All right, it is August 18th. Our chairperson, Ray Kger, is not here, so I
will be chairing this meeting of the community development authority.
Uh, I am calling it to order, and we don't really need to call the role. So,
the first item of business is to approve the minutes from the from the meeting
July 14th. Anybody have any comments about
» approval? Thank you, Dick. Do I hear a second?
» I'll give it to Mike. >> He was quicker than I was.
» Yep. >> Uh, any further discussion? Hearing
none. All those in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next, we
will move on to discussion. Recommendation on the Silver Spring
entrance signs to be paid for by private development projects. Wonder who those
they are. Um, Kelsey sent a memo. So, wait. Uh we have something in our
packets, but we also have a new email. Correct.
» Yep. >> That's correct. Uh so this is really
just a continuation from a conversation that started at the at the um most
recent CDA meeting. The village will be replacing uh the two monument signs on
Silver Spring, one in front of the Sendix development and the other at
Lidell and Silver Spring where uh the new bank as well as the apartment
complex will be going in. Both of those signs will be paid for by the private
developments. Uh however, we the village needs to approve what those um sign
signs will look like. Both of the private developments had proposed their
own designs and then there was um clearly a desire to have them look more
cohesive. And so um with that in mind, we engaged groth um who is the company
who is doing the design for the floating warming house and ask them to develop
some independent options which I sent over today and Anna has up on the
screen. This topic has been um has now been discussed at village board CDA and
bid. The only group that has seen these updated designs from growth was bid
because they had their meeting this past Friday. Uh so I took the feedback that
they provided from that entire design concepts which there were four of them
and um gave that feedback to Grath who designed an up or provided an updated
design which was that second PDF I sent out this morning and those are the
designs on the screen um that Anna shared. some feedback that I've heard
that's been pretty consistent. Um, Arc and Bid both talked about the idea of um
an inlay or something consistent within the signs. Uh, both groups wanted um
consistent form. So, basically the signs physically looking similar. Um, at least
bid preferred that the materials match the development behind them. Their
reason being is that they're in such close proximity especially that Lidell
Silver Spring. I forgot how many feet Joel, but it's very very close.
» Yeah. Um to the development behind and so it just felt like aesthetically that
that would look better and they felt like there would be enough cohesion as
long as the signs in form were the same. Um Ark was a little bit more split. they
seemed open to both the materials matching the two signs having the same
materials and not matching the developments behind them or having um
the materials match the development behind them. Uh so I guess all that to
say is I'm looking for some direction from CDA. This will be presented again
to village board likely on August 31st and then ultimately um it will also go
to ARC as well. So, it has a few other bodies to go through, but just looking
overall for your feedback. >> Okay. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to
share something I I did get uh emailwise uh about 1:30 this
afternoon from Ted Ballastr. >> There was a meeting. Is
» he working? Is he working the crowd? Well, jury may be, but I'm I'm going to
serve as a relay uh water boy here in in this and read just read it to you. Um,
and this came in at 1:24 and I did forward it uh when I saw it about 2:30
to uh to Kelsey just as an info matter of information. But he sends an email.
Uh, Mike, I understand the CDA will meet today and discuss the proposed sign at
the corner of Silver Spring and Lake Drive. Unfortunately, I'm unable to
attend the meeting. However, it is important to us that the brick match our
building. Could this be relayed to the members?
And I agreed to slay it. So, >> I' I've heard that message a few times
from Ted. >> Okay. I figured you probably relayed.
» But now, h having done that, I've got a couple other things I'd just like to to
offer just as as a couple of observations. One is um and I I think I
made this point at the earlier meeting. I don't feel uh just in in my sense of
it that we need to be consistent with the buildings that are next to it next
to it. Either we could be, but we don't have to be. What I do think is important
is that we be consistent in relationship to establishing that format as a
uh recognized uh village brand. You know, something that people will say,
"Okay, that's a village thing. That's a village. That's the village sign." and
it's consistent and wherever you put it up throughout the village. So I think
that it would be well whatever you and the board and the others decide on that
would make sense in relationship to the adjustment here. I I do like uh what uh
was done here in the sense of uh one of the refinements that the bidded or
whoever asked for the change. uh if you if if you do end up using uh the red
brick or any darker color like that, uh the earlier version of that in the first
iteration had a sort of gray uh background with a somewhat gray
lettering where in the letter, you know, the White Village of White Fish Bay
lettering blended in with the sign, you really couldn't see it. This iteration I
think has the as I write has the good contrast of the dark lettering with the
light background and and it's bold. I like the uh the uh announcement of the
village's founding underneath establishing it as a more of a
recognized village uh monument and so I thought that was helpful. Out of
curiosity, what do you think of that particular shot where Sendix has
established 1926 on their facade and then here we have established 1892?
Like, does that is that at all? When I saw that, I'm like, "Oh man, we have
both of these establishment words within 10t of each other."
» Well, if nothing else, it it it causes the reader to think about the fact that
maybe they're two different things, which is what you want.
» Okay, fair enough. Uh now the other thing that I thought would be worth
throwing out to the consideration of the group uh you know while I I don't have
objection per se to the uh if you could flip to that second sign the one with
the landing stone on it. Yeah, that one. Uh to me that blends in too much.
more more importantly what what concerns me there is uh what is occurring on the
other corner kitty corner from it. Uh >> what else?
» If I took I went over there just before this meeting took a took a photo of that
uh corner and that sign across the street and it's almost it's very very
very similar to what what you've got here. I'm going to forward this to you
and maybe you can put it up on the screen. Kelsey, let me just
» I think and I can probably pull up Google Maps.
» Okay, but I can pass this around too. I mean, I should
» you just hand it down the line and look at it, but
» Okay. I >> mean, that's pretty dog on close to what
we're talking about here. And I I would prefer to have something that's
not that similar to what Glendel's doing.
That's all I got. Do >> you have an international plan here?
» Yeah, >> I do. If you need if you need to use my
phone for something, you're you're welcome to.
» And and that's such a memorable sign that until he passed his picture around,
none of us could picture it. >> Right. Right.
» Yeah. There you go, >> Mr. Chairman. I'll if I can kind of
follow up behind uh behind Mike's comments. I I pretty much agree with
with one exception, but um I I I think the this second iteration of the red
brick um with the large field of pre-cast
where where the lettering goes. I think that I I hold on I you know my my
instinct was to say I don't think it that that the bricks should you know
should match the brick in the in in the sendex but I'm I'm I guess persuaded
frankly by uh Ted's email um and looking at this I I do think that
that kind of white pre-cast background um will and and when this is actually
seen in 3D um should should help. I'm not a fan of
the footnote there established in whatever 1992.
I kind of like the way the first iteration where it said village of in
small letters and then Whitefish Bay and that was it. That takes care of any
confusion over who established what when. Um, so I I
with with that with that exception, I I'd agree and I and I do think that it's
important whatever we do here should be what we
also do uh at the corner with Lidell and if we decide we want to put it up on
Lake Drive at school road or down on Hampton or something, you know, that
this becomes the, you know, the the the gateway to to
Whitefish So I think are you also saying that if
if we had something like that and you would also want the exact same uh at the
lightel and silver spring. Yes. With the brick
» and wherever else we decide to or or you know maybe a miniature version of that
» but but you know something consistent with it. just bec I'll ask the same
question of everybody, but um if if we weren't doing these developments and you
had your choice between the the lamb and stone one and the brick and imagine not
just Silver Spring but also Hampton and Lake and all those other places, which
of the two would you pick for regardless of, you know, matching some new
developments? >> Kind of representative of the
» What's your favorite? I think I'd say the brick.
» Brick. I personally really like and I and I very much like the the
incorporation of the stone into that apartment building.
Um, but I think for the, you know, the the gateway to White Fish Bay,
um, articulation that the brick and the and and the brighter, as you put pointed
out, pre-cast, >> I think it's pretty much unanimous, and
tell me if anybody else would say, I think that what we've been calling the
inlay, the the rectangle in the middle, >> um, it's unanimous that everybody wants
that to be Yeah, >> the same.
