Community Development Authority - Regular Meeting

All right. It is July 14th, 602. Our regular chair is not here. So I'm going to fill in and I will call to order the CDA meeting for July. We don't need to call roll. And so we can move on to the first order of business, which is the approval of minutes for the meeting January 21st. Move approval. Move approval. Excellent. We have our second. Second. Thank you, Brian. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Next is a discussion action on the architectural and site plans for a mixed-use building to be located at 131 Silver Spring Drive. Kelsey?

Yeah, sure.

Anna? Somebody?

Yep. So we received an application for the redevelopment of 131 West Silver Spring, which is at Lidell and Silver Spring. It's proposed to be a three-story mixed-use building. The building will include Bank of America on the first floor, as well as another commercial tenant that is unknown at this time. And then the proposal includes 16 apartment units on the second and third floors. Because the building is located within District 11, this group has the final authority over the exterior design review. So the building was already considered at the Architectural Review Commission on May 21st. They provided feedback and then the applicant resubmitted. And on June 18th, they recommended that the CDA approve the plans as submitted. There's a detailed summary of the submittal along with the review memo from Grave, who is our planning consultant, that was included in the packet. And then there's several representatives from the application or the applicant here this evening. So I'm going to ask them to kind of walk through their submittal and then answer any questions you may have.

Good evening. Thanks for having us today. My name is Debbie Tomczyk. I'm the attorney representing the project.

Stephen Smith, Stephen Perry Smith Architects. Thank you.

And Stephen will go into as great a detail as you like about the architecture and the design, and we're happy to do that. We vetted that significantly with the Design Review Board and we're, I think, improved the plan all along with the number of meetings that we had with them and some really good feedback, which resulted in some changes, but then also culminated in their unanimous recommendation to you for approval. This has been vetted a number of times. It's gone through a conditional use permit process for a first floor finance institution, which has been approved. It's been through the Architectural Review Commission as well. As you know, Kelsey and her team are terrific, and she did her usual terrific job of vetting all of the details of this, as well as with GRAIF. And actually, even Kelsey's predecessor was involved in the conditional use permit approval. So it's been through a number of iterations before it got to you tonight. Essence of this, and you have an architectural review on the elevation up there, so I will let Stephen speak to that in a few minutes. But I wanted to hit some highlights for the CDA, because I know you folks are also worried about the Per strings, there is no tax increment financing that's proposed or requested for this project. But we do think we'll look at a significant increase in tax base because we're going from taking down the existing weathered sort of bay manor apartments project and putting up what we think is a nice signature building for an entree into Whitefish Bay. We meet many of the plan standards and the plan designs, as you see in the grave memo, to make this a nice gateway entrance into the village. And it gives us a nice opportunity. I don't think you can see it on that elevation, but also to provide entryway signage into the village, which is also part of your plan and will be part of our plans. Also, I know of concern for this group is parking. Parking is of course at a premium in this particular location, but we have a lower level of parking and we have 32 parking spaces below ground. We think we have more than adequate spaces with the 45 spaces that are included, both for the retail on the first floor, as well as for the 16 market rate apartment units above. And we already have interest. We already have people who are interested in renting those apartments above. So we think we'll be pre-creating a nice housing opportunity as well.

Can I just jump in? Absolutely. So the parking counts, they're adequate for the residents and the employees? Yes. Or residents and employees plus customers?

Plus customers. So I personally think that your code is perfect. tad heavy on what you might require for parking standards but you see this in the grave memo by code we would need to have 51 spaces but that includes for the unidentified retail as kelsey indicated spaces at 101 space per 150 square feet which i think is very generous for what you might actually need and what we think we need for particular customers so 51 by code. We have 45. And we have, again, 5,000 square feet of retail and then 16 apartment units, which we have, you know, availability of parking for more, you know, two per unit, but we won't need that much. So we think we'll be more than adequate. And I think Rafe agrees with that based on parking without being aware of not trying to have an adverse impact on Silver Spring.

And I just procedurally want to clarify in the conditional use, the parking requirement for Bank of America was waived or that allocation was met. And so that's why there isn't this doesn't have to go back to plan commission is because they do meet the requirement or the apartment units.

And we might come back if depending on what the second retail unit is.

Honestly, I figured there was enough parking. I was just curious if there was parking for customers.

Yeah.

And it sounds like there will be a few. Yes.

We think they will. And we're ready to make a significant investment based on our belief. Great.

I think Sarah was first and then we can go to Dick.

That was going to be my question to the point of the intensity of the use for that other retail space. Have you had any discussions with any potential tenants that you could share or shine some light on?

Nothing I could share at this point. I mean, obviously, we're not to the shovel in the ground stage yet. So it's really important to get through this. We've got a project here that works financially for the model that we already have. actually seeing the project move forward, that's when we'll have further discussions with those tenants. It's interesting who the tenants might be. I mean, it's going to be, it's a smaller space. It's about 1,500 square feet. So we're not sure. Depends on what the market tells us.

Debbie, I totally agree with you that our, hey, Stephen, it's been a while. that our code is heavy on parking. But it seems to me the one kind of concern that I'd have is, well, in the aggregate, I think you're right. You've got plenty of parking. It's kind of divided in different ways so that the 30-odd below-grade... 32 below. Mm-hmm. those are going to be secured. Now, there's probably more than you need. And I guess the question would be, are you anticipating that you might, as we did at Beaumont Place a couple of blocks away, lease out some of the parking, the underground secure parking that is not necessarily needed by the residents of the apartments to maybe employees of Bank of America or the mysterious missing retail tenant.

