Community Development Authority - Regular Meeting

All right. It is August 18th. Our chairperson, Ray Krieger, is not here, so I will be chairing this meeting of the Community Development Authority. I'm calling it to order, and we don't really need to call the roll. So the first item of business is to approve the minutes from the meeting July 14th. Anybody have any comments about the approval? Thank you, Dick. Do I hear a second? I'll give it to Mike.

He was quicker than I was.

Yep. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next, we will move on to discussion recommendation on the Silver Spring entrance signs to be paid for by private development projects. I wonder who they are. Kelsey sent a memo. So wait, we have something in our packets, but we also have a new email, correct?

Yep, that's correct. So this is really just a continuation from a conversation that started at the most recent CDA meeting. The village will be replacing the two monument signs on Silver Spring, one in front of the Sendix development and the other at Lydell and Silver Spring where the new bank, as well as the apartment complex will be going in. Both of those signs will be paid for by the private developments. However, the village needs to approve what those signs will look like. Both of the private developments had proposed their own designs, and then there was clearly a desire to have them look more cohesive. And so with that in mind, we engaged Groth, who is the company who is doing the design for the floating warming house, and asked them to develop some independent options, which I sent over today and Anna has up on the screen. This topic has now been discussed at Village Board, CDA, ARTH, and BID. The only group that has seen these updated designs from Groth was BID because they had their meeting this past Friday. So I took the feedback that they provided from that entire design concepts which there were four of them and gave that feedback to graph who designed in up are provided an updated design, which was that second PDF I sent out this morning, and those are the designs on the screen on the Anna shared. Some feedback that i've heard that's been pretty consistent arc and been both talked about the idea of an inlay or something consistent within the signs. Both groups wanted consistent form. So basically the signs physically looking similar, at least BID preferred that the materials match the development behind them. Their reason being is that they're in such close proximity, especially that Lidell silver spring. I forgot how many feet Joel, but it's very, very close. Yeah, to the development behind, and so just felt like aesthetically that would look better, and they felt like there would be enough cohesion as long as the signs in form were the same. Arc was a little bit more split. They seemed open to both the materials matching, the two signs having the same materials and not matching the developments behind them. or having the materials match the development behind them. So I guess all that to say is I'm looking for some direction from CDA. This will be presented again to Village Board likely on August 31st. And then ultimately, it will also go to ARC as well. So it has a few other bodies to go through, but just looking overall for your feedback.

okay yeah chairman i wanted to share something i i did get uh email wise uh about 1 30 this afternoon from ted balistrieri there was a meeting is he working is he working the crowd well he might be but i'm i'm gonna serve as a relay uh water boy here in this and just read it to you um And this came in at 1.24, and I did forward it when I saw it about 2.30 to Kelsey, just as a matter of information. But he sends an email, Mike, I understand the CDA will meet today and discuss the proposed sign at the corner of Silver Spring and Lake Drive. Unfortunately, I'm unable to attend the meeting. However, it is important to us that the brick match our building. Could this be relayed to the members? And I agreed to relay it. So...

I've heard that message a few times from Ted.

Okay, I figured you probably should.

But now, having done that, I've got a couple other things I'd just like to offer just as a couple of observations. One is... And I think I made this point at the earlier meeting. I don't feel, just in my sense of it, that we need to be consistent with the buildings that are next to it. We could be, but we don't have to be. What I do think is important is that we be consistent in relationship to establishing that format as a recognized village brand you know something that people will say okay that's a village thing that's a village that's the village sign and it's consistent and wherever you put it up throughout the village so i think that it would be well whatever you and the board and the others decide on that would make sense In relationship to the adjustment here, I do like what was done here in the sense of one of the refinements that the bid, or whoever asked for the change, if you do end up using The red brick or any darker color like that. The earlier version of that in the first iteration had a sort of gray background with a somewhat gray lettering where in the village of Whitefish Bay lettering blended in with the sign, you really couldn't see it. This iteration, I think, as I write, has the good contrast of the dark lettering with the light background and is bold. I like the announcement of the village's founding underneath, establishing it as more of a recognized village monument. And so I thought that was helpful. Out of curiosity, what do you think of...

that particular shot where Sendix has established 1926 on their facade. And then here we have established 1892. Like, does that, is that at all? When I saw that, I'm like, oh man, we're going to have both of these establishment words within 10 feet of each other.

Well, if nothing else, it causes the reader to think about the fact that maybe there are two different things, which is what you want. Okay. Fair enough. Now, the other thing that I thought would be worth throwing out to the consideration of the group, you know, while I don't have objection per se to the, if you could flip to that second sign, the one with the landing stone on it. Yeah, that one. To me, that blends in too much. But more importantly, what concerns me there is what is occurring on the other corner, kitty corner from it. I went over there just before this meeting, took a photo of that corner and that sign across the street. And it's almost, it's very, very, very similar to what you've got here. I'm going to forward this to you and maybe you can put it up on the screen. Kelsey, let me just.

I think, and I can probably pull up Google Maps.

Okay. But I can pass this around too. I mean, I show it.

I saw it.

You can just hand it down the line and look at it. I mean, that's pretty doggone close to what we're talking about here. And I would prefer to have something that's not that similar to what Glendale's doing.

That's all I got. Do you have an international plan here?

Yeah. I do. If you need to use my phone for something, you're welcome to.