» Yeah, >> where wherever we go, that is going to
be consistent for sure. >> Um and and the wording I
» I think we can debate that. But Colin wanted to
» So So my two cents, um one, I actually strongly prefer the limestone over the
brick just aesthetically. Um, but two, I think
you you either have to I think you either want to make the material the
same as the building behind it or you want them to be dramatically different
like having a different color brick I think look will look really
unplanned. >> Yeah. And so either they have I think
they either have to be both very different and the same and I think that
makes sense. But I think doing the red brick in front of the limestone, the
limestone in front of the red brick may look a little weird.
» Um, so I would actually do the how they have it here. Right.
» Right. So two you would not be consistent.
» Yeah. But you'd have the same consistent thing. Um, or or you go to another
design, right, that >> uses
» for the record metal or something.
» You're That's exactly what I think. Um, I I don't worry as much about the
similar sign on Lidell because on the other the kitty corner because
you see that when you exit as opposed to when you enter. It's not like you have
that on the same point of view, right? You're going east on Silver Spring.
You're seeing one on one side and one on the other. It's you see one going east
and one coming west. And I don't think people will
» swivel their heads. >> Yeah. I don't think it's going to be
that that big of a deal. >> North and south on Lidell, you're
hopelessly lost. >> Yeah. Um I do I do agree with you by the
way about the Sundex. If one says established and the other says
established, that'll be I don't know if it's confusing, but it's
it's confusing, but confusing may be the
right word, right? But so I'm questioning do you actually like could
they change their >> do is that is that their plans is do we
know that that's accurate because I'm not sure it is.
» Well you gota it says village established village established.
» Yeah I know but >> can you look at zoom in on one of the
first >> but to me it's a weird parallelism. So
this that feedback came from art, I believe, um where they were concerned
that people would read the established date and think that was the village. And
so that's why I believe it was that group that commented that it should be
on the sign. >> Oh, I see what you mean.
» Yeah. Zoom. Can you zoom in on No, >> what would you like to zoom in on?
» The the one of the first ones. >> Oh, okay. The original design four.
» Yeah. Yeah. If you can zoom in on that, you can see where it says,
see there it says village of village of Whitefish Bay.
» Can I let me explain that a little bit? Could you go down to one of the liidel?
» That's the only thing the original >> like one of the last pages. Page five.
» So this is the back and forth I've had. Okay. Page four.
Any any of the liel ones. So the back and forth I've had with them is that the
plantings so we have a restriction because it's in the site triangle
on height the like it just the plantings grow into
Whitefish Bay and if you actually look at it right now some of that text is
covered up. So some of the village board members I think it's specifically Jacob
was asking to have those letters as high as possible to make it more visible. So
this was like our attempt to try to make Whitefish Bay higher. I'm not sure it's
the right decision, but it was an attempt at that.
» Yeah. >> Two two comments on my I actually kind
of prefer these big just White Fish Bay. That's what you see. Um I get the
planting issue and so take that. I whatever. Um I'm fine with the other. I
think the one suggestion on the estab could you just put 1892 as opposed to
village established 1892? >> Yeah. And then village of on top. Is
that what you're saying? Or just not do that.
» Get rid of the word established. Is that what
» basically just get rid of the word established
» put a dash say wther's bay >> or est maybe or something?
» Yeah. >> Census bounded.
» Sure. >> Like is the is the word village
important? It might be but >> as opposed to a city.
» Yeah. >> I I get that. But town, city, village, I
get all >> think about. But
» this get this gets into the branding of the village itself, which is above my
pay grade. >> But do you do we want to be the village
of Whitefish Bay or do we want to be Whitefish Bay? How do people think about
us? And how do we It's a great question. I don't think we
have like this official document that explains our branding techniques.
» Um I It's interesting if you ever go outside of Wisconsin and you and I'll be
like, "Oh, you know, I live in the village." and they're like, "What you
what a quaint little town you have there." A hamlet of what I should say.
Um, so you know, in Wisconsin branding, typically you you do have those.
» There's more to it than that because there's statutory.
» Correct. >> We are a village. That is correct.
» What these are. >> Yeah.
» We we are a village. I'm not we're not changing.
» Well, but I'm just making a point. >> But are we more to it? Do we want to
position ourselves as the village of Whitefish Bay or do we want to position
ourselves as White Fish Bay? >> Oh, let me check the agenda. Oh, that's
not on here. So, we're going on to Brian now.
Sorry. >> I mean, my comments are I like that they
added the second column. I think that to anchor both sides, I think it looks a
lot nicer. I like what they did. I I frankly I like the decorative ball,
honestly, that they eliminated. Okay. Okay. And I I understand it may get
broken off at somewhere along the line, but
» I like the decorative something. Whether it's a ball or are you okay with other
shapes or something? >> Whatever. Whatever that is.
» Something on top. >> Say it's over to something. It looked
nice on there. I thought nice way to do it. And then my last comment, well, two
more comments actually. The the fish on the side. We should do that in white and
blue like kind of our white fish bay colors in my opinion. I'm not sure why
we chose gold and whatever other color we chose, but an idea. And then also
like for plantings, it looks like there is no plantings at all in front of the
sign in front of Sundex. I I'm fine with that. I would eliminate or limit the any
plantings in front of the one to the west to either be ground cover or no
plantings at all to eliminate that from growing into the White Fish Bay sign.
However that is done be my two cents. If you cook any grasses there, it's going
to overcome that sign with how short that is.
Um, well, along those lines about the plantings,
I I thought at one point we were under the assumption that this the Sendex sign
had to be 42 in, but that one did not. Do we know? Have we definitively
» said triangle
at the other? >> So, let's raise it up then. So raise it
up, you know, six inches a foot and then we don't have any planting problems.
» Yeah. >> And I don't think anybody's going to
say, "Wait a minute, this one's a foot taller." You know,
» make it just taller than windows. >> Yes.
» Be aware of the of the window sight line of sight there. I don't know if that you
care about that or not, but >> it's it's it's a consideration if you're
looking off from the building. >> My guess is that that's the lobby of the
bank. And so I'm not perfect. >> This is Sendix.
» Oh, I apologize. >> This one has to stay the same height. So
if you go to the >> light 142.
» Okay. >> This one can be
» Okay. Yeah. No. And and they've got at least the way this one is drawn, the the
recast apps at either end is what's 42 in. Mhm.
» The the the bulk of the sign is probably more like 38 or 39 in.
» See that dotted line there? >> Yeah. And
» that's the 42 in. >> I had a comment on the fact that this
this I think it's landing stone. Um it's 42 and the the gap between the column
cap and the field looks like maybe an inch or something versus the SendX one
where it's like 4 in. So if you go now, if you flip back, let's see if I
» Yeah, I mean it looks like >> so like right this little piece, this
little piece right there I think is like one inch versus
I don't know four or five >> which is and my guess is that's they
wanted to keep it the cap at 42 and they wanted to raise the limestone one up as
much as they could above the plantain. >> That's my hypothesis.
» I think it's because I had a few last minute changes. probably was just an
over. >> Yeah, exactly.
» But the point is look that the 42 in height
» is achieved at those two outbound kind of columns column
» with the pre-cast cab and and you know whatever whether there's a 1 in or a 4
inch drop down to the to the pre-cast band across the top. Um and if we
» it's slightly lower if we put a ball on it. Are we violating the sight triangle?
I mean, >> yeah.
» Yeah. I mean, you are, but I believe there's a provision in that code section
that gives the police chief in relation to allow to be missed. So, we can
» depends how big the ball is. Maybe
» or what I was going to say was everything should be 42,
» right? make everything 42 and then and put some kind of shape. I don't know if
it's a sphere. I don't know if it's a squashed
elliptoid or some some kind of decorative duad that goes on top of it.
Um, generally like I I'm not a designer, but I I like things that are not plain.
Um, and >> yeah, but you don't want to get too cute
either. >> I get it. And this is something pretty
particularly subtle. Yeah, >> I'm going to outline what what I would
what I would cast as a motion if I could ever get somebody to second it.