But that said, it would still be contingent upon having to serve the planned needs we already have for the 16 units of apartments that will happen. that we'll have needs for. And the Bank of America is, they're ready to go.

I don't remember exactly your mix. We always used to aim for one parking space per bedroom, which would probably put you at 25-ish, maybe, for residents.

Didn't do the math, but that sounds about right. Yeah, if I knew a good apartment developer, then I'd be able to do that calculation.

Yeah.

I do in my sleep. Mike, did you have a question?

Well, following up on Dick's comment, and he's going in the direction I was thinking, we don't know what that last retail space is going to be. And I see in Kelsey's memo that there's reference to the idea that parking will need to be evaluated prior to the village issuing an occupancy permit. So do I take then to require kind of thing that Dick is talking about, relationship to the rental and the space, if it's determined that there's a need for that area down below?

Sure. So when they come for their occupancy permit or their build-out permits, at that point, we'll look at the parking calculations and they'll have to demonstrate that they have sufficient parking. And in this case, I suspect that they'll end up being a little bit short because And so that would end up being part of their conditional, assuming there's a conditional use, or they'd have to go to plan commission to have that waived if that is necessary.

The way I read it, there's 14 spaces that are required, seven that are provided, correct? For purposes of retail.

Oh, for the retail, there's 14 spaces required.

14 for the bank, which are required. 11, potentially, for the other retail use, if we had to park it at the 150 per square foot.

All right. Only six spaces, potentially. Only five spaces is what's needed?

For the retail office, yes.

Correct. And you're providing seven.

Well, so we're providing, I guess it depends on, to Dick's point before, how you slice and dice it.

Well, yeah, if you're going to get some of the spaces down below. Yeah. There are seven parking spaces on the ground floor.

uh we have a site plan on that right yeah we do have some plans in here and and we do have the parking plan as well each 17 of your all appointments so i'm going to jump in just a quick sec and ask kelsey to to explain and remind what we're doing here at the cda and what what is under our purview and kind of whoa and kind of what is not sure um because i think it's just what the ARC has recommended. Am I right?

Yeah. So it's the exterior aesthetic review is what is under the CDA authority. I will say though, just to kind of tie a bow on the parking discussion, I wonder, or I suspect that they may end up using, they gained some parking spots in this design process that weren't originally envisioned. And it may be when they come back for that secondary tenant space that they have things shored up and can say these spaces are we can allocate for this use and have some kind of formal agreement that we'd be able to review. Because overall, they are short in parking, but because Plan Commission did waive the parking for Bank of America, they have to meet all of the Bank of America requirements.

Short circuit, any questions? It's just there are questions that you may have based on curiosity and those that you may have as a CDA.

So our authority here is strictly the one that makes these settings. And it had nothing to do with the park.

Again, ask your curiosity questions because we've got experts here, but it's not going to advance the vote that we're going to have.

Okay. And the site plan, sorry.

And I think Kelsey made a really good point too about, I mean, there will be more known when we have actual occupancy. It's a tight site. I mean, it's tight to get in. We have been, by reconfiguring the first floor, been able to pick up one or two spaces. We may know more when we come back and we have that additional retail space occupied.

Quite frankly, I don't know. Yes, where it gets a little... My observation is that people are actually going to bank branches anyway. I'm not sure why they need one, but...

Well, we'll have within the area, not just your banking needs, but wealth planning and financial planning and that kind of thing.

I'm not too concerned about volume for the bank itself. It's the other unknown space that could generate more.

But on your plan guidelines as well, this is a very walkable site, as you know. I mean, it depends on the market's going to tell us as well what we're going to be able to attract for a tenant, but there'll also be some walking traffic, hopefully.

Thank you. I think this is a site plan question, and that is, of the potential tenants, would you expect them to have large vehicle deliveries? You know what I mean?

Hard for me to say. I mean, I can't imagine that at the moment.

Once you said it's a tight site, it started making me wonder, how are you going to take deliveries? Banks don't have a lot. Armored truck, but I don't know about your other tenant, but. That's something for staff to deal with.

Go ahead. Go ahead. Can you recap? Because this site had history and sat dormant for a year or more, what approvals actually have been granted by the military?

Sure. So the conditional use was prior to my time, as Debbie had mentioned. That was approved by plan commission. Conditional use had an actual plan? Just for Bank of America.

Mm-hmm.

No, it was similar, but it wasn't nearly at this level of detail.

Yeah, it was the box. Was this consistent with that? Plus the apartments. It was. It was the mixed use.

And they reviewed the parking at that time. Yep.

So from an aesthetic perspective, I guess our focus is really just aesthetics.

the aesthetics and like the site plan, the layout, the drive-through, like things like that.

As it applies to our district.

Yeah, correct.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, architectural would you want to get a pretty good job?

Yeah. Yeah.

They made findings that substantially complies with the spirit and intent of the Silver Spring Drive District. subject to getting additional details about a fence that's along the property line, I believe, a final lighting plan, detailed signage, you know, those kinds of details. So I gather that essentially the ARC is recommending to the CDA that we approve it as is before us. That's correct. Subject to those couple of conditions.

I just have a couple of comments with regard to the aesthetics and architectural features for since the lighting plan has not been reviewed. Well, you don't have a full simile yet, correct? So I would just like to note that preference for pedestrian scale uniform lighting. And for the enclosure for the mechanical. Equipment that it considers on 4 sides.

Silver spring residential, I don't see any either of those as a problem for us. Yeah, just to staff.

Are you talking about as you use.

Yeah, because there will also be, I think the drawing that was included here dealt with the 10-ton RTU that would service the bank. But there will also be, I assume, 16 air conditioning condensers for the apartments, plus whatever mechanicals you need for...

