:24,480
» Okay. So, they both Wait, would it be
that brick or you're proposing a

420
00:31:23,919 --> 00:31:28,640
different brick?
>> No, it' be this type of brick. Matching

421
00:31:27,440 --> 00:31:33,520
syntax or not matching?
>> Well, it doesn't have to be exactly

422
00:31:29,840 --> 00:31:39,440
matching, but it a red type brick. I I I
think it ought to either match or be a

423
00:31:36,640 --> 00:31:42,480
substantial contrast.
>> You got that?

424
00:31:42,000 --> 00:31:45,840
» Okay.
>> So, I'd say Yeah. So, I'd say match

425
00:31:44,559 --> 00:31:48,640
sentence.
>> Okay. So, both signs match.

426
00:31:47,279 --> 00:31:52,960
» Both sides would be the same.
>> Okay. Both. And you know the other the

427
00:31:50,399 --> 00:31:59,679
other justification in my mind for that
is that and and you know you can argue

428
00:31:56,799 --> 00:32:05,679
that we're not bound by history but the
fact that we have that and have had that

429
00:32:02,240 --> 00:32:10,480
type of a brick sub in the past
is something that people will recognize

430
00:32:08,720 --> 00:32:14,080
as being a trademark of the village
going forward. So I don't see any

431
00:32:12,000 --> 00:32:18,240
problem with with being consistent with
what what with that element of the past.

432
00:32:16,399 --> 00:32:22,480
And we still do we still have the red
brick white fish bay sign on Hampton

433
00:32:20,559 --> 00:32:24,880
coming into White Fish Bay. East that is
red brick. Yeah.

434
00:32:24,480 --> 00:32:28,720
» Okay.
>> It has been suggested that we would go

435
00:32:27,200 --> 00:32:34,080
through a process of replacing
everything once we have a format that we

436
00:32:31,039 --> 00:32:36,640
all like. We would then you know proceed
with Hampton and

437
00:32:35,760 --> 00:32:40,039
» Sure.
>> Lake and

438
00:32:40,080 --> 00:32:46,640
» Can I repeat this back to make sure I
have it? Well, first before you before I

439
00:32:44,799 --> 00:32:49,919
do, what do you guys think of that that
are you going to vote for that motion in

440
00:32:48,960 --> 00:32:53,120
second or not?
>> Mike's motion.

441
00:32:51,200 --> 00:32:55,360
» Uh uh yeah, Mike's.
>> Yes. I mean, I'm on board with what he

442
00:32:54,640 --> 00:32:58,960
said. Yes.
>> I will probably not vote for it.

443
00:32:57,120 --> 00:33:03,279
» I'm I'm not going to vote for it either.
>> Okay.

444
00:32:59,360 --> 00:33:08,159
» I'm Yeah, I just I I think I I don't
think the brick fits in front of the

445
00:33:05,360 --> 00:33:13,519
Lidell building. Um, and I'm I'm
generally okay with uh the materials

446
00:33:11,279 --> 00:33:15,600
being different, but but you got three,
so there you go.

447
00:33:14,159 --> 00:33:17,919
» Well, you get another kick at the can.
So

448
00:33:15,840 --> 00:33:20,960
» So why don't you why don't you play why
don't you tell us what the motion you

449
00:33:19,840 --> 00:33:25,039
think is?
>> Okay. Um, so Mike, let's make sure I got

450
00:33:23,120 --> 00:33:30,240
this right. Um, so both signs are going
to match and they'll be the Sendex red

451
00:33:27,760 --> 00:33:32,240
brick. The we're going to add a ball to
the top.

452
00:33:30,640 --> 00:33:37,360
» Let's not let's not call it the Sendex
red brick. red brick consistent with

453
00:33:34,720 --> 00:33:43,399
» the village's historic use of brick. I'
I'd go with that. Yeah.

454
00:33:39,120 --> 00:33:43,399
» Okay. So, both signs match.

455
00:33:48,399 --> 00:33:55,919
» Where would I say the materials?
>> Um adding the decorative ball on top.

456
00:33:53,440 --> 00:34:00,240
Did you say to change the logo to blue
or white? Was that

457
00:33:57,600 --> 00:34:04,000
» Well, for the fish to be consistent with
the with what Brian is. Can you change

458
00:34:02,480 --> 00:34:07,919
that from decorative ball to just
decorative shape?

459
00:34:06,240 --> 00:34:12,079
» Does it need to be a ball? Like I think
that there was something that was

460
00:34:09,679 --> 00:34:17,200
» not in my mind. I think decorative shape
is fine. Sure.

461
00:34:15,599 --> 00:34:21,119
» Well, depending on I suppose there's a
lot of objectionable, but you guys

462
00:34:20,639 --> 00:34:24,919
something good.
>> Dad.

463
00:34:21,919 --> 00:34:24,919
» Yeah.

464
00:34:25,119 --> 00:34:31,200
» Put a pineapple.
>> Traditional traditional symbol of what a

465
00:34:29,119 --> 00:34:34,200
fish. This is this is gonna be a
legendary

466
00:34:34,800 --> 00:34:40,280
» couple roosters on.
>> So decorative dad

467
00:34:41,599 --> 00:34:51,040
» um blue or white logo um fish logo and
then was there something with the 1892?

468
00:34:49,440 --> 00:34:55,919
» Yeah, get rid of it.
>> Well, the the alternative was to put it

469
00:34:52,960 --> 00:34:59,760
on the other other column with the EST.
>> What does your motion include? I'll go

470
00:34:57,920 --> 00:35:02,480
with the with that
>> with the on the column.

471
00:35:01,200 --> 00:35:05,839
» Yeah, put it on the column on the other
side.

472
00:35:03,280 --> 00:35:08,839
» Put on column with EST 1892
>> 18

473
00:35:08,880 --> 00:35:16,560
» established
>> estimated

474
00:35:14,079 --> 00:35:19,040
» Yeah.
>> two. Okay. Was there anything else I

475
00:35:18,000 --> 00:35:21,760
missed?
>> Probably, but we don't know what it is.

476
00:35:20,800 --> 00:35:24,480
» Okay.
>> Hannah, you're good.

477
00:35:22,800 --> 00:35:28,079
» Yeah. All right. That's everything I
did. Okay. So, we have a motion

478
00:35:25,920 --> 00:35:33,040
» and a second. Yes.
>> Uh,

479
00:35:29,920 --> 00:35:38,560
any further discussion? Uh, all those in
favor of Mike's

480
00:35:35,680 --> 00:35:39,680
uh monument say I.
>> I.

481
00:35:39,119 --> 00:35:42,160
» I.
>> That's three. And those who say nay.

482
00:35:41,760 --> 00:35:45,760
» Nay.
>> Nay. Passes three to two.

483
00:35:43,920 --> 00:35:48,000
Congratulations.
>> Okay.

484
00:35:46,240 --> 00:35:50,000
» And if it ever shows up that way, I'll
be amazed.

485
00:35:48,720 --> 00:35:53,000
» Yeah.
>> Yeah.

486
00:35:53,119 --> 00:35:57,440
» Sure. That would look like that.
>> That's right.

487
00:35:55,680 --> 00:35:58,880
» 37 minutes.
>> Yeah.

488
00:35:58,240 --> 00:36:02,320
» Okay.
>> Well, and well spent.

489
00:36:00,079 --> 00:36:06,800
» Well spent. Absolutely well spent. Uh
all right. We will then move on. That's

490
00:36:05,440 --> 00:36:10,960
» We'll then move on to discussion
recommendation on strategic plan

491
00:36:08,320 --> 00:36:15,599
initiative to evaluate permit permitted
conditional and prohibited uses and

492
00:36:13,200 --> 00:36:22,160
other standards in district 11, which is
the Silver Spring District. So Anna is

493
00:36:18,880 --> 00:36:26,640
ready to say this for the ninth time.
>> Yes. We're going to keep it short and

494
00:36:23,680 --> 00:36:34,800
sweet. Um, we talked about this at the
last CDA meeting and the CDA was able to

495
00:36:31,760 --> 00:36:38,800
reach consens consensus on several
potential changes to the district 11

496
00:36:37,280 --> 00:36:43,680
regulations.
One of the things that they said though

497
00:36:41,599 --> 00:36:48,960
was that they wanted to continue
discussion regarding the existing

498
00:36:46,079 --> 00:36:56,160
conditional uses specifically in light
of Act 67. you need to rehash that, we

499
00:36:53,040 --> 00:37:03,680
can. Otherwise, we don't need to. Um,
but ultimately with act 67, just that

500
00:36:59,760 --> 00:37:08,400
conditional uses don't have the legal
backing that they once had. So, with our

501
00:37:06,079 --> 00:37:14,640
conditional uses, even though they're
listed, um, it makes it hard to deny

502
00:37:12,240 --> 00:37:22,000
them now. So looking at the conditional
uses and if you want to keep them as

503
00:37:18,400 --> 00:37:28,960
conditional uses or move any to
prohibited and then also what to do with

504
00:37:24,320 --> 00:37:34,160
the wrap around having it be remain as
if it's not listed in our conditional

505
00:37:31,119 --> 00:37:39,920
uses, have it remain a conditional use
or have it be a prohibited use. And then

506
00:37:36,640 --> 00:37:45,520
if there were any specific uses that you
felt individually you wanted to call out

507
00:37:42,800 --> 00:37:51,960
either moving it up to permitted or
bumping it down to prohibited that is

508
00:37:48,960 --> 00:37:51,960
listed.

509
00:37:52,800 --> 00:38:02,720
» So So can I ask a question just because
I wasn't at the last meeting. Um the act

510
00:37:58,880 --> 00:38:07,920
67 cont the context of the act 67 that
is

511
00:38:04,320 --> 00:38:11,440
conditional uses somehow problematic but
if we say things are prohibited that's

512
00:38:09,839 --> 00:38:15,040
not problematic.
>> Okay.

513
00:38:13,040 --> 00:38:16,480
» Conditional uses are incredibly hard to
deny.

514
00:38:16,000 --> 00:38:20,320
» Okay.
>> That's the way you say it. And but

515
00:38:18,240 --> 00:38:22,400
» prohibited items are are not hard to
they are prohibited. That's not a big

516
00:38:22,000 --> 00:38:24,240
deal.
>> Okay.

517
00:38:23,680 --> 00:38:28,560
» Okay.
>> Got it. which is

518
00:38:25,359 --> 00:38:38,400
» that that legislation was part of a
package the of uh attempting

519
00:38:33,920 --> 00:38:42,560
statewide to simplify, expedite,
streamline

520
00:38:39,680 --> 00:38:48,160
» the development process, make it easier
for greedy developers like me to

521
00:38:45,200 --> 00:38:53,440
» get stuff done.
>> Exactly. Power to But now we're in power

522
00:38:50,720 --> 00:39:00,400
to the people mode. Yes. 2026.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um,

523
00:38:56,720 --> 00:39:06,640
so firstly, do does do do any of the
board members here uh have

524
00:39:03,520 --> 00:39:11,920
comments to add besides the ones that
the bullet points on the topic like they

525
00:39:10,079 --> 00:39:18,480
you you have something prepared, you
want to talk about u particular items.