» Sure. >> But but let me let me let me just share
with you what that would be and then then maybe somebody thinks it's good
enough, they can either alter it or second it. But I would for me what I
would mo move would be the >> endorsement of of this sign with the
modifications being uh that you change that to add the
words village of above Whitefish Bay. Uh eliminate the village established and
just put 1892 below it. So it would read village of Whitefish
Bay 1892. And then you modify, you take and put the blue uh fish on there the
way that Brian had identified it and a ball of appropriate size as could be
approved by the chief on the ends and uh that would be what I
would would put off
» comment on that as a pro prospective seconder. Yeah, the the thing is is like
we there's what you just mentioned was probably 80% of what everybody else has
mentioned, but 20% that is not and and so it's kind of difficult to have that
kind of motion that's unan that's any kind of unonymity.
» That's why I threw it out there to be honest. I would want to see the
markup of it just to say >> yes or no. Right.
» Right. >> So it's a little tight. Right. And this
is really just a we're making a recommendation which we can make a
motion for and >> Yeah. Yeah, the the one exception I
would take to Mike's motion is the incorporation of the 1892
because I think what's going to happen, you know, given the height limitations
that we have at least on on the Sendex end of town is you have a village of
then you have large letters White Fishbay and then you have small letters
1892. you're going to run out of space and what's going to happen is you're
gonna you're gonna squeeze the size of the letters that say White Fish Bay and
if you just have village of in little tiny White Fish Bay done.
One suggestion would be if you have the right column, you could put established
EST 1892 on the right column >> to balance the fish signal
» or even just 1892. >> Or even just 1892. I'm
» I'm fond I'm fond of the I like simplicity by the way.
» I I I that would be my favorite is make make a new inlay on the right column
that just says 1892. >> Yeah,
» cuz I actually like the big letters like now we have
You say since 1892 or something >> 1892 simple ide.
» So I have one other curveball and it's actually a curve. The current two signs
are indeed curved. They have a arc to them.
» Yes. which I guess I appreciate that in that it's it it looks well thought out
versus a flat straight sign. Is is there anyone joining in me with me saying, you
know, be nice if it was like angled or the the the the columns were offset in a
angular way? Anybody along those same lines?
» I could support that. Yeah. At least the the one at Sendex though it
I believe you know it's it's depicted here as straight not curved
but it's at an angle that mirrors the angle at the end of the true the new
building. >> True.
So imagine >> and I mean I I I think when you start
doing that >> so I'm what I'm trying to do is take the
columns and and make it make them just bend them so that it's off
» so that instead of being square they're they're
» yeah they're just off by an angle. >> Oh okay. So it's still going to be
straight across. >> I mean any of the above. I'm not a
designer. It's more I just I like things that are a little bit more complicated
than this flat sheet like Glendalees I guess is. Um and and so all you do is
just kind of you can either have a concave or a convex curve in this case.
Sure. Which con convex or concave? But just to rotate the the columns.
» The inlay curve. >> Fairly simple.
» Inlay curve. No. No. The inlay would not curve. The stays stays straight and the
columns just go off by >> Oh, you would put the columns at 45°.
» Yeah. How would >> So instead of the columns being flat,
you'd have the column edge come out just in this case the we had some Legos. Does
anybody have any Legos? >> So the fish is lose your sign.
» Yeah. >> If you're looking at it from the top, it
looks kind of diamond shaped instead of square.
» And not necessarily that you turn it 45 degrees. You might turn it only 10.
» Okay. Yeah. Then you're going to see it at an on the fish
» at an oblique angle >> a little bit. Yeah.
» Yeah. And I don't >> again I I would prefer it to be subtle,
you know, not not a massive, you know, 45 degree, but maybe it's 20 or
something. >> I'm all for the kiss principle here.
» Okay. That's and and that's the one of the problems that we've got so many
cooks in the kitchen here. >> I think I think I could be convinced of
that if you did like a a rounded sign. >> And I'm good with that, too. in that
scenario. But I think if you if it's a flat sign, I think it's going to look a
little wonky. >> A rectangle is a rectangle.
» Yeah. Yeah. >> What the bid discussed with the rounded
sign is there's there's chairs behind. Now, obviously, it's Wisconsin, so
that's not going to be all year round, but there's proposed to be chairs in
like a really small seating area. And so, the concern is that it's going to be
smaller. It's already going to be small, but perhaps if that sign's narrow, it's
probably just going to be a walkway. I don't know if that matters.
» Interesting place to sit. >> Yeah.
I think they have like four chairs and all the renderings behind the sign.
» How do you How do you get out there to sit?
» Sidewalk. >> Sidewalk.
» Oh, okay. So, it's just for walk passers by.
» Yeah. It's like a bench basically, but it's chairs instead. Yeah.
» Good place for a TV interview. >> There you go.
» Um, >> okay. Could I
» So, do do you want an official motion from the CDA? I mean, you tell me
because this is going to visit. >> I mean, the problem is is it's also
going to go to the Ark. It's the bid. Did they make a motion? They did.
» They did. >> So, what they what they unanimously
supported was this. There's some alterations like Anna was the one that
Anna Casper um is the one that sent me like the the fish and the font. So,
those changes were based on her feedback.
Uh, so there's a few other changes incorporated, but for the most part,
this is what they recommended. >> You know, you're you're you're going to
end up with a whole bunch of ideas here. >> Oh, I have a lot of ideas.
» This is strangely one of the more complicated things I've done since I've
got here. >> So, you always call said that a camel is
a horse that was designed by the committee.
» And so, we've got to be careful not to >> But they do function pretty well when
they're out the desert. So, what the heck?
» Yeah. We need don't need a 300.
» I don't know. >> I'm happy I mean I'm happy to support
this motion. Um I know that there'll be many iterations.
» I'm I'm going to throw it out there as a motion just to get it over with and then
somebody can either second it or not and we can vote it up or down. I mean and
then at the end of the day other committees are going to have their say.
So it's going to change. It's probably not going to be what we recommend
anyway, >> right? But, you know, I for what it's
worth, I think that this plan with the fish altered as we indicated and then
with Dick's changes that we talked about uh and the inclusion of a ball to the
extent that the chief could stomach it >> and I think you said but both would be
the same. >> Yes.
» Silver Spring, I'm sorry, Lidell and and Lake the same.
» Okay. Um both will be the same in terms of the material.
They would be identical. >> They would be identical
» except for the height. Can you add that? >> Except for the height.
» The material would be a dark brick >> uh and and pre-cast.
» Okay. So, they both Wait, would it be that brick or you're proposing a
different brick? >> No, it' be this type of brick. Matching
syntax or not matching? >> Well, it doesn't have to be exactly
matching, but it a red type brick. I I I think it ought to either match or be a
substantial contrast. >> You got that?
» Okay. >> So, I'd say Yeah. So, I'd say match
sentence. >> Okay. So, both signs match.
» Both sides would be the same. >> Okay. Both. And you know the other the
other justification in my mind for that is that and and you know you can argue
that we're not bound by history but the fact that we have that and have had that
type of a brick sub in the past is something that people will recognize
as being a trademark of the village going forward. So I don't see any
problem with with being consistent with what what with that element of the past.
And we still do we still have the red brick white fish bay sign on Hampton
coming into White Fish Bay. East that is red brick. Yeah.
» Okay. >> It has been suggested that we would go
through a process of replacing everything once we have a format that we
all like. We would then you know proceed with Hampton and
» Sure. >> Lake and
» Can I repeat this back to make sure I have it? Well, first before you before I
do, what do you guys think of that that are you going to vote for that motion in
second or not? >> Mike's motion.
» Uh uh yeah, Mike's. >> Yes. I mean, I'm on board with what he
said. Yes. >> I will probably not vote for it.
» I'm I'm not going to vote for it either. >> Okay.
» I'm Yeah, I just I I think I I don't think the brick fits in front of the
Lidell building. Um, and I'm I'm generally okay with uh the materials
being different, but but you got three, so there you go.