And we appreciate Grafe identified that as an issue too, as Kelsey and her team. And we know and expect that we would deal with staff on the aesthetics for that.

Yeah. Is there any sound attenuation for those units? Is that...

the answer to that uh sound attenuation i mean the the it's like an air uh home air conditioning smaller uh as dick's noting they're on top of the uh the building itself and they give off a hum but it's not objectionable okay yeah they're all around that's uh basically you see them everywhere yeah i get it 16 of them plus yeah they're clustered but that's um again it's on top of the building and they'll be generally located within the middle of the building footprint. So they're not going to be, any sound will be basically going straight up.

And they're usually on some kind of a, almost a spring-loaded, so you don't get any vibration in the transfers down into the building.

Great. I'm looking at phase 26 of our package, and that's a rendering showing the fence, the Sarah point on fencing. Is that a fence that busts that single family residence? Is that the fence that will be installed by this project?

Yes, we will add to actually build a separate fence in front of there to the north of their fence, a brand new fence. that will extend to provide privacy further to the, excuse me, to the west than currently exists with their fence.

And it will be ID?

Yeah, there's a plan specified as ID on it to cover it up.

So as soon as that property owner has been able to look with people on this, have you had conversations with that?

I know that our, and maybe Robert can speak to it, but I know our client has tried to reach out to him several times, is my understanding.

Yeah, that was one of our first recommendations when they approached us was to reach out to them. The exact location of the fence still has to be administratively reviewed. We believe that it's actually going too far to the west and will be permissible. And so we'll have to, that was one of the contingencies that we'll have to look at.

But that's one of the conditions. If we follow the ARC's recommendation, that's one of the conditions that we would, you know, put it back in Joel's lap.

Yep.

I am looking for one.

Where is that condition?

Nope, page two, Donna.

Are you looking for something specific?

Yeah.

In the meantime, are there any other Questions or comments or anything else you wanted to present?

Well, I think the architecture is pretty self-explanatory if you've had a chance to look at the renderings. We did take to heart the comments made in our first review and volleyed back with what Debbie said was a better building as a result of that process. We feel good about it. It's four-sided architecture entirely. And the quality of building is, you can see from the quality of the building, from the renderings as well as the materials being proposed. It's a first-class building. It's a gateway building into Whitefish Bay, and we're very proud to be a part of it. Hopefully, it captures the character of the city or the village, I should say, and we're very proud to be presenting this project for your approval.

Just a quick comment. I very much appreciate the comments about the ARC and that you did go through two meetings with them and came out with a better product. The ARC gets a lot of guff for sharing their viewpoints, and it was awesome to hear you come in on the second meeting and say, you know what, now we've got a better building.

You look at it and you look at what's the prominent street or whatever. And in a four-sided architecture, it's not an inexpensive building. And so we did some things that, frankly, added cost to the building. But at the end of the day, it's a better building. And our client understands that. And so, again, I think it's I say it, you know, I didn't leave here mad. I left here, well, you know, they had some valid comments we got. And Dick, you work with developers, you know, a lot of times they're budget driven, but this is a signature building, not only for our client, but for the village. And our client's stepping up and doing what he needs to do to make it the best building it can be. And we feel very good about it.

So from the village board's perspective or from the staff, you had no contact from residents in the opposition to this project?

No. I haven't heard anything since I've been here.

And I think there were one positive comment during the commission use permit process, that public hearing, and there was no comment from the architecture commission.

Dick, did you find what you wanted to find?

Yeah, I did. I just have, I'm going to make a motion in a second, but can you go to page 46 of the, I just have a quick question. My own curiosity. It's the rendering of the rooftop kind of patio.

Okay.

The full-on rendering. You'll know it when you see it.

Yeah. You're almost there. There. Stop. What is that material? In the rendering, it looks like gray carpet, but I'm pretty sure that's not what it is. Is that real grass?

The thought is either going to be a turf or jimmy baca- Or some type of river stone or whatever we're concerned with the turf and it keep the occupant load down defense in certain areas so that's driving where the fences versus making the whole rooftop area accessible. The exiting from that as an issue. So we've reduced the space. And so they tend, we've talked about using AstroTurf. The concern I have is that you get people going out there, hopping over the fence, potentially doing things they shouldn't be doing. So we're looking at more of a decorative ballast stone. At the time we did this, it wasn't so. Right now, it's a material, but I think it may end up, my feeling is it'll probably be more like a river stone ballast on top of the roof. So it's not going to attract people from wanting to go out there.

You should make it into a moat.

Yeah, very good. But that's a lot.

Okay, thanks. All right. I personally think this is a really handsome building. And I think it's going to be a nice addition to the street and to the village. Although, you know, we could sit here all night talking about whether we need another bank drive-thru. So I would make a motion that the Community Development Authority, are we approving this or are we recommending to the village board?

You're approving. Final step.

That we approve this subject to the... seven staff recommended conditions that are contained in the memo to the CDA. Okay. Do you want to hear a second?

Before you make that, I just have one comment. First of all, I think it's a great building, great use of the site. I'm excited about it. I think the architectural design is awesome. My only question is we're taking these a bit out of order. Our fourth agenda item tonight is related to the signs. And here we are approving this project. Can we add a condition about the sign being a condition? Number seven. I think it is. I only see four.

Oh, maybe that didn't print all the way. You should have seven. So it's number seven.

Yeah, item seven is that the ARC and the village board review and approve the monument sign.

Okay, well, then perfect. Then I second. All right.

I wanted to ask a question about that sign approval. That's something we, as a CDA, have a great deal of interest in as well. I wonder why we wouldn't be involved in approval of that sign as well.