And that's such a memorable sign that until he passed his picture around, none of us could picture it. Right. Yeah, there you go. Mr. Chairman, if I can kind of follow up behind Mike's comments. I pretty much agree with one exception, but I think this second iteration of the red brick with the large field of precast where the lettering goes, I think that My instinct was to say, I don't think that the bricks should match the brick in the Sendix. But I'm, I guess, persuaded, frankly, by Ted's email. And looking at this, I do think that that kind of white precast background um will and and when this is actually seen in 3d um should should help i'm not a fan of the footnote there established in whatever 1992 I kind of liked the way the first iteration where it said village of in small letters and then Whitefish Bay and that was it. That takes care of any confusion over who established what when. So I... with that exception, I'd agree. And I do think that it's important. Whatever we do here should be what we also do at the corner with Lidell. And if we decide we want to put it up on Lake Drive and School Road or down on Hampton or something, you know, that this becomes the you know, the, the, the, the gateway to, to Whitefish Bay.

So I think, are you also saying that if, if we had something like that and you would also want the exact same, uh, at the Lydell and Silver Spring with the brick and wherever else we decided to, or, or, you know, maybe a miniature version of that, but, but, you know, something consistent with it. Just because I'll ask the same question of everybody, but, um, if we weren't doing these developments and you had your choice between the Lamingstone one and the brick, and imagine not just Silver Spring, but also Hampton and Lake and all those other places, Which of the two would you pick for, regardless of, you know, matching some of these new developments?

As kind of representative of the... What's your favorite? I'd say the brick. Brick. I personally really like, and I very much like the incorporation of the stone into that apartment building. But I think for the, you know, the gateway to Whitefish Bay... articulation, the brick and the brighter, as you pointed out, precast.

I think it's pretty much unanimous. And tell me if anybody else would say. I think that what we've been calling the inlay, the rectangle in the middle, it's unanimous that everybody wants that to be the same. Wherever we go, that is going to be consistent for sure. And the wording, I I think we can debate that.

But Colin? So my two cents, one, I actually strongly prefer the limestone over the brick, just aesthetically. But two, I think you either have to, I think you either want to make the material the same as the building behind it, or you want them to be dramatically different. Like having a different color brick, I think it will look really different Yeah. And so either they have to... I think they either have to be both very different and the same. And I think that makes sense. But I think doing the red brick in front of the limestone and the limestone in front of the red brick may look a little weird. So I would actually do...

how they have it here, right? Right, so two, you would not be consistent.

Yeah, but you'd have the same consistency. Or you go to another design, right, that uses... For the record, cast metal or something.

Duplicate your... That's exactly what I think.

I don't worry as much about the similar sign on Lydell because... On the other, the kitty corner, because... You see that when you exit as opposed to when you enter. It's not like you have that on the same point of view, right? You're going east on Silver Spring. You're seeing one on one side and one on the other. It's you see one going east and one coming west, and I don't think people... Swivel their heads.

Yeah, I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal. Going north and south on Lydell, you're hopelessly lost.

Yeah. I do agree with you, by the way, about the Sundex. If one says established and the other says established, that'll be... I don't know if it's confusing, but it's confusing. Confusing may be the right word, right? So I'm questioning, do you actually, like, could they change their... Or is that their plan?

First thing is, do we know that that's accurate?

Yeah. I'm not sure it is. Well, you've got to see. It says village established. Village established. Yeah. I know, but... Anna, can you zoom in on one of the first...

But to me, it's a weird parallelism.

So that feedback came from ARC, I believe, where they were concerned that people would read the established date and think that was the village. And so that's why I believe it was that group that commented that it should be on the sign.

Oh, I see what you mean.

Yeah. You can zoom in on it. What would you like to zoom in on? One of the first ones.

Oh, okay, the original design.

The original design, four. Yeah, yeah. If you can zoom in on that, you can see where it says, see there it says Village of Whitefish Bay.

Can I, let me explain that a little bit. Could you go down to one of the Lydell designs?

That's the only thing, the original.

Like one of the last pages, page five. So this is the back and forth I've had. Okay, page four. any of the LIDL ones. So the back and forth I've had with them is that the plantings, so we have a restriction because it's in the site triangle on height. Like it just the plantings grow into Whitefish Bay. And if you actually look at it right now, some of that text is covered up. So some of the village board members, I think it's specifically Jacob, was asking to have those letters as high as possible to make it more visible. So this was like our attempt to try to make Whitefish Bay higher. I'm not sure it's the right decision, but it was an attempt at that.

Yeah. Two comments. I actually kind of prefer these big, just whitefish bay. That's what you see. I get the planting issue, and so take that, whatever. I'm fine with the other. I think the one suggestion on the established, could you just put 1892 as opposed to village established 1892?

And then do village of on top? Is that what you're saying? Or just not do village?

Get rid of the word established.

Basically, just get rid of the word established. What a dash. Whitefish bay,

Or EST maybe or something.

Yeah.

Sure.

Is the word village important? It might be.

As opposed to a city.

I get that. Town, city, village. I get that. This gets into the branding of the village itself, which is above my pay grade. But do we want to be the village of Whitefish Bay, or do we want to be Whitefish Bay? How do people think about us, and how do we?

That's a great question. I don't think we have this official document that explains our branding techniques. It's interesting if you ever go outside of Wisconsin, and I'll be like, oh, I live in the village. And they're like, what? What a quaint little town you have there. Hamlets of what I should say. So, you know, in Wisconsin branding, typically you do have this.

Well, there's more to it than that because they're statutory. Correct.

We are a village. That is correct.

Definitions of what these are. Yeah.

We are a village. We're not changing. Well, but I'm just making a point. But are we, do we want to position ourselves as the village of Whitefish Bay? Or do we want to position ourselves as Whitefish Bay? Oh, let me check the agenda. Oh, that's not on here.

So we're going on to Brian now.

Sorry. My comments are, I like that they added a second column. I think that to anchor both sides, I think it looks a lot nicer. I like what they did. I frankly, I like the decorative ball, honestly, that they eliminated. I understand it may get broken off at somewhere along the line, but

I like the decorative something, whether it's a ball or a, are you okay with other shapes or something?