526
00:39:14,960 --> 00:39:22,480
Um if not
uh we probably we're now going to go

527
00:39:20,640 --> 00:39:27,839
back to what we were talking about
before which was um the bigger questions

528
00:39:26,400 --> 00:39:34,800
one of the bigger questions was about
banks and for example prohibiting banks

529
00:39:31,359 --> 00:39:38,240
with a what was it the a retail bank on
the first floor. Is that how we were

530
00:39:37,040 --> 00:39:45,359
going to phrase it?
>> Yep. We were going to put in a standard

531
00:39:41,359 --> 00:39:50,160
for requiring financial institutions
uh to be located on the second

532
00:39:48,480 --> 00:39:54,119
» which would effectively make all the
current banks non-conforming.

533
00:39:54,400 --> 00:40:06,079
» Where did that idea materialize from?
>> Brainstorming on the concept of do we

534
00:40:02,720 --> 00:40:10,800
want to continue to have more banks in
our village? Um is that the right

535
00:40:09,119 --> 00:40:14,640
answer? I I don't know and that's why
we're discussing it here.

536
00:40:12,320 --> 00:40:20,760
» Okay. Do we know if anybody else any
other villages have something similar to

537
00:40:17,760 --> 00:40:20,760
that?

538
00:40:20,800 --> 00:40:26,960
Are there other examples where that's
been put in place?

539
00:40:23,680 --> 00:40:28,320
» That would be part of staff's analysis
further looking.

540
00:40:28,000 --> 00:40:33,280
» Yeah.
>> Okay.

541
00:40:29,599 --> 00:40:37,599
Oh, I mean I'm not enamored with any
more banks of course in the village, but

542
00:40:35,200 --> 00:40:43,839
at the same time I don't think it's
appropriate to make all of them not

543
00:40:39,760 --> 00:40:48,400
legal non-confirming that are here
>> especially given the Bank of America.

544
00:40:46,400 --> 00:40:50,320
» Yeah, we just approved one at our last
meeting by the way,

545
00:40:49,760 --> 00:40:56,880
» right?
>> With a drive-thru.

546
00:40:52,320 --> 00:41:02,800
The condition we also discussed was that
it could be there there had to be a

547
00:41:00,560 --> 00:41:06,599
component to it on the second floor that
we felt was useful,

548
00:41:06,960 --> 00:41:10,720
» which again there wasn't on the Bank of
America

549
00:41:10,079 --> 00:41:14,480
» no
>> project that we just approved.

550
00:41:13,040 --> 00:41:18,319
» Well, there's apartments up there.
>> Yeah, I know.

551
00:41:16,880 --> 00:41:23,119
So, one of the bankers could rent
apartment, but

552
00:41:20,960 --> 00:41:29,280
I mean, are we kind of closing the barn
door after the horse is out?

553
00:41:26,720 --> 00:41:31,200
This is, you know, a forwardlooking
document, right?

554
00:41:30,400 --> 00:41:33,920
» Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um, so

555
00:41:32,640 --> 00:41:37,640
» want another one?
>> Yeah. I

556
00:41:38,400 --> 00:41:45,040
right now the way it's uh set up is that
it would continue to be permitted as a

557
00:41:42,640 --> 00:41:51,359
conditional use even though conditional
uses we don't have uh a great deal of

558
00:41:49,040 --> 00:41:56,079
control over is that is that way I
understand it now let me just ask this

559
00:41:54,560 --> 00:42:00,079
question
uh

560
00:41:58,240 --> 00:42:05,760
you do have control over conditional
uses provided that you uh control them

561
00:42:03,920 --> 00:42:13,599
util utilizing
uh certain standards of uh performance,

562
00:42:09,119 --> 00:42:19,599
visav parking, visav uh traffic impacts,
some of the kinds of things uh that you

563
00:42:16,079 --> 00:42:23,760
know the hours of use.
Do we not aren't aren't we going to

564
00:42:21,680 --> 00:42:29,359
require parking analysis, parking
studies of any of these conditional uses

565
00:42:26,079 --> 00:42:34,160
if they come in going forward?
Shouldn't we be requiring that?

566
00:42:32,640 --> 00:42:39,599
I guess what I'd say that the plan
commission

567
00:42:36,000 --> 00:42:47,599
usually we if if there was a project
that uh was unusual enough that would

568
00:42:44,079 --> 00:42:51,839
generate an unusual amount of parking
issues, we would we could require a

569
00:42:49,760 --> 00:42:56,640
study. For example, the Argo
>> where we said yeah where we said, "Holy

570
00:42:53,920 --> 00:43:00,800
moly, this could really, you know, swamp
us with parking issues. We are going to

571
00:42:58,960 --> 00:43:05,280
demand a parking." What I what I'm
suggesting, Kevin, is that maybe this is

572
00:43:02,800 --> 00:43:10,160
this is a way of reestablishing some
control. We may have not have insisted

573
00:43:08,000 --> 00:43:13,680
on parking studies in the past except
for when we thought maybe there'd be a

574
00:43:12,160 --> 00:43:20,560
greater impact. But if you requ all of
them to have one, then maybe you got

575
00:43:16,880 --> 00:43:24,160
some control except you could wave the
parking stud. Could let me ask this.

576
00:43:22,480 --> 00:43:29,280
Could we set it up so that you would
require a parking study on every deal

577
00:43:27,200 --> 00:43:33,280
unless waved
by the police chief or somebody that

578
00:43:31,359 --> 00:43:35,200
said based on our experience, we don't
think that in this case it's going to be

579
00:43:34,880 --> 00:43:37,520
that
>> I think we could do that

580
00:43:35,839 --> 00:43:42,240
» for the MA or the village manager.
>> I mean, I think we could do that today

581
00:43:39,599 --> 00:43:43,520
under under our current rules. We we are
waving.

582
00:43:42,720 --> 00:43:46,880
» You think so?
>> Yeah. Wouldn't Wouldn't you agree? Like

583
00:43:45,440 --> 00:43:53,040
we
>> are you requiring everybody to do it?

584
00:43:50,000 --> 00:43:56,240
» No, but we could. Well, what I'm I'm
just throwing this out there based on

585
00:43:54,720 --> 00:43:59,200
some conversations I've had with people
that are in this business about this,

586
00:43:58,079 --> 00:44:02,560
knowing we were going to talk about
this.

587
00:43:59,920 --> 00:44:07,760
» I think maybe you can
exercise some muscle that you didn't

588
00:44:04,800 --> 00:44:12,880
know you had by by by invoking those
kinds of requirements.

589
00:44:09,839 --> 00:44:17,839
» You know, the end goal here is a bank
has decided to buy X property. Yeah. and

590
00:44:15,839 --> 00:44:22,960
and demolish that property and put up
their bank. And and so if there is a way

591
00:44:21,200 --> 00:44:27,839
outside of conditional use, prohibited
use that we can basically say we do not

592
00:44:25,680 --> 00:44:31,599
want a 10th bank here.
>> If if if there if there is some other

593
00:44:29,760 --> 00:44:33,680
avenue to do that, I'm all ears.
>> Yeah.

594
00:44:31,920 --> 00:44:36,640
» I don't think parking is it. And not to
mention the fact that they could say

595
00:44:35,040 --> 00:44:41,200
we're going to put up a single we're
gonna, you know, take 100 by 100 plot of

596
00:44:39,680 --> 00:44:45,680
land and put up a bank and we're gonna
have plenty of parking. So, our parking

597
00:44:43,200 --> 00:44:48,720
study issue just went out the window. If
there is a way that we can prohibit a

598
00:44:47,760 --> 00:44:52,640
10th one,
>> I don't think I don't think there is.

599
00:44:50,800 --> 00:44:57,920
But I what I'm suggesting is there are
ways you could make it much more of a

600
00:44:54,800 --> 00:45:05,920
challenge for somebody that uh might
discourage the uh the casual uh uh uh

601
00:45:03,359 --> 00:45:10,800
» casual bank. Well, the bank that is
going to try to do do it without having

602
00:45:07,760 --> 00:45:15,359
to uh address some of the thornier
questions associated with park. We do

603
00:45:13,200 --> 00:45:19,839
have parking problem here. You can claim
that we don't, but we do have parking

604
00:45:16,960 --> 00:45:24,720
problems with with
a number of situations. I mean, it's

605
00:45:22,560 --> 00:45:30,319
it's tight out there and it's getting
worse. Oh, I that I was just about to

606
00:45:27,359 --> 00:45:35,520
say I I disagree in that the Sendex
property and the adding of Bowmont

607
00:45:32,400 --> 00:45:39,599
parking and the fact that now Sundex
will have 44 more spots because of the

608
00:45:37,200 --> 00:45:43,119
Masonic Temple property. We actually for
a moment are actually trending in a

609
00:45:41,680 --> 00:45:45,440
different direction in a more positive
direction. But that's good.

610
00:45:44,079 --> 00:45:51,920
» I think Colin wanted to So I
>> I have two concerns with this. One is um

611
00:45:48,960 --> 00:45:57,599
the
if the goal is to keep out banks

612
00:45:55,760 --> 00:46:03,839
say you know putting a blanket
restriction on around parking or

613
00:45:59,440 --> 00:46:08,800
whatever but always giving a waiver to
non-banks and always requiring it for

614
00:46:05,680 --> 00:46:12,880
banks kind of opens you up to potential
lawsuits right now. Whether any bank

615
00:46:11,119 --> 00:46:17,680
specific bank is going to want to bother
with that, I have no idea. But I think

616
00:46:15,920 --> 00:46:22,960
it's you would have you could you could
potentially um you could potentially run

617
00:46:21,119 --> 00:46:29,839
into that issue. The other thing is that
if you require everything to have a um a

618
00:46:27,040 --> 00:46:33,839
parking study, that may make some
developments

619
00:46:31,520 --> 00:46:35,760
too expensive for a small retailer or
something to go through.