I don't have a problem with that. I mean, there's a lot of cooks in the kitchen at this point with the ARC village board of potential consultants that we have hired.

I would like to be another cook in the kitchen.

Okay. Okay.

Those are monument signs at each of the end of the village entrance points. I think we.

Yeah. Okay.

All right.

I think that's just fine. So let's add the CDA to number seven. So arc CDA and village board review and approval. Right. Are you okay with that friendly amendment? Cause you seconded it. Yes. Okay. Any other discussions, any members of the public. I don't know why it's going twice. All right. All those in favor of the motion to approve, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

Congratulations. Mr. Chairman, could we maybe join the discussion of the monument sign up to the... Yeah, it's an item of business. So I'd like to get Mr. Smith's.

Sure, sure. That sounds right. We'll move. We'll switch to number three and four, and we will move on to discussion on new Silver Spring entrance signs to be paid for by private development projects like this one. Kelsey or Anna?

Yep. I'll see. So due to new... Do you want to ask him to stick around, Dick?

Steve, can you stick around for a few minutes while we talk about this monument sign thing?

We like to get all that free advice from you. I picked his brain the other day as well. So the village is in a unique opportunity in that we have two redevelopment projects that are happening that both will result in the developer paying to replace the monument signs on both sides of Silver Spring. So one is in front of Sendix, which will be replaced at their expense. And then the other is in front of the 131 Silver Spring building that we just talked about. And that will be replaced at their expense. That was actually part of the conditional use approval process. You're wondering where that originated at. So both of the developers, I asked both developers to submit their proposals. Sendix actually was in their site plans and the project plans throughout and basically give their thoughts. I circled back with both of the developers after the village board meeting where I heard pretty clear interest in those signs looking uniform. There wasn't a clear definition that they had to be exactly the same, but wanting there to be a cohesiveness to the two signs. I know the developers are a little bit reluctant because the building materials used in the two projects are very different. And so there's concern that one material is going to be pushed on the other. And so likely, I think it's going to be maybe a meld of those or something completely different. I'm not sure where we'll end up. I did present this similar memo. I just updated it slightly for you guys to ARC to get their thoughts. And they were wondering or kind of toyed with the idea of do you have the developers use their own materials, but then do like an insert or and have the same form of the sign so that it does look cohesive, but the materials at least can match the abutting building. I have retained, we have a design team already working with the village as part of the clothing warming house project. So that warming house is going to be replaced and the village has hired a design firm. So I reached out to them to ask if they would be willing to be kind of a neutral or village representative, I guess you could say in this discussion. And so they're planning to, to develop a couple of different options for discussion and consideration. And then obviously we can take those wherever we want from there. And so my thought in leaving this on the agenda for tonight is to get your guys' thoughts that I will then pass on to that neutral design team. And then we'll see what they come up with is where we stand.

Yeah. Oh, yes. Sorry, Micah.

I may be off as compared to my colleagues here as to the way I think about this, but just in my sense, these are signs that I think my view ought to be consistent. I think they are really the village's signs, not the developer's project's signs. I don't think that they should be viewed by anybody entering the village as the as though that's part of that building should be something that stands apart from the building, and there should be consistency between both sides on either end. I'm not sure what they need to end up looking like, but clearly it ought to, in my view, say it's Village of Whitefish Bay, and then there ought to be some kind of a seal or emblem that identifies it as an official entryway to the village. And that's just my personal opinion.

I agree with that. Particularly the one in front of Senate. Okay. Sarah, I'm sorry.

I totally agree. I think that there can be some certainly branded in terms of the design and style of the sign. Maybe the material is something neutral, like a gray stone, something that is compatible with the materials for each structure, but then also having a shared inlay or some type of facing for both signs. I totally agree. These are silver spring entrance points and they should be treated as similar structures.

I agree for the record as well. I actually think it's more than just these two signs. I think it also came up recently in another meeting that they're talking about redoing the sign on Lake Drive entering into Whitefish Bay. That's going to be up for discussion in very short order. You know, we have a cheap little metal sign entering into Whitefish Bay along Oakland Avenue. I mean, it should really be not just even these two. It should be the five or six signs that we have entering Whitefish Bay. And I agree 100% with it being consistent and being a Whitefish Bay sign and not a developer sign.

But some are finding a way to tie it together.

Yeah. I'm guessing there might be the limitations of mass or height or something from these things. Is there, how is that going to be determined? How is that determined?

Yeah, so the location at Sendik is in the site triangle. And so it's, is it 42 inches?

Does everybody know what site triangle is?

So it has to be less than 42, which I made that mistake when I went to the village board is I didn't realize that at that time. And so obviously I think everybody was brainstorming something bigger, which would have been really exciting and fun. But unfortunately, we do have to keep that one to the 42 inches, but doesn't mean that we can't be consistent.

There's definitely not room. Is there room to back that sign up out of the view corridor when you're closer to the building or is it there's no room in between there?

Not in the easement area. We actually for both projects, ironically, never. well now we own the Sendix one but we didn't even own that land that the sign sat on and so as part of this we'll end up getting an easement for that sign and then we got an easement like a year ago for the Sendix sign.

You could wrap a sidewalk around the north side of that sign and push it back potentially because 42 inches is not very tall.

No it's not at all. It's not tall. Put some signage on it and then you have any kind of planting you know I mean your plants can't be more than

is set up. I think they managed that by putting just the seal on the top because it kind of protruded a little bit above the rest of them at 40-something. I don't know if that's the way we want to do it here, but that's kind of what ended up happening.

I certainly would recommend that whatever However, I'm not a designer, but you would want to put the wording, the fonts, as high as reasonably available.

