[0:03] All right, it is August 18th. Our
chairperson, Ray Kger, is not here, so I
[0:11] will be chairing this meeting of the
community development authority.
[0:16] Uh, I am calling it to order, and we
don't really need to call the role. So,
[0:20] the first item of business is to approve
the minutes from the from the meeting
[0:24] July 14th. Anybody have any comments
about
[0:28] » approval? Thank you, Dick. Do I hear a
second?
[0:32] » I'll give it to Mike.
>> He was quicker than I was.
[0:35] » Yep.
>> Uh, any further discussion? Hearing
[0:39] none. All those in favor say I.
>> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next, we
[0:44] will move on to discussion.
Recommendation on the Silver Spring
[0:47] entrance signs to be paid for by private
development projects. Wonder who those
[0:51] they are. Um, Kelsey sent a memo. So,
wait. Uh we have something in our
[0:58] packets, but we also have a new email.
Correct.
[1:02] » Yep.
>> That's correct. Uh so this is really
[1:04] just a continuation from a conversation
that started at the at the um most
[1:10] recent CDA meeting. The village will be
replacing uh the two monument signs on
[1:16] Silver Spring, one in front of the
Sendix development and the other at
[1:20] Lidell and Silver Spring where uh the
new bank as well as the apartment
[1:24] complex will be going in. Both of those
signs will be paid for by the private
[1:29] developments. Uh however, we the village
needs to approve what those um sign
[1:36] signs will look like. Both of the
private developments had proposed their
[1:40] own designs and then there was um
clearly a desire to have them look more
[1:44] cohesive. And so um with that in mind,
we engaged groth um who is the company
[1:51] who is doing the design for the floating
warming house and ask them to develop
[1:56] some independent options which I sent
over today and Anna has up on the
[2:00] screen. This topic has been um has now
been discussed at village board CDA and
[2:07] bid. The only group that has seen these
updated designs from growth was bid
[2:13] because they had their meeting this past
Friday. Uh so I took the feedback that
[2:17] they provided from that entire design
concepts which there were four of them
[2:22] and um gave that feedback to Grath who
designed an up or provided an updated
[2:28] design which was that second PDF I sent
out this morning and those are the
[2:32] designs on the screen um that Anna
shared. some feedback that I've heard
[2:38] that's been pretty consistent. Um, Arc
and Bid both talked about the idea of um
[2:43] an inlay or something consistent within
the signs. Uh, both groups wanted um
[2:50] consistent form. So, basically the signs
physically looking similar. Um, at least
[2:56] bid preferred that the materials match
the development behind them. Their
[3:00] reason being is that they're in such
close proximity especially that Lidell
[3:04] Silver Spring. I forgot how many feet
Joel, but it's very very close.
[3:10] » Yeah. Um to the development behind and
so it just felt like aesthetically that
[3:15] that would look better and they felt
like there would be enough cohesion as
[3:18] long as the signs in form were the same.
Um Ark was a little bit more split. they
[3:24] seemed open to both the materials
matching the two signs having the same
[3:29] materials and not matching the
developments behind them or having um
[3:33] the materials match the development
behind them. Uh so I guess all that to
[3:39] say is I'm looking for some direction
from CDA. This will be presented again
[3:43] to village board likely on August 31st
and then ultimately um it will also go
[3:48] to ARC as well. So, it has a few other
bodies to go through, but just looking
[3:52] overall for your feedback.
>> Okay. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to
[3:59] share something I I did get
uh emailwise uh about 1:30 this
[4:05] afternoon from Ted Ballastr.
>> There was a meeting. Is
[4:09] » he working? Is he working the crowd?
Well, jury may be, but I'm I'm going to
[4:14] serve as a relay uh water boy here in in
this and read just read it to you. Um,
[4:23] and this came in at 1:24 and I did
forward it uh when I saw it about 2:30
[4:28] to uh to Kelsey just as an info matter
of information. But he sends an email.
[4:33] Uh, Mike, I understand the CDA will meet
today and discuss the proposed sign at
[4:38] the corner of Silver Spring and Lake
Drive. Unfortunately, I'm unable to
[4:41] attend the meeting. However, it is
important to us that the brick match our
[4:45] building. Could this be relayed to the
members?
[4:48] And I agreed to slay it. So,
>> I' I've heard that message a few times
[4:53] from Ted.
>> Okay. I figured you probably relayed.
[4:57] » But now, h having done that, I've got a
couple other things I'd just like to to
[5:01] offer just as as a couple of
observations. One is um and I I think I
[5:07] made this point at the earlier meeting.
I don't feel uh just in in my sense of
[5:12] it that we need to be consistent with
the buildings that are next to it next
[5:17] to it. Either we could be, but we don't
have to be. What I do think is important
[5:22] is that we be consistent in relationship
to establishing that format as a
[5:29] uh recognized uh village brand. You
know, something that people will say,
[5:34] "Okay, that's a village thing. That's a
village. That's the village sign." and
[5:37] it's consistent and wherever you put it
up throughout the village. So I think
[5:41] that it would be well whatever you and
the board and the others decide on that
[5:46] would make sense in relationship to the
adjustment here. I I do like uh what uh
[5:52] was done here in the sense of uh one of
the refinements that the bidded or
[5:57] whoever asked for the change. uh if you
if if you do end up using uh the red
[6:04] brick or any darker color like that, uh
the earlier version of that in the first
[6:09] iteration had a sort of gray uh
background with a somewhat gray
[6:16] lettering where in the letter, you know,
the White Village of White Fish Bay
[6:19] lettering blended in with the sign, you
really couldn't see it. This iteration I
[6:23] think has the as I write has the good
contrast of the dark lettering with the
[6:27] light background and and it's bold. I
like the uh the uh announcement of the
[6:32] village's founding underneath
establishing it as a more of a
[6:37] recognized village uh monument and so I
thought that was helpful. Out of
[6:43] curiosity, what do you think of that
particular shot where Sendix has
[6:48] established 1926 on their facade and
then here we have established 1892?
[6:54] Like, does that is that at all? When I
saw that, I'm like, "Oh man, we have
[6:57] both of these establishment words within
10t of each other."
[7:01] » Well, if nothing else, it it it causes
the reader to think about the fact that
[7:06] maybe they're two different things,
which is what you want.
[7:08] » Okay, fair enough. Uh now the other
thing that I thought would be worth
[7:12] throwing out to the consideration of the
group uh you know while I I don't have
[7:19] objection per se to the uh if you could
flip to that second sign the one with
[7:24] the landing stone on it. Yeah, that one.
Uh to me that blends in too much.
[7:31] more more importantly what what concerns
me there is uh what is occurring on the
[7:38] other corner kitty corner from it. Uh
>> what else?
[7:42] » If I took I went over there just before
this meeting took a took a photo of that
[7:48] uh corner and that sign across the
street and it's almost it's very very
[7:54] very similar to what what you've got
here. I'm going to forward this to you
[7:58] and maybe you can put it up on the
screen. Kelsey, let me just
[8:02] » I think and I can probably pull up
Google Maps.
[8:05] » Okay, but I can pass this around too. I
mean, I should
[8:10] » you just hand it down the line and look
at it, but
[8:15] » Okay. I
>> mean, that's pretty dog on close to what
[8:18] we're talking about here. And I I would
prefer to have something that's
[8:24] not that similar to what Glendel's
doing.
[8:31] That's all I got. Do
>> you have an international plan here?
[8:35] » Yeah,
>> I do. If you need if you need to use my
[8:38] phone for something, you're you're
welcome to.
[8:43] » And and that's such a memorable sign
that until he passed his picture around,
[8:49] none of us could picture it.
>> Right. Right.
[8:54] » Yeah. There you go,
>> Mr. Chairman. I'll if I can kind of
[8:59] follow up behind uh behind Mike's
comments. I I pretty much agree with
[9:06] with one exception, but um I I I think
the this second iteration of the red
[9:13] brick
um with the large field of pre-cast
[9:19] where where the lettering goes. I think
that I I hold on I you know my my
[9:26] instinct was to say I don't think it
that that the bricks should you know
[9:30] should match the brick in the in in the
sendex but I'm I'm I guess persuaded
[9:37] frankly by uh Ted's email
um and looking at this I I do think that
[9:45] that kind of white pre-cast background
um will and and when this is actually
[9:52] seen in 3D
um should should help. I'm not a fan of
[9:59] the footnote there established in
whatever 1992.
[10:05] I kind of like the way the first
iteration where it said village of in
[10:10] small letters and then Whitefish Bay and
that was it. That takes care of any
[10:16] confusion over who established what
when. Um, so I I
[10:24] with with that with that exception, I
I'd agree and I and I do think that it's
[10:29] important
whatever we do here should be what we
[10:33] also do uh at the corner with Lidell and
if we decide we want to put it up on
[10:39] Lake Drive at school road or down on
Hampton or something, you know, that
[10:44] this becomes the,
you know, the the the gateway to to
[10:49] Whitefish
So I think are you also saying that if
[10:53] if we had something like that and you
would also want the exact same uh at the
[10:58] lightel and silver spring. Yes. With the
brick
[11:00] » and wherever else we decide to or or you
know maybe a miniature version of that
[11:06] » but but you know something consistent
with it. just bec I'll ask the same
[11:10] question of everybody, but um if if we
weren't doing these developments and you
[11:16] had your choice between the the lamb and
stone one and the brick and imagine not
[11:22] just Silver Spring but also Hampton and
Lake and all those other places, which
[11:26] of the two would you pick for regardless
of, you know, matching some new
[11:32] developments?
>> Kind of representative of the
[11:34] » What's your favorite? I think I'd say
the brick.
[11:36] » Brick. I personally really like and I
and I very much like the the
[11:41] incorporation of the stone into that
apartment building.
[11:46] Um, but I think for the, you know, the
the gateway to White Fish Bay,
[11:54] um, articulation that the brick and the
and and the brighter, as you put pointed
[12:01] out, pre-cast,
>> I think it's pretty much unanimous, and
[12:06] tell me if anybody else would say, I
think that what we've been calling the
[12:10] inlay, the the rectangle in the middle,
>> um, it's unanimous that everybody wants
[12:14] that to be Yeah,
>> the same.
[12:17] » Yeah,
>> where wherever we go, that is going to
[12:19] be consistent for sure.
>> Um and and the wording I
[12:24] » I think we can debate that. But Colin
wanted to
[12:26] » So So my two cents, um one, I actually
strongly prefer the limestone over the
[12:31] brick just aesthetically. Um, but two, I
think
[12:37] you you either have to I think you
either want to make the material the
[12:43] same as the building behind it or you
want them to be dramatically different
[12:48] like having a different color brick I
think look will look really
[12:54] unplanned.