620
00:46:34,960 --> 00:46:42,319
» Dog groomer.
>> Yeah. Is an example. Um, the other thing

621
00:46:39,200 --> 00:46:47,040
is the way you keep out, as far as I
understand it, the way you keep out

622
00:46:44,400 --> 00:46:54,119
retail banks is you get a better use of
the land and retail space than a bank. A

623
00:46:49,920 --> 00:46:54,119
bank is not, you know, it's a

624
00:46:54,319 --> 00:47:00,960
it's sort of the minimum viable floor.
And so that's why you end up seeing them

625
00:46:58,319 --> 00:47:04,400
in a lot of places. That's the that's
the only thing that that's the, you

626
00:47:02,319 --> 00:47:08,800
know, you don't you don't have better
options. And so the way you keep them

627
00:47:06,880 --> 00:47:13,440
out is you end up with better options.
Now that's a bigger and that's a bigger

628
00:47:11,119 --> 00:47:17,040
question than we
>> the question Colin is how do you get how

629
00:47:15,200 --> 00:47:21,200
do you encourage those better options?
>> Yeah, I don't I don't have the right

630
00:47:18,480 --> 00:47:23,839
answer for that but that's
um

631
00:47:21,520 --> 00:47:28,400
» that's what we're trying to get to.
>> That's that's a maybe a joint

632
00:47:26,000 --> 00:47:33,280
conversation with bid and the village
board and

633
00:47:30,480 --> 00:47:37,560
us of how of what can we do to to do
that? I mean,

634
00:47:38,880 --> 00:47:44,400
» what?
>> Well, I was just I threw out that idea.

635
00:47:42,160 --> 00:47:49,200
I'm looking for tools, guys. I'm trying
to be helpful.

636
00:47:46,800 --> 00:47:53,119
» And I appreciate like more brains
looking into ways that we can basically

637
00:47:51,920 --> 00:47:56,560
stop a 10th bank.
>> Yeah. I mean, I mean,

638
00:47:54,319 --> 00:48:01,359
» or anything else really the agenda here?
I mean, are we broader policy?

639
00:47:59,359 --> 00:48:05,040
» Yeah, that's what I say. Or any anything
else? You see, I don't I don't think

640
00:48:02,960 --> 00:48:08,160
this is the like I think I think the way
you do it is you build more housing and

641
00:48:06,720 --> 00:48:12,560
you build more apartments and you build
more you get more bodies on the street

642
00:48:10,079 --> 00:48:15,359
and on Silver Spring, but that's a
different conversation because nobody

643
00:48:13,839 --> 00:48:19,359
wants to walk out the sun.
>> But like I want Fiverr like story that

644
00:48:18,880 --> 00:48:23,200
you know.
>> Yeah. So

645
00:48:21,359 --> 00:48:26,800
» Brian, do you have any comments on this?
>> I think at a minimum I think one thing

646
00:48:24,640 --> 00:48:30,559
we should talk was is a requirement to
activate the floors above the bank in

647
00:48:28,880 --> 00:48:34,160
the event that they were to come. Yes,
>> we kind of did that anyways like with

648
00:48:32,160 --> 00:48:36,559
the Bank of America project and part of
the reason why we got our arms around it

649
00:48:35,359 --> 00:48:40,400
was the activation of apartments
upstairs. They built a kind of a full

650
00:48:38,800 --> 00:48:41,760
second floor on Town Bank when they did
that. But

651
00:48:41,040 --> 00:48:45,760
» but you don't
>> to add a requirement of office or

652
00:48:43,520 --> 00:48:50,319
residential or retail
>> on on the second and or third floor

653
00:48:48,000 --> 00:48:55,599
above that would be a minimum.
>> You don't want a standalone bank.

654
00:48:52,319 --> 00:48:57,839
» Is that a possib How would we can we do
that?

655
00:48:56,079 --> 00:49:01,119
» Absolutely. Why not?
>> Is that a Is that a zoning? Is that an

656
00:49:00,000 --> 00:49:04,079
ordinance? Is that like
>> Let's let us look into it. I'm sure

657
00:49:02,720 --> 00:49:06,960
there's a way. We just have to think
through it.

658
00:49:04,720 --> 00:49:15,040
» Yeah. I think it would have to be like a
standard and the

659
00:49:12,079 --> 00:49:16,079
Yeah. something with accessory.
>> Yeah.

660
00:49:15,520 --> 00:49:17,920
» Yeah.
>> Okay. Let us think through it.

661
00:49:17,200 --> 00:49:20,880
» But I I think
>> you know or or could you write a

662
00:49:19,200 --> 00:49:22,960
prohibition that's very specific that
says no standalone banks?

663
00:49:22,400 --> 00:49:27,839
» Yeah.
>> Well, that would make the existing ones

664
00:49:25,440 --> 00:49:30,800
legal. And then with that stop
redevelopment and or them remodeling

665
00:49:29,599 --> 00:49:35,040
their facilities that doesn't
necessarily help the street either,

666
00:49:32,800 --> 00:49:38,000
» you know. So you gota be careful. So So
what is what is

667
00:49:35,839 --> 00:49:41,920
» that's a really good point because yeah,
we can't write something for future that

668
00:49:40,000 --> 00:49:45,440
doesn't apply. So I actually don't know
how you would do that. You can't it

669
00:49:44,000 --> 00:49:50,000
doesn't these things don't get
grandfathered in and they but it's a

670
00:49:47,200 --> 00:49:54,480
development issue not a
>> like it's you want to invest in the

671
00:49:52,000 --> 00:49:58,720
property because otherwise you have to
bring it up to co bring it to

672
00:49:56,720 --> 00:50:02,240
» or when they remodel it they have to add
that

673
00:49:59,920 --> 00:50:06,400
» to someone something like that.
>> Yeah. So you have to work

674
00:50:03,599 --> 00:50:10,240
» if if you exceed it's 50% of the
valuation at the time the property

675
00:50:07,839 --> 00:50:14,000
becomes legal non-conforming then you
lose that status.

676
00:50:11,920 --> 00:50:19,760
» Yeah. as a legal non- farming building.
Now, there's exceptions to that. Um it

677
00:50:17,839 --> 00:50:24,640
so it gets pretty nuanced really
quickly. Um but it it could be

678
00:50:22,480 --> 00:50:28,960
prohibitive
for some projects at least.

679
00:50:26,559 --> 00:50:33,200
» How strong is the market here for uh
second floor non-residential commercial

680
00:50:32,000 --> 00:50:36,559
type?
>> We're pretty well full on the street

681
00:50:35,040 --> 00:50:41,839
both first floor and second floor and
then even above

682
00:50:38,880 --> 00:50:46,960
there's little vacancy. So by by
requiring this we wouldn't be trying to

683
00:50:44,720 --> 00:50:49,280
create something that doesn't that isn't
called for by the market at all.

684
00:50:48,400 --> 00:50:50,880
» I think so.
>> Okay.

685
00:50:49,599 --> 00:50:55,359
» And plus if you have three options
office, retail and and residential

686
00:50:54,319 --> 00:51:00,720
do any of those three.
>> Yeah. So so potentially you like you

687
00:50:57,760 --> 00:51:04,640
could say okay we want to make sure the
associated bank.

688
00:51:03,200 --> 00:51:08,079
» So you would have you want them work
with associated bank and how you

689
00:51:06,400 --> 00:51:11,599
» as an example how you would do that
before you put this in place. And if

690
00:51:10,400 --> 00:51:15,359
there are other like I don't I'm not
sure I care about the town bank, right?

691
00:51:13,599 --> 00:51:19,280
Things that or things that are very far
west on Silver Spring. Maybe they sort

692
00:51:17,920 --> 00:51:24,480
of
>> So are we are we saying that we would

693
00:51:21,440 --> 00:51:30,720
want to have a second story use as a
condition for any conditional use or uh

694
00:51:29,040 --> 00:51:35,520
» on on Silver Spring
>> on Silver Spring. So if so if if your

695
00:51:33,680 --> 00:51:41,680
nail salon or somebody like that comes
in hair groom dog grooming uh it would

696
00:51:39,599 --> 00:51:46,720
only be permitted if they were able to
put a second story on the building.

697
00:51:44,880 --> 00:51:50,240
» Fitzgerald wouldn't have been able to go
ahead couple of years ago.

698
00:51:48,640 --> 00:51:55,520
» Yeah.
>> Without putting the second story on.

699
00:51:53,359 --> 00:52:00,480
» I thought this was I mean I thought you
were eliminating it to a bank.

700
00:51:59,520 --> 00:52:04,160
» That's what I'm asking.
>> Oh, okay. Okay.

701
00:52:01,839 --> 00:52:08,000
» I think you'd have to look.
>> Yeah,

702
00:52:04,720 --> 00:52:13,359
» you'd have to keep it to a bank.
>> Are we kind of trying to reinvent a

703
00:52:11,520 --> 00:52:17,359
wheel that's probably already been
invented?

704
00:52:14,720 --> 00:52:22,400
» Are there I mean, I I can't, you know,
this state legislation applies to every

705
00:52:19,920 --> 00:52:28,400
municipality in the state.
Um, and I I don't want to spend a lot of

706
00:52:26,000 --> 00:52:33,040
money, but I got to believe that there
are, you know, a dozen consulting firms

707
00:52:31,520 --> 00:52:37,200
that are putting together, you know,
whether it's Grave or Vanderwal or, you

708
00:52:35,200 --> 00:52:42,880
know, somebody else. Does the League of
Municipalities

709
00:52:38,800 --> 00:52:47,359
have anything on this? Uh, is is is
Chris Jacobs

710
00:52:44,720 --> 00:52:52,480
able to be helpful? I mean, he's
>> When you say this, what is this?

711
00:52:49,440 --> 00:52:57,920
» Well, I don't know what this is.
It's this kind of

712
00:52:55,440 --> 00:52:59,599
defensive thing.
>> Yes.

713
00:52:58,240 --> 00:53:03,920
» Well, you're looking what you're looking
for is a way to prohibit conditional

714
00:53:02,160 --> 00:53:06,000
uses you don't want
>> essentially.

715
00:53:04,640 --> 00:53:08,720
» Yeah.
>> Yeah.

716
00:53:06,960 --> 00:53:11,599
» Without imp that you
>> without ending up in court.

717
00:53:09,839 --> 00:53:15,359
» But without impacting the existing
businesses and without and without

718
00:53:13,839 --> 00:53:20,720
ending up in court.
>> So we have Yes. Um we've had these

719
00:53:18,800 --> 00:53:27,520
conversations. So Grafe has spent a
decent amount of time on this. Um Chris

720
00:53:23,440 --> 00:53:31,920
has advised us as well. They we
specifically asked Grafee to look at

721
00:53:29,119 --> 00:53:35,040
policies initially through Wisconsin and
then they ended up with some in

722
00:53:33,040 --> 00:53:39,200
Minnesota and a few other states. Like
there's not there's not a magic bullet

723
00:53:37,359 --> 00:53:44,079
that we've been able to identify which
the specific challenge or or problem

724
00:53:41,680 --> 00:53:50,400
that we've asked them to look for a
solution to is to limit future banks

725
00:53:48,000 --> 00:53:54,160
without impacting the existing bank's
ability to continue to invest in their

726
00:53:52,640 --> 00:54:01,599
property.
The closest it seems we can get is like

727
00:53:57,599 --> 00:54:09,280
infringing or putting standards in like
making the street not as enticing to

728
00:54:05,520 --> 00:54:13,040
another bank. So limiting their access,
not having them have access on Silver

729
00:54:11,359 --> 00:54:16,800
Spring, for example, would be a
condition. So then hopefully that would

730
00:54:15,520 --> 00:54:20,960
deter it from being
>> access for a drive-thru or access for

731
00:54:19,440 --> 00:54:24,000
» both.
or

732
00:54:22,000 --> 00:54:26,079
» no like an egress.
>> Yeah.