That's kind of the point.

You want to have it centered, but on the other hand, you also want to have plants underneath it. Mm-hmm. I would also say that we should make sure that there's electricity to each one of these signs.

We did let Sendix know that already.

I like the concept of that inlay concept where it's the same inlay with perhaps, I don't mind having different materials on the sides. If it was red brick on the Sunday side and some kind of that stone right there on the bank building side, that doesn't bother me. Does is everybody else. Okay, with that inconsistency and with an inlay.

I'm less concerned about whether they're. I think there needs to be a contrast.

And that's great. I was trying to state it in a way that it doesn't bother me. The designer might say, no, no, no. And branding, I get the concept. So why don't you...

Yeah, I think, well, and we only have purview for Silver Spring. The other ones that are outside of our jurisdiction, you know, others may have opinions.

Well, you've got two-sevenths of the village board here.

That's true. I think there's a real opportunity, especially with a consultant involved, to build something, if even only for having a design of all of them and not implementing at this point, but being able to implement maybe the two that are in front of us right now and in our purview. Yeah. I think consistency in the materials is important in my opinion.

And consistency that doesn't match the two buildings.

Correct. So that they don't look like they're ancillary to the building and that they stand alone.

And I think it's important that the CDA be part of that process, even though with ARC and everybody else, we recognize the old adage that a camel is a horse that was designed by a Canadian.

Well, you talk branding, identity, and promotion of the millage economically. This is a part of that. That's what this interview is about.

Can I actually get some opinions on the two choices that were given? It's a little bit hard to see there, but what are your initial thoughts of that? Does anybody love it? And let's remember the comments that we just made, like, oh, it's going to be different materials and whatnot. I don't love it. You don't love it?

I don't like either one of them. Yeah, I think this, the Sendix one, it just, it gets lost and it makes it, you know, I mean, you look at this and say, oh, the village of Whitefish Bay was established in 1926. If you read the lettering on the building itself.

I totally agree. I was underwhelmed. And I know that this is going to stand there for 75 to 100 years, well past all of us, and we need to make it look quite amazing. Frankly, that's my personal take. But I think we got a lot of people nodding their heads saying the same thing. So I asked the leading question, I kind of knew it wouldn't knock anyone's socks off. So So does staff have what they need? Did you want to ask any questions of our local design expert? Or did you make him sit on the hot seat for no reason? You know, he has something to say, so we'll let you.

What I want to just mention to this board is that we actually took the footprint of the existing sign. There's an elegance to it with the wings and the curve. Now the curve admittedly plays with the arc openings that we have in our building. But there was something about, does some sign come out or does it, there's an embracing of the wing walls to the sign. Admittedly, I echo Dick's comment about 42 inches is a low height. And if you have any too much plantings, you could easily potentially cover that up.

Clarifying question for you, Kelsey. You said the Sendix one was in the site triangle. Is this one too?

We believe it's not. Okay. We maybe would have to survey, but we're pretty sure it's not.

But we kept it at the original height. So we were kind of working off of the original sign, but with the idea, okay, we're going to redo it. How would we redo it? One of the reasons why, and we have red brick in our building, but the concern would be using a different red brick is the continuity. We felt the stone was neutral enough also when you light it, Any lighting of letters of this will catch the light better than a darker material. There's a permanence to this. Having a cabinet within it is fine, but having it be actually anchored and grounded with some masonry material, in my opinion, is a It gives more permanence, if you will, than a metal sign. Oh, right. So I think there's some permanence there. Obviously, I'm not. It may sound like I'm campaigning, but we took this art to heart. Kelsey and I had a lengthy discussion on my comment to her was and may go a little bit against the grain here was. If you had the material, if it was important to someone to match. And after actually hearing the comments about having it look different, I kind of almost want to take back that comment saying, let the tenants or the building owners use their material, but have the same form, the same copy, the same type of lighting, whatever other your logo or whatever else you have as elements. The one common denominator would be that the material matches the building, but they are all have the same, whatever that brand is in terms of, is it internally lit, backlit? Is there a cabinet, internal cabinet within the sign? But allow, may potentially allow the building owner to have the material, especially if he's popping for the cuts. But that's up to you. I understand the benefit of actually having it be different and not be part of the building. And so it looks like that actually is a valid argument, sir.

Let me jump in and just say, back to the height. Does anyone think we need to maintain that 42 inches on both sites? So apparently this site, we could be... taller would that be would that would you object to having two different sizes no i gotta know so okay everybody says no so we we can you know if you add another i don't know 12 inches to that um whatever the design person thinks is accurate sizing for that that'd be great okay um i think you gotta you can't go crazy with it

I think that there has to be some proportionality.

Oh, totally agree. That's why Bruce suggested foot.

There needs to be a sense of, you know, this is just a larger version of our standard. Yeah.

Yep. Just slightly scaled higher.

Well, and I don't know. i think a little more study ought to be done on that syndex corner to make sure that we maximize the heights we can get on that and still inspect the site and truly that site triangle is that a is that a village ordinance or is that

But is there like a state guideline that we're sticking to or it's just...

It's an engineering standard for corners. You're nodding as well. It is.

Yeah.

There's a standard.

That's a 42-inch. Yeah.

I don't know if 42 is the thing, but I know there's an engineering standard. I can tell you for sure that there are a lot of hedges.

I think by a lot, do you mean thousands?

That's a very, very big thing. I do not want to mess with that. Not with our name on it either. Oh, so this is actually really helpful, clear feedback. So I'm very thankful for that. What I heard is that the sign should essentially be the same, consistent in materials and form, perhaps a little bit different in scaling, depending on the site, the font as high as possible, and Yeah, I think it wasn't.