>> Yeah. And so either they have I think
[12:57] they either have to be both very
different and the same and I think that
[13:01] makes sense. But I think doing the red
brick in front of the limestone, the
[13:05] limestone in front of the red brick may
look a little weird.
[13:08] » Um, so I would actually do
the how they have it here. Right.
[13:14] » Right. So two you would not be
consistent.
[13:16] » Yeah. But you'd have the same consistent
thing. Um, or or you go to another
[13:20] design, right, that
>> uses
[13:23] » for the record
metal or something.
[13:26] » You're That's exactly what I think. Um,
I I don't worry as much about the
[13:33] similar sign on Lidell because on the
other the kitty corner because
[13:40] you see that when you exit as opposed to
when you enter. It's not like you have
[13:44] that on the same point of view, right?
You're going east on Silver Spring.
[13:49] You're seeing one on one side and one on
the other. It's you see one going east
[13:54] and one coming west. And I don't think
people will
[13:56] » swivel their heads.
>> Yeah. I don't think it's going to be
[13:58] that that big of a deal.
>> North and south on Lidell, you're
[14:01] hopelessly lost.
>> Yeah. Um I do I do agree with you by the
[14:05] way about the Sundex. If one says
established and the other says
[14:08] established, that'll be
I don't know if it's confusing, but it's
[14:15] it's
confusing, but confusing may be the
[14:18] right word, right? But so I'm
questioning do you actually like could
[14:21] they change their
>> do is that is that their plans is do we
[14:26] know that that's accurate because I'm
not sure it is.
[14:29] » Well you gota it says village
established village established.
[14:32] » Yeah I know but
>> can you look at zoom in on one of the
[14:36] first
>> but to me it's a weird parallelism. So
[14:40] this that feedback came from art, I
believe, um where they were concerned
[14:44] that people would read the established
date and think that was the village. And
[14:48] so that's why I believe it was that
group that commented that it should be
[14:52] on the sign.
>> Oh, I see what you mean.
[14:55] » Yeah. Zoom. Can you zoom in on No,
>> what would you like to zoom in on?
[15:00] » The the one of the first ones.
>> Oh, okay. The original design four.
[15:05] » Yeah. Yeah. If you can zoom in on that,
you can see where it says,
[15:10] see there it says village of village of
Whitefish Bay.
[15:14] » Can I let me explain that a little bit?
Could you go down to one of the liidel?
[15:17] » That's the only thing the original
>> like one of the last pages. Page five.
[15:26] » So this is the back and forth I've had.
Okay. Page four.
[15:32] Any any of the liel ones. So the back
and forth I've had with them is that the
[15:36] plantings so we have a restriction
because it's in the site triangle
[15:41] on height
the like it just the plantings grow into
[15:46] Whitefish Bay and if you actually look
at it right now some of that text is
[15:50] covered up. So some of the village board
members I think it's specifically Jacob
[15:54] was asking to have those letters as high
as possible to make it more visible. So
[15:58] this was like our attempt to try to make
Whitefish Bay higher. I'm not sure it's
[16:02] the right decision, but it was an
attempt at that.
[16:04] » Yeah.
>> Two two comments on my I actually kind
[16:07] of prefer these big just White Fish Bay.
That's what you see. Um I get the
[16:12] planting issue and so take that. I
whatever. Um I'm fine with the other. I
[16:17] think the one suggestion on the estab
could you just put 1892 as opposed to
[16:22] village established 1892?
>> Yeah. And then village of on top. Is
[16:26] that what you're saying? Or just not do
that.
[16:28] » Get rid of the word established. Is that
what
[16:30] » basically just get rid of the word
established
[16:32] » put a dash say wther's bay
>> or est maybe or something?
[16:38] » Yeah.
>> Census bounded.
[16:41] » Sure.
>> Like is the is the word village
[16:43] important? It might be but
>> as opposed to a city.
[16:48] » Yeah.
>> I I get that. But town, city, village, I
[16:52] get all
>> think about. But
[16:57] » this get this gets into the branding of
the village itself, which is above my
[17:01] pay grade.
>> But do you do we want to be the village
[17:04] of Whitefish Bay or do we want to be
Whitefish Bay? How do people think about
[17:07] us? And how do we
It's a great question. I don't think we
[17:11] have like this official document that
explains our branding techniques.
[17:15] » Um I It's interesting if you ever go
outside of Wisconsin and you and I'll be
[17:21] like, "Oh, you know, I live in the
village." and they're like, "What you
[17:24] what a quaint little town you have
there." A hamlet of what I should say.
[17:29] Um, so you know, in Wisconsin branding,
typically you you do have those.
[17:35] » There's more to it than that because
there's statutory.
[17:37] » Correct.
>> We are a village. That is correct.
[17:40] » What these are.
>> Yeah.
[17:41] » We we are a village. I'm not we're not
changing.
[17:43] » Well, but I'm just making a point.
>> But are we more to it? Do we want to
[17:48] position ourselves as the village of
Whitefish Bay or do we want to position
[17:51] ourselves as White Fish Bay?
>> Oh, let me check the agenda. Oh, that's
[17:54] not on here. So, we're going on to Brian
now.
[18:00] Sorry.
>> I mean, my comments are I like that they
[18:03] added the second column. I think that to
anchor both sides, I think it looks a
[18:07] lot nicer. I like what they did. I I
frankly I like the decorative ball,
[18:10] honestly, that they eliminated. Okay.
Okay. And I I understand it may get
[18:13] broken off at somewhere along the line,
but
[18:15] » I like the decorative something. Whether
it's a ball or are you okay with other
[18:19] shapes or something?
>> Whatever. Whatever that is.
[18:21] » Something on top.
>> Say it's over to something. It looked
[18:25] nice on there. I thought nice way to do
it. And then my last comment, well, two
[18:28] more comments actually. The the fish on
the side. We should do that in white and
[18:32] blue like kind of our white fish bay
colors in my opinion. I'm not sure why
[18:35] we chose gold and whatever other color
we chose, but an idea. And then also
[18:40] like for plantings, it looks like there
is no plantings at all in front of the
[18:43] sign in front of Sundex. I I'm fine with
that. I would eliminate or limit the any
[18:48] plantings in front of the one to the
west to either be ground cover or no
[18:52] plantings at all to eliminate that from
growing into the White Fish Bay sign.
[18:56] However that is done be my two cents. If
you cook any grasses there, it's going
[19:00] to overcome that sign with how short
that is.
[19:04] Um, well, along those lines about the
plantings,
[19:08] I I thought at one point we were under
the assumption that this the Sendex sign
[19:14] had to be 42 in, but that one did not.
Do we know? Have we definitively
[19:21] » said
triangle
[19:26] at the other?
>> So, let's raise it up then. So raise it
[19:30] up, you know, six inches a foot and then
we don't have any planting problems.
[19:35] » Yeah.
>> And I don't think anybody's going to
[19:36] say, "Wait a minute, this one's a foot
taller." You know,
[19:39] » make it just taller than windows.
>> Yes.
[19:43] » Be aware of the of the window sight line
of sight there. I don't know if that you
[19:48] care about that or not, but
>> it's it's it's a consideration if you're
[19:52] looking off from the building.
>> My guess is that that's the lobby of the
[19:56] bank. And so I'm not perfect.
>> This is Sendix.
[20:01] » Oh, I apologize.
>> This one has to stay the same height. So
[20:04] if you go to the
>> light 142.
[20:07] » Okay.
>> This one can be
[20:09] » Okay. Yeah. No. And and they've got at
least the way this one is drawn, the the
[20:15] recast
apps at either end is what's 42 in. Mhm.
[20:21] » The the the bulk of the sign is probably
more like 38 or 39 in.
[20:29] » See that dotted line there?
>> Yeah. And
[20:31] » that's the 42 in.
>> I had a comment on the fact that this
[20:36] this I think it's landing stone. Um it's
42 and the the gap between the column
[20:42] cap and the field looks like maybe an
inch or something versus the SendX one
[20:48] where it's like 4 in. So if you go now,
if you flip back, let's see if I
[20:53] » Yeah, I mean it looks like
>> so like right this little piece, this
[20:59] little piece right there I think is like
one inch versus
[21:04] I don't know four or five
>> which is and my guess is that's they
[21:07] wanted to keep it the cap at 42 and they
wanted to raise the limestone one up as
[21:11] much as they could above the plantain.
>> That's my hypothesis.
[21:14] » I think it's because I had a few last
minute changes. probably was just an
[21:17] over.
>> Yeah, exactly.
[21:21] » But the point is look that the 42 in
height
[21:25] » is achieved at those two outbound kind
of columns column
[21:31] » with the pre-cast cab and and you know
whatever whether there's a 1 in or a 4
[21:35] inch drop down to the to the pre-cast
band across the top. Um and if we
[21:42] » it's slightly lower if we put a ball on
it. Are we violating the sight triangle?
[21:48] I mean,
>> yeah.
[21:50] » Yeah. I mean, you are, but I believe
there's a provision in that code section
[21:54] that gives the police chief in relation
to allow to be missed. So, we can
[22:04] » depends how big the ball is. Maybe
[22:09] » or what I was going to say was
everything should be 42,
[22:13] » right? make everything 42 and then and
put some kind of shape. I don't know if
[22:17] it's a sphere. I don't know if it's a
squashed
[22:21] elliptoid or some some kind of
decorative duad that goes on top of it.
[22:26] Um, generally like I I'm not a designer,
but I I like things that are not plain.
[22:32] Um, and
>> yeah, but you don't want to get too cute
[22:35] either.
>> I get it. And this is something pretty
[22:38] particularly subtle. Yeah,
>> I'm going to outline what what I would
[22:44] what I would cast as a motion if I could
ever get somebody to second it.
[22:50] » Sure.
>> But but let me let me let me just share
[22:52] with you what that would be and then
then maybe somebody thinks it's good
[22:56] enough, they can either alter it or
second it. But I would for me what I
[23:01] would mo move would be the
>> endorsement of of this sign with the
[23:07] modifications
being uh that you change that to add the
[23:13] words village of above Whitefish Bay. Uh
eliminate the village established and
[23:19] just put 1892 below it.