733
00:54:24,319 --> 00:54:28,640
» A ve vehicle access
>> but only vehicles.

734
00:54:27,440 --> 00:54:34,400
» Yes.
>> But imposing that condition to then you

735
00:54:31,760 --> 00:54:40,319
know hopefully deter. So it's more of a
office type not a you know drive-thru.

736
00:54:38,400 --> 00:54:45,200
» Got to have all this parking though you
can't have any parking.

737
00:54:43,839 --> 00:54:49,119
» No you can have
>> you can do have a lot of parking but you

738
00:54:47,680 --> 00:54:54,160
can't get any cars on the side.
>> Yeah. I I recall there there was a

739
00:54:51,440 --> 00:54:56,960
statement made that I think was simply,
hey, we should look into that. And I

740
00:54:55,680 --> 00:55:05,200
think the statement was something to the
effect of could you have

741
00:55:00,079 --> 00:55:12,160
um a a a zoning code that basically says
we we have certain percentages of

742
00:55:08,480 --> 00:55:16,319
categories of merchants and you would
say, you know, we can only have 12% of

743
00:55:13,920 --> 00:55:22,079
banks. I I want to say that that was
like a point of research that you know

744
00:55:19,280 --> 00:55:26,000
and anything and the 13th percentage of
banks would be prohibited.

745
00:55:24,720 --> 00:55:29,680
So
>> I believe we've asked that but let me

746
00:55:28,079 --> 00:55:32,079
check. We'll get back to you.
>> Yeah, because that that would do it

747
00:55:31,440 --> 00:55:37,599
right.
>> That would do it. If you if you could

748
00:55:34,640 --> 00:55:42,079
set percentages or set square footage or
something and then say that the once you

749
00:55:40,480 --> 00:55:45,359
are over that percentage it becomes
prohibited.

750
00:55:43,440 --> 00:55:46,960
» Again like I shouldn't be coming up with
this.

751
00:55:46,160 --> 00:55:48,480
» Oh that's right.
>> I'm not sure any of us should.

752
00:55:48,160 --> 00:55:50,240
» Right.
>> We did talk about that.

753
00:55:49,440 --> 00:55:55,359
» I agree.
>> I don't I don't think that there's a lot

754
00:55:52,799 --> 00:55:59,760
of great legal options. Like we have had
people look at this.

755
00:55:57,119 --> 00:56:05,920
» We the three of us have spent many hours
looking at this. Um, I've set it out on

756
00:56:02,319 --> 00:56:10,559
our WCMA list serve. Like it I I'm not
sure that there is a great legal answer

757
00:56:08,559 --> 00:56:13,599
to this problem that is going to be a
magic bullet. That doesn't mean we can't

758
00:56:12,559 --> 00:56:16,799
take steps. I just
>> which which brings us back to I think

759
00:56:15,200 --> 00:56:21,760
three things. Number one, do nothing.
Number two, I really like that idea of

760
00:56:18,720 --> 00:56:27,359
creating standards where, for example,
you couldn't have a egress on Silver

761
00:56:24,640 --> 00:56:31,359
Spring. I think that would that would be
um a big detriment

762
00:56:29,839 --> 00:56:37,920
to f future banks.
>> I mean if if I were a lawyer

763
00:56:34,079 --> 00:56:43,520
representing a developer, what's the
what's the rationale for having that?

764
00:56:40,960 --> 00:56:48,319
» I think to promote the walkability of
the district.

765
00:56:45,359 --> 00:56:51,200
» So by eliminating a drive, you don't
have to worry as much about

766
00:56:49,599 --> 00:56:55,040
» It's too bad neither of our lawyers are
here tonight.

767
00:56:53,520 --> 00:57:00,000
Um
or so let me restate it again. Do

768
00:56:57,280 --> 00:57:04,480
nothing. Add a standard that apparently
we can make it we can invent some new

769
00:57:02,640 --> 00:57:07,200
standards that somehow make it
detrimental.

770
00:57:05,440 --> 00:57:12,799
» Yep. And then the third thing is the
nuclear option which is prohibit them.

771
00:57:10,079 --> 00:57:17,920
» And so those are those are our three
>> things that we can talk about today. Um

772
00:57:14,880 --> 00:57:23,359
it it none of them are great. None of
those options are fantastic and without

773
00:57:21,040 --> 00:57:28,640
problems. So, are there any issues with
banks

774
00:57:25,839 --> 00:57:33,520
east of
Santa Monica? I mean, you have

775
00:57:30,960 --> 00:57:39,599
Associated Bank and Johnson Bank, right?
>> East of Santa Monica.

776
00:57:36,160 --> 00:57:42,640
» Um, well, you No, you have you have
and then I mean then you

777
00:57:40,960 --> 00:57:46,960
» East
>> that's all west. Oh, sorry. We have

778
00:57:44,799 --> 00:57:50,240
PNC, we're into the Bank of America
where you got

779
00:57:48,000 --> 00:57:54,559
» Town Bank and Associated is
>> so so I guess when I think of the

780
00:57:52,559 --> 00:57:58,240
walkability of Silver Spring where I
would think banks become a really big

781
00:57:56,079 --> 00:58:03,839
issue, it's that stretch between Lake
and Santa Monica.

782
00:58:00,640 --> 00:58:08,240
Everything west of that
is

783
00:58:05,680 --> 00:58:12,240
today I mean it's it's walkable like
there are sidewalks but there's not a

784
00:58:09,599 --> 00:58:18,000
lot there's not a lot of density, right?
You have the you have the um Dominica

785
00:58:16,000 --> 00:58:23,359
and you have
the you know the realer you have you

786
00:58:21,280 --> 00:58:25,040
just don't you know you afford kitchen
like that's the only thing you really

787
00:58:24,559 --> 00:58:29,520
walk to
>> there's no there

788
00:58:26,160 --> 00:58:34,559
» and so I think the issue with banks
becomes an issue with do you want to

789
00:58:31,280 --> 00:58:39,839
increase the density of retail in that
stretch of silver spring

790
00:58:37,920 --> 00:58:44,400
and so my preference would be to do
nothing punt until you figure about that

791
00:58:42,079 --> 00:58:49,359
question unless you think there's a big
risk of

792
00:58:46,319 --> 00:58:54,240
banks coming into the retail
between Santa Monica and Silver Spring

793
00:58:52,480 --> 00:58:58,960
besides associated bank but I don't
think anyone has a huge issue with

794
00:58:56,160 --> 00:59:04,680
associated bank there but I could be
wrong like I don't I don't know how

795
00:59:06,000 --> 00:59:13,040
» I think it's somewhat well known that
eventually or relatively soon associated

796
00:59:10,880 --> 00:59:17,040
interest in
a different building if they can

797
00:59:14,720 --> 00:59:21,839
partner. And so
>> that limiting that would make it that

798
00:59:19,359 --> 00:59:25,760
redevelopment less likely, I guess,
because basically that new rule would

799
00:59:23,520 --> 00:59:28,760
require that they locate outside of that
area.

800
00:59:33,119 --> 00:59:39,599
» So my suggestion is you punt or you do
nothing.

801
00:59:36,160 --> 00:59:44,559
» Yeah. I I I hate to say it, but I don't
think there's a there's a vehicle

802
00:59:42,000 --> 00:59:51,119
available unless you're willing to
impose certain of the kinds of standards

803
00:59:47,200 --> 00:59:54,480
that I was talking about to to everyone
which I

804
00:59:51,760 --> 00:59:58,400
» and I'm I'm completely willing to you
know that staff should investigate those

805
00:59:56,480 --> 01:00:02,960
standards that could make it more
difficult but

806
01:00:00,480 --> 01:00:10,240
it feels like they probably have.
>> Yeah. But Marcina

807
01:00:06,000 --> 01:00:16,240
» really uh the idea of of of limiting
uses based upon the percentage of them

808
01:00:13,440 --> 01:00:19,920
that you've got in a community is is
really probably as close to the answer

809
01:00:17,839 --> 01:00:25,839
that you could get. I don't know that
you're going to find that that's legal.

810
01:00:22,640 --> 01:00:30,880
I think if there's a a a rabbit hole to
go down, it's it's probably related to

811
01:00:28,240 --> 01:00:33,359
the you know to the streetscape
>> Mhm.

812
01:00:31,440 --> 01:00:38,880
» discussion. What do you mean by that?
>> By streetscape the

813
01:00:37,200 --> 01:00:46,400
um
not having large blank

814
01:00:41,680 --> 01:00:51,920
um areas whether it's drive-thru or
parking or whatever you know like you

815
01:00:49,280 --> 01:00:57,520
know you wouldn't let Beimo do build
what they've built what they've got.

816
01:00:55,280 --> 01:00:59,599
» No the one in Whitefish Bay.
>> Oh I see. Where you got

817
01:00:58,559 --> 01:01:02,880
» you got a big parking lot
>> you know building

818
01:01:00,960 --> 01:01:07,680
» Yeah. you know, and and then and then
that parking lot, you know, so when you

819
01:01:05,200 --> 01:01:14,720
I mean, you you walk to your point,
Colin, you know, you walk that block of

820
01:01:11,200 --> 01:01:20,319
uh of Silver Spring and you've got, you
know, oriental carpets and you got mo

821
01:01:18,240 --> 01:01:24,160
and you got a realtor's office and
across the street you got

822
01:01:22,880 --> 01:01:29,359
a school and a church.
>> Yeah. I mean, all of that feels of a of

823
01:01:26,559 --> 01:01:33,680
a part. Like I don't think that's bad,
but that's not what I I would rather

824
01:01:31,040 --> 01:01:36,079
have it be a much denser
>> area, but not any different than what we

825
01:01:35,839 --> 01:01:38,559
had.
>> Well, it's never going to be anything on

826
01:01:37,359 --> 01:01:42,640
the other side of the street.
>> Right. That's fine. Yeah.

827
01:01:40,799 --> 01:01:45,280
» I I get that. And that may be a But
that's a development. That's a

828
01:01:43,920 --> 01:01:48,559
redevelopment conversation. You have to
redevelop that entire

829
01:01:47,119 --> 01:01:51,559
» stretch, right?
>> Okay.