Whatever. Yeah, something on top. It looked nice on there, I thought. Nice way to do it. And then my last comment, well, two more comments, actually. The fish on the side, we should do that in white and blue, like kind of our whitefish bay colors, in my opinion. I'm not sure why we chose... gold and whatever other color we chose, but an idea. And then also like for plantings, it looks like there is no plantings at all in front of the sign in front of Sunday. So I think I'm fine with that. I would eliminate or limit the, any plantings in front of the one to the West to either be ground cover or no plantings at all to eliminate that from growing into the whitefish Bay sign. However, that is done. It'd be my two cents. If you put any grasses there, it's going to overcome that sign with how short that is.

Well, along those lines about the plantings, I thought at one point we were under the assumption that the Sendak sign had to be 42 inches, but that one did not. Do we know? Have we definitively?

Part of the Sendak sign is in the same triangle with the sign at the other end.

Let's raise it up then. Raise it up six inches a foot and then we don't have any planting problems. I don't think anybody's going to say, wait a minute, this one's a foot taller.

Make it just taller than Gwendolyn's.

Yes. One inch taller. Be aware of the window site, the line of sight there. I don't know if you care about that or not, but it's a consideration if you're looking out from the building.

My guess is that that's the lobby of the bank. And so I'm not. This is Sendix. Oh, I apologize.

This one has to stay the same height. So if you go to the light.

Okay.

This one can be.

Okay.

Yeah. And they've got at least the way this one is drawn. The, the. We cast apps at either end is what's 42 inches. The, the, the bulk of the sign is probably more like 38 or 39 inches. see that dotted line there.

That's the 42 inch. I had a comment on the fact that I think it's Landon Stone. It's 42 and the gap between the column cap and the field looks like maybe an inch or something versus the Sendix one where it's like four inches. So if you go now, if you flip back, let's see if I...

It looks like

So like right, this little piece, this little piece right there, I think is like one inch versus Sendix, which is, I don't know, four or five.

Which is, my guess is that they wanted to keep the cap at 42 and they wanted to raise the limestone one up as much as they could above the planting. That's my hypothesis.

I think it's because I had a few last minute changes. It probably was just an oversight. Yeah, exactly.

But the point was, the 42 inch height is achieved at those two outbound columns with the precast cap. Whether there's a one-inch or a four-inch drop down to the precast band across the top, it's slightly lower.

If we put a ball on it, are we violating the sight triangle? Yeah.

You are, but I believe there's a provision in that code section that gives the police chief the ability to allow people to be in this. So you can pump the battery if you want to.

Depends on how big the ball is, maybe.

What I was going to say was everything should be 42. Make everything 42 and put some kind of shape. I don't know if it's a sphere. I don't know if it's a squashed... or some kind of decorative doodad that goes on top of it. Generally, I'm not a designer, but I like things that are not plain. Yeah, but you don't want to get too cute either. I get it. And this is something pretty particularly subtle.

I'm going to outline what I would cast as a motion if I could ever get somebody to second it. But let me just share with you what that would be. And then maybe if somebody thinks it's good enough, they can either alter it or second it. But for me, what I would move would be the... Endorsement of this sign with the modifications being that you change that to add the words village of above Whitefish Bay, eliminate the village established and just put 1892 below it. So it would read, Village of Whitefish Bay, 1892. And then you modify, you take and put the blue fish on there, the way that Brian had identified it, and a ball of appropriate size could be approved by the chief on the ends. And that would be what I would...

Comment on that as a prospective seconder?

Yeah, the thing is, is like there's what you just mentioned was probably 80% of what everybody else has mentioned, but 20% that is not. And so it's kind of difficult to have that kind of motion that's any kind of unanimity. That's why I threw it out there.

To be honest, I would want to see the markup of it just to say yes or no, right? Right.

So it's a little tough. And this is really just a, we're making a recommendation, which you can make a motion for.

Yeah. That's the one exception I would take to Mike's motion. is the incorporation of the 1892. Because I think what's going to happen, you know, given the height limitations that we have, at least on the Sendik's end of town, is you have a village of, then you have large letters Whitefish Bay, and then you have small letters 1892. You're going to run out of space, and what's going to happen is you're going to squeeze the size of the letters that say Whitefish Bay. And if you just have village of, in little tiny, Whitefish Bay, done.

One suggestion would be if you have the right column, you could put established EST 1892 on the right column to balance the fish seal.

Or even just 1892.

Or even just 1892. I'm fond of that. I like simplicity, by the way.

That would be my favorite is make a new inlay on the right column that just says 1892. Yeah.

Because I actually like the big letters.

Now we have symmetry, I should say, since 1892 or so. Yes. 1892. So I have one other curve ball, and it's actually a curve.

The current two signs are indeed curved. They have a arc to them, which I guess I appreciate that in that it looks well thought out versus a flat, straight sign. is is there anyone joining in me with me saying you know nice if it was like angled or the the the columns were offset in a angular way anybody along those same lines i could support that yeah at least the one ascendix though it i believe you know it's it's depicted here as straight not curved

But it's at an angle that mirrors the angle at the end of the... True. The new building. True.

So imagine... And I mean, I think when you start doing that... So what I'm trying to do is take the columns and make them, just bend them so that it's opposite. So that instead of being square, they're... Yeah, they're just off by an angle.

Oh, OK. So it's still going to be straight across?

I mean, any of the above. I'm not a designer. It's more, I like things that are a little bit more complicated than this flat sheet, like Glendale's, I guess, is. And so all you do is just kind of, you can either have a concave or a convex curve. In this case, I'm not sure which convex or concave, but just to rotate the columns.

The inlay curve?

Fairly simple. Inline curve. No, the inline would not curve. The inline stays straight, and the columns just go off by.