So it would read village of Whitefish
[23:24] Bay 1892. And then you modify, you take
and put the blue uh fish on there the
[23:31] way that Brian had identified it and a
ball of appropriate size as could be
[23:36] approved by the chief
on the ends and uh that would be what I
[23:41] would would
put off
[23:45] » comment on that as a pro prospective
seconder. Yeah, the the thing is is like
[23:49] we there's what you just mentioned was
probably 80% of what everybody else has
[23:53] mentioned, but 20% that is not and and
so it's kind of difficult to have that
[23:58] kind of motion that's unan that's any
kind of unonymity.
[24:03] » That's why I threw it out there
to be honest. I would want to see the
[24:06] markup of it just to say
>> yes or no. Right.
[24:10] » Right.
>> So it's a little tight. Right. And this
[24:12] is really just a we're making a
recommendation which we can make a
[24:15] motion for and
>> Yeah. Yeah, the the one exception I
[24:19] would take to Mike's motion is the
incorporation of the 1892
[24:28] because I think what's going to happen,
you know, given the height limitations
[24:32] that we have at least on on the Sendex
end of town is you have a village of
[24:38] then you have large letters White
Fishbay and then you have small letters
[24:41] 1892. you're going to run out of space
and what's going to happen is you're
[24:45] gonna you're gonna squeeze the size of
the letters that say White Fish Bay and
[24:51] if you just have village of in little
tiny White Fish Bay done.
[24:58] One suggestion would be if you have the
right column, you could put established
[25:04] EST 1892 on the right column
>> to balance the fish signal
[25:10] » or even just 1892.
>> Or even just 1892. I'm
[25:13] » I'm fond I'm fond of the I like
simplicity by the way.
[25:17] » I I I that would be my favorite is make
make a new inlay on the right column
[25:23] that just says 1892.
>> Yeah,
[25:25] » cuz I actually like the big letters like
now we have
[25:28] You say since 1892 or something
>> 1892 simple ide.
[25:35] » So I have one other curveball and it's
actually a curve. The current two signs
[25:42] are indeed curved. They have a arc to
them.
[25:46] » Yes. which I guess I appreciate that in
that it's it it looks well thought out
[25:52] versus a flat straight sign. Is is there
anyone joining in me with me saying, you
[26:00] know, be nice if it was like angled or
the the the the columns were offset in a
[26:06] angular way? Anybody along those same
lines?
[26:09] » I could support that. Yeah. At least the
the one at Sendex though it
[26:15] I believe you know it's it's depicted
here as straight not curved
[26:22] but it's at an angle that mirrors the
angle at the end of the true the new
[26:28] building.
>> True.
[26:30] So imagine
>> and I mean I I I think when you start
[26:33] doing that
>> so I'm what I'm trying to do is take the
[26:36] columns and and make it make them just
bend them so that it's off
[26:41] » so that instead of being square they're
they're
[26:43] » yeah they're just off by an angle.
>> Oh okay. So it's still going to be
[26:48] straight across.
>> I mean any of the above. I'm not a
[26:51] designer. It's more I just I like things
that are a little bit more complicated
[26:55] than this flat sheet like Glendalees I
guess is. Um and and so all you do is
[27:00] just kind of you can either have a
concave or a convex curve in this case.
[27:06] Sure. Which con convex or concave? But
just to rotate the the columns.
[27:12] » The inlay curve.
>> Fairly simple.
[27:15] » Inlay curve. No. No. The inlay would not
curve. The stays stays straight and the
[27:20] columns just go off by
>> Oh, you would put the columns at 45°.
[27:25] » Yeah. How would
>> So instead of the columns being flat,
[27:29] you'd have the column edge come out just
in this case the we had some Legos. Does
[27:35] anybody have any Legos?
>> So the fish is lose your sign.
[27:42] » Yeah.
>> If you're looking at it from the top, it
[27:44] looks kind of diamond shaped instead of
square.
[27:47] » And not necessarily that you turn it 45
degrees. You might turn it only 10.
[27:51] » Okay. Yeah. Then you're going to see it
at an on the fish
[27:56] » at an oblique angle
>> a little bit. Yeah.
[27:58] » Yeah. And I don't
>> again I I would prefer it to be subtle,
[28:03] you know, not not a massive, you know,
45 degree, but maybe it's 20 or
[28:07] something.
>> I'm all for the kiss principle here.
[28:10] » Okay. That's and and that's the one of
the problems that we've got so many
[28:14] cooks in the kitchen here.
>> I think I think I could be convinced of
[28:17] that if you did like a a rounded sign.
>> And I'm good with that, too. in that
[28:22] scenario. But I think if you if it's a
flat sign, I think it's going to look a
[28:24] little wonky.
>> A rectangle is a rectangle.
[28:26] » Yeah. Yeah.
>> What the bid discussed with the rounded
[28:29] sign is there's there's chairs behind.
Now, obviously, it's Wisconsin, so
[28:34] that's not going to be all year round,
but there's proposed to be chairs in
[28:37] like a really small seating area. And
so, the concern is that it's going to be
[28:41] smaller. It's already going to be small,
but perhaps if that sign's narrow, it's
[28:45] probably just going to be a walkway. I
don't know if that matters.
[28:49] » Interesting place to sit.
>> Yeah.
[28:51] I think they have like four chairs and
all the renderings behind the sign.
[28:56] » How do you How do you get out there to
sit?
[28:59] » Sidewalk.
>> Sidewalk.
[29:01] » Oh, okay. So, it's just for walk passers
by.
[29:04] » Yeah. It's like a bench basically, but
it's chairs instead. Yeah.
[29:09] » Good place for a TV interview.
>> There you go.
[29:14] » Um,
>> okay. Could I
[29:16] » So, do do you want an official motion
from the CDA? I mean, you tell me
[29:20] because this is going to visit.
>> I mean, the problem is is it's also
[29:23] going to go to the Ark. It's the bid.
Did they make a motion? They did.
[29:26] » They did.
>> So, what they what they unanimously
[29:32] supported was this. There's some
alterations like Anna was the one that
[29:36] Anna Casper um is the one that sent me
like the the fish and the font. So,
[29:41] those changes were based on her
feedback.
[29:44] Uh, so there's a few other changes
incorporated, but for the most part,
[29:47] this is what they recommended.
>> You know, you're you're you're going to
[29:50] end up with a whole bunch of ideas here.
>> Oh, I have a lot of ideas.
[29:55] » This is strangely one of the more
complicated things I've done since I've
[29:59] got here.
>> So, you always call said that a camel is
[30:03] a horse that was designed by the
committee.
[30:06] » And so, we've got to be careful not to
>> But they do function pretty well when
[30:10] they're out the desert. So, what the
heck?
[30:12] » Yeah.
We need don't need a 300.
[30:15] » I don't know.
>> I'm happy I mean I'm happy to support
[30:19] this motion. Um I know that there'll be
many iterations.
[30:23] » I'm I'm going to throw it out there as a
motion just to get it over with and then
[30:26] somebody can either second it or not and
we can vote it up or down. I mean and
[30:30] then at the end of the day other
committees are going to have their say.
[30:34] So it's going to change. It's probably
not going to be what we recommend
[30:37] anyway,
>> right? But, you know, I for what it's
[30:40] worth, I think that this plan with the
fish altered as we indicated and then
[30:48] with Dick's changes that we talked about
uh and the inclusion of a ball to the
[30:55] extent that the chief could stomach it
>> and I think you said but both would be
[30:59] the same.
>> Yes.
[31:00] » Silver Spring, I'm sorry, Lidell and and
Lake the same.
[31:04] » Okay. Um both will be the same in terms
of the material.
[31:08] They would be identical.
>> They would be identical
[31:10] » except for the height. Can you add that?
>> Except for the height.
[31:13] » The material would be a dark brick
>> uh and and pre-cast.
[31:20] » Okay. So, they both Wait, would it be
that brick or you're proposing a
[31:23] different brick?
>> No, it' be this type of brick. Matching
[31:27] syntax or not matching?
>> Well, it doesn't have to be exactly
[31:29] matching, but it a red type brick. I I I
think it ought to either match or be a
[31:36] substantial contrast.
>> You got that?
[31:42] » Okay.
>> So, I'd say Yeah. So, I'd say match
[31:44] sentence.
>> Okay. So, both signs match.
[31:47] » Both sides would be the same.
>> Okay. Both. And you know the other the
[31:50] other justification in my mind for that
is that and and you know you can argue
[31:56] that we're not bound by history but the
fact that we have that and have had that
[32:02] type of a brick sub in the past
is something that people will recognize
[32:08] as being a trademark of the village
going forward. So I don't see any
[32:12] problem with with being consistent with
what what with that element of the past.
[32:16] And we still do we still have the red
brick white fish bay sign on Hampton
[32:20] coming into White Fish Bay. East that is
red brick. Yeah.
[32:24] » Okay.
>> It has been suggested that we would go
[32:27] through a process of replacing
everything once we have a format that we
[32:31] all like. We would then you know proceed
with Hampton and
[32:35] » Sure.
>> Lake and
[32:40] » Can I repeat this back to make sure I
have it? Well, first before you before I
[32:44] do, what do you guys think of that that
are you going to vote for that motion in
[32:48] second or not?
>> Mike's motion.
[32:51] » Uh uh yeah, Mike's.
>> Yes. I mean, I'm on board with what he
[32:54] said. Yes.
>> I will probably not vote for it.
[32:57] » I'm I'm not going to vote for it either.
>> Okay.
[32:59] » I'm Yeah, I just I I think I I don't
think the brick fits in front of the
[33:05] Lidell building. Um, and I'm I'm
generally okay with uh the materials
[33:11] being different, but but you got three,
so there you go.
[33:14] » Well, you get another kick at the can.
So
[33:15] » So why don't you why don't you play why
don't you tell us what the motion you
[33:19] think is?
>> Okay. Um, so Mike, let's make sure I got
[33:23] this right. Um, so both signs are going
to match and they'll be the Sendex red
[33:27] brick. The we're going to add a ball to
the top.
[33:30] » Let's not let's not call it the Sendex
red brick. red brick consistent with
[33:34] » the village's historic use of brick. I'
I'd go with that. Yeah.
[33:39] » Okay. So, both signs match.
[33:48] » Where would I say the materials?
>> Um adding the decorative ball on top.
[33:53] Did you say to change the logo to blue
or white? Was that
[33:57] » Well, for the fish to be consistent with
the with what Brian is. Can you change
[34:02] that from decorative ball to just
decorative shape?
[34:06] » Does it need to be a ball? Like I think
that there was something that was
[34:09] » not in my mind. I think decorative shape
is fine. Sure.