830
01:01:52,319 --> 01:01:57,200
» Okay.
So,

831
01:01:54,480 --> 01:02:00,720
» it's all there, brother. Well, we I do
think we have two takeaways that we can

832
01:01:58,720 --> 01:02:04,160
look into. So, we'll we'll check on the
percentage and see if we've asked that

833
01:02:02,079 --> 01:02:08,480
question. If not, we'll certainly ask it
looking close more closely at the

834
01:02:05,760 --> 01:02:13,440
standards and if there if there's ways
to make sure that we're requiring the

835
01:02:11,200 --> 01:02:17,280
types of developments that we would like
to see.

836
01:02:15,359 --> 01:02:21,119
And then was the question about the
conditional use if not listed

837
01:02:19,359 --> 01:02:24,799
prohibited? Was that answered?
>> Yeah. Okay. So that would be the last

838
01:02:23,920 --> 01:02:30,160
» which
>> as a quick comment, Sarah, our other

839
01:02:28,079 --> 01:02:35,680
commissioner, she sent an email and
basically what what was her

840
01:02:32,640 --> 01:02:40,880
» she wants to um it
>> she wants to flip it, I think.

841
01:02:37,359 --> 01:02:45,760
» So if it's not listed, it is prohibited.
>> Here it is. Yeah.

842
01:02:43,280 --> 01:02:49,280
Uh I also think the list of uses is fine
as is. I do agree that all uses not

843
01:02:47,920 --> 01:02:55,520
listed should be categorized as
conditional use or prohibited. H

844
01:02:53,839 --> 01:02:59,319
» is there anything
>> that wouldn't be

845
01:02:59,760 --> 01:03:07,359
» I guess is there any like I I can't
think of something that is not already

846
01:03:04,720 --> 01:03:10,559
on here but I don't have a great
imagination right now

847
01:03:09,280 --> 01:03:14,880
» like what
>> sorry to cut you off the last time we

848
01:03:12,480 --> 01:03:20,799
talked about this it's not to say that
if a use came forward that wasn't on the

849
01:03:17,760 --> 01:03:25,280
list that then would be prohibited
We couldn't do an amendment if it was a

850
01:03:23,599 --> 01:03:28,000
use that the village was really
interested in having that we just had to

851
01:03:27,039 --> 01:03:31,520
think of which
>> there is a mechanism for it to be

852
01:03:29,760 --> 01:03:35,599
» dog grooming was the perfect example
where they wanted to do dog grooming and

853
01:03:33,680 --> 01:03:39,039
60 days later they could do dog
grooming.

854
01:03:36,079 --> 01:03:44,799
» Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
But the example of a bookstore,

855
01:03:42,240 --> 01:03:48,960
I mean, it's not specifically.
>> So, did did the one that just opened on

856
01:03:46,880 --> 01:03:50,559
Silver Spring, did they get a
conditional use permit?

857
01:03:50,160 --> 01:03:54,559
» No.
>> No, they were permitted.

858
01:03:51,920 --> 01:03:58,480
» Permitted,
>> we wanted to be more clear in the code.

859
01:03:56,240 --> 01:04:02,400
It was permitted under
>> specialty retail.

860
01:04:00,240 --> 01:04:06,799
» Yeah, specialty retail. We thought it
makes sense just to add it listed as

861
01:04:04,720 --> 01:04:12,640
bookstore. So that was one of the
recommendations in Anna's memo.

862
01:04:10,799 --> 01:04:14,640
» What is specialty retail?
>> What

863
01:04:13,039 --> 01:04:18,720
» book stores?
>> Stores.

864
01:04:15,039 --> 01:04:20,880
» Yeah. Weren't you listening?
>> Basically anything you guys decide to

865
01:04:20,640 --> 01:04:23,839
do.
>> Pretty much.

866
01:04:22,000 --> 01:04:26,319
» Okay, there it is. There's a conditional
use case.

867
01:04:24,400 --> 01:04:34,400
» Well, but in that I mean you're not
wrong in that. Um, for example,

868
01:04:30,640 --> 01:04:39,920
um, you know, there was a CBD store 10
years ago on Silver Spring. Um, and that

869
01:04:37,760 --> 01:04:45,760
pro provokes the conversation of what
would happen if dispensaries

870
01:04:42,880 --> 01:04:49,280
um, were legalized in the upcoming year
or two in Wisconsin.

871
01:04:47,599 --> 01:04:55,280
» Would we accept a dispensary? That's
probably something we should have yes or

872
01:04:52,160 --> 01:04:57,839
no in in the code because that that is
actually something that is super likely

873
01:04:57,440 --> 01:05:02,799
to
>> if the power shifts in November. Yep.

874
01:05:00,079 --> 01:05:07,119
That could very well be a a real thing.
>> What do people think now? Again, we we

875
01:05:04,319 --> 01:05:11,119
did have a CBD store for a couple years.
>> I think if they look

876
01:05:09,119 --> 01:05:16,240
» and I don't know, I'm not privileged to
if you have to be 18 or older to enter

877
01:05:13,280 --> 01:05:20,319
the premise then it would be covered
already.

878
01:05:16,960 --> 01:05:25,280
» Okay. as a prohibited or conditional?
>> Prohibited on any floor in district 11.

879
01:05:23,280 --> 01:05:31,359
» Wait, but
>> is a is is the Argo I mean, do you have

880
01:05:27,839 --> 01:05:34,400
to be 18 to go into
>> So, it's really that's very

881
01:05:32,720 --> 01:05:38,319
adultoriented.
>> Okay. Well, there we go. Never mind.

882
01:05:36,319 --> 01:05:44,079
» We'll still make a note though. And it
says rules are so

883
01:05:41,920 --> 01:05:48,400
» I mean
for whatever I I think it makes sense to

884
01:05:46,720 --> 01:05:53,240
say anything we haven't thought of is
prohibited as long as we can

885
01:05:53,440 --> 01:05:58,480
» as long as when you talk to developers
you're like it's something that we

886
01:05:57,039 --> 01:06:02,559
haven't thought of we can have a meeting
and get that

887
01:05:59,599 --> 01:06:07,440
» yeah approved. Um, my preference would
be to have dispensaries prohibited

888
01:06:05,440 --> 01:06:08,880
because they're going to open up on Port
Washington anyway.

889
01:06:08,559 --> 01:06:12,240
» Yep.
>> And that's close enough for the people

890
01:06:10,720 --> 01:06:16,400
in White Fish Bay who want them, which
I'm guessing there will be a lot of them

891
01:06:13,440 --> 01:06:20,160
who do. So,
>> but that's I I tend to agree with that.

892
01:06:19,280 --> 01:06:25,119
» My two cents on this?
>> Yeah, we got three head nods, four head

893
01:06:22,240 --> 01:06:29,920
nods, five shoulder shrug. Anyway,
>> they'll they'll open many other places.

894
01:06:27,920 --> 01:06:35,839
» Yeah.
>> Right. The discussion about that though,

895
01:06:33,599 --> 01:06:40,280
is that limited to Silver Spring or is
that a villagewide coalition?

896
01:06:40,880 --> 01:06:48,160
» Um, I mean, we're talking about district
11.

897
01:06:45,839 --> 01:06:51,920
If if somebody was open something in a
business district on Henry Clay or

898
01:06:50,319 --> 01:06:56,000
Oakland,
what applies? Is it a different

899
01:06:54,160 --> 01:07:00,640
district? Yes.
>> And and they are

900
01:06:57,760 --> 01:07:04,880
» Why? Why? Why do we have Do we have un
uniform codes for those two districts?

901
01:07:03,440 --> 01:07:08,359
Like we're not just changing district
11, right?

902
01:07:10,079 --> 01:07:12,160
» Yeah.
>> Yeah.

903
01:07:11,599 --> 01:07:14,880
» Technically,
>> that's what we need to look at

904
01:07:13,359 --> 01:07:19,520
jurisdiction over anything. Well, it
doesn't, but I mean, I'm just as a good

905
01:07:16,880 --> 01:07:23,440
question if any of this is ultimately
going to be approved or not by the

906
01:07:21,520 --> 01:07:27,799
village board
and and you know, so

907
01:07:28,240 --> 01:07:33,599
it's not necessarily something that we
need to sit and sit right here tonight,

908
01:07:32,480 --> 01:07:35,200
but
>> let us look at it.

909
01:07:34,559 --> 01:07:39,520
» Talking about
>> there's references,

910
01:07:37,760 --> 01:07:45,119
district
amendment back to this. Yeah,

911
01:07:42,799 --> 01:07:48,000
» that's my memory, too, because we don't
have another list.

912
01:07:46,640 --> 01:07:50,559
» You don't?
>> Okay.

913
01:07:48,480 --> 01:07:54,880
» Yeah, but we'll check on that. That's a
good question.

914
01:07:52,960 --> 01:08:00,400
» Yep.
>> Did So, I guess I'm looking for staff.

915
01:07:58,400 --> 01:08:06,559
Did we We've gone through a lot of
different recommendations over the 75

916
01:08:02,559 --> 01:08:11,599
meetings we've had on this. Um, did do
is there anything outstanding

917
01:08:09,039 --> 01:08:15,680
that we should discuss? Like did we come
to a conclusion on freestanding ATMs?

918
01:08:14,400 --> 01:08:19,279
» This body did. Yes.
>> Okay.

919
01:08:17,440 --> 01:08:23,520
» Um
drive and then drive through. So was

920
01:08:21,520 --> 01:08:28,080
freestanding ATMs, drive-throughs, and
upper story setbacks. I think those were

921
01:08:25,920 --> 01:08:30,960
the three that have we come to
conclusions on those?

922
01:08:30,319 --> 01:08:36,159
» Okay.
>> This body did for the setbacks.

923
01:08:33,120 --> 01:08:42,560
» Yeah. They said that they were okay with
including the averaging or requiring

924
01:08:39,440 --> 01:08:46,400
only front setback while eliminating a
rear setback requirement and then plan

925
01:08:45,040 --> 01:08:49,040
commission was
>> going to weigh in

926
01:08:47,120 --> 01:08:52,679
» the opposite.
So

927
01:08:49,679 --> 01:08:52,679
» okay,

928
01:08:53,120 --> 01:09:00,480
» this body was willing to get rid of the
rear whereas plan commission wasn't so

929
01:08:57,120 --> 01:09:03,199
willing to get rid of the rear.
>> Do you guys

930
01:09:01,279 --> 01:09:06,159
» get rid of the rear? There's a rear
setback,

931
01:09:04,159 --> 01:09:09,040
» right? But isn't the discussion on the
front?