» Well, you get another kick at the can. So
» So why don't you why don't you play why don't you tell us what the motion you
think is? >> Okay. Um, so Mike, let's make sure I got
this right. Um, so both signs are going to match and they'll be the Sendex red
brick. The we're going to add a ball to the top.
» Let's not let's not call it the Sendex red brick. red brick consistent with
» the village's historic use of brick. I' I'd go with that. Yeah.
» Okay. So, both signs match.
» Where would I say the materials? >> Um adding the decorative ball on top.
Did you say to change the logo to blue or white? Was that
» Well, for the fish to be consistent with the with what Brian is. Can you change
that from decorative ball to just decorative shape?
» Does it need to be a ball? Like I think that there was something that was
» not in my mind. I think decorative shape is fine. Sure.
» Well, depending on I suppose there's a lot of objectionable, but you guys
something good. >> Dad.
» Yeah.
» Put a pineapple. >> Traditional traditional symbol of what a
fish. This is this is gonna be a legendary
» couple roosters on. >> So decorative dad
» um blue or white logo um fish logo and then was there something with the 1892?
» Yeah, get rid of it. >> Well, the the alternative was to put it
on the other other column with the EST. >> What does your motion include? I'll go
with the with that >> with the on the column.
» Yeah, put it on the column on the other side.
» Put on column with EST 1892 >> 18
» established >> estimated
» Yeah. >> two. Okay. Was there anything else I
missed? >> Probably, but we don't know what it is.
» Okay. >> Hannah, you're good.
» Yeah. All right. That's everything I did. Okay. So, we have a motion
» and a second. Yes. >> Uh,
any further discussion? Uh, all those in favor of Mike's
uh monument say I. >> I.
» I. >> That's three. And those who say nay.
» Nay. >> Nay. Passes three to two.
Congratulations. >> Okay.
» And if it ever shows up that way, I'll be amazed.
» Yeah. >> Yeah.
» Sure. That would look like that. >> That's right.
» 37 minutes. >> Yeah.
» Okay. >> Well, and well spent.
» Well spent. Absolutely well spent. Uh all right. We will then move on. That's
» We'll then move on to discussion recommendation on strategic plan
initiative to evaluate permit permitted conditional and prohibited uses and
other standards in district 11, which is the Silver Spring District. So Anna is
ready to say this for the ninth time. >> Yes. We're going to keep it short and
sweet. Um, we talked about this at the last CDA meeting and the CDA was able to
reach consens consensus on several potential changes to the district 11
regulations. One of the things that they said though
was that they wanted to continue discussion regarding the existing
conditional uses specifically in light of Act 67. you need to rehash that, we
can. Otherwise, we don't need to. Um, but ultimately with act 67, just that
conditional uses don't have the legal backing that they once had. So, with our
conditional uses, even though they're listed, um, it makes it hard to deny
them now. So looking at the conditional uses and if you want to keep them as
conditional uses or move any to prohibited and then also what to do with
the wrap around having it be remain as if it's not listed in our conditional
uses, have it remain a conditional use or have it be a prohibited use. And then
if there were any specific uses that you felt individually you wanted to call out
either moving it up to permitted or bumping it down to prohibited that is
listed.
» So So can I ask a question just because I wasn't at the last meeting. Um the act
67 cont the context of the act 67 that is
conditional uses somehow problematic but if we say things are prohibited that's
not problematic. >> Okay.
» Conditional uses are incredibly hard to deny.
» Okay. >> That's the way you say it. And but
» prohibited items are are not hard to they are prohibited. That's not a big
deal. >> Okay.
» Okay. >> Got it. which is
» that that legislation was part of a package the of uh attempting
statewide to simplify, expedite, streamline
» the development process, make it easier for greedy developers like me to
» get stuff done. >> Exactly. Power to But now we're in power
to the people mode. Yes. 2026. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um,
so firstly, do does do do any of the board members here uh have
comments to add besides the ones that the bullet points on the topic like they
you you have something prepared, you want to talk about u particular items.
Um if not uh we probably we're now going to go
back to what we were talking about before which was um the bigger questions
one of the bigger questions was about banks and for example prohibiting banks
with a what was it the a retail bank on the first floor. Is that how we were
going to phrase it? >> Yep. We were going to put in a standard
for requiring financial institutions uh to be located on the second
» which would effectively make all the current banks non-conforming.
» Where did that idea materialize from? >> Brainstorming on the concept of do we
want to continue to have more banks in our village? Um is that the right
answer? I I don't know and that's why we're discussing it here.
» Okay. Do we know if anybody else any other villages have something similar to
that?
Are there other examples where that's been put in place?
» That would be part of staff's analysis further looking.
» Yeah. >> Okay.
Oh, I mean I'm not enamored with any more banks of course in the village, but
at the same time I don't think it's appropriate to make all of them not
legal non-confirming that are here >> especially given the Bank of America.
» Yeah, we just approved one at our last meeting by the way,
» right? >> With a drive-thru.
The condition we also discussed was that it could be there there had to be a
component to it on the second floor that we felt was useful,
» which again there wasn't on the Bank of America
» no >> project that we just approved.
» Well, there's apartments up there. >> Yeah, I know.
So, one of the bankers could rent apartment, but
I mean, are we kind of closing the barn door after the horse is out?
This is, you know, a forwardlooking document, right?
» Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, so
» want another one? >> Yeah. I
right now the way it's uh set up is that it would continue to be permitted as a
conditional use even though conditional uses we don't have uh a great deal of
control over is that is that way I understand it now let me just ask this
question uh
you do have control over conditional uses provided that you uh control them
util utilizing uh certain standards of uh performance,
visav parking, visav uh traffic impacts, some of the kinds of things uh that you
know the hours of use. Do we not aren't aren't we going to
require parking analysis, parking studies of any of these conditional uses
if they come in going forward? Shouldn't we be requiring that?
I guess what I'd say that the plan commission
usually we if if there was a project that uh was unusual enough that would
generate an unusual amount of parking issues, we would we could require a
study. For example, the Argo >> where we said yeah where we said, "Holy
moly, this could really, you know, swamp us with parking issues. We are going to
demand a parking." What I what I'm suggesting, Kevin, is that maybe this is
this is a way of reestablishing some control. We may have not have insisted
on parking studies in the past except for when we thought maybe there'd be a
greater impact. But if you requ all of them to have one, then maybe you got
some control except you could wave the parking stud. Could let me ask this.
Could we set it up so that you would require a parking study on every deal
unless waved by the police chief or somebody that
said based on our experience, we don't think that in this case it's going to be
that >> I think we could do that
» for the MA or the village manager. >> I mean, I think we could do that today
under under our current rules. We we are waving.
» You think so? >> Yeah. Wouldn't Wouldn't you agree? Like
we >> are you requiring everybody to do it?
» No, but we could. Well, what I'm I'm just throwing this out there based on
some conversations I've had with people that are in this business about this,
knowing we were going to talk about this.
» I think maybe you can exercise some muscle that you didn't
know you had by by by invoking those kinds of requirements.
» You know, the end goal here is a bank has decided to buy X property. Yeah. and
and demolish that property and put up their bank. And and so if there is a way
outside of conditional use, prohibited use that we can basically say we do not
want a 10th bank here. >> If if if there if there is some other
avenue to do that, I'm all ears. >> Yeah.
» I don't think parking is it. And not to mention the fact that they could say
we're going to put up a single we're gonna, you know, take 100 by 100 plot of
land and put up a bank and we're gonna have plenty of parking. So, our parking
study issue just went out the window. If there is a way that we can prohibit a
10th one, >> I don't think I don't think there is.
But I what I'm suggesting is there are ways you could make it much more of a
challenge for somebody that uh might discourage the uh the casual uh uh uh
» casual bank. Well, the bank that is going to try to do do it without having
to uh address some of the thornier questions associated with park. We do
have parking problem here. You can claim that we don't, but we do have parking
problems with with a number of situations. I mean, it's
it's tight out there and it's getting worse. Oh, I that I was just about to
say I I disagree in that the Sendex property and the adding of Bowmont
parking and the fact that now Sundex will have 44 more spots because of the
Masonic Temple property. We actually for a moment are actually trending in a
different direction in a more positive direction. But that's good.