[34:15] » Well, depending on I suppose there's a
lot of objectionable, but you guys
[34:20] something good.
>> Dad.
[34:21] » Yeah.
[34:25] » Put a pineapple.
>> Traditional traditional symbol of what a
[34:29] fish. This is this is gonna be a
legendary
[34:34] » couple roosters on.
>> So decorative dad
[34:41] » um blue or white logo um fish logo and
then was there something with the 1892?
[34:49] » Yeah, get rid of it.
>> Well, the the alternative was to put it
[34:52] on the other other column with the EST.
>> What does your motion include? I'll go
[34:57] with the with that
>> with the on the column.
[35:01] » Yeah, put it on the column on the other
side.
[35:03] » Put on column with EST 1892
>> 18
[35:08] » established
>> estimated
[35:14] » Yeah.
>> two. Okay. Was there anything else I
[35:18] missed?
>> Probably, but we don't know what it is.
[35:20] » Okay.
>> Hannah, you're good.
[35:22] » Yeah. All right. That's everything I
did. Okay. So, we have a motion
[35:25] » and a second. Yes.
>> Uh,
[35:29] any further discussion? Uh, all those in
favor of Mike's
[35:35] uh monument say I.
>> I.
[35:39] » I.
>> That's three. And those who say nay.
[35:41] » Nay.
>> Nay. Passes three to two.
[35:43] Congratulations.
>> Okay.
[35:46] » And if it ever shows up that way, I'll
be amazed.
[35:48] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[35:53] » Sure. That would look like that.
>> That's right.
[35:55] » 37 minutes.
>> Yeah.
[35:58] » Okay.
>> Well, and well spent.
[36:00] » Well spent. Absolutely well spent. Uh
all right. We will then move on. That's
[36:05] » We'll then move on to discussion
recommendation on strategic plan
[36:08] initiative to evaluate permit permitted
conditional and prohibited uses and
[36:13] other standards in district 11, which is
the Silver Spring District. So Anna is
[36:18] ready to say this for the ninth time.
>> Yes. We're going to keep it short and
[36:23] sweet. Um, we talked about this at the
last CDA meeting and the CDA was able to
[36:31] reach consens consensus on several
potential changes to the district 11
[36:37] regulations.
One of the things that they said though
[36:41] was that they wanted to continue
discussion regarding the existing
[36:46] conditional uses specifically in light
of Act 67. you need to rehash that, we
[36:53] can. Otherwise, we don't need to. Um,
but ultimately with act 67, just that
[36:59] conditional uses don't have the legal
backing that they once had. So, with our
[37:06] conditional uses, even though they're
listed, um, it makes it hard to deny
[37:12] them now. So looking at the conditional
uses and if you want to keep them as
[37:18] conditional uses or move any to
prohibited and then also what to do with
[37:24] the wrap around having it be remain as
if it's not listed in our conditional
[37:31] uses, have it remain a conditional use
or have it be a prohibited use. And then
[37:36] if there were any specific uses that you
felt individually you wanted to call out
[37:42] either moving it up to permitted or
bumping it down to prohibited that is
[37:48] listed.
[37:52] » So So can I ask a question just because
I wasn't at the last meeting. Um the act
[37:58] 67 cont the context of the act 67 that
is
[38:04] conditional uses somehow problematic but
if we say things are prohibited that's
[38:09] not problematic.
>> Okay.
[38:13] » Conditional uses are incredibly hard to
deny.
[38:16] » Okay.
>> That's the way you say it. And but
[38:18] » prohibited items are are not hard to
they are prohibited. That's not a big
[38:22] deal.
>> Okay.
[38:23] » Okay.
>> Got it. which is
[38:25] » that that legislation was part of a
package the of uh attempting
[38:33] statewide to simplify, expedite,
streamline
[38:39] » the development process, make it easier
for greedy developers like me to
[38:45] » get stuff done.
>> Exactly. Power to But now we're in power
[38:50] to the people mode. Yes. 2026.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um,
[38:56] so firstly, do does do do any of the
board members here uh have
[39:03] comments to add besides the ones that
the bullet points on the topic like they
[39:10] you you have something prepared, you
want to talk about u particular items.
[39:14] Um if not
uh we probably we're now going to go
[39:20] back to what we were talking about
before which was um the bigger questions
[39:26] one of the bigger questions was about
banks and for example prohibiting banks
[39:31] with a what was it the a retail bank on
the first floor. Is that how we were
[39:37] going to phrase it?
>> Yep. We were going to put in a standard
[39:41] for requiring financial institutions
uh to be located on the second
[39:48] » which would effectively make all the
current banks non-conforming.
[39:54] » Where did that idea materialize from?
>> Brainstorming on the concept of do we
[40:02] want to continue to have more banks in
our village? Um is that the right
[40:09] answer? I I don't know and that's why
we're discussing it here.
[40:12] » Okay. Do we know if anybody else any
other villages have something similar to
[40:17] that?
[40:20] Are there other examples where that's
been put in place?
[40:23] » That would be part of staff's analysis
further looking.
[40:28] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[40:29] Oh, I mean I'm not enamored with any
more banks of course in the village, but
[40:35] at the same time I don't think it's
appropriate to make all of them not
[40:39] legal non-confirming that are here
>> especially given the Bank of America.
[40:46] » Yeah, we just approved one at our last
meeting by the way,
[40:49] » right?
>> With a drive-thru.
[40:52] The condition we also discussed was that
it could be there there had to be a
[41:00] component to it on the second floor that
we felt was useful,
[41:06] » which again there wasn't on the Bank of
America
[41:10] » no
>> project that we just approved.
[41:13] » Well, there's apartments up there.
>> Yeah, I know.
[41:16] So, one of the bankers could rent
apartment, but
[41:20] I mean, are we kind of closing the barn
door after the horse is out?
[41:26] This is, you know, a forwardlooking
document, right?
[41:30] » Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um, so
[41:32] » want another one?
>> Yeah. I
[41:38] right now the way it's uh set up is that
it would continue to be permitted as a
[41:42] conditional use even though conditional
uses we don't have uh a great deal of
[41:49] control over is that is that way I
understand it now let me just ask this
[41:54] question
uh
[41:58] you do have control over conditional
uses provided that you uh control them
[42:03] util utilizing
uh certain standards of uh performance,
[42:09] visav parking, visav uh traffic impacts,
some of the kinds of things uh that you
[42:16] know the hours of use.
Do we not aren't aren't we going to
[42:21] require parking analysis, parking
studies of any of these conditional uses
[42:26] if they come in going forward?
Shouldn't we be requiring that?
[42:32] I guess what I'd say that the plan
commission
[42:36] usually we if if there was a project
that uh was unusual enough that would
[42:44] generate an unusual amount of parking
issues, we would we could require a
[42:49] study. For example, the Argo
>> where we said yeah where we said, "Holy
[42:53] moly, this could really, you know, swamp
us with parking issues. We are going to
[42:58] demand a parking." What I what I'm
suggesting, Kevin, is that maybe this is
[43:02] this is a way of reestablishing some
control. We may have not have insisted
[43:08] on parking studies in the past except
for when we thought maybe there'd be a
[43:12] greater impact. But if you requ all of
them to have one, then maybe you got
[43:16] some control except you could wave the
parking stud. Could let me ask this.
[43:22] Could we set it up so that you would
require a parking study on every deal
[43:27] unless waved
by the police chief or somebody that
[43:31] said based on our experience, we don't
think that in this case it's going to be
[43:34] that
>> I think we could do that
[43:35] » for the MA or the village manager.
>> I mean, I think we could do that today
[43:39] under under our current rules. We we are
waving.
[43:42] » You think so?
>> Yeah. Wouldn't Wouldn't you agree? Like
[43:45] we
>> are you requiring everybody to do it?
[43:50] » No, but we could. Well, what I'm I'm
just throwing this out there based on
[43:54] some conversations I've had with people
that are in this business about this,
[43:58] knowing we were going to talk about
this.
[43:59] » I think maybe you can
exercise some muscle that you didn't
[44:04] know you had by by by invoking those
kinds of requirements.
[44:09] » You know, the end goal here is a bank
has decided to buy X property. Yeah. and
[44:15] and demolish that property and put up
their bank. And and so if there is a way
[44:21] outside of conditional use, prohibited
use that we can basically say we do not
[44:25] want a 10th bank here.
>> If if if there if there is some other
[44:29] avenue to do that, I'm all ears.
>> Yeah.
[44:31] » I don't think parking is it. And not to
mention the fact that they could say
[44:35] we're going to put up a single we're
gonna, you know, take 100 by 100 plot of
[44:39] land and put up a bank and we're gonna
have plenty of parking. So, our parking
[44:43] study issue just went out the window. If
there is a way that we can prohibit a
[44:47] 10th one,
>> I don't think I don't think there is.
[44:50] But I what I'm suggesting is there are
ways you could make it much more of a
[44:54] challenge for somebody that uh might
discourage the uh the casual uh uh uh
[45:03] » casual bank. Well, the bank that is
going to try to do do it without having
[45:07] to uh address some of the thornier
questions associated with park. We do
[45:13] have parking problem here. You can claim
that we don't, but we do have parking
[45:16] problems with with
a number of situations. I mean, it's
[45:22] it's tight out there and it's getting
worse. Oh, I that I was just about to
[45:27] say I I disagree in that the Sendex
property and the adding of Bowmont
[45:32] parking and the fact that now Sundex
will have 44 more spots because of the
[45:37] Masonic Temple property. We actually for
a moment are actually trending in a
[45:41] different direction in a more positive
direction. But that's good.
[45:44] » I think Colin wanted to So I
>> I have two concerns with this. One is um
[45:48] the
if the goal is to keep out banks
[45:55] say you know putting a blanket
restriction on around parking or
[45:59] whatever but always giving a waiver to
non-banks and always requiring it for
[46:05] banks kind of opens you up to potential
lawsuits right now. Whether any bank
[46:11] specific bank is going to want to bother
with that, I have no idea. But I think
[46:15] it's you would have you could you could
potentially um you could potentially run
[46:21] into that issue. The other thing is that
if you require everything to have a um a
[46:27] parking study, that may make some
developments
[46:31] too expensive for a small retailer or
something to go through.
[46:34] » Dog groomer.
>> Yeah. Is an example. Um, the other thing
[46:39] is the way you keep out, as far as I
understand it, the way you keep out
[46:44] retail banks is you get a better use of
the land and retail space than a bank. A
[46:49] bank is not, you know, it's a
[46:54] it's sort of the minimum viable floor.