Oh, you would put the columns at 45 degrees. Yeah. So instead of the column being flat, you'd have the column edge come out. We could have some Legos.

Does anybody have any Legos? If you're looking at it from the top, it looks kind of diamond-shaped instead of square. And not necessarily that you can turn it 45 degrees. You might turn it only 10.

Then you're going to see it on the fish at an oblique angle. A little bit, yeah.

Again, I would prefer it to be subtle. Not a massive 45 degree, but maybe it's 20 or something. I'm all for the KISS principle here. And that's one of the problems that we've got so many cooks in the kitchen here.

I think I could be convinced of that if you did it like a rounded sign. And I'm good with that too. But I think if it's a flat sign, I think it's going to look a little lumpy.

What the bid discussed with the rounded sign is there's chairs behind. Now, obviously it's Wisconsin, so that's not going to be all year round, but there's proposed to be chairs in like a really small seating area. And so the concern is that it's going to be smaller. It's already going to be small. But perhaps if that sign's narrow, it's probably just going to be a walkway. I don't know if that matters.

Interesting place to sit.

Yeah. I think they have, like, four chairs and all the renderings behind the sign.

How do you get out there to sit?

Sidewalk.

Sidewalk. Oh, okay. So it's just for passersby.

Yeah. It's like a bench, basically, but it's chairs instead. Yeah.

Good place for a TV interview. There you go. Do you want an official motion from the CDA?

You tell me, because this is going to village board.

The problem is it's also going to go to the ARC. The bid, did they make a motion? They did.

What they unanimously supported was this. There's some alterations. Anna Casper is the one that sent me the fish and the font. Those changes were based on her feedback. So there's a few other changes incorporated, but for the most part, this is what they recommended.

You know, you're going to end up with a whole bunch of ideas.

Oh, I have a lot of ideas. This is strangely one of the more complicated things I've done since I've gotten here.

You always said that a camel is a horse that was designed by the committee. And so we've got to be careful not to.

But they do function pretty well in the desert.

So what the heck? Yeah, but we don't need a three-home animals.

I don't know. I mean, I'm happy to support. this motion. I know that there'll be many iterations.

I'm going to throw it out there as a motion just to get it over with. And then somebody can either second it or not, and we can vote it up or down. I mean, and then at the end of the day, other committees are going to have their say. So it's going to change. It's probably not going to be what we recommend anyway. Right. But you know, I, for what it's worth, I think that This plan with the fish I altered, as we indicated, and then with Dick's changes that we talked about, and the inclusion of a ball to the extent that the chief could stomach it.

And I think you said both would be the same. Yes. Silver Spring, I'm sorry, Lidell and Lake are the same.

Okay, both will be the same in terms of the material?

Yeah, they would be identical. They would be identical. Except for the height. Can you add that? Except for the height.

The material would be a dark brick and precast.

Okay, so they both, would it be that brick or you're proposing a different brick?

No, it would be this type of brick. Matching Sundex or not matching Sundex?

Well, it doesn't have to be exactly matching, but a red type brick.

I think it ought to either match or be a substantial contrast. You got that? Yeah, so I'd say match sentence.

Okay, so both signs match?

Both signs would be the same.

And you know, the other justification in my mind for that is that, and you know, you can argue that we're not bound by history. But the fact that we have that and have had that type of a brick site in the past is something that people will recognize as being a trademark of the village going forward. So I don't see any problem with being consistent with that element of the past.

And we still do. We still have the red brick Whitefish Bay sign on Hampton coming into Whitefish Bay. That is red brick. Yes.

It has been suggested that we would go through a process of replacing everything. Once we have a format that we all like, we would then proceed with Hampton and Lake.

Can I repeat this back to make sure I have it?

Well, first, before I do, what do you guys think of that? Are you going to vote for that motion on second or not?

Mike's motion?

Yeah, Mike's.

Yes, I mean, I'm on board with what he said, yes. I will probably not vote for it. I'm not going to vote for it either.

Yeah, I think I don't think the brick fits in front of the Liddell building. And I'm generally OK with the materials being different. But you got three. So there you go. Well, you get another kick at the can. So why don't you tell us what the motion is?

OK, so let's make sure I got this right. So both signs are going to match and they'll be the Sendix red brick. The we're going to add a ball to the top.

That's not, that's not called the syndex red brick red red red system with the villages historic use of brick. I go with that.

Yeah. Okay, so both sides match.

I'm adding the decorative ball on top.

Did you say to change the logo to blue or white?

Well, for the fish, to be consistent with what Brian is... Can you change that from decorative ball to just decorative shape?

Does it need to be a ball? Like, I think that there was something that was... Not in my mind.

I think decorative shape is fine. Sure. Well, depending on... I suppose there's a lot of objectionable... But you guys will come up with something good. Doodad. Yeah. Doodad.

This is going to be a legendary discussion. So decorative doodad.

Blue or white logo, Bish logo. And then was there something with the 1892?

Yeah, get rid of it. Well, the alternative was to put it on the other column. That's the EST.

What does your motion include?

I'll go with that. On the column? Yeah, put it on the column on the other side.

Put it on column with EST 1892. Established.

Estimated.

Yeah. Okay. Was there anything else I missed?

Probably, but we don't know what it is.

Okay. Hannah, you're good? Yeah.

All right. That's everything I had.

Okay. So we have a motion.

And a second. Yes. Any further discussion? All those in favor of Mike's... monument say aye aye that's three and those who say nay nay passes three to two congratulations okay and if it ever shows up that way i'll be amazed yeah yeah that's right 37 minutes yeah okay well and well spent well spent absolutely well spent uh all right we will then move on yeah We'll then move on to discussion recommendation on strategic plan initiative to evaluate permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses and other standards in District 11, which is the Silver Spring District. So Anna is ready to say this for the ninth time.