932
01:09:06,880 --> 01:09:13,120
» Yeah.
>> Yes. I don't want to keep it's

933
01:09:11,600 --> 01:09:17,040
» Well, I think it is important that they
understand it. So, right now there's a

934
01:09:14,640 --> 01:09:20,799
requirement for the rear setback because
of the residential. It's abing a

935
01:09:19,600 --> 01:09:24,880
different district.
>> Then there was a recommendation. I think

936
01:09:23,279 --> 01:09:29,600
Brian perhaps you were the one that said
to look into it. Should we do a setback

937
01:09:27,520 --> 01:09:34,319
in the front? But then the challenge is
it kind of looks like the Eiffel Tower

938
01:09:31,759 --> 01:09:37,600
like it comes it's it would cut in and
then go up potentially, right? And so

939
01:09:36,400 --> 01:09:40,960
then there was this question, do you
want the setbacks on both sides? And

940
01:09:39,359 --> 01:09:46,400
what I'm hearing Anna say is that this
body was okay with eliminating the rear

941
01:09:44,080 --> 01:09:50,880
setback which would be the residential
side.

942
01:09:46,960 --> 01:09:56,960
» Yes. having the front or doing doing an
average of the rear. Land commission was

943
01:09:54,239 --> 01:09:59,600
the one the body that felt strongly as
to keep the rear.

944
01:09:59,120 --> 01:10:01,920
» Yeah,
>> that's probably why you're

945
01:10:00,640 --> 01:10:06,880
» That's why I'm confused.
>> You've sat in on every one of these. But

946
01:10:05,040 --> 01:10:10,719
this body is comfortable with
eliminating the rear

947
01:10:08,320 --> 01:10:15,120
» the rear setback.
>> You are okay.

948
01:10:13,920 --> 01:10:17,760
I don't know why
>> is there

949
01:10:16,320 --> 01:10:23,280
» I don't know why we need to set back on
either but I mean I get the rear and the

950
01:10:20,320 --> 01:10:27,760
the residential different thing
>> there's a towering effect of the opinion

951
01:10:26,159 --> 01:10:33,040
like
>> two or three two or three stories at max

952
01:10:30,159 --> 01:10:37,679
right that's now we're talking
>> is it possible they don't change if you

953
01:10:35,600 --> 01:10:43,120
don't change the ordinance is there a
variance process

954
01:10:40,080 --> 01:10:48,560
» so that somebody were to
>> think that would be the path is there.

955
01:10:46,080 --> 01:10:52,199
It would be cleaner that if there is the
appetite to

956
01:10:52,880 --> 01:10:59,679
» with a variance you need a reason to
grant a variance. It's not just we we

957
01:10:57,760 --> 01:11:03,600
would prefer it this way. You can't just
say we're going to give you the

958
01:11:00,960 --> 01:11:06,640
variance. It's more there's some
>> be a hardship

959
01:11:04,400 --> 01:11:10,239
» hardship
economic we allow four stories now.

960
01:11:09,760 --> 01:11:14,239
Right.
>> Correct. We allow up to four stories,

961
01:11:12,320 --> 01:11:16,560
but if you're going to the four story
right now, we do require

962
01:11:16,000 --> 01:11:19,520
» Okay, that's
>> a set hike on

963
01:11:17,840 --> 01:11:22,640
» from Silver Spring side.
>> Not from Silver Spring from the rear.

964
01:11:21,679 --> 01:11:26,239
» Only from the rear.
>> Yes.

965
01:11:23,360 --> 01:11:30,480
» But from the rear of Silver Spring
frontage,

966
01:11:28,080 --> 01:11:34,640
Bulmont Place is
still

967
01:11:31,760 --> 01:11:37,520
» on on stories about the parking.
>> Correct.

968
01:11:35,040 --> 01:11:42,800
» There are no setbacks on either side of
that. We're just talking. Bulmont is a

969
01:11:39,920 --> 01:11:47,679
PD, so it's not District 11, but we're
talking about something different.

970
01:11:45,199 --> 01:11:53,520
» I guess I don't remember this body
coming to the conclusion of um

971
01:11:50,320 --> 01:11:55,760
eliminating the rear setback, but that's
just me.

972
01:11:54,159 --> 01:12:01,040
» Well, let's get let's
>> Yeah, let's just do it again right now.

973
01:11:57,760 --> 01:12:05,600
» And move we eliminate the rear setback.
>> Okay.

974
01:12:02,560 --> 01:12:07,760
Is there a second for that?
>> I would second it.

975
01:12:07,040 --> 01:12:14,239
» Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. Well, then all in favor

976
01:12:10,719 --> 01:12:18,159
of removing the recommending
>> recommending to the appropriate

977
01:12:16,080 --> 01:12:19,600
» the rear setback say I
>> I

978
01:12:18,960 --> 01:12:24,000
» I
>> Well, before

979
01:12:21,920 --> 01:12:26,560
» that's three to two. So, what at least
three to two?

980
01:12:24,719 --> 01:12:29,120
» Okay.
>> Three to two.

981
01:12:27,600 --> 01:12:35,280
» I'm I I don't know if it's maybe it's
four to one. I'm not sure. But I I would

982
01:12:31,040 --> 01:12:40,080
not I I I would not vote to um eliminate
the rear setback. Um, if you have a

983
01:12:37,600 --> 01:12:43,679
canyon in effect, the reason that was in
there was to protect homeowners on the

984
01:12:42,400 --> 01:12:48,560
other side of any kind of developments
from Silver Spring. And if you eliminate

985
01:12:46,320 --> 01:12:52,320
that, you're that's why it's there is
you're protect

986
01:12:50,080 --> 01:12:55,679
» and I I tend to probably go along with
that, too. But before I vote on it, I

987
01:12:54,480 --> 01:13:00,239
guess I'm trying to understand what
we're doing on the front end because are

988
01:12:58,400 --> 01:13:04,080
we going to leave a a building
configuration, as was pointed out

989
01:13:02,080 --> 01:13:07,760
before, that really is impossible to
build in the fourth floor? I mean, is it

990
01:13:06,000 --> 01:13:11,600
so narrow that all you've got is a
hallway there?

991
01:13:09,360 --> 01:13:16,239
» Yeah, I'm not sure that that would be
that narrow, but

992
01:13:13,280 --> 01:13:20,159
» I think it would depend on the lot. Like
if you had a corner lot,

993
01:13:17,600 --> 01:13:28,080
» none of those lots. I mean, what you're
ser really talking about is a couple of

994
01:13:23,600 --> 01:13:30,400
blocks along the south side of Silver
Spring.

995
01:13:29,520 --> 01:13:33,760
» Correct.
>> It's hard to create a tunnel effect on

996
01:13:32,000 --> 01:13:37,199
only one side,
>> right?

997
01:13:35,760 --> 01:13:40,960
There's no tonal effect if there's not
sun on both sides.

998
01:13:39,760 --> 01:13:44,800
» And basically, wouldn't wouldn't a
balcony fix that problem? Like wouldn't

999
01:13:43,840 --> 01:13:48,560
it Johnson Bank?
>> Gansson Bank. But um

1000
01:13:46,080 --> 01:13:52,719
» like doesn't doesn't John doesn't a
balcony fix the setback issue?

1001
01:13:51,920 --> 01:13:57,679
» Well, it helps.
>> It does because it's

1002
01:13:53,760 --> 01:14:01,360
» balcony. Well, uh
>> an enclosed an enclosed balcony, not a

1003
01:13:59,760 --> 01:14:05,600
balcony hanging over in the front
suspended. The residences in that

1004
01:14:03,679 --> 01:14:10,719
building are
single loaded. So there are there are no

1005
01:14:07,520 --> 01:14:15,760
residences on the backside back side of
the building. It's the Jean's got the

1006
01:14:12,880 --> 01:14:22,159
corridor and you've got the units.
>> Gotcha.

1007
01:14:17,840 --> 01:14:29,520
Anyways, um uh
>> okay, there's three three SS2 notes for

1008
01:14:25,040 --> 01:14:33,040
eliminating the back um um sent back.
And so then then do we want to have a

1009
01:14:31,520 --> 01:14:36,880
conversation about the front setback? Do
you want to change that at all? So

1010
01:14:35,440 --> 01:14:39,920
you're a no.
>> So right so so right now there is some

1011
01:14:38,400 --> 01:14:42,080
small setback that's required for the
fourth story

1012
01:14:40,880 --> 01:14:45,360
» of the back
>> of the front is on the front. No, just

1013
01:14:44,560 --> 01:14:50,320
at the back
>> of the side

1014
01:14:48,560 --> 01:14:52,159
borders a different district
>> which is the back

1015
01:14:51,120 --> 01:14:53,440
» which is the
>> for now. Yes.

1016
01:14:53,120 --> 01:14:56,800
» Yes.
>> So not the front. Okay. Yeah,

1017
01:14:55,280 --> 01:15:03,600
» but right now there are there any
fourstory buildings on Silver Spring

1018
01:14:59,840 --> 01:15:06,480
» that do not have a setback in the
>> bordering story buildings period.

1019
01:15:05,600 --> 01:15:10,239
» You have Johnson Bank.
>> Johnson Bank.

1020
01:15:08,080 --> 01:15:11,199
» The only ones I I am under I am aware
of.

1021
01:15:10,719 --> 01:15:14,239
» Yes.
>> Is there anyone talking about building

1022
01:15:12,719 --> 01:15:17,679
that fourstory building?
>> Give it time.

1023
01:15:15,520 --> 01:15:22,719
» Yeah, I mean I I have definitely met
with people that were considering it. Um

1024
01:15:19,600 --> 01:15:27,280
they have not moved forward, but there's
always a lot of ideas. I mean, Silver

1025
01:15:25,040 --> 01:15:30,880
Spring is a desirable place right now.
>> Yeah.

1026
01:15:28,800 --> 01:15:33,440
» I would I wouldn't move for the setback
on off of Silver Spring on the fourth

1027
01:15:33,120 --> 01:15:34,800
story
>> on the front.

1028
01:15:34,320 --> 01:15:36,239
» Yeah.
>> Okay.

1029
01:15:35,360 --> 01:15:41,679
» Okay.
>> That'll give you that. Yeah.

1030
01:15:38,400 --> 01:15:47,120
» And we we highly decision now.
>> Can we wait to see if there's something

1031
01:15:44,400 --> 01:15:50,960
gets closer and we can we can
>> once a project's proposed, we can't

1032
01:15:49,440 --> 01:15:53,920
change the rules at that point.
>> Yeah.

1033
01:15:51,920 --> 01:15:56,880
» Okay. So at least two and I'm I'm a
third who would vote for and that's a

1034
01:15:55,679 --> 01:16:01,600
fourth and
>> it doesn't matter because I'm

1035
01:15:58,320 --> 01:16:07,440
» whatever just so I recommendation is to
have a front to basically shift the

1036
01:16:04,719 --> 01:16:14,159
setback from the back to the front.
>> I would probably vote no because I don't

1037
01:16:10,320 --> 01:16:18,159
see a big risk of tunneling of tunnel.
Um just one of the comments that I'll

1038
01:16:15,920 --> 01:16:22,880
make is when we did a community survey
two years ago, one of the big themes was

1039
01:16:21,440 --> 01:16:26,719
please don't become like Sherwood.
>> I know

1040
01:16:23,840 --> 01:16:29,760
» but I don't find Shwood to be that
objectionable.