And so that's why you end up seeing them
[46:58] in a lot of places. That's the that's
the only thing that that's the, you
[47:02] know, you don't you don't have better
options. And so the way you keep them
[47:06] out is you end up with better options.
Now that's a bigger and that's a bigger
[47:11] question than we
>> the question Colin is how do you get how
[47:15] do you encourage those better options?
>> Yeah, I don't I don't have the right
[47:18] answer for that but that's
um
[47:21] » that's what we're trying to get to.
>> That's that's a maybe a joint
[47:26] conversation with bid and the village
board and
[47:30] us of how of what can we do to to do
that? I mean,
[47:38] » what?
>> Well, I was just I threw out that idea.
[47:42] I'm looking for tools, guys. I'm trying
to be helpful.
[47:46] » And I appreciate like more brains
looking into ways that we can basically
[47:51] stop a 10th bank.
>> Yeah. I mean, I mean,
[47:54] » or anything else really the agenda here?
I mean, are we broader policy?
[47:59] » Yeah, that's what I say. Or any anything
else? You see, I don't I don't think
[48:02] this is the like I think I think the way
you do it is you build more housing and
[48:06] you build more apartments and you build
more you get more bodies on the street
[48:10] and on Silver Spring, but that's a
different conversation because nobody
[48:13] wants to walk out the sun.
>> But like I want Fiverr like story that
[48:18] you know.
>> Yeah. So
[48:21] » Brian, do you have any comments on this?
>> I think at a minimum I think one thing
[48:24] we should talk was is a requirement to
activate the floors above the bank in
[48:28] the event that they were to come. Yes,
>> we kind of did that anyways like with
[48:32] the Bank of America project and part of
the reason why we got our arms around it
[48:35] was the activation of apartments
upstairs. They built a kind of a full
[48:38] second floor on Town Bank when they did
that. But
[48:41] » but you don't
>> to add a requirement of office or
[48:43] residential or retail
>> on on the second and or third floor
[48:48] above that would be a minimum.
>> You don't want a standalone bank.
[48:52] » Is that a possib How would we can we do
that?
[48:56] » Absolutely. Why not?
>> Is that a Is that a zoning? Is that an
[49:00] ordinance? Is that like
>> Let's let us look into it. I'm sure
[49:02] there's a way. We just have to think
through it.
[49:04] » Yeah. I think it would have to be like a
standard and the
[49:12] Yeah. something with accessory.
>> Yeah.
[49:15] » Yeah.
>> Okay. Let us think through it.
[49:17] » But I I think
>> you know or or could you write a
[49:19] prohibition that's very specific that
says no standalone banks?
[49:22] » Yeah.
>> Well, that would make the existing ones
[49:25] legal. And then with that stop
redevelopment and or them remodeling
[49:29] their facilities that doesn't
necessarily help the street either,
[49:32] » you know. So you gota be careful. So So
what is what is
[49:35] » that's a really good point because yeah,
we can't write something for future that
[49:40] doesn't apply. So I actually don't know
how you would do that. You can't it
[49:44] doesn't these things don't get
grandfathered in and they but it's a
[49:47] development issue not a
>> like it's you want to invest in the
[49:52] property because otherwise you have to
bring it up to co bring it to
[49:56] » or when they remodel it they have to add
that
[49:59] » to someone something like that.
>> Yeah. So you have to work
[50:03] » if if you exceed it's 50% of the
valuation at the time the property
[50:07] becomes legal non-conforming then you
lose that status.
[50:11] » Yeah. as a legal non- farming building.
Now, there's exceptions to that. Um it
[50:17] so it gets pretty nuanced really
quickly. Um but it it could be
[50:22] prohibitive
for some projects at least.
[50:26] » How strong is the market here for uh
second floor non-residential commercial
[50:32] type?
>> We're pretty well full on the street
[50:35] both first floor and second floor and
then even above
[50:38] there's little vacancy. So by by
requiring this we wouldn't be trying to
[50:44] create something that doesn't that isn't
called for by the market at all.
[50:48] » I think so.
>> Okay.
[50:49] » And plus if you have three options
office, retail and and residential
[50:54] do any of those three.
>> Yeah. So so potentially you like you
[50:57] could say okay we want to make sure the
associated bank.
[51:03] » So you would have you want them work
with associated bank and how you
[51:06] » as an example how you would do that
before you put this in place. And if
[51:10] there are other like I don't I'm not
sure I care about the town bank, right?
[51:13] Things that or things that are very far
west on Silver Spring. Maybe they sort
[51:17] of
>> So are we are we saying that we would
[51:21] want to have a second story use as a
condition for any conditional use or uh
[51:29] » on on Silver Spring
>> on Silver Spring. So if so if if your
[51:33] nail salon or somebody like that comes
in hair groom dog grooming uh it would
[51:39] only be permitted if they were able to
put a second story on the building.
[51:44] » Fitzgerald wouldn't have been able to go
ahead couple of years ago.
[51:48] » Yeah.
>> Without putting the second story on.
[51:53] » I thought this was I mean I thought you
were eliminating it to a bank.
[51:59] » That's what I'm asking.
>> Oh, okay. Okay.
[52:01] » I think you'd have to look.
>> Yeah,
[52:04] » you'd have to keep it to a bank.
>> Are we kind of trying to reinvent a
[52:11] wheel that's probably already been
invented?
[52:14] » Are there I mean, I I can't, you know,
this state legislation applies to every
[52:19] municipality in the state.
Um, and I I don't want to spend a lot of
[52:26] money, but I got to believe that there
are, you know, a dozen consulting firms
[52:31] that are putting together, you know,
whether it's Grave or Vanderwal or, you
[52:35] know, somebody else. Does the League of
Municipalities
[52:38] have anything on this? Uh, is is is
Chris Jacobs
[52:44] able to be helpful? I mean, he's
>> When you say this, what is this?
[52:49] » Well, I don't know what this is.
It's this kind of
[52:55] defensive thing.
>> Yes.
[52:58] » Well, you're looking what you're looking
for is a way to prohibit conditional
[53:02] uses you don't want
>> essentially.
[53:04] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[53:06] » Without imp that you
>> without ending up in court.
[53:09] » But without impacting the existing
businesses and without and without
[53:13] ending up in court.
>> So we have Yes. Um we've had these
[53:18] conversations. So Grafe has spent a
decent amount of time on this. Um Chris
[53:23] has advised us as well. They we
specifically asked Grafee to look at
[53:29] policies initially through Wisconsin and
then they ended up with some in
[53:33] Minnesota and a few other states. Like
there's not there's not a magic bullet
[53:37] that we've been able to identify which
the specific challenge or or problem
[53:41] that we've asked them to look for a
solution to is to limit future banks
[53:48] without impacting the existing bank's
ability to continue to invest in their
[53:52] property.
The closest it seems we can get is like
[53:57] infringing or putting standards in like
making the street not as enticing to
[54:05] another bank. So limiting their access,
not having them have access on Silver
[54:11] Spring, for example, would be a
condition. So then hopefully that would
[54:15] deter it from being
>> access for a drive-thru or access for
[54:19] » both.
or
[54:22] » no like an egress.
>> Yeah.
[54:24] » A ve vehicle access
>> but only vehicles.
[54:27] » Yes.
>> But imposing that condition to then you
[54:31] know hopefully deter. So it's more of a
office type not a you know drive-thru.
[54:38] » Got to have all this parking though you
can't have any parking.
[54:43] » No you can have
>> you can do have a lot of parking but you
[54:47] can't get any cars on the side.
>> Yeah. I I recall there there was a
[54:51] statement made that I think was simply,
hey, we should look into that. And I
[54:55] think the statement was something to the
effect of could you have
[55:00] um a a a zoning code that basically says
we we have certain percentages of
[55:08] categories of merchants and you would
say, you know, we can only have 12% of
[55:13] banks. I I want to say that that was
like a point of research that you know
[55:19] and anything and the 13th percentage of
banks would be prohibited.
[55:24] So
>> I believe we've asked that but let me
[55:28] check. We'll get back to you.
>> Yeah, because that that would do it
[55:31] right.
>> That would do it. If you if you could
[55:34] set percentages or set square footage or
something and then say that the once you
[55:40] are over that percentage it becomes
prohibited.
[55:43] » Again like I shouldn't be coming up with
this.
[55:46] » Oh that's right.
>> I'm not sure any of us should.
[55:48] » Right.
>> We did talk about that.
[55:49] » I agree.
>> I don't I don't think that there's a lot
[55:52] of great legal options. Like we have had
people look at this.
[55:57] » We the three of us have spent many hours
looking at this. Um, I've set it out on
[56:02] our WCMA list serve. Like it I I'm not
sure that there is a great legal answer
[56:08] to this problem that is going to be a
magic bullet. That doesn't mean we can't
[56:12] take steps. I just
>> which which brings us back to I think
[56:15] three things. Number one, do nothing.
Number two, I really like that idea of
[56:18] creating standards where, for example,
you couldn't have a egress on Silver
[56:24] Spring. I think that would that would be
um a big detriment
[56:29] to f future banks.
>> I mean if if I were a lawyer
[56:34] representing a developer, what's the
what's the rationale for having that?
[56:40] » I think to promote the walkability of
the district.
[56:45] » So by eliminating a drive, you don't
have to worry as much about
[56:49] » It's too bad neither of our lawyers are
here tonight.
[56:53] Um
or so let me restate it again. Do
[56:57] nothing. Add a standard that apparently
we can make it we can invent some new
[57:02] standards that somehow make it
detrimental.
[57:05] » Yep. And then the third thing is the
nuclear option which is prohibit them.
[57:10] » And so those are those are our three
>> things that we can talk about today. Um
[57:14] it it none of them are great. None of
those options are fantastic and without
[57:21] problems. So, are there any issues with
banks
[57:25] east of
Santa Monica? I mean, you have
[57:30] Associated Bank and Johnson Bank, right?
>> East of Santa Monica.
[57:36] » Um, well, you No, you have you have
and then I mean then you
[57:40] » East
>> that's all west. Oh, sorry. We have
[57:44] PNC, we're into the Bank of America
where you got
[57:48] » Town Bank and Associated is
>> so so I guess when I think of the
[57:52] walkability of Silver Spring where I
would think banks become a really big
[57:56] issue, it's that stretch between Lake
and Santa Monica.
[58:00] Everything west of that
is
[58:05] today I mean it's it's walkable like
there are sidewalks but there's not a
[58:09] lot there's not a lot of density, right?