» I think Colin wanted to So I >> I have two concerns with this. One is um
the if the goal is to keep out banks
say you know putting a blanket restriction on around parking or
whatever but always giving a waiver to non-banks and always requiring it for
banks kind of opens you up to potential lawsuits right now. Whether any bank
specific bank is going to want to bother with that, I have no idea. But I think
it's you would have you could you could potentially um you could potentially run
into that issue. The other thing is that if you require everything to have a um a
parking study, that may make some developments
too expensive for a small retailer or something to go through.
» Dog groomer. >> Yeah. Is an example. Um, the other thing
is the way you keep out, as far as I understand it, the way you keep out
retail banks is you get a better use of the land and retail space than a bank. A
bank is not, you know, it's a
it's sort of the minimum viable floor. And so that's why you end up seeing them
in a lot of places. That's the that's the only thing that that's the, you
know, you don't you don't have better options. And so the way you keep them
out is you end up with better options. Now that's a bigger and that's a bigger
question than we >> the question Colin is how do you get how
do you encourage those better options? >> Yeah, I don't I don't have the right
answer for that but that's um
» that's what we're trying to get to. >> That's that's a maybe a joint
conversation with bid and the village board and
us of how of what can we do to to do that? I mean,
» what? >> Well, I was just I threw out that idea.
I'm looking for tools, guys. I'm trying to be helpful.
» And I appreciate like more brains looking into ways that we can basically
stop a 10th bank. >> Yeah. I mean, I mean,
» or anything else really the agenda here? I mean, are we broader policy?
» Yeah, that's what I say. Or any anything else? You see, I don't I don't think
this is the like I think I think the way you do it is you build more housing and
you build more apartments and you build more you get more bodies on the street
and on Silver Spring, but that's a different conversation because nobody
wants to walk out the sun. >> But like I want Fiverr like story that
you know. >> Yeah. So
» Brian, do you have any comments on this? >> I think at a minimum I think one thing
we should talk was is a requirement to activate the floors above the bank in
the event that they were to come. Yes, >> we kind of did that anyways like with
the Bank of America project and part of the reason why we got our arms around it
was the activation of apartments upstairs. They built a kind of a full
second floor on Town Bank when they did that. But
» but you don't >> to add a requirement of office or
residential or retail >> on on the second and or third floor
above that would be a minimum. >> You don't want a standalone bank.
» Is that a possib How would we can we do that?
» Absolutely. Why not? >> Is that a Is that a zoning? Is that an
ordinance? Is that like >> Let's let us look into it. I'm sure
there's a way. We just have to think through it.
» Yeah. I think it would have to be like a standard and the
Yeah. something with accessory. >> Yeah.
» Yeah. >> Okay. Let us think through it.
» But I I think >> you know or or could you write a
prohibition that's very specific that says no standalone banks?
» Yeah. >> Well, that would make the existing ones
legal. And then with that stop redevelopment and or them remodeling
their facilities that doesn't necessarily help the street either,
» you know. So you gota be careful. So So what is what is
» that's a really good point because yeah, we can't write something for future that
doesn't apply. So I actually don't know how you would do that. You can't it
doesn't these things don't get grandfathered in and they but it's a
development issue not a >> like it's you want to invest in the
property because otherwise you have to bring it up to co bring it to
» or when they remodel it they have to add that
» to someone something like that. >> Yeah. So you have to work
» if if you exceed it's 50% of the valuation at the time the property
becomes legal non-conforming then you lose that status.
» Yeah. as a legal non- farming building. Now, there's exceptions to that. Um it
so it gets pretty nuanced really quickly. Um but it it could be
prohibitive for some projects at least.
» How strong is the market here for uh second floor non-residential commercial
type? >> We're pretty well full on the street
both first floor and second floor and then even above
there's little vacancy. So by by requiring this we wouldn't be trying to
create something that doesn't that isn't called for by the market at all.
» I think so. >> Okay.
» And plus if you have three options office, retail and and residential
do any of those three. >> Yeah. So so potentially you like you
could say okay we want to make sure the associated bank.
» So you would have you want them work with associated bank and how you
» as an example how you would do that before you put this in place. And if
there are other like I don't I'm not sure I care about the town bank, right?
Things that or things that are very far west on Silver Spring. Maybe they sort
of >> So are we are we saying that we would
want to have a second story use as a condition for any conditional use or uh
» on on Silver Spring >> on Silver Spring. So if so if if your
nail salon or somebody like that comes in hair groom dog grooming uh it would
only be permitted if they were able to put a second story on the building.
» Fitzgerald wouldn't have been able to go ahead couple of years ago.
» Yeah. >> Without putting the second story on.
» I thought this was I mean I thought you were eliminating it to a bank.
» That's what I'm asking. >> Oh, okay. Okay.
» I think you'd have to look. >> Yeah,
» you'd have to keep it to a bank. >> Are we kind of trying to reinvent a
wheel that's probably already been invented?
» Are there I mean, I I can't, you know, this state legislation applies to every
municipality in the state. Um, and I I don't want to spend a lot of
money, but I got to believe that there are, you know, a dozen consulting firms
that are putting together, you know, whether it's Grave or Vanderwal or, you
know, somebody else. Does the League of Municipalities
have anything on this? Uh, is is is Chris Jacobs
able to be helpful? I mean, he's >> When you say this, what is this?
» Well, I don't know what this is. It's this kind of
defensive thing. >> Yes.
» Well, you're looking what you're looking for is a way to prohibit conditional
uses you don't want >> essentially.
» Yeah. >> Yeah.
» Without imp that you >> without ending up in court.
» But without impacting the existing businesses and without and without
ending up in court. >> So we have Yes. Um we've had these
conversations. So Grafe has spent a decent amount of time on this. Um Chris
has advised us as well. They we specifically asked Grafee to look at
policies initially through Wisconsin and then they ended up with some in
Minnesota and a few other states. Like there's not there's not a magic bullet
that we've been able to identify which the specific challenge or or problem
that we've asked them to look for a solution to is to limit future banks
without impacting the existing bank's ability to continue to invest in their
property. The closest it seems we can get is like
infringing or putting standards in like making the street not as enticing to
another bank. So limiting their access, not having them have access on Silver
Spring, for example, would be a condition. So then hopefully that would
deter it from being >> access for a drive-thru or access for
» both. or
» no like an egress. >> Yeah.
» A ve vehicle access >> but only vehicles.
» Yes. >> But imposing that condition to then you
know hopefully deter. So it's more of a office type not a you know drive-thru.
» Got to have all this parking though you can't have any parking.
» No you can have >> you can do have a lot of parking but you
can't get any cars on the side. >> Yeah. I I recall there there was a
statement made that I think was simply, hey, we should look into that. And I
think the statement was something to the effect of could you have
um a a a zoning code that basically says we we have certain percentages of
categories of merchants and you would say, you know, we can only have 12% of
banks. I I want to say that that was like a point of research that you know
and anything and the 13th percentage of banks would be prohibited.
So >> I believe we've asked that but let me
check. We'll get back to you. >> Yeah, because that that would do it
right. >> That would do it. If you if you could
set percentages or set square footage or something and then say that the once you
are over that percentage it becomes prohibited.
» Again like I shouldn't be coming up with this.
» Oh that's right. >> I'm not sure any of us should.
» Right. >> We did talk about that.
» I agree. >> I don't I don't think that there's a lot
of great legal options. Like we have had people look at this.
» We the three of us have spent many hours looking at this. Um, I've set it out on
our WCMA list serve. Like it I I'm not sure that there is a great legal answer
to this problem that is going to be a magic bullet. That doesn't mean we can't
take steps. I just >> which which brings us back to I think
three things. Number one, do nothing. Number two, I really like that idea of
creating standards where, for example, you couldn't have a egress on Silver
Spring. I think that would that would be um a big detriment
to f future banks. >> I mean if if I were a lawyer
representing a developer, what's the what's the rationale for having that?