1041
01:16:27,920 --> 01:16:31,280
» You are in that chunk of people believe
that.

1042
01:16:30,239 --> 01:16:36,080
» Okay.
>> Why would why wouldn't you want to be in

1043
01:16:33,280 --> 01:16:39,760
Shwood was economically viable and
>> yeah right

1044
01:16:37,679 --> 01:16:43,600
» people live there. Well, I mean, keep
keep in mind you you have developer hats

1045
01:16:41,679 --> 01:16:46,560
and you also have residential living
hats.

1046
01:16:44,239 --> 01:16:49,760
» Economically viable to the developer is
fine, but at the same time, it needs to

1047
01:16:48,800 --> 01:16:55,040
be uh
>> acceptable acceptable to the community.

1048
01:16:52,000 --> 01:16:58,960
And I don't I don't know that,
>> you know, that density is fine for short

1049
01:16:57,280 --> 01:17:00,800
because they had pretty significant
density all along.

1050
01:17:00,320 --> 01:17:03,280
» Yeah.
>> More dense than Whitefish Bay has ever

1051
01:17:02,800 --> 01:17:06,480
been.
>> Yeah. They are the number one dense

1052
01:17:05,280 --> 01:17:10,560
community and
>> so I think there's a difference and I

1053
01:17:08,640 --> 01:17:16,400
don't think Whitefish Bay wants to have
that level of density at least I don't

1054
01:17:13,760 --> 01:17:20,080
» agreed and we asked that question in the
survey we said

1055
01:17:18,080 --> 01:17:23,080
» basically should whitefish bay try to
include

1056
01:17:26,960 --> 01:17:36,000
» okay
>> so can we just do the averaging of step

1057
01:17:30,800 --> 01:17:38,400
back then taking the average of the too.
>> So,

1058
01:17:36,400 --> 01:17:42,159
» so it'd be less of a step back on the
back where it could be averaged out.

1059
01:17:40,560 --> 01:17:47,040
» Yeah. Between the front.
>> So, you're proposing a second option

1060
01:17:43,679 --> 01:17:50,400
which is um in instead of shifting the
setback now we're shifting it a little.

1061
01:17:49,280 --> 01:17:53,199
It's basically what's happening. We're
averaging it. So, would you prefer an

1062
01:17:52,320 --> 01:17:58,000
average?
>> I'd prefer it be gone. But but average

1063
01:17:55,280 --> 01:17:59,920
is less bad than you know the whole
thing.

1064
01:17:58,320 --> 01:18:03,040
» How much do what is the setback?
>> I mean I on the fourth floor.

1065
01:18:01,760 --> 01:18:05,840
» What's the setback, Joel? enough
>> 10 ft.

1066
01:18:03,600 --> 01:18:07,760
» 10 ft of
>> basically now five and five instead of

1067
01:18:07,360 --> 01:18:13,920
10.
>> What's the typical lot size?

1068
01:18:09,360 --> 01:18:16,920
» Like how deep is a lot? 10 ft out of
>> 20.

1069
01:18:17,199 --> 01:18:26,480
If if our input
>> little over if our input as the CDA

1070
01:18:22,560 --> 01:18:31,840
» is important to the resolution of this
for the village, then I think we ought

1071
01:18:29,280 --> 01:18:36,960
to get some
thought, get some information and really

1072
01:18:35,040 --> 01:18:40,960
put it together and discuss it at the
next meeting. I don't think it's that

1073
01:18:38,480 --> 01:18:48,320
urgent. Well, and to your point, Dick,
if if if we if we can do that and if we

1074
01:18:44,640 --> 01:18:52,239
can get some uh schematic, a drawing to
see what the heck it looks like, what

1075
01:18:49,760 --> 01:18:56,239
we're talking about. I'm I've got ideas
in my mind of what I think we're talking

1076
01:18:53,760 --> 01:18:58,400
about, but I could be totally wrong. I
>> Yeah,

1077
01:18:56,640 --> 01:19:01,760
» I'm not sure what that I know what we're
talking about. I don't, you know, I

1078
01:18:59,760 --> 01:19:07,120
mean, we took a vote here, but I don't
feel like we're in a position as a CDA,

1079
01:19:05,360 --> 01:19:12,640
as a public body
>> to make a recommendation to the plan

1080
01:19:10,000 --> 01:19:16,800
commission or to the village board
>> um as to as to what our consensus is on

1081
01:19:16,080 --> 01:19:20,159
that.
>> It would take a little effort, but I

1082
01:19:18,239 --> 01:19:25,199
mean, we know what the depths are. We
know the area, you know, what what the

1083
01:19:22,800 --> 01:19:30,800
configurations are the street. It would
be useful to take a lot and do an

1084
01:19:27,760 --> 01:19:33,840
example of what the building sections
and and understand

1085
01:19:32,480 --> 01:19:37,440
» what's the box going to end up looking
like when we're done.

1086
01:19:34,960 --> 01:19:42,719
» There there was some there was a diagram
I think in the plan commission packet

1087
01:19:40,640 --> 01:19:47,600
» shortly.
>> Sorry. Yes, Colin. I was just going to

1088
01:19:44,239 --> 01:19:53,520
say I think having a 10% reduction in
square footage of a 10 foot setback on a

1089
01:19:51,199 --> 01:20:01,760
100 plus
wide building is not a huge deal. A 20%

1090
01:19:59,040 --> 01:20:04,719
reduction probably becomes a much bigger
consideration for development

1091
01:20:03,360 --> 01:20:07,040
» and I I think what we're saying is
currently it is 10%.

1092
01:20:06,000 --> 01:20:10,080
» Currently it's 10%.
>> Do you want to double it? I think

1093
01:20:08,080 --> 01:20:14,400
» do you want to double it? And my I would
be strongly I would I mean without other

1094
01:20:12,320 --> 01:20:17,520
information sure I would be opposed to
doubling it whether you average it

1095
01:20:16,400 --> 01:20:20,800
whether you move it from the front to
the back the back to the front I don't

1096
01:20:18,880 --> 01:20:24,320
know
>> I think this is very helpful so this

1097
01:20:22,480 --> 01:20:28,159
topic started it was a strategic plan
item

1098
01:20:25,679 --> 01:20:31,840
» start it started out very broad right we
were talking about boutique hotels and

1099
01:20:29,840 --> 01:20:36,719
lots of things I think we have narrowed
in quite a bit which will give great

1100
01:20:34,880 --> 01:20:42,000
right now we're looking to narrow it and
then it will go through a full process

1101
01:20:39,600 --> 01:20:45,520
once it's you know we have language so
let us go back to gra and see if we can

1102
01:20:44,000 --> 01:20:48,719
get someatics
>> I'm ready to say this is the right thing

1103
01:20:48,159 --> 01:20:55,679
» sure
>> you know but I'll tell you that making

1104
01:20:51,040 --> 01:21:02,320
10% 20% reductions in in in usable
building area whether it's apartments

1105
01:20:58,159 --> 01:21:05,320
condos offices whatever it is is
significant

1106
01:21:05,600 --> 01:21:12,000
» okay yeah let us take this back to and
see like what kind of visuals that they

1107
01:21:10,239 --> 01:21:16,159
can provide and
>> and so you're I get I look at this as

1108
01:21:14,800 --> 01:21:19,440
saying this is the second time it's come
to the CDA

1109
01:21:17,360 --> 01:21:23,679
» and so I kind of wanted to resolve it.
Um but are you willing to continue to go

1110
01:21:21,679 --> 01:21:28,520
to a third time and is that going to be
acceptable for whatever timing we need

1111
01:21:25,360 --> 01:21:28,520
to do

1112
01:21:29,120 --> 01:21:34,159
faster is always better.
>> So what about this? How about we this

1113
01:21:32,800 --> 01:21:38,960
has to go to the village board to do a
formal referral to commission. So at

1114
01:21:37,199 --> 01:21:43,280
that point, why don't we share the
information that we have out with the

1115
01:21:40,400 --> 01:21:48,880
CDA members as well? And if there is a
desire to have another discussion,

1116
01:21:46,239 --> 01:21:54,560
» then a member can request that.
>> Yeah. Well, I think all what does the

1117
01:21:51,840 --> 01:22:00,639
board want us to consider? I mean, what
how can we be helpful in in in helping

1118
01:21:57,840 --> 01:22:03,840
you come to a decision on the thing? If
you'd like us

1119
01:22:02,000 --> 01:22:07,679
» to extend, if you really want us to
provide you with some meaningful input,

1120
01:22:05,520 --> 01:22:09,360
it would be important to have an
understanding of what we're

1121
01:22:08,639 --> 01:22:12,880
recommending.
>> Yeah. What is it what is interesting is

1122
01:22:11,360 --> 01:22:18,400
like there are two parts to this. The
first part is the concept of reducing

1123
01:22:14,719 --> 01:22:23,520
the um possible development of a fourth
floor, right? From 10% to 20% or 0% or

1124
01:22:21,840 --> 01:22:27,440
whatever. And that that's that's like
right in the CDA wheelhouse.

1125
01:22:25,520 --> 01:22:33,600
» What's not really in the CDA wheelhouse
is architectural design. um you know,

1126
01:22:31,360 --> 01:22:36,960
zoning for residents versus the
community. And so I can see that there's

1127
01:22:35,679 --> 01:22:38,639
that's one of the reasons we're
struggling here.

1128
01:22:38,080 --> 01:22:42,000
» Um
>> no, I don't think so because I you know,

1129
01:22:40,480 --> 01:22:49,840
I don't think it matters, as I just
said, to whether this upper floor that's

1130
01:22:45,520 --> 01:22:54,080
set back some degree is is residential,
commercial,

1131
01:22:52,159 --> 01:22:59,440
you know,
true.

1132
01:22:55,120 --> 01:23:03,520
» True. the, you know, the the
question of

1133
01:23:01,600 --> 01:23:08,480
what the what the zoning requirements
are

1134
01:23:05,120 --> 01:23:11,360
um regardless of use is is something
that I think

1135
01:23:10,639 --> 01:23:15,920
» comes out of.
>> I think all you were saying is the

1136
01:23:12,719 --> 01:23:22,320
question of do you limit the upper floor
by 10% or 20% or 0%. That's a CDA

1137
01:23:19,120 --> 01:23:28,320
question whether that is
faces the residential portion of the

1138
01:23:26,239 --> 01:23:33,679
» the the residential district
>> or the Silver Spring side of the thing

1139
01:23:31,679 --> 01:23:38,719
or like that's an architectural question
that's much more.