You have the you have the um Dominica
[58:16] and you have
the you know the realer you have you
[58:21] just don't you know you afford kitchen
like that's the only thing you really
[58:24] walk to
>> there's no there
[58:26] » and so I think the issue with banks
becomes an issue with do you want to
[58:31] increase the density of retail in that
stretch of silver spring
[58:37] and so my preference would be to do
nothing punt until you figure about that
[58:42] question unless you think there's a big
risk of
[58:46] banks coming into the retail
between Santa Monica and Silver Spring
[58:52] besides associated bank but I don't
think anyone has a huge issue with
[58:56] associated bank there but I could be
wrong like I don't I don't know how
[59:06] » I think it's somewhat well known that
eventually or relatively soon associated
[59:10] interest in
a different building if they can
[59:14] partner. And so
>> that limiting that would make it that
[59:19] redevelopment less likely, I guess,
because basically that new rule would
[59:23] require that they locate outside of that
area.
[59:33] » So my suggestion is you punt or you do
nothing.
[59:36] » Yeah. I I I hate to say it, but I don't
think there's a there's a vehicle
[59:42] available unless you're willing to
impose certain of the kinds of standards
[59:47] that I was talking about to to everyone
which I
[59:51] » and I'm I'm completely willing to you
know that staff should investigate those
[59:56] standards that could make it more
difficult but
[1:00:00] it feels like they probably have.
>> Yeah. But Marcina
[1:00:06] » really uh the idea of of of limiting
uses based upon the percentage of them
[1:00:13] that you've got in a community is is
really probably as close to the answer
[1:00:17] that you could get. I don't know that
you're going to find that that's legal.
[1:00:22] I think if there's a a a rabbit hole to
go down, it's it's probably related to
[1:00:28] the you know to the streetscape
>> Mhm.
[1:00:31] » discussion. What do you mean by that?
>> By streetscape the
[1:00:37] um
not having large blank
[1:00:41] um areas whether it's drive-thru or
parking or whatever you know like you
[1:00:49] know you wouldn't let Beimo do build
what they've built what they've got.
[1:00:55] » No the one in Whitefish Bay.
>> Oh I see. Where you got
[1:00:58] » you got a big parking lot
>> you know building
[1:01:00] » Yeah. you know, and and then and then
that parking lot, you know, so when you
[1:01:05] I mean, you you walk to your point,
Colin, you know, you walk that block of
[1:01:11] uh of Silver Spring and you've got, you
know, oriental carpets and you got mo
[1:01:18] and you got a realtor's office and
across the street you got
[1:01:22] a school and a church.
>> Yeah. I mean, all of that feels of a of
[1:01:26] a part. Like I don't think that's bad,
but that's not what I I would rather
[1:01:31] have it be a much denser
>> area, but not any different than what we
[1:01:35] had.
>> Well, it's never going to be anything on
[1:01:37] the other side of the street.
>> Right. That's fine. Yeah.
[1:01:40] » I I get that. And that may be a But
that's a development. That's a
[1:01:43] redevelopment conversation. You have to
redevelop that entire
[1:01:47] » stretch, right?
>> Okay.
[1:01:52] » Okay.
So,
[1:01:54] » it's all there, brother. Well, we I do
think we have two takeaways that we can
[1:01:58] look into. So, we'll we'll check on the
percentage and see if we've asked that
[1:02:02] question. If not, we'll certainly ask it
looking close more closely at the
[1:02:05] standards and if there if there's ways
to make sure that we're requiring the
[1:02:11] types of developments that we would like
to see.
[1:02:15] And then was the question about the
conditional use if not listed
[1:02:19] prohibited? Was that answered?
>> Yeah. Okay. So that would be the last
[1:02:23] » which
>> as a quick comment, Sarah, our other
[1:02:28] commissioner, she sent an email and
basically what what was her
[1:02:32] » she wants to um it
>> she wants to flip it, I think.
[1:02:37] » So if it's not listed, it is prohibited.
>> Here it is. Yeah.
[1:02:43] Uh I also think the list of uses is fine
as is. I do agree that all uses not
[1:02:47] listed should be categorized as
conditional use or prohibited. H
[1:02:53] » is there anything
>> that wouldn't be
[1:02:59] » I guess is there any like I I can't
think of something that is not already
[1:03:04] on here but I don't have a great
imagination right now
[1:03:09] » like what
>> sorry to cut you off the last time we
[1:03:12] talked about this it's not to say that
if a use came forward that wasn't on the
[1:03:17] list that then would be prohibited
We couldn't do an amendment if it was a
[1:03:23] use that the village was really
interested in having that we just had to
[1:03:27] think of which
>> there is a mechanism for it to be
[1:03:29] » dog grooming was the perfect example
where they wanted to do dog grooming and
[1:03:33] 60 days later they could do dog
grooming.
[1:03:36] » Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
But the example of a bookstore,
[1:03:42] I mean, it's not specifically.
>> So, did did the one that just opened on
[1:03:46] Silver Spring, did they get a
conditional use permit?
[1:03:50] » No.
>> No, they were permitted.
[1:03:51] » Permitted,
>> we wanted to be more clear in the code.
[1:03:56] It was permitted under
>> specialty retail.
[1:04:00] » Yeah, specialty retail. We thought it
makes sense just to add it listed as
[1:04:04] bookstore. So that was one of the
recommendations in Anna's memo.
[1:04:10] » What is specialty retail?
>> What
[1:04:13] » book stores?
>> Stores.
[1:04:15] » Yeah. Weren't you listening?
>> Basically anything you guys decide to
[1:04:20] do.
>> Pretty much.
[1:04:22] » Okay, there it is. There's a conditional
use case.
[1:04:24] » Well, but in that I mean you're not
wrong in that. Um, for example,
[1:04:30] um, you know, there was a CBD store 10
years ago on Silver Spring. Um, and that
[1:04:37] pro provokes the conversation of what
would happen if dispensaries
[1:04:42] um, were legalized in the upcoming year
or two in Wisconsin.
[1:04:47] » Would we accept a dispensary? That's
probably something we should have yes or
[1:04:52] no in in the code because that that is
actually something that is super likely
[1:04:57] to
>> if the power shifts in November. Yep.
[1:05:00] That could very well be a a real thing.
>> What do people think now? Again, we we
[1:05:04] did have a CBD store for a couple years.
>> I think if they look
[1:05:09] » and I don't know, I'm not privileged to
if you have to be 18 or older to enter
[1:05:13] the premise then it would be covered
already.
[1:05:16] » Okay. as a prohibited or conditional?
>> Prohibited on any floor in district 11.
[1:05:23] » Wait, but
>> is a is is the Argo I mean, do you have
[1:05:27] to be 18 to go into
>> So, it's really that's very
[1:05:32] adultoriented.
>> Okay. Well, there we go. Never mind.
[1:05:36] » We'll still make a note though. And it
says rules are so
[1:05:41] » I mean
for whatever I I think it makes sense to
[1:05:46] say anything we haven't thought of is
prohibited as long as we can
[1:05:53] » as long as when you talk to developers
you're like it's something that we
[1:05:57] haven't thought of we can have a meeting
and get that
[1:05:59] » yeah approved. Um, my preference would
be to have dispensaries prohibited
[1:06:05] because they're going to open up on Port
Washington anyway.
[1:06:08] » Yep.
>> And that's close enough for the people
[1:06:10] in White Fish Bay who want them, which
I'm guessing there will be a lot of them
[1:06:13] who do. So,
>> but that's I I tend to agree with that.
[1:06:19] » My two cents on this?
>> Yeah, we got three head nods, four head
[1:06:22] nods, five shoulder shrug. Anyway,
>> they'll they'll open many other places.
[1:06:27] » Yeah.
>> Right. The discussion about that though,
[1:06:33] is that limited to Silver Spring or is
that a villagewide coalition?
[1:06:40] » Um, I mean, we're talking about district
11.
[1:06:45] If if somebody was open something in a
business district on Henry Clay or
[1:06:50] Oakland,
what applies? Is it a different
[1:06:54] district? Yes.
>> And and they are
[1:06:57] » Why? Why? Why do we have Do we have un
uniform codes for those two districts?
[1:07:03] Like we're not just changing district
11, right?
[1:07:10] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[1:07:11] » Technically,
>> that's what we need to look at
[1:07:13] jurisdiction over anything. Well, it
doesn't, but I mean, I'm just as a good
[1:07:16] question if any of this is ultimately
going to be approved or not by the
[1:07:21] village board
and and you know, so
[1:07:28] it's not necessarily something that we
need to sit and sit right here tonight,
[1:07:32] but
>> let us look at it.
[1:07:34] » Talking about
>> there's references,
[1:07:37] district
amendment back to this. Yeah,
[1:07:42] » that's my memory, too, because we don't
have another list.
[1:07:46] » You don't?
>> Okay.
[1:07:48] » Yeah, but we'll check on that. That's a
good question.
[1:07:52] » Yep.
>> Did So, I guess I'm looking for staff.
[1:07:58] Did we We've gone through a lot of
different recommendations over the 75
[1:08:02] meetings we've had on this. Um, did do
is there anything outstanding
[1:08:09] that we should discuss? Like did we come
to a conclusion on freestanding ATMs?
[1:08:14] » This body did. Yes.
>> Okay.
[1:08:17] » Um
drive and then drive through. So was
[1:08:21] freestanding ATMs, drive-throughs, and
upper story setbacks. I think those were
[1:08:25] the three that have we come to
conclusions on those?
[1:08:30] » Okay.
>> This body did for the setbacks.
[1:08:33] » Yeah. They said that they were okay with
including the averaging or requiring
[1:08:39] only front setback while eliminating a
rear setback requirement and then plan
[1:08:45] commission was
>> going to weigh in
[1:08:47] » the opposite.
So
[1:08:49] » okay,
[1:08:53] » this body was willing to get rid of the
rear whereas plan commission wasn't so
[1:08:57] willing to get rid of the rear.
>> Do you guys
[1:09:01] » get rid of the rear? There's a rear
setback,
[1:09:04] » right? But isn't the discussion on the
front?
[1:09:06] » Yeah.
>> Yes. I don't want to keep it's
[1:09:11] » Well, I think it is important that they
understand it. So, right now there's a
[1:09:14] requirement for the rear setback because
of the residential. It's abing a
[1:09:19] different district.