It seemed to me there was a point, though, even if we said they're supposed to be more or less the same, that they should still provide a contrast with specifically the Sendix building. So it, you know, I think she's got that.

Okay. And then contrast from the plans of building returns.

I think that would be true of any bill, not just some one bill. We want to make sure that they realize it's not part of their project. It's a village.

Because we have the possibility of other signs that whatever sign that gets designed, the designer should contemplate a smaller version that could go on yeah on a metal not a metal sign but some other kind of monument that would probably fit in a two by two yeah pylon on lake drive or wherever else we need it yeah i was thinking i can give them a picture of the santa monica like that little isn't there one in the median there there's there's two yeah there's a brick one but there's also the signs that we have on henry clay on lake drive twice

yeah maybe five because uh san monica up north oh all um because this has been um a very challenging process to get everyone on the same page i'll wait until we agree everybody agrees on the two signs and then we'll yeah yeah all i wanted was just the designer should imagine scale for others oh sure yep absolutely and your intent is to use growth design There's somebody that we went through an RFP and already had on retainer working for the village. They did the Theansville entry sign is my memory. That combined one. So I knew that they had done entry sign work. Yeah, I would say so. I just knew that they had designed some. But if you have other names, certainly we could go with someone else.

I can tell you who did the ones we have. That was HNT.

What's the name?

Howard Needlestown.

HNT.

Todd Kinchey was a member of the Archive. Oh, okay. A member of that fund.

They looked like they were designed by an engineer, not an architect.

Okay. All right. Does staff have what they need?

Yeah. Yeah.

Anna is answering yes, staff has what they need. All right, in that case, we will move on to the next item. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our last item is discussion on strategic plan initiative to evaluate permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses and other standards in District 11, our civil service districts.

This one's in.

Yes. All right. So this is before you this evening, as it was discussed at the June 15th Village Board meeting. And the reason why it was discussed at the June 15th Village Board meeting is our evaluation of the uses in District 11 was a strategic plan initiative from our 2024 to 2027 strategic plan. And the Village Board, during their discussion of these uses, they wanted to send this to the CDA to get your opinion on the matter before it is then referred to Plan Commission. Plan Commission is actually going to have this same discussion next Tuesday evening. So with that, I'm going to dive in. And during the strategic planning process, there was various focus groups that were held. And through those focus groups, there was some takeaways. One was an interest in a boutique hotel, more restaurants, more first floor retail rather than professional office space. and businesses that attract people from outside the community. Additionally, the Village Board has also, over the last year or so, asked staff to study issues, and at the meeting, they further added to the list, including drive-throughs, freestanding ATMs, and building height in the district. So with that, from the village board, boutique hotels, the current code does not specifically identify boutique hotels.

So sorry, Anna, just to like tee this up a little bit. So what we kind of called out in the memo was either something that was discussed during that focus group, which was part of the strategic plan process. Yep. which is the origin story of the boutique hotel, because I'm sure some of you are scratching your head saying, where did this come from? Right. It's very random. Some of the items.

You got that done yet?

Some of the items came from the village board that they wanted us to look at. And then some were in staff's review of the entire section of the code, just kind of calling out some areas that we thought some further clarification or assistance could be. Hold it. Yeah, exactly. So that's where Anna is going to be kind of going through. But really anything within that section of the code is up for grabs. And if you have feedback on areas that we're not specifically calling out, we can discuss those as well. Yes.

Why don't we also have a little preface conversation about Act 67? I was going to go for it. Open me.

Yes, I was going to get there, but we can do it now. So Act 67, what changed in how conditional uses are viewed is that municipalities have a harder time denying conditional uses because when a conditional use is submitted, they have to meet certain standards. And now a municipality having to deny based on the standards is is very difficult. So essentially the thought that the village board was considering and staff is throwing about is what purpose do the conditional use is listed serve now when Act 67 hinders us at a municipality to deny? So with that, it's thinking about do we continue to have the conditional uses listed out like we do now? Do we make them permitted and have standards listed underneath that they have to adhere to? Or do we have them default to being prohibited? Those were kind of the three options that was discussed at the village board meeting.

So essentially conditional uses, you should view now as they're permitted with a few strings on hash being that they have to come to meetings, but the ability to deny a conditional use is quite difficult. And so just viewing it from that lens, which has changed since the code was originally written. Questions on that?

No, no. And this was a state-imposed initiative?

Correct.

Yes, back in... 15 years.

Oh. It was 2017. No, it was a lawsuit that one. And actually, I brought this up in the village board because there's a lot of municipalities around the state, since that happened, have just read their code and eliminated conditional uses because you basically have approved or not approved conditional uses. They wanted to keep it because there are, it's true, you can put some conditions on them, but you might as well look at all conditional uses as approved uses. It's almost impossible for a municipality to deny, yes.

You have to have substantial evidence, and the evidence has to be tied to something in your code, essentially, that you can point to and say this is the reason for the denial.

So is there any way to introduce discretion into this land use process?

through some of the conditions. Well, a conditional use still requires a public hearing, correct? So you have a fair amount of, you have involvement.

What good is a public hearing if you can't deny it?

Well, can you have, what if a public comment voices something that flies in the face of something in the code? So noise. Maybe staff had not picked up or it is possible.

Or somebody just says, hey, we got enough of this particular use of the village already. We don't need it. That's not enough. That's not enough.

No, you're not linked to the code.

The benefit to having some kind of hearing is that you can introduce... you know, certain conditions. Potentially, they'll say, yeah, that works for us. Whether it's, oh, we want to put in 20 patio tables. And we'll say, well, that's too many. It's not going to fit there. And that's going to be too noisy. How about 10? And they go, OK, 10 it is. So you have attached a condition that they've agreed to. And great, let's move on.