Yes, we're going to keep it short and sweet. We talked about this at the last CDA meeting, and the CDA was able to reach consensus consensus on several potential changes to the District 11 regulations. One of the things that they said, though, was that they wanted to continue discussion regarding the existing conditional uses, specifically in light of Act 67. If we need to rehash that, we can. Otherwise, we don't need to. But ultimately, with Act 67, just that conditional uses don't have the legal backing that they once had so with our conditional uses even though they're listed it makes it hard to deny them now so looking at the conditional uses and if you want to keep them as conditional uses or move any to prohibited and then also what to do with the wraparound having it B, remain as if it's not listed in our conditional uses, have it remain a conditional use or have it be a prohibited use. And then if there were any specific uses that you felt individually you wanted to call out, either moving it up to permitted or bumping it down to prohibited that is listed.

So can I ask a question? Just because I wasn't at the last meeting. In the Act 67, the context of the Act 67, that is conditional uses somehow problematic. But if we say things are prohibited, that's not problematic?

Conditional uses are incredibly hard to deny. That's the way you say it.

But prohibited items are not hard to deny. They are prohibited. That's not a big deal. Okay, got it.

That legislation was part of a package of attempting statewide to simplify, expedite, streamline the development process, make it easier for greedy developers like me to get stuff done.

Exactly. But now we're in power to the people mode, 2026. Yeah. So firstly, do any of the board members here have comments to add besides the ones that the bullet points on the topic? Like you have something prepared, you want to talk about particular items. If not, we probably we're not going to go back to what we were talking about before, which was the bigger questions. One of the bigger questions was about banks and, for example, prohibiting banks with a retail bank on the first floor. Is that how we were going to phrase it?

Yep, we were going to put in a standard for requiring financial institutions to be located on the 2nd.

Which would effectively make all the current banks non-conforming. Where did that idea materialize from?

Brainstorming the concepts of do we want to continue to have more banks in our village? Is that the right answer? I don't know, and that's why we're discussing it here.

Okay. Do we know if anybody else, any other villages have something similar to that? Are there examples where that's been put in place?

That would be part of staff's analysis. Okay. Okay. Okay.

I mean, I'm not enamored with any more banks, of course, in the village, but at the same time, I don't think it's appropriate to make all of them legal non-confirming that are here.

Especially given the Bank of America. We just approved one at our last meeting, by the way, with a drive-thru.

The condition we also discussed was that it could be there had to be a component to it on the second floor that we felt was useful.

Which again, there wasn't on the Bank of America project that we just approved. Well, there's apartments up there. Yeah, I know. So one of the bankers could rent the apartment, but I mean, are we kind of closing the barn door after the horse is out?

This is, you know, a forward-looking document, right? Yeah, yeah. So, one another one.

Right now, the way it's set up is that it would continue to be permitted as a conditional use, even though conditional uses we don't have a great deal of control over. Is that way I understand it? Now, let me just ask this question. you do have control over conditional uses provided that you control them utilizing certain standards of performance vis-a-vis parking, vis-a-vis traffic impacts, some of the kinds of things, the hours of use. Aren't we gonna require a parking analysis, parking studies of any of these conditional uses if they come in going forward? shouldn't we be requiring that?

I guess what I'd say that the plan commission Usually, if there was a project that was unusual enough that would generate an unusual amount of parking issues, we could require a study. For example, the Argo, where we said, holy moly, this could really swamp us with parking issues. We are going to demand parking issues.

What I'm suggesting, Kevin, is that maybe this is a way of reestablishing some control. We may not have insisted on parking studies in the past, except for when we thought maybe there'd be a greater impact. But if you require all of them to have one, then maybe you've got some control. Except if you could waive the parking study. Let me ask this. Could we set it up so that you would require a parking study on every deal unless waived by the police chief or somebody that said, based on our experience, we don't think that in this case, it's going to be that. I think we could do that. Or the village manager.

I mean, I think we could do that today under our current rules. We are waiving. You think so? Yeah. Wouldn't you agree? Like we... Are you requiring everybody to do it? No, but we could.

I'm just throwing this out there. Based on some conversations I've had with people that are in this business about this, knowing we're going to talk about this, I think maybe you can exercise some muscle that you didn't know you had by invoking those kinds of requirements.

The end goal here is a bank has decided to buy X property and demolish that property and put up their bank. And so if there is a way outside of conditional use, prohibited use, that we can basically say, we do not want a 10th bank here. If there is some other avenue to do that, I'm all ears. I don't think parking is it. And not to mention the fact that they could say, we're going to put up a single, we're going to take 100 by 100 plot of land and put up a bank and we're going to have plenty of parking. So our parking study issue just went out the window. If there is a way that we can prohibit a 10th one, I don't think there is.

But what I'm suggesting is there are ways you could make it much more of a challenge for somebody that might discourage the casual bank. Well, the bank that is going to try to do it without having to address some of the thornier questions associated with parking. We do have a parking problem here. You can claim that we don't, but we do have parking problems with a number of situations. I mean, it's tight out there and it's getting worse.

Oh, I was just about to say I disagree in that the Sendix property and the adding of Beaumont parking and the fact that now Sendix will have 44 more spots because of the Masonic Temple property, we actually, for a moment, are actually trending in a different direction, in a more positive direction. Well, that's good. I think Colin wanted to...

I have two concerns with this. One is the... If the goal is to keep out banks... say, putting a blanket restriction on around parking or whatever, but always giving a waiver to non-banks and always requiring it for banks kind of opened you up to potential lawsuits. Right now, whether any bank, specific bank is gonna wanna bother with that, I have no idea, but I think you could potentially run into that issue. The other thing is that if you require everything to have a parking study, that may make some developments too expensive for a small retailer or something to go to.