>> Then there was a recommendation. I think
[1:09:23] Brian perhaps you were the one that said
to look into it. Should we do a setback
[1:09:27] in the front? But then the challenge is
it kind of looks like the Eiffel Tower
[1:09:31] like it comes it's it would cut in and
then go up potentially, right? And so
[1:09:36] then there was this question, do you
want the setbacks on both sides? And
[1:09:39] what I'm hearing Anna say is that this
body was okay with eliminating the rear
[1:09:44] setback which would be the residential
side.
[1:09:46] » Yes. having the front or doing doing an
average of the rear. Land commission was
[1:09:54] the one the body that felt strongly as
to keep the rear.
[1:09:59] » Yeah,
>> that's probably why you're
[1:10:00] » That's why I'm confused.
>> You've sat in on every one of these. But
[1:10:05] this body is comfortable with
eliminating the rear
[1:10:08] » the rear setback.
>> You are okay.
[1:10:13] I don't know why
>> is there
[1:10:16] » I don't know why we need to set back on
either but I mean I get the rear and the
[1:10:20] the residential different thing
>> there's a towering effect of the opinion
[1:10:26] like
>> two or three two or three stories at max
[1:10:30] right that's now we're talking
>> is it possible they don't change if you
[1:10:35] don't change the ordinance is there a
variance process
[1:10:40] » so that somebody were to
>> think that would be the path is there.
[1:10:46] It would be cleaner that if there is the
appetite to
[1:10:52] » with a variance you need a reason to
grant a variance. It's not just we we
[1:10:57] would prefer it this way. You can't just
say we're going to give you the
[1:11:00] variance. It's more there's some
>> be a hardship
[1:11:04] » hardship
economic we allow four stories now.
[1:11:09] Right.
>> Correct. We allow up to four stories,
[1:11:12] but if you're going to the four story
right now, we do require
[1:11:16] » Okay, that's
>> a set hike on
[1:11:17] » from Silver Spring side.
>> Not from Silver Spring from the rear.
[1:11:21] » Only from the rear.
>> Yes.
[1:11:23] » But from the rear of Silver Spring
frontage,
[1:11:28] Bulmont Place is
still
[1:11:31] » on on stories about the parking.
>> Correct.
[1:11:35] » There are no setbacks on either side of
that. We're just talking. Bulmont is a
[1:11:39] PD, so it's not District 11, but we're
talking about something different.
[1:11:45] » I guess I don't remember this body
coming to the conclusion of um
[1:11:50] eliminating the rear setback, but that's
just me.
[1:11:54] » Well, let's get let's
>> Yeah, let's just do it again right now.
[1:11:57] » And move we eliminate the rear setback.
>> Okay.
[1:12:02] Is there a second for that?
>> I would second it.
[1:12:07] » Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. Well, then all in favor
[1:12:10] of removing the recommending
>> recommending to the appropriate
[1:12:16] » the rear setback say I
>> I
[1:12:18] » I
>> Well, before
[1:12:21] » that's three to two. So, what at least
three to two?
[1:12:24] » Okay.
>> Three to two.
[1:12:27] » I'm I I don't know if it's maybe it's
four to one. I'm not sure. But I I would
[1:12:31] not I I I would not vote to um eliminate
the rear setback. Um, if you have a
[1:12:37] canyon in effect, the reason that was in
there was to protect homeowners on the
[1:12:42] other side of any kind of developments
from Silver Spring. And if you eliminate
[1:12:46] that, you're that's why it's there is
you're protect
[1:12:50] » and I I tend to probably go along with
that, too. But before I vote on it, I
[1:12:54] guess I'm trying to understand what
we're doing on the front end because are
[1:12:58] we going to leave a a building
configuration, as was pointed out
[1:13:02] before, that really is impossible to
build in the fourth floor? I mean, is it
[1:13:06] so narrow that all you've got is a
hallway there?
[1:13:09] » Yeah, I'm not sure that that would be
that narrow, but
[1:13:13] » I think it would depend on the lot. Like
if you had a corner lot,
[1:13:17] » none of those lots. I mean, what you're
ser really talking about is a couple of
[1:13:23] blocks along the south side of Silver
Spring.
[1:13:29] » Correct.
>> It's hard to create a tunnel effect on
[1:13:32] only one side,
>> right?
[1:13:35] There's no tonal effect if there's not
sun on both sides.
[1:13:39] » And basically, wouldn't wouldn't a
balcony fix that problem? Like wouldn't
[1:13:43] it Johnson Bank?
>> Gansson Bank. But um
[1:13:46] » like doesn't doesn't John doesn't a
balcony fix the setback issue?
[1:13:51] » Well, it helps.
>> It does because it's
[1:13:53] » balcony. Well, uh
>> an enclosed an enclosed balcony, not a
[1:13:59] balcony hanging over in the front
suspended. The residences in that
[1:14:03] building are
single loaded. So there are there are no
[1:14:07] residences on the backside back side of
the building. It's the Jean's got the
[1:14:12] corridor and you've got the units.
>> Gotcha.
[1:14:17] Anyways, um uh
>> okay, there's three three SS2 notes for
[1:14:25] eliminating the back um um sent back.
And so then then do we want to have a
[1:14:31] conversation about the front setback? Do
you want to change that at all? So
[1:14:35] you're a no.
>> So right so so right now there is some
[1:14:38] small setback that's required for the
fourth story
[1:14:40] » of the back
>> of the front is on the front. No, just
[1:14:44] at the back
>> of the side
[1:14:48] borders a different district
>> which is the back
[1:14:51] » which is the
>> for now. Yes.
[1:14:53] » Yes.
>> So not the front. Okay. Yeah,
[1:14:55] » but right now there are there any
fourstory buildings on Silver Spring
[1:14:59] » that do not have a setback in the
>> bordering story buildings period.
[1:15:05] » You have Johnson Bank.
>> Johnson Bank.
[1:15:08] » The only ones I I am under I am aware
of.
[1:15:10] » Yes.
>> Is there anyone talking about building
[1:15:12] that fourstory building?
>> Give it time.
[1:15:15] » Yeah, I mean I I have definitely met
with people that were considering it. Um
[1:15:19] they have not moved forward, but there's
always a lot of ideas. I mean, Silver
[1:15:25] Spring is a desirable place right now.
>> Yeah.
[1:15:28] » I would I wouldn't move for the setback
on off of Silver Spring on the fourth
[1:15:33] story
>> on the front.
[1:15:34] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[1:15:35] » Okay.
>> That'll give you that. Yeah.
[1:15:38] » And we we highly decision now.
>> Can we wait to see if there's something
[1:15:44] gets closer and we can we can
>> once a project's proposed, we can't
[1:15:49] change the rules at that point.
>> Yeah.
[1:15:51] » Okay. So at least two and I'm I'm a
third who would vote for and that's a
[1:15:55] fourth and
>> it doesn't matter because I'm
[1:15:58] » whatever just so I recommendation is to
have a front to basically shift the
[1:16:04] setback from the back to the front.
>> I would probably vote no because I don't
[1:16:10] see a big risk of tunneling of tunnel.
Um just one of the comments that I'll
[1:16:15] make is when we did a community survey
two years ago, one of the big themes was
[1:16:21] please don't become like Sherwood.
>> I know
[1:16:23] » but I don't find Shwood to be that
objectionable.
[1:16:27] » You are in that chunk of people believe
that.
[1:16:30] » Okay.
>> Why would why wouldn't you want to be in
[1:16:33] Shwood was economically viable and
>> yeah right
[1:16:37] » people live there. Well, I mean, keep
keep in mind you you have developer hats
[1:16:41] and you also have residential living
hats.
[1:16:44] » Economically viable to the developer is
fine, but at the same time, it needs to
[1:16:48] be uh
>> acceptable acceptable to the community.
[1:16:52] And I don't I don't know that,
>> you know, that density is fine for short
[1:16:57] because they had pretty significant
density all along.
[1:17:00] » Yeah.
>> More dense than Whitefish Bay has ever
[1:17:02] been.
>> Yeah. They are the number one dense
[1:17:05] community and
>> so I think there's a difference and I
[1:17:08] don't think Whitefish Bay wants to have
that level of density at least I don't
[1:17:13] » agreed and we asked that question in the
survey we said
[1:17:18] » basically should whitefish bay try to
include
[1:17:26] » okay
>> so can we just do the averaging of step
[1:17:30] back then taking the average of the too.
>> So,
[1:17:36] » so it'd be less of a step back on the
back where it could be averaged out.
[1:17:40] » Yeah. Between the front.
>> So, you're proposing a second option
[1:17:43] which is um in instead of shifting the
setback now we're shifting it a little.
[1:17:49] It's basically what's happening. We're
averaging it. So, would you prefer an
[1:17:52] average?
>> I'd prefer it be gone. But but average
[1:17:55] is less bad than you know the whole
thing.
[1:17:58] » How much do what is the setback?
>> I mean I on the fourth floor.
[1:18:01] » What's the setback, Joel? enough
>> 10 ft.
[1:18:03] » 10 ft of
>> basically now five and five instead of
[1:18:07] 10.
>> What's the typical lot size?
[1:18:09] » Like how deep is a lot? 10 ft out of
>> 20.
[1:18:17] If if our input
>> little over if our input as the CDA
[1:18:22] » is important to the resolution of this
for the village, then I think we ought
[1:18:29] to get some
thought, get some information and really
[1:18:35] put it together and discuss it at the
next meeting. I don't think it's that
[1:18:38] urgent. Well, and to your point, Dick,
if if if we if we can do that and if we
[1:18:44] can get some uh schematic, a drawing to
see what the heck it looks like, what
[1:18:49] we're talking about. I'm I've got ideas
in my mind of what I think we're talking
[1:18:53] about, but I could be totally wrong. I
>> Yeah,
[1:18:56] » I'm not sure what that I know what we're
talking about. I don't, you know, I
[1:18:59] mean, we took a vote here, but I don't
feel like we're in a position as a CDA,
[1:19:05] as a public body
>> to make a recommendation to the plan
[1:19:10] commission or to the village board
>> um as to as to what our consensus is on
[1:19:16] that.
>> It would take a little effort, but I
[1:19:18] mean, we know what the depths are. We
know the area, you know, what what the
[1:19:22] configurations are the street. It would
be useful to take a lot and do an
[1:19:27] example of what the building sections
and and understand
[1:19:32] » what's the box going to end up looking
like when we're done.
[1:19:34] » There there was some there was a diagram
I think in the plan commission packet
[1:19:40] » shortly.