» I think to promote the walkability of the district.
» So by eliminating a drive, you don't have to worry as much about
» It's too bad neither of our lawyers are here tonight.
Um or so let me restate it again. Do
nothing. Add a standard that apparently we can make it we can invent some new
standards that somehow make it detrimental.
» Yep. And then the third thing is the nuclear option which is prohibit them.
» And so those are those are our three >> things that we can talk about today. Um
it it none of them are great. None of those options are fantastic and without
problems. So, are there any issues with banks
east of Santa Monica? I mean, you have
Associated Bank and Johnson Bank, right? >> East of Santa Monica.
» Um, well, you No, you have you have and then I mean then you
» East >> that's all west. Oh, sorry. We have
PNC, we're into the Bank of America where you got
» Town Bank and Associated is >> so so I guess when I think of the
walkability of Silver Spring where I would think banks become a really big
issue, it's that stretch between Lake and Santa Monica.
Everything west of that is
today I mean it's it's walkable like there are sidewalks but there's not a
lot there's not a lot of density, right? You have the you have the um Dominica
and you have the you know the realer you have you
just don't you know you afford kitchen like that's the only thing you really
walk to >> there's no there
» and so I think the issue with banks becomes an issue with do you want to
increase the density of retail in that stretch of silver spring
and so my preference would be to do nothing punt until you figure about that
question unless you think there's a big risk of
banks coming into the retail between Santa Monica and Silver Spring
besides associated bank but I don't think anyone has a huge issue with
associated bank there but I could be wrong like I don't I don't know how
» I think it's somewhat well known that eventually or relatively soon associated
interest in a different building if they can
partner. And so >> that limiting that would make it that
redevelopment less likely, I guess, because basically that new rule would
require that they locate outside of that area.
» So my suggestion is you punt or you do nothing.
» Yeah. I I I hate to say it, but I don't think there's a there's a vehicle
available unless you're willing to impose certain of the kinds of standards
that I was talking about to to everyone which I
» and I'm I'm completely willing to you know that staff should investigate those
standards that could make it more difficult but
it feels like they probably have. >> Yeah. But Marcina
» really uh the idea of of of limiting uses based upon the percentage of them
that you've got in a community is is really probably as close to the answer
that you could get. I don't know that you're going to find that that's legal.
I think if there's a a a rabbit hole to go down, it's it's probably related to
the you know to the streetscape >> Mhm.
» discussion. What do you mean by that? >> By streetscape the
um not having large blank
um areas whether it's drive-thru or parking or whatever you know like you
know you wouldn't let Beimo do build what they've built what they've got.
» No the one in Whitefish Bay. >> Oh I see. Where you got
» you got a big parking lot >> you know building
» Yeah. you know, and and then and then that parking lot, you know, so when you
I mean, you you walk to your point, Colin, you know, you walk that block of
uh of Silver Spring and you've got, you know, oriental carpets and you got mo
and you got a realtor's office and across the street you got
a school and a church. >> Yeah. I mean, all of that feels of a of
a part. Like I don't think that's bad, but that's not what I I would rather
have it be a much denser >> area, but not any different than what we
had. >> Well, it's never going to be anything on
the other side of the street. >> Right. That's fine. Yeah.
» I I get that. And that may be a But that's a development. That's a
redevelopment conversation. You have to redevelop that entire
» stretch, right? >> Okay.
» Okay. So,
» it's all there, brother. Well, we I do think we have two takeaways that we can
look into. So, we'll we'll check on the percentage and see if we've asked that
question. If not, we'll certainly ask it looking close more closely at the
standards and if there if there's ways to make sure that we're requiring the
types of developments that we would like to see.
And then was the question about the conditional use if not listed
prohibited? Was that answered? >> Yeah. Okay. So that would be the last
» which >> as a quick comment, Sarah, our other
commissioner, she sent an email and basically what what was her
» she wants to um it >> she wants to flip it, I think.
» So if it's not listed, it is prohibited. >> Here it is. Yeah.
Uh I also think the list of uses is fine as is. I do agree that all uses not
listed should be categorized as conditional use or prohibited. H
» is there anything >> that wouldn't be
» I guess is there any like I I can't think of something that is not already
on here but I don't have a great imagination right now
» like what >> sorry to cut you off the last time we
talked about this it's not to say that if a use came forward that wasn't on the
list that then would be prohibited We couldn't do an amendment if it was a
use that the village was really interested in having that we just had to
think of which >> there is a mechanism for it to be
» dog grooming was the perfect example where they wanted to do dog grooming and
60 days later they could do dog grooming.
» Yeah. Yeah. Okay. But the example of a bookstore,
I mean, it's not specifically. >> So, did did the one that just opened on
Silver Spring, did they get a conditional use permit?
» No. >> No, they were permitted.
» Permitted, >> we wanted to be more clear in the code.
It was permitted under >> specialty retail.
» Yeah, specialty retail. We thought it makes sense just to add it listed as
bookstore. So that was one of the recommendations in Anna's memo.
» What is specialty retail? >> What
» book stores? >> Stores.
» Yeah. Weren't you listening? >> Basically anything you guys decide to
do. >> Pretty much.
» Okay, there it is. There's a conditional use case.
» Well, but in that I mean you're not wrong in that. Um, for example,
um, you know, there was a CBD store 10 years ago on Silver Spring. Um, and that
pro provokes the conversation of what would happen if dispensaries
um, were legalized in the upcoming year or two in Wisconsin.
» Would we accept a dispensary? That's probably something we should have yes or
no in in the code because that that is actually something that is super likely
to >> if the power shifts in November. Yep.
That could very well be a a real thing. >> What do people think now? Again, we we
did have a CBD store for a couple years. >> I think if they look
» and I don't know, I'm not privileged to if you have to be 18 or older to enter
the premise then it would be covered already.
» Okay. as a prohibited or conditional? >> Prohibited on any floor in district 11.
» Wait, but >> is a is is the Argo I mean, do you have
to be 18 to go into >> So, it's really that's very
adultoriented. >> Okay. Well, there we go. Never mind.
» We'll still make a note though. And it says rules are so
» I mean for whatever I I think it makes sense to
say anything we haven't thought of is prohibited as long as we can
» as long as when you talk to developers you're like it's something that we
haven't thought of we can have a meeting and get that
» yeah approved. Um, my preference would be to have dispensaries prohibited
because they're going to open up on Port Washington anyway.
» Yep. >> And that's close enough for the people
in White Fish Bay who want them, which I'm guessing there will be a lot of them
who do. So, >> but that's I I tend to agree with that.
» My two cents on this? >> Yeah, we got three head nods, four head
nods, five shoulder shrug. Anyway, >> they'll they'll open many other places.
» Yeah. >> Right. The discussion about that though,
is that limited to Silver Spring or is that a villagewide coalition?
» Um, I mean, we're talking about district 11.
If if somebody was open something in a business district on Henry Clay or
Oakland, what applies? Is it a different
district? Yes. >> And and they are
» Why? Why? Why do we have Do we have un uniform codes for those two districts?
Like we're not just changing district 11, right?
» Yeah. >> Yeah.
» Technically, >> that's what we need to look at
jurisdiction over anything. Well, it doesn't, but I mean, I'm just as a good
question if any of this is ultimately going to be approved or not by the
village board and and you know, so
it's not necessarily something that we need to sit and sit right here tonight,
but >> let us look at it.
» Talking about >> there's references,
district amendment back to this. Yeah,
» that's my memory, too, because we don't have another list.
» You don't? >> Okay.
» Yeah, but we'll check on that. That's a good question.
» Yep. >> Did So, I guess I'm looking for staff.
Did we We've gone through a lot of different recommendations over the 75
meetings we've had on this. Um, did do is there anything outstanding
that we should discuss? Like did we come to a conclusion on freestanding ATMs?
» This body did. Yes. >> Okay.