Dog groomer.

Yeah, as an example. The other thing is the way you keep out, as far as I understand it, the way you keep out retail banks is you get a better use of the land and retail space than a bank. A bank is not, you know, it's a... It's sort of the minimum viable floor. That's why you end up seeing them in a lot of places. That's the only thing. You don't have better options. The way you keep them out is you end up with better options. That's a bigger question.

The question, Colin, is how do you encourage those better options?

I don't have the right answer for that. That's what we're trying to get to. That's maybe a joint conversation with BID and the village board and us of what can we do to do that.

Well, I was just, I threw out that idea. I'm looking for tools, guys. I'm looking for tools. I'm trying to be helpful.

And I appreciate like more brains looking into ways that we can basically stop a 10th bank.

Yeah.

I mean, or anything else.

Really the agenda here. I mean, are we in broader policy?

Yeah. That's what I say. Or anything else.

I don't think this is the, like, I think the way you do it is you build more housing and you build more apartments and you build more, you get more bodies on the street and on Silver Spring. But that's a different conversation because nobody wants to walk up the sun. But, like, I want five or six when I build an apartment. Yeah. So, okay.

Brian, do you have any comments on this? I think at a minimum, I think one thing we should talk was is a requirement to activate the floors above the bank in the event that they were to come. Yes. We kind of did that anyways with the Bank of America project. And part of the reason why we got our arms around it was the activation of apartments upstairs. They built a kind of a full second floor on town bank when they did that. But you don't have to add a requirement of office or residential or retail. Yeah. On the on the 2nd and or 3rd floor above that would be a minimum. You don't want a standalone bank. Is that a possible? How would we.

Can we do that? Absolutely.

Is that a zoning that an ordinance is that like, let's let us look into I'm sure there's a way we just have to think through it.

Yeah, I think it would have to be like a standard and. The. Yeah. Something with accessory. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Let us think through it.

Or could you write a prohibition that's very specific that says no standalone banks? Yeah.

Well, that would make the existing ones legal then.

And then with that stop rate development and or them remodeling their facilities, that doesn't necessarily help the street either. You know, so you gotta be careful.

So what is- Yeah, that's a really good point because, yeah, we can't write something for future that doesn't apply. So I actually don't know how we would do that.

You can't, it doesn't, these things have been grandfathered in, but it's a development issue, not a-

You want to invest in the property because otherwise you have to bring it up to conform. Or when they remodel it, they have to add that.

If you exceed its 50% of the valuation at the time the property becomes legal non-conforming, then you lose that status as a legal non-conforming building. Now there's exceptions to that. It So it gets pretty nuanced really quickly, but it could be prohibitive for some projects at least.

How strong is the market here for second floor, non-residential commercial type?

We're pretty well full on the street, both first floor and second floor, and then even above.

There's little vacancy. By requiring this, we wouldn't be trying to create something that isn't called for by the market at all.

I think so. Plus, if you have three options, office, retail, and residential...

Do any of those three? So potentially you could say, okay, we want to make sure the associated bank, so you would want to work with the associated bank and how you would do that before you put this in place. I'm not sure I care about the town bank or things that are very far west on Silver Spring. Maybe they sort of

So are we saying that we would want to have a second story use as a condition for any conditional use?

On Silver Spring.

On Silver Spring. So if your nail salon or somebody like that comes in, dog grooming, it would only be permitted if they were able to put a second story on the building?

Fitzgerald wouldn't have been able to go ahead a couple of years ago. Yeah. Without putting the second story on.

I thought this was, I mean, I thought you were eliminating it to a bank.

That's what I'm asking.

Oh, okay. Okay.

I think you'd have to look.

Yeah.

You have to keep it to a bank.

Are we kind of trying to reinvent a wheel that's probably already been invented? Right. Are there, I mean, I can't, you know, this. State legislation applies to every municipality in the state. And I don't want to spend a lot of money, but. I got to believe that there are a, you know, a dozen consulting firms that are putting together, you know, whether it's great for van wall or, you know, somebody else. Does the league of municipalities. have anything on this, is Chris Jacobs able to be helpful? I mean, he's...

When you say this, what is this?

I don't know what this is. It's this kind of defensive thing.

Yes. What you're looking for is a way to prohibit conditional uses you don't want. Essentially. Yeah.

without impacting the existing businesses.

And without ending up in court.

So we have, yes, we've had these conversations. So Grafe has spent a decent amount of time on this. Chris has advised us as well. We specifically asked Grafe to look at policies initially through Wisconsin, and then they ended up with some in Minnesota. and a few other states, but like there's not, there's not a magic bullet that we've been able to identify, which the specific challenge or problem that we've asked them to look for a solution to is to limit future banks without impacting the existing bank's ability to continue to invest in their property.

The closest it seems we can get is like infringing or putting standards in like making the street not as enticing to another bank so limiting their access not having them have access on silver spring for example would be a condition so then hopefully that would deter it from being access for a drive-through or access for both you know front door no like an egress yeah a vehicle access only vehicles yes But imposing that condition to then, you know, hopefully deter. So it's more of a office-type thing, not a, you know, drive-through.

You've got to have all this parking, Bill. You can't have any parking.

No, you can have... You can do it from the back. You can't get any cars on the side.

I recall there was a statement made that I think was simply, hey, we should look into that. And I think the statement was something to the effect of, could you have a zoning code that basically says we have certain percentages of categories of merchants? And you would say, you know, we can only have 12% of banks. I want to say that that was like a point of research that, you know, and anything, and the 13th percentage of banks would be prohibited. So.

I believe we've asked that, but let me check it.

We'll get back to you. Yeah, because that would do it, right? That would do it. If you could set percentages or set square footage or something, and then say that once you are over that percentage, it becomes prohibited. Again, I shouldn't be coming up with this. I'm not sure any of us should. Right.

