[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

Community Development Authority - August 18, 2026

Transcript