I actually think the project tonight is a great example of that. My understanding is that second commercial space came out of discussions and concern about the bank being the only commercial space, right? And the apartments? Was the original design that way?

So just for the sake of history, they originally came and said, this is going to be a bank. We're going to tear everything down. We're going to put up a single bank with a parking lot, just like a traditional item. And they simply wanted, how will the public react to that? And I responded knowing after consulting with our village attorney saying, is there any way to deny this? And he says, no, Act 67, dummy, this is how it works. And so the only avenue for me was to say that the public would not appreciate a new bank in very, very, very strong terms. I think I might've used the phrase, You should probably buy up all the pitchforks and torches before you do this because the neighbors will get those. In any event, they came back with what you saw tonight, which I believe is a tremendous improvement from a freestanding bank. It'll be a nice little project. Yeah. Yeah. So back on our original heads here. Yes. So read this through the lens of what do we want to prohibit? And what do we want to encourage? I think would be, I don't know if encouragement is really the right adjective for something that's permitted. And then what do we want to scrutinize with potential working with folks to attach conditions?

And or if there's anything that you think should be prohibited, because that happened at the village board meeting as well.

Yep.

And I will note or just call out that our code, it speaks to the type of use, but then also the location. um where the use is permitted some are just strictly first floor some are first floor second floor and above some are second floor and above so um that is how our uses are are broken out in the code you prohibit based on uh the floor like a bowling alley cannot be on the second floor so that would be a standard yep that'd be a standard is that defensible i mean is that yes yep okay Thank you. Yep. Or you do the inverse. If you want to prohibit that, then you permit it. And if it's not stated, then it wouldn't work. Do you get what I'm saying? If you wanted a bowling alley to not be allowed on the first floor, then you could have a standard that it's only permitted here. Instead of having it being listed as a prohibited use, you would have a standard that it can only be located here. And then additionally, I should call out that our conditional use is currently, if it is not listed, we have a wraparound clause. And it was discussed at the village board meeting whether to continue to have the wraparound clause.

I'm a little confused with the standards. Could you, for example, and this might be over all of our heads, could you say the standard is we want all banks on the third story, the third floor? Yes. Would that mean that all... first floor banks would be prohibited?

From coming forward, yes. They wouldn't be able, the existing ones would just become legal nonconforming.

Yeah. Okay. You can also, I mean, we've consulted both Chris now and Grave, and they both are of the mind that you can just prohibit financial institutions as well.

Yeah.

Interesting. Okay.

Which that was a discussion that happened at the College Board.

Yeah.

Well, let's keep moving.

Okay. To that. Didn't like the presentation.

Thank you. I'm going to start with boutique hotels. So as a result of the village board meeting, they wanted to limit hotels and specifically boutique hotels to 10 rooms. And I'm going to go through them and then we can circle back in. I'll ask the questions. So that's where the village board discussion left was having just boutique hotels listed and having a standard for 10 units or less with another standard being that only a lobby and an accessory use like a piano bar or a wine bar or some sort of restaurant could be permitted on the first floor and then only the rooms of the hotel would be permitted on the second floor and above. So that was boutique hotel. Then the next one is first floor retail. Our code does already favor active storefronts. The board discussed whether additional changes should be made, including permitting bookstores, limiting certain wireless stores to strictly putting a retail cap. So if it's a wireless store, it was discussed. So it was discussed that the, yeah, cell phones, but we have like, I break it, you fix it. So differentiating, you know, the retail component from the service component. And so using a standard, for example, that if it's a first floor use with the interior design, that if it's sales of 50% or more, it can be permitted on the first floor. But if it can't hit the threshold of 50% or more, then it would... 50% of what? I'm sorry. Sales. So using a percentage of the sales to dictate whether it's more retail dominant or if it's more office service dominant.

We're saying sales just because, I mean, I think that's how we define it, I think, with the drive-thru. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. But you could say square footage.

A spectrum store. that's selling telephones and table boxes, essentially renting them. Is that prohibited? Is that what we're talking about? Do we prohibit those kind of things?

Correct. The village board, they were stating that they wanted to have those not be allowed on the first floor. So T-Mobile... On the second floor.

Yes, yeah. But like Apple would be permitted. They sell phones and can help you set up cell phones, but they also repair cell phones. And so it has to have the repair component was the discussion.

How come Apple wouldn't be permitted on the first floor and Verizon wouldn't?

Because Apple, I don't know this for a fact, but I'm guessing over half of their sales would be repair.

I don't think that's true at all.

For retail, I would think.

The phone is $1,000, but repairing is under $200. So I think using that metric probably wouldn't.

Why are we focused on this as being a problem?

I don't know. It was brought up by somebody on the village board. I don't recall who. It wasn't you, right?

We were just talking about what our opinion was of it being there. And I brought up the example of what if it was Apple. And everybody's like, oh. There was a want to limit cell phone stores and spectrum and wireless stores. And then I said, what about you break that fix? It's already there.

You better have a nail salon for them.

One of the reasons I want to bring it to the CDA. I was curious what your opinions were.

I think probably the only lens you can look at these suggestions are under the, oh, I totally agree with that. I'd hate to have a store like this in our district versus I would prefer it not to be there versus I really like that store. I would like one of those. So, I mean, I think that's the three levels that you should evaluate this under.