I agree. I don't think that there's a lot of great legal options. We have had people look at this. The three of us have spent many hours looking at this. I've set it out on our WCMA listserv. I'm not sure that there is a great legal answer to this problem that is going to be a magic bullet. That doesn't mean we can't take steps.

Which brings us back to, I think, three things. Number one, do nothing. Number two, I really like that idea of creating standards where, for example, you couldn't have an egress on Silver Spring. I think that would be...

um a big detriment to future banks i mean if if i were a lawyer representing a developer what's the what's the rationale for having that i think to promote the walkability of the district so by eliminating a drive you don't have to worry as much about it's too bad neither of our lawyers are here tonight um

So let me restate it again. Do nothing. Add a standard that apparently we can make it. We can invent some new standards that somehow make it detrimental. And then the third thing is the nuclear option, which is prohibit them. And so those are our three things that we can talk about today. None of them are great. None of those options are fantastic and without problems.

So are there any issues with banks... East of Santa Monica. I mean, you have Associated Bank and Johnson Bank, right?

East of Santa Monica. Well, you know, you have BMO, you have, and then, I mean, then you. East to Singapore.

That's all West. Oh, sorry. You have BMO, PNC, we're into the Bank of America, we're into the Newtown Bank.

And Associated is.

So, I guess when I think of the walkability of Silver Spring, where I would think banks become a really big issue, it's that stretch between Lake and Santa Monica. Everything west of that is today... I mean, it's walkable. There are sidewalks, but there's not a lot of density, right? You have the Dominican, you have... the realtor, you have your forged kitchen. That's the only thing you really walk to.

There's no there and there.

I think the issue with banks becomes an issue with do you want to increase the density of retail in that stretch of Silver Spring? My preference would be to do nothing until you figure out that question unless you think there's a big risk of banks coming into the retail between Santa Monica and Silver Spring besides the associated bank. But I don't think anyone has a huge issue with the associated bank there. But I could be wrong. I don't know how...

I think it's somewhat well known that eventually or relatively soon Associated's interested in a different building if they can partner. And so... that limiting that would make it that redevelopment less likely, I guess, because basically that new rule would require that they locate outside of that area.

So my suggestion is you punt or you do nothing.

Yeah, I hate to say it, but I don't think there's a vehicle available unless you're willing to impose certain of the kinds of standards that I was talking about to everyone, which I- And I'm completely willing to, you know, the staff should investigate those standards that could make it more difficult, but it feels like they probably have.

Yeah, I mean-

really, the idea of limiting uses based upon the percentage of them that you've got in the community is really probably as close to the answer that you could get. I don't know that you're going to find that that's legal.

I think if there's a probably related to the streetscape discussion. What do you mean by that? By streetscape. Not having large blank areas, whether it's drive-through or parking or whatever. You wouldn't let BMO build what they've built. What they've got. The one in Whitefish Bay.

You've got a big parking lot.

And then that parking lot. You walk to your point, Colin, you walk that block of of Silver Spring and you've got, you know, oriental carpets and you got M.O. and you got a realtor's office and across the street you got a school and a church.

Yeah. I mean, all of that feels of us of a part. Like, I don't think that's bad, but that's not what I, I would rather have it be a much denser area, but not any different than what we have.

It's never going to be anything on the other side of the street.

Right.

That's fine. Yeah. I mean, I get that.

And that may be a, but that's a development. That's a redevelopment conversation. You have to redevelop that entire stretch. Right. Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. So it's all there, bro.

I do think we have two takeaways that we can look into. So we'll check on the percentage and see if we've asked that question. If not, we'll certainly ask it looking more closely at the standards and if there's ways to make sure that we're requiring the types of developments that we would like to see. And then was the question about the conditional use if not listed prohibited? Was that answered? No. Okay. So that would be the last.

Which, as a quick comment, Sarah, our other commissioner, she sent an email and basically, what was her?

She wants to.

She wants to flip it, I think.

So if it's not listed, it is prohibited. There it is, yeah.

I also think the list of uses is fine as is. I do agree that all uses not listed should be categorized as conditional use or prohibited.

Is there anything that wouldn't be... I guess, is there any, like, I can't think of something that is not already on here, but I don't have a great imagination right now. Sorry to cut you off.

The last time we talked about this, it's not to say that if a use came forward that wasn't on the list, that then would be prohibitive. We couldn't do an amendment if it was a use that the village was really interested in having that we just had to think of.

There is a mechanism for it to be... Dog grooming was the perfect example. They wanted to do dog grooming, and 60 days later, they could do dog grooming.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

But the example of a bookstore, I mean, it's not specifically... Did the one that just opened on Silver Spring, did they get a... Conditional use permit? No.

They were permitted. But we wanted to be more clear in the code.

It was permitted under specialty retail.

Yeah, specialty retail. We thought it makes sense just to add it listed as bookstore. So that was one of the recommendations in Anna's memo.

What is specialty retail?

What?

Bookstores.

Bookstores. Weren't you listening? That was wrong.

Basically, anything you guys decide. Pretty much, yeah. Okay, there it is. There's your conditional use case.

Well, but you're not wrong in that, for example, you know, there was a CBD store 10 years ago on Silver Spring. And that provokes the conversation of what would happen if dispensaries... were legalized in an upcoming year or two in Wisconsin. Would we accept a dispensary? That's probably something we should have yes or no in the code because that is actually something that is super likely to. If the power shifts in November, that could very well be a real thing. What do people think? Now, again, we did have a CBD store for a couple of years.

And I don't know, I'm not privy to, if you have to be 18 or older to enter the premise, then it would be covered already.