» Um drive and then drive through. So was
freestanding ATMs, drive-throughs, and upper story setbacks. I think those were
the three that have we come to conclusions on those?
» Okay. >> This body did for the setbacks.
» Yeah. They said that they were okay with including the averaging or requiring
only front setback while eliminating a rear setback requirement and then plan
commission was >> going to weigh in
» the opposite. So
» okay,
» this body was willing to get rid of the rear whereas plan commission wasn't so
willing to get rid of the rear. >> Do you guys
» get rid of the rear? There's a rear setback,
» right? But isn't the discussion on the front?
» Yeah. >> Yes. I don't want to keep it's
» Well, I think it is important that they understand it. So, right now there's a
requirement for the rear setback because of the residential. It's abing a
different district. >> Then there was a recommendation. I think
Brian perhaps you were the one that said to look into it. Should we do a setback
in the front? But then the challenge is it kind of looks like the Eiffel Tower
like it comes it's it would cut in and then go up potentially, right? And so
then there was this question, do you want the setbacks on both sides? And
what I'm hearing Anna say is that this body was okay with eliminating the rear
setback which would be the residential side.
» Yes. having the front or doing doing an average of the rear. Land commission was
the one the body that felt strongly as to keep the rear.
» Yeah, >> that's probably why you're
» That's why I'm confused. >> You've sat in on every one of these. But
this body is comfortable with eliminating the rear
» the rear setback. >> You are okay.
I don't know why >> is there
» I don't know why we need to set back on either but I mean I get the rear and the
the residential different thing >> there's a towering effect of the opinion
like >> two or three two or three stories at max
right that's now we're talking >> is it possible they don't change if you
don't change the ordinance is there a variance process
» so that somebody were to >> think that would be the path is there.
It would be cleaner that if there is the appetite to
» with a variance you need a reason to grant a variance. It's not just we we
would prefer it this way. You can't just say we're going to give you the
variance. It's more there's some >> be a hardship
» hardship economic we allow four stories now.
Right. >> Correct. We allow up to four stories,
but if you're going to the four story right now, we do require
» Okay, that's >> a set hike on
» from Silver Spring side. >> Not from Silver Spring from the rear.
» Only from the rear. >> Yes.
» But from the rear of Silver Spring frontage,
Bulmont Place is still
» on on stories about the parking. >> Correct.
» There are no setbacks on either side of that. We're just talking. Bulmont is a
PD, so it's not District 11, but we're talking about something different.
» I guess I don't remember this body coming to the conclusion of um
eliminating the rear setback, but that's just me.
» Well, let's get let's >> Yeah, let's just do it again right now.
» And move we eliminate the rear setback. >> Okay.
Is there a second for that? >> I would second it.
» Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Well, then all in favor
of removing the recommending >> recommending to the appropriate
» the rear setback say I >> I
» I >> Well, before
» that's three to two. So, what at least three to two?
» Okay. >> Three to two.
» I'm I I don't know if it's maybe it's four to one. I'm not sure. But I I would
not I I I would not vote to um eliminate the rear setback. Um, if you have a
canyon in effect, the reason that was in there was to protect homeowners on the
other side of any kind of developments from Silver Spring. And if you eliminate
that, you're that's why it's there is you're protect
» and I I tend to probably go along with that, too. But before I vote on it, I
guess I'm trying to understand what we're doing on the front end because are
we going to leave a a building configuration, as was pointed out
before, that really is impossible to build in the fourth floor? I mean, is it
so narrow that all you've got is a hallway there?
» Yeah, I'm not sure that that would be that narrow, but
» I think it would depend on the lot. Like if you had a corner lot,
» none of those lots. I mean, what you're ser really talking about is a couple of
blocks along the south side of Silver Spring.
» Correct. >> It's hard to create a tunnel effect on
only one side, >> right?
There's no tonal effect if there's not sun on both sides.
» And basically, wouldn't wouldn't a balcony fix that problem? Like wouldn't
it Johnson Bank? >> Gansson Bank. But um
» like doesn't doesn't John doesn't a balcony fix the setback issue?
» Well, it helps. >> It does because it's
» balcony. Well, uh >> an enclosed an enclosed balcony, not a
balcony hanging over in the front suspended. The residences in that
building are single loaded. So there are there are no
residences on the backside back side of the building. It's the Jean's got the
corridor and you've got the units. >> Gotcha.
Anyways, um uh >> okay, there's three three SS2 notes for
eliminating the back um um sent back. And so then then do we want to have a
conversation about the front setback? Do you want to change that at all? So
you're a no. >> So right so so right now there is some
small setback that's required for the fourth story
» of the back >> of the front is on the front. No, just
at the back >> of the side
borders a different district >> which is the back
» which is the >> for now. Yes.
» Yes. >> So not the front. Okay. Yeah,
» but right now there are there any fourstory buildings on Silver Spring
» that do not have a setback in the >> bordering story buildings period.
» You have Johnson Bank. >> Johnson Bank.
» The only ones I I am under I am aware of.
» Yes. >> Is there anyone talking about building
that fourstory building? >> Give it time.
» Yeah, I mean I I have definitely met with people that were considering it. Um
they have not moved forward, but there's always a lot of ideas. I mean, Silver
Spring is a desirable place right now. >> Yeah.
» I would I wouldn't move for the setback on off of Silver Spring on the fourth
story >> on the front.
» Yeah. >> Okay.
» Okay. >> That'll give you that. Yeah.
» And we we highly decision now. >> Can we wait to see if there's something
gets closer and we can we can >> once a project's proposed, we can't
change the rules at that point. >> Yeah.
» Okay. So at least two and I'm I'm a third who would vote for and that's a
fourth and >> it doesn't matter because I'm
» whatever just so I recommendation is to have a front to basically shift the
setback from the back to the front. >> I would probably vote no because I don't
see a big risk of tunneling of tunnel. Um just one of the comments that I'll
make is when we did a community survey two years ago, one of the big themes was
please don't become like Sherwood. >> I know
» but I don't find Shwood to be that objectionable.
» You are in that chunk of people believe that.
» Okay. >> Why would why wouldn't you want to be in
Shwood was economically viable and >> yeah right
» people live there. Well, I mean, keep keep in mind you you have developer hats
and you also have residential living hats.
» Economically viable to the developer is fine, but at the same time, it needs to
be uh >> acceptable acceptable to the community.
And I don't I don't know that, >> you know, that density is fine for short
because they had pretty significant density all along.
» Yeah. >> More dense than Whitefish Bay has ever
been. >> Yeah. They are the number one dense
community and >> so I think there's a difference and I
don't think Whitefish Bay wants to have that level of density at least I don't
» agreed and we asked that question in the survey we said
» basically should whitefish bay try to include
» okay >> so can we just do the averaging of step
back then taking the average of the too. >> So,
» so it'd be less of a step back on the back where it could be averaged out.
» Yeah. Between the front. >> So, you're proposing a second option
which is um in instead of shifting the setback now we're shifting it a little.
It's basically what's happening. We're averaging it. So, would you prefer an
average? >> I'd prefer it be gone. But but average
is less bad than you know the whole thing.
» How much do what is the setback? >> I mean I on the fourth floor.
» What's the setback, Joel? enough >> 10 ft.
» 10 ft of >> basically now five and five instead of
10. >> What's the typical lot size?
» Like how deep is a lot? 10 ft out of >> 20.
If if our input >> little over if our input as the CDA
» is important to the resolution of this for the village, then I think we ought
to get some thought, get some information and really
put it together and discuss it at the next meeting. I don't think it's that
urgent. Well, and to your point, Dick, if if if we if we can do that and if we
can get some uh schematic, a drawing to see what the heck it looks like, what
we're talking about. I'm I've got ideas in my mind of what I think we're talking
about, but I could be totally wrong. I >> Yeah,
» I'm not sure what that I know what we're talking about. I don't, you know, I
mean, we took a vote here, but I don't feel like we're in a position as a CDA,
as a public body >> to make a recommendation to the plan
commission or to the village board >> um as to as to what our consensus is on
that. >> It would take a little effort, but I
mean, we know what the depths are. We know the area, you know, what what the
configurations are the street. It would be useful to take a lot and do an
example of what the building sections and and understand
» what's the box going to end up looking like when we're done.