1140
01:23:37,600 --> 01:23:41,760
» Yeah,
>> that makes sense.

1141
01:23:39,360 --> 01:23:47,120
» Fair.
>> Okay.

1142
01:23:43,920 --> 01:23:53,520
All right. So we should if you if staff
has uh got their things lined up. All

1143
01:23:50,159 --> 01:23:59,440
right then we should move on to
um discussion recommendation on the 2027

1144
01:23:56,960 --> 01:24:06,719
budgets for TID one two and three.
>> I think this one is easy um but it's

1145
01:24:03,840 --> 01:24:11,280
» Joel. You're missing the fun.
>> Um but it is budget season around

1146
01:24:09,280 --> 01:24:15,520
Village Hall. Um so we wanted to bring
forward these draft budgets. The reason

1147
01:24:13,280 --> 01:24:20,320
I think it's somewhat easy is because a
lot of the heavy lifting was previously

1148
01:24:18,000 --> 01:24:27,679
done as part of the Sendix project. I
just essentially copied the expenses for

1149
01:24:23,760 --> 01:24:33,600
2027 um from I think it was exhibit E in
that development agreement uh which was

1150
01:24:30,560 --> 01:24:40,880
uh TID one and then I forgot what TID 3
was but um essentially this just mirrors

1151
01:24:37,199 --> 01:24:45,040
those exhibits which was discussed at
length during those meetings. Um so if

1152
01:24:43,440 --> 01:24:50,400
anybody has any questions I'm happy to
answer. just a a couple of I mean I

1153
01:24:48,639 --> 01:24:57,280
think I know what is happening here but
it's interesting to see the tax

1154
01:24:52,320 --> 01:25:05,520
increment from 2024 at 670 then dropped
down to 630 and now projected at 716

1155
01:25:01,679 --> 01:25:10,719
uh page 14. So the reason for the drop
was because of the reevaluation.

1156
01:25:08,159 --> 01:25:19,520
» Yeah. The office building
um in TID one um ended up coming down.

1157
01:25:15,040 --> 01:25:24,480
So that that decrement was in TID one.
>> Office building.

1158
01:25:20,639 --> 01:25:29,360
» Yeah. So, the Sendex office building is
>> Well, I I I was on a I remember having

1159
01:25:26,800 --> 01:25:33,520
this conversation that our assessments
also went down and so if their

1160
01:25:31,600 --> 01:25:36,719
assessments went down, the tax increment
would have gone down and I thought that

1161
01:25:34,960 --> 01:25:41,280
was what it was for. I'm not sure about
the the timing to 2025. When did those

1162
01:25:39,600 --> 01:25:46,239
come down?
>> Whatever.

1163
01:25:42,159 --> 01:25:49,280
» They I you want to explain it?
>> Oh, I don't care about the timing. I

1164
01:25:47,679 --> 01:25:53,760
don't I don't want to get involved in
all that, but I I really I remember

1165
01:25:51,520 --> 01:25:58,639
having a conversation of looking at the
um the the value of TID one and it

1166
01:25:56,719 --> 01:26:01,440
decreased substantially and it wasn't
because of the office. It was because of

1167
01:26:00,400 --> 01:26:04,480
the reval.
>> There's yeah there's two things

1168
01:26:02,639 --> 01:26:08,239
happening. So the decre there was a
decrement because of the office building

1169
01:26:06,239 --> 01:26:14,719
because it wasn't used as of January
1st, 2025. Then it was basically there's

1170
01:26:12,159 --> 01:26:21,600
a a state law or a court case, I'm not
sure which one that allowed for that

1171
01:26:17,040 --> 01:26:24,800
value to be zero for the 2025 valuation.
And then on top of it, there was also

1172
01:26:23,440 --> 01:26:29,120
decrement. So there's like two things
that were hap or there were also

1173
01:26:27,520 --> 01:26:34,080
decreases.
It wasn't really decreases in value.

1174
01:26:31,120 --> 01:26:38,880
It's the percentage of the assessed
value and how it impacts the tid.

1175
01:26:37,040 --> 01:26:44,320
» Yeah. That ADF. Well, in conclusion,
it's at 716 now, which is great.

1176
01:26:42,880 --> 01:26:49,199
» Well, I think this is consistent with
what we had projected, though. So, I'm

1177
01:26:47,120 --> 01:26:54,400
» Oh, yeah. I just wanted to draw
attention to the fact that our TID is

1178
01:26:51,600 --> 01:27:00,679
healthy and just got a little healthier.
I mean, 13.6%.

1179
01:26:57,679 --> 01:27:00,679
Um,

1180
01:27:00,880 --> 01:27:08,320
I I do have a question and this I'm sure
someone is

1181
01:27:05,600 --> 01:27:13,280
Why is there a revenue for debt premium
of $122,000?

1182
01:27:11,360 --> 01:27:17,360
I'm
I didn't quite understand what that was.

1183
01:27:15,520 --> 01:27:22,719
I'm sure that somebody smarter than me
has an explanation.

1184
01:27:20,000 --> 01:27:27,840
So, we talked about this a little bit
during

1185
01:27:24,480 --> 01:27:33,520
the um discussion about the essentially
the additional money that's available

1186
01:27:29,840 --> 01:27:37,600
for capital projects. And so, it's
essentially a premium that you get when

1187
01:27:35,040 --> 01:27:42,239
you issue debt depending on like the
market at that moment. Overall, the the

1188
01:27:40,239 --> 01:27:44,639
general fund benefited was like $300 and
some thousand.

1189
01:27:43,600 --> 01:27:50,000
» Some of it came here.
>> Yep. based on the percentage of the debt

1190
01:27:47,600 --> 01:27:52,960
that was issued.
>> It had had to do with the way the bonds

1191
01:27:52,239 --> 01:27:57,120
are bid.
>> Yes, exactly.

1192
01:27:53,840 --> 01:28:01,600
» The uh uh the underwriter
bid a premium on the bonds, which

1193
01:27:59,520 --> 01:28:05,199
basically they they offered to pay you
more than the face value of the bond.

1194
01:28:04,159 --> 01:28:11,600
» Got it.
>> And so and so, uh you got a bonus up

1195
01:28:08,560 --> 01:28:16,639
front, uh but then they charge you a
higher rate of interest over over time.

1196
01:28:14,719 --> 01:28:22,880
And
the way what what ends up happening is

1197
01:28:18,480 --> 01:28:27,280
that the uh the value of that premium
gets calculated as part of the present

1198
01:28:24,960 --> 01:28:33,280
value in the interest rate calculation.
So when you're looking at uh your total

1199
01:28:29,440 --> 01:28:37,679
costs over time, uh it it works out, but
at the end of the day, you do get a cash

1200
01:28:35,679 --> 01:28:41,600
infusion up front, which is what this is
representing.

1201
01:28:39,199 --> 01:28:47,120
» So I guess the next question is, didn't
we require 1.885 85 million and now we

1202
01:28:44,800 --> 01:28:53,760
have more than 1.885 million because of
the step premium that now we have. Yes.

1203
01:28:50,880 --> 01:28:57,360
Did we require 1.99
million?

1204
01:28:56,400 --> 01:29:01,280
» Did we require two
>> when you size the bond? You mean did you

1205
01:28:59,360 --> 01:29:05,840
resize the bonds in order to take into
account the the debt premium?

1206
01:29:03,440 --> 01:29:10,320
» I mean is this is this bonus money or is
this associated with a $2 million debt

1207
01:29:08,560 --> 01:29:14,159
borrow?
Do you see what I mean? If you add the

1208
01:29:11,760 --> 01:29:16,320
two together, it's roughly two million.
>> What I'm hearing,

1209
01:29:15,199 --> 01:29:20,400
» what did we require?
>> Well, what we required was the 1.8, the

1210
01:29:18,880 --> 01:29:24,159
actual dollar amount, but then they came
in and basically said, "This is we're

1211
01:29:22,400 --> 01:29:26,880
going to give you more money, but we're
going to charge you a little bit higher

1212
01:29:25,440 --> 01:29:31,040
interest, and it ends up kind of coming
out."

1213
01:29:27,760 --> 01:29:35,600
» Now, the TID has $122,000 more than it
>> Yeah. But but then you may end up

1214
01:29:33,360 --> 01:29:38,239
choosing to use you can utilize that for
your cash flow, debt payments.

1215
01:29:37,920 --> 01:29:43,760
» Yeah.
>> Um right to offset that. So it it it

1216
01:29:41,679 --> 01:29:51,840
balances it out in that in that.
>> Okay.

1217
01:29:46,320 --> 01:29:57,360
Uh TID 2 also the tax increment went 322
down to 278 up to 305.

1218
01:29:55,280 --> 01:30:00,360
There's no office being demolished
there.

1219
01:30:01,199 --> 01:30:09,520
» And then finally TID 3 which is brand
new

1220
01:30:06,480 --> 01:30:15,199
and the tax. So that the in the
projected increment

1221
01:30:11,679 --> 01:30:21,760
is 497.
Is that what will be the projected for

1222
01:30:17,840 --> 01:30:25,199
2028? It'll be more.
It should be way more.

1223
01:30:22,960 --> 01:30:27,760
» Yes, it will be more,
>> right? It's probably like quadruple

1224
01:30:26,719 --> 01:30:31,440
more.
>> We had the the extended spreadsheet

1225
01:30:30,800 --> 01:30:33,600
shows that
>> I I I probably don't even need the

1226
01:30:32,639 --> 01:30:37,040
number. I just
>> 170,000.

1227
01:30:34,560 --> 01:30:41,280
» Okay. So it's tripleish more. Got it.
Yeah. I just that was

1228
01:30:39,760 --> 01:30:45,520
I don't need the number. I just wanted
to know that that was going to increase

1229
01:30:43,440 --> 01:30:51,440
dramatically.
Okay. You probably

1230
01:30:49,520 --> 01:30:54,800
need a motion on this one. A
recommendation

1231
01:30:52,159 --> 01:30:57,840
» approve the the budgets.
>> Thank you. Second.

1232
01:30:55,920 --> 01:31:01,199
» Thank you, Brian. Any further
discussion?

1233
01:30:59,440 --> 01:31:04,880
Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> I. I.

1234
01:31:02,000 --> 01:31:09,360
» Any opposed? Motion carries.
That concludes our general business for

1235
01:31:06,800 --> 01:31:14,080
the evening. All we need to do is so
move to adjurnn. Dick with the motion.

1236
01:31:12,639 --> 01:31:16,880
Who's your second? Sure.
>> And Mike with a second. Those in favor

1237
01:31:15,920 --> 01:31:23,280
say I. I.
>> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are

1238
01:31:19,199 --> 01:31:25,520
adjourned. Thank you so much everybody.
Good