Well, it's interesting. You know, CDA has been confronted with this in a little different way in the past, in that we've been asked to consider funding for different kinds of uses and product. And I think in that environment, you have a lot more discretion, or you should have the ability to exercise a lot more discretion on whether or not, for example, using my example, do we fund a nail salon or do we fund a know an internet facility what do we want to really encourage at this point in time if you've got you know an abundance of one type of use populating the street you probably don't need any more of them so you wouldn't want to fund more would you right uh when it comes to the actual zoning consideration and you're not involving the villages uh deployment to the capital in the decision then you're letting the market make a determination unless there's really something that you think would be detrimental to the health of the district or to the community at large. And that's the question. Are there uses that we think would be detrimental and are less attractive to encouraging the environment for all the people on the street?

It's good language to use in a memo later, just by the way.

You know, for what it's worth, you haven't finished your presentation, so maybe you can wait until the comment until you get ahead.

It's all right. Sarah, were you going to say something? Just for clarity, I'm trying to get my arms around how we got here. So the strategic plan focus groups, arrived at those four takeaways, the boutique hotel, additional restaurants, the additional first floor retail, and then attraction. Correct. Okay. That combined with just general feedback that the village has received with regard to drive-throughs and building height, all of those combined have led us to this objective here. And that is to take a look at ways to implement the strategic plan. Correct.

The last, the drive-thrus and building heights specifically came from board members. Those were not from the public. Those were from village board.

Not as a body, but as individuals. Okay.

Could you also specify, what's this focus group? I don't, I'm having trouble remembering.

So there is the... Part of the strategic plan was having all the stakeholder focus groups.

And during each focus group- A very long meeting we had. Is that what we're talking about? Or was it another- No.

Corey met with churches and the school district. She met with Silver Spring Drive stakeholders, various stakeholders throughout the community. I think there was five different stakeholder groups.

That came off Corey's report, this focus group?

Yes. Okay.

Interesting.

And also themes from the community survey.

Okay. The village board did adopt a strategic plan, which include an item that was to review the conditional uses. Okay. Part of it feels buzzy because like I wasn't here for all of it. And what I've been told is this item was kind of a later edition item. to the plan, but basically saying, look at this.

It feels like a big soup of items that we are looking at.

I get a little, my hackles get up when I see focus group as if, you know, there was this three hour meeting with people brains, you know, this is a brainstorm list. And so feel free to add and subtract and give your input on it. This is not super official and super well thought out is my personal opinion.

look at that these are a bunch of takeaways and you're just throwing them on the wall to see what sticks and that's what's that's what we're here had to start with that's why we want input before we develop any ordinance languages we honestly have no clue collectively where everybody wants to go no this is great i appreciate that carry on sorry

And then lastly, with the prohibiting of motor vehicle sales and services, that's what came out of the village board in terms of retail on first floor. And then for banks, the banks, they fall under financial institution, which is listed as a conditional use allowed on any floor. The village board discussed the possibility of prohibiting the financial institutions on the first floor. And by doing so, that would create any ones that are existing. They would just become legal nonconforming, which would put a cap on what they can do. They can do maintenance, but only up to 50% for the extended life of the property. Just something to keep in mind. Drive-thrus and freestanding ATMs under the current code drive-thru establishments are prohibited only when more than 50% of sales occur through the drive-thru. As a result, establishments with drive-thru operations accounting for 50% or less of sales may be permitted through the conditional use process. outdoor freestanding ATMs are currently a prohibited use in District 11. The Village Board discussed prohibiting drive-thrus and freestanding ATMs outright. This would mean, once again, that the existing drive-thrus and freestanding ATMs would become legal non-conforming. By doing so, this would also be a indirect restriction on banks. That's another way to look at it when tackling banks. And then the village board also discussed limiting the existing drive-throughs in freestanding ATMs or allowing only enclosed drive-throughs in freestanding ATMs. In the memo, it shows the ones that we have throughout the district currently associated and then the proposed one that shows like an enclosed drive-through Versus there's other ones like Town Bank, which is a freestanding drive-thru that has an open ATM, just to give you a reference point for those. And then lastly, we talked about building height. And now for this one. What we have right now is in District 11, you can have four stories or 54 feet are permitted. We have a required setback if the property abuts a different zoning district. So that would essentially mean the south side of Silver Spring Drive, it all abuts a different zoning district. So then what that would mean and what the village board considers is is that we have a setback from the south side, but the village board was considering also having a setback from the north side, from the Silver Spring adjacent side of the building, to avoid having a tunnel effect either on the third story and going higher or the fourth story and going higher, depending. So that's what was discussed.

It doesn't our current call for a setback on the 4th floor.

From from an adjacent zoning district. Which would be on the rear side, but what the village board was discussing was also implementing 1. That would be from the silver spring side. So the front side of the building being set back as well. Similar to what Shorewood has.

The reason we didn't have that setback on the fourth floor issue with Beaumont Place is that it is located outside the Silver Spring District.

Yep, it's a PDD. So one piece that Grafe brought up was the towering concern, that if you have step backs from both sides, and they provided some images that... That could be concerning. I'm sure there's ways, and maybe Sarah, you could comment on this, that you could lay it out maybe from the corners and meet it. But there is definitely a concern that it could be. With the towering? Yes. Okay. Valid concern.

Currently, you've got the four-story building at the corner, Johnson Bank. That's a four-story, right?

Yep.

With no sub-bank. Yeah. Right.

Does it have a step back on the rear? On the rear. Yeah. So this would also require the Silver Spring side would have to step back as well.

Where do we think this is going to apply? I'm sitting here looking at Google Maps of Silver Spring and trying to think, where is there a place where somebody is going to come in, tear down existing buildings and build four or five story buildings?

What if they did the Associated Bank?

I mean, the Berkeley building.