>> Sorry. Yes, Colin. I was just going to
[1:19:44] say I think having a 10% reduction in
square footage of a 10 foot setback on a
[1:19:51] 100 plus
wide building is not a huge deal. A 20%
[1:19:59] reduction probably becomes a much bigger
consideration for development
[1:20:03] » and I I think what we're saying is
currently it is 10%.
[1:20:06] » Currently it's 10%.
>> Do you want to double it? I think
[1:20:08] » do you want to double it? And my I would
be strongly I would I mean without other
[1:20:12] information sure I would be opposed to
doubling it whether you average it
[1:20:16] whether you move it from the front to
the back the back to the front I don't
[1:20:18] know
>> I think this is very helpful so this
[1:20:22] topic started it was a strategic plan
item
[1:20:25] » start it started out very broad right we
were talking about boutique hotels and
[1:20:29] lots of things I think we have narrowed
in quite a bit which will give great
[1:20:34] right now we're looking to narrow it and
then it will go through a full process
[1:20:39] once it's you know we have language so
let us go back to gra and see if we can
[1:20:44] get someatics
>> I'm ready to say this is the right thing
[1:20:48] » sure
>> you know but I'll tell you that making
[1:20:51] 10% 20% reductions in in in usable
building area whether it's apartments
[1:20:58] condos offices whatever it is is
significant
[1:21:05] » okay yeah let us take this back to and
see like what kind of visuals that they
[1:21:10] can provide and
>> and so you're I get I look at this as
[1:21:14] saying this is the second time it's come
to the CDA
[1:21:17] » and so I kind of wanted to resolve it.
Um but are you willing to continue to go
[1:21:21] to a third time and is that going to be
acceptable for whatever timing we need
[1:21:25] to do
[1:21:29] faster is always better.
>> So what about this? How about we this
[1:21:32] has to go to the village board to do a
formal referral to commission. So at
[1:21:37] that point, why don't we share the
information that we have out with the
[1:21:40] CDA members as well? And if there is a
desire to have another discussion,
[1:21:46] » then a member can request that.
>> Yeah. Well, I think all what does the
[1:21:51] board want us to consider? I mean, what
how can we be helpful in in in helping
[1:21:57] you come to a decision on the thing? If
you'd like us
[1:22:02] » to extend, if you really want us to
provide you with some meaningful input,
[1:22:05] it would be important to have an
understanding of what we're
[1:22:08] recommending.
>> Yeah. What is it what is interesting is
[1:22:11] like there are two parts to this. The
first part is the concept of reducing
[1:22:14] the um possible development of a fourth
floor, right? From 10% to 20% or 0% or
[1:22:21] whatever. And that that's that's like
right in the CDA wheelhouse.
[1:22:25] » What's not really in the CDA wheelhouse
is architectural design. um you know,
[1:22:31] zoning for residents versus the
community. And so I can see that there's
[1:22:35] that's one of the reasons we're
struggling here.
[1:22:38] » Um
>> no, I don't think so because I you know,
[1:22:40] I don't think it matters, as I just
said, to whether this upper floor that's
[1:22:45] set back some degree is is residential,
commercial,
[1:22:52] you know,
true.
[1:22:55] » True. the, you know, the the
question of
[1:23:01] what the what the zoning requirements
are
[1:23:05] um regardless of use is is something
that I think
[1:23:10] » comes out of.
>> I think all you were saying is the
[1:23:12] question of do you limit the upper floor
by 10% or 20% or 0%. That's a CDA
[1:23:19] question whether that is
faces the residential portion of the
[1:23:26] » the the residential district
>> or the Silver Spring side of the thing
[1:23:31] or like that's an architectural question
that's much more.
[1:23:37] » Yeah,
>> that makes sense.
[1:23:39] » Fair.
>> Okay.
[1:23:43] All right. So we should if you if staff
has uh got their things lined up. All
[1:23:50] right then we should move on to
um discussion recommendation on the 2027
[1:23:56] budgets for TID one two and three.
>> I think this one is easy um but it's
[1:24:03] » Joel. You're missing the fun.
>> Um but it is budget season around
[1:24:09] Village Hall. Um so we wanted to bring
forward these draft budgets. The reason
[1:24:13] I think it's somewhat easy is because a
lot of the heavy lifting was previously
[1:24:18] done as part of the Sendix project. I
just essentially copied the expenses for
[1:24:23] 2027 um from I think it was exhibit E in
that development agreement uh which was
[1:24:30] uh TID one and then I forgot what TID 3
was but um essentially this just mirrors
[1:24:37] those exhibits which was discussed at
length during those meetings. Um so if
[1:24:43] anybody has any questions I'm happy to
answer. just a a couple of I mean I
[1:24:48] think I know what is happening here but
it's interesting to see the tax
[1:24:52] increment from 2024 at 670 then dropped
down to 630 and now projected at 716
[1:25:01] uh page 14. So the reason for the drop
was because of the reevaluation.
[1:25:08] » Yeah. The office building
um in TID one um ended up coming down.
[1:25:15] So that that decrement was in TID one.
>> Office building.
[1:25:20] » Yeah. So, the Sendex office building is
>> Well, I I I was on a I remember having
[1:25:26] this conversation that our assessments
also went down and so if their
[1:25:31] assessments went down, the tax increment
would have gone down and I thought that
[1:25:34] was what it was for. I'm not sure about
the the timing to 2025. When did those
[1:25:39] come down?
>> Whatever.
[1:25:42] » They I you want to explain it?
>> Oh, I don't care about the timing. I
[1:25:47] don't I don't want to get involved in
all that, but I I really I remember
[1:25:51] having a conversation of looking at the
um the the value of TID one and it
[1:25:56] decreased substantially and it wasn't
because of the office. It was because of
[1:26:00] the reval.
>> There's yeah there's two things
[1:26:02] happening. So the decre there was a
decrement because of the office building
[1:26:06] because it wasn't used as of January
1st, 2025. Then it was basically there's
[1:26:12] a a state law or a court case, I'm not
sure which one that allowed for that
[1:26:17] value to be zero for the 2025 valuation.
And then on top of it, there was also
[1:26:23] decrement. So there's like two things
that were hap or there were also
[1:26:27] decreases.
It wasn't really decreases in value.
[1:26:31] It's the percentage of the assessed
value and how it impacts the tid.
[1:26:37] » Yeah. That ADF. Well, in conclusion,
it's at 716 now, which is great.
[1:26:42] » Well, I think this is consistent with
what we had projected, though. So, I'm
[1:26:47] » Oh, yeah. I just wanted to draw
attention to the fact that our TID is
[1:26:51] healthy and just got a little healthier.
I mean, 13.6%.
[1:26:57] Um,
[1:27:00] I I do have a question and this I'm sure
someone is
[1:27:05] Why is there a revenue for debt premium
of $122,000?
[1:27:11] I'm
I didn't quite understand what that was.
[1:27:15] I'm sure that somebody smarter than me
has an explanation.
[1:27:20] So, we talked about this a little bit
during
[1:27:24] the um discussion about the essentially
the additional money that's available
[1:27:29] for capital projects. And so, it's
essentially a premium that you get when
[1:27:35] you issue debt depending on like the
market at that moment. Overall, the the
[1:27:40] general fund benefited was like $300 and
some thousand.
[1:27:43] » Some of it came here.
>> Yep. based on the percentage of the debt
[1:27:47] that was issued.
>> It had had to do with the way the bonds
[1:27:52] are bid.
>> Yes, exactly.
[1:27:53] » The uh uh the underwriter
bid a premium on the bonds, which
[1:27:59] basically they they offered to pay you
more than the face value of the bond.
[1:28:04] » Got it.
>> And so and so, uh you got a bonus up
[1:28:08] front, uh but then they charge you a
higher rate of interest over over time.
[1:28:14] And
the way what what ends up happening is
[1:28:18] that the uh the value of that premium
gets calculated as part of the present
[1:28:24] value in the interest rate calculation.
So when you're looking at uh your total
[1:28:29] costs over time, uh it it works out, but
at the end of the day, you do get a cash
[1:28:35] infusion up front, which is what this is
representing.
[1:28:39] » So I guess the next question is, didn't
we require 1.885 85 million and now we
[1:28:44] have more than 1.885 million because of
the step premium that now we have. Yes.
[1:28:50] Did we require 1.99
million?
[1:28:56] » Did we require two
>> when you size the bond? You mean did you
[1:28:59] resize the bonds in order to take into
account the the debt premium?
[1:29:03] » I mean is this is this bonus money or is
this associated with a $2 million debt
[1:29:08] borrow?
Do you see what I mean? If you add the
[1:29:11] two together, it's roughly two million.
>> What I'm hearing,
[1:29:15] » what did we require?
>> Well, what we required was the 1.8, the
[1:29:18] actual dollar amount, but then they came
in and basically said, "This is we're
[1:29:22] going to give you more money, but we're
going to charge you a little bit higher
[1:29:25] interest, and it ends up kind of coming
out."
[1:29:27] » Now, the TID has $122,000 more than it
>> Yeah. But but then you may end up
[1:29:33] choosing to use you can utilize that for
your cash flow, debt payments.
[1:29:37] » Yeah.
>> Um right to offset that. So it it it
[1:29:41] balances it out in that in that.
>> Okay.
[1:29:46] Uh TID 2 also the tax increment went 322
down to 278 up to 305.
[1:29:55] There's no office being demolished
there.
[1:30:01] » And then finally TID 3 which is brand
new
[1:30:06] and the tax. So that the in the
projected increment
[1:30:11] is 497.
Is that what will be the projected for
[1:30:17] 2028? It'll be more.
It should be way more.
[1:30:22] » Yes, it will be more,
>> right? It's probably like quadruple
[1:30:26] more.
>> We had the the extended spreadsheet
[1:30:30] shows that
>> I I I probably don't even need the
[1:30:32] number. I just
>> 170,000.
[1:30:34] » Okay. So it's tripleish more. Got it.
Yeah. I just that was
[1:30:39] I don't need the number. I just wanted
to know that that was going to increase
[1:30:43] dramatically.
Okay. You probably
[1:30:49] need a motion on this one. A
recommendation
[1:30:52] » approve the the budgets.
>> Thank you. Second.
[1:30:55] » Thank you, Brian. Any further
discussion?
[1:30:59] Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
>> I. I.
[1:31:02] » Any opposed? Motion carries.
That concludes our general business for
[1:31:06] the evening. All we need to do is so
move to adjurnn. Dick with the motion.
[1:31:12] Who's your second? Sure.
>> And Mike with a second. Those in favor
[1:31:15] say I. I.
>> I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are
[1:31:19] adjourned. Thank you so much everybody.
Good