» There there was some there was a diagram I think in the plan commission packet
» shortly. >> Sorry. Yes, Colin. I was just going to
say I think having a 10% reduction in square footage of a 10 foot setback on a
100 plus wide building is not a huge deal. A 20%
reduction probably becomes a much bigger consideration for development
» and I I think what we're saying is currently it is 10%.
» Currently it's 10%. >> Do you want to double it? I think
» do you want to double it? And my I would be strongly I would I mean without other
information sure I would be opposed to doubling it whether you average it
whether you move it from the front to the back the back to the front I don't
know >> I think this is very helpful so this
topic started it was a strategic plan item
» start it started out very broad right we were talking about boutique hotels and
lots of things I think we have narrowed in quite a bit which will give great
right now we're looking to narrow it and then it will go through a full process
once it's you know we have language so let us go back to gra and see if we can
get someatics >> I'm ready to say this is the right thing
» sure >> you know but I'll tell you that making
10% 20% reductions in in in usable building area whether it's apartments
condos offices whatever it is is significant
» okay yeah let us take this back to and see like what kind of visuals that they
can provide and >> and so you're I get I look at this as
saying this is the second time it's come to the CDA
» and so I kind of wanted to resolve it. Um but are you willing to continue to go
to a third time and is that going to be acceptable for whatever timing we need
to do
faster is always better. >> So what about this? How about we this
has to go to the village board to do a formal referral to commission. So at
that point, why don't we share the information that we have out with the
CDA members as well? And if there is a desire to have another discussion,
» then a member can request that. >> Yeah. Well, I think all what does the
board want us to consider? I mean, what how can we be helpful in in in helping
you come to a decision on the thing? If you'd like us
» to extend, if you really want us to provide you with some meaningful input,
it would be important to have an understanding of what we're
recommending. >> Yeah. What is it what is interesting is
like there are two parts to this. The first part is the concept of reducing
the um possible development of a fourth floor, right? From 10% to 20% or 0% or
whatever. And that that's that's like right in the CDA wheelhouse.
» What's not really in the CDA wheelhouse is architectural design. um you know,
zoning for residents versus the community. And so I can see that there's
that's one of the reasons we're struggling here.
» Um >> no, I don't think so because I you know,
I don't think it matters, as I just said, to whether this upper floor that's
set back some degree is is residential, commercial,
you know, true.
» True. the, you know, the the question of
what the what the zoning requirements are
um regardless of use is is something that I think
» comes out of. >> I think all you were saying is the
question of do you limit the upper floor by 10% or 20% or 0%. That's a CDA
question whether that is faces the residential portion of the
» the the residential district >> or the Silver Spring side of the thing
or like that's an architectural question that's much more.
» Yeah, >> that makes sense.
» Fair. >> Okay.
All right. So we should if you if staff has uh got their things lined up. All
right then we should move on to um discussion recommendation on the 2027
budgets for TID one two and three. >> I think this one is easy um but it's
» Joel. You're missing the fun. >> Um but it is budget season around
Village Hall. Um so we wanted to bring forward these draft budgets. The reason
I think it's somewhat easy is because a lot of the heavy lifting was previously
done as part of the Sendix project. I just essentially copied the expenses for
2027 um from I think it was exhibit E in that development agreement uh which was
uh TID one and then I forgot what TID 3 was but um essentially this just mirrors
those exhibits which was discussed at length during those meetings. Um so if
anybody has any questions I'm happy to answer. just a a couple of I mean I
think I know what is happening here but it's interesting to see the tax
increment from 2024 at 670 then dropped down to 630 and now projected at 716
uh page 14. So the reason for the drop was because of the reevaluation.
» Yeah. The office building um in TID one um ended up coming down.
So that that decrement was in TID one. >> Office building.
» Yeah. So, the Sendex office building is >> Well, I I I was on a I remember having
this conversation that our assessments also went down and so if their
assessments went down, the tax increment would have gone down and I thought that
was what it was for. I'm not sure about the the timing to 2025. When did those
come down? >> Whatever.
» They I you want to explain it? >> Oh, I don't care about the timing. I
don't I don't want to get involved in all that, but I I really I remember
having a conversation of looking at the um the the value of TID one and it
decreased substantially and it wasn't because of the office. It was because of
the reval. >> There's yeah there's two things
happening. So the decre there was a decrement because of the office building
because it wasn't used as of January 1st, 2025. Then it was basically there's
a a state law or a court case, I'm not sure which one that allowed for that
value to be zero for the 2025 valuation. And then on top of it, there was also
decrement. So there's like two things that were hap or there were also
decreases. It wasn't really decreases in value.
It's the percentage of the assessed value and how it impacts the tid.
» Yeah. That ADF. Well, in conclusion, it's at 716 now, which is great.
» Well, I think this is consistent with what we had projected, though. So, I'm
» Oh, yeah. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that our TID is
healthy and just got a little healthier. I mean, 13.6%.
Um,
I I do have a question and this I'm sure someone is
Why is there a revenue for debt premium of $122,000?
I'm I didn't quite understand what that was.
I'm sure that somebody smarter than me has an explanation.
So, we talked about this a little bit during
the um discussion about the essentially the additional money that's available
for capital projects. And so, it's essentially a premium that you get when
you issue debt depending on like the market at that moment. Overall, the the
general fund benefited was like $300 and some thousand.
» Some of it came here. >> Yep. based on the percentage of the debt
that was issued. >> It had had to do with the way the bonds
are bid. >> Yes, exactly.
» The uh uh the underwriter bid a premium on the bonds, which
basically they they offered to pay you more than the face value of the bond.
» Got it. >> And so and so, uh you got a bonus up
front, uh but then they charge you a higher rate of interest over over time.
And the way what what ends up happening is
that the uh the value of that premium gets calculated as part of the present
value in the interest rate calculation. So when you're looking at uh your total
costs over time, uh it it works out, but at the end of the day, you do get a cash
infusion up front, which is what this is representing.
» So I guess the next question is, didn't we require 1.885 85 million and now we
have more than 1.885 million because of the step premium that now we have. Yes.
Did we require 1.99 million?
» Did we require two >> when you size the bond? You mean did you
resize the bonds in order to take into account the the debt premium?
» I mean is this is this bonus money or is this associated with a $2 million debt
borrow? Do you see what I mean? If you add the
two together, it's roughly two million. >> What I'm hearing,
» what did we require? >> Well, what we required was the 1.8, the
actual dollar amount, but then they came in and basically said, "This is we're
going to give you more money, but we're going to charge you a little bit higher
interest, and it ends up kind of coming out."
» Now, the TID has $122,000 more than it >> Yeah. But but then you may end up
choosing to use you can utilize that for your cash flow, debt payments.
» Yeah. >> Um right to offset that. So it it it
balances it out in that in that. >> Okay.
Uh TID 2 also the tax increment went 322 down to 278 up to 305.
There's no office being demolished there.
» And then finally TID 3 which is brand new
and the tax. So that the in the projected increment
is 497. Is that what will be the projected for
2028? It'll be more. It should be way more.
» Yes, it will be more, >> right? It's probably like quadruple
more. >> We had the the extended spreadsheet
shows that >> I I I probably don't even need the
number. I just >> 170,000.
» Okay. So it's tripleish more. Got it. Yeah. I just that was
I don't need the number. I just wanted to know that that was going to increase
dramatically. Okay. You probably
need a motion on this one. A recommendation
» approve the the budgets. >> Thank you. Second.
» Thank you, Brian. Any further discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. I.
» Any opposed? Motion carries. That concludes our general business for
the evening. All we need to do is so move to adjurnn. Dick with the motion.
Who's your second? Sure. >> And Mike with a second. Those in favor
say I. I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are
adjourned. Thank you so much everybody. Good