Okay. as a prohibited or conditional prohibiting on any floor in district 11. wait but is uh is is the argo i mean do you have to be 18 to go into your heart that's wrong so it's really that's very adult oriented okay well there we go never mind we'll still make it out though and it says

But for whatever it's worth, I think it makes sense to say anything we haven't thought of is prohibited. As long as we can, as long as when you talk to developers, you're like, that's something that we haven't thought of. We can have a meeting and get that. Yeah. Approved. My preference would be to have dispensaries prohibited because they're going to open up on Fort Washington anyway.

Yep.

And that's close enough for the people in Whitefish Bay who want them, which I'm guessing there will be a lot of them that would do.

So, but that's- I tend to agree with that. My two cents on this? Yeah, we got three head nods, four head nods, five shoulder shrug anyway. They'll open many other places. Yeah.

And close bonds, right? The discussion about that though, is that limited to Silver Spring or is that a village-wide prohibition?

I mean, we're talking about District 11. If somebody was open something in a business district on Henry Clay or Oakland, what applies? Is it different districts?

Yes.

And they are? Why do we have uniform codes for those two districts? Like, we're not just changing District 11, right? Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, technically that's what we need to look at. Jurisdictional or anything.

Well, it doesn't, but I mean, I'm just asking. That's a good question. Any of this is ultimately going to be approved or not by the village board. And, and, you know, so it's not necessarily something that we need to sit and celebrate here tonight, but let us look at it.

Talking about there's references. Six is Yeah, that's my memory too. We don't have another list. Yeah, but we'll check on that. That's a good question.

Yep. So, I guess I'm looking for staff. We've gone through a lot of different recommendations over the 75 meetings we've had on this. Is there anything outstanding that we should discuss? Like, did we come to a conclusion on freestanding ATMs?

This body did, yes.

Okay. And then a drive-through. So it was freestanding ATMs, drive-throughs, and upper story setbacks. I think those were the three that have we come to conclusions on those.

This body did for the setbacks.

Yeah, they said that they were okay with including the averaging. Or requiring only front setback while eliminating a rear setback requirement. And then the Planning Commission was the opposite. This body was willing to get rid of the rear, whereas the Planning Commission wasn't so willing to get rid of the rear.

Do you guys get rid of the rear?

There's a rear setback.

Right, but isn't the discussion on the front? Yeah.

Yes. I don't want to keep it. Well, I think it is important that they understand it. So right now there's a requirement for the rear setback because of the residential. It's a different district. Then there was a recommendation. I think Brian, perhaps you were the one that said to look into it. Should we do a setback in the front? But then the challenge is it kind of looks like the Eiffel Tower, like it comes... it would cut in and then go up potentially right and so then there was this question do you want the setbacks on both sides when i'm hearing anna say is that this body was okay with eliminating the rear setback which would be the residential side yes having the front or doing it doing an average of the rear plan commission was the one the body that felt strongly as to

Keep the rear. Yeah. That's probably why you're.

That's why I'm confused.

You've sat in on every moment.

But this body is comfortable with eliminating. The rear. The rear setback.

You are? Yeah. Okay.

I don't know. Or after. Is there. I don't know why we need a setback on either. But I mean, I get the rear and the residential. It's a different thing.

There's a towering effect. Of the towering. Yeah.

two or three stories at max, right?

That's not what we're talking about. Is it possible if you don't change the ordinance, is there a variance process so that somebody were to take...

I think that would be... The path is there. It would be cleaner if there is the appetite to... Yeah.

With a variance, you need a reason to grant a variance. It's not just... We would prefer it this way. You can't just say, we're going to give you the variance. It's more, there's some.

It must be a hardship.

A hardship. That's it.

Just broader economic. We allow up to four stories now, right? We allow up to four stories. But if you're going to the four story right now, we do require a set hike from Silver Spring side.

Not from Silver Spring, from the rear.

Only from the rear.

Yes.

From the rear of Silver Spring frontage. This Beaumont place is a... It's stories about the market. There are no setbacks on either side of that.

We're just talking... Beaumont is a PDD, so it's not District 11. We're talking about something different.

I guess I don't remember this body coming to the conclusion of eliminating the rear setback, but that's just me.

Well, let's get... Yeah, let's just do it again right now.

And we will eliminate the rear setback. Okay. Is there a second for that?

I would second it.

Yeah.

Okay. All right. Well, then, all in favor of... Moving the recommending to the appropriate. Rear setback, say aye. Aye. Aye. Well, before we... That's three to two, so at least three to two. Okay. Three to two? I don't know if it's... Maybe it's four to one. I'm not sure, but I would not... I would not vote to eliminate the rear setback. If you have a canyon in effect, the reason that was in there was to protect homeowners on the other side of any kind of developments from Silver Spring. And if you eliminate that, that's why it's there.

I tend to probably go along with that too. But before I vote on it, I guess I'm trying to understand what we're doing on the front end. Because are we going to leave a building configuration, as was pointed out before, that really is impossible to build in the fourth floor? I mean, is it so narrow that all you've got is a hallway there?

Yeah, I'm not sure that that would be that narrow.

I think it would depend on the lot. Like if you had a corner lot.

None of those lots are very deep. I mean, what you're really talking about is a couple of blocks along the south side of Silver Spring. Right.

It's hard to create a tunnel effect on only one side. Right. There's no tunnel effect if there's not sun on both sides. Yeah.

And basically, wouldn't a balcony fix that problem? Which is what they did in Johnson Bank. Yeah, it's in Bank. Like, doesn't a balcony fix the setback issue?

Well, it helps. It does, because it's setback.

Well, yeah.

And enclosed balcony, not a balcony hanging over the front.

Residences in that building are single loaded. So there are no residences on the backside of the building. It's the corridor and you've got the units. Gotcha.

Anyways. I don't know. Okay, there's three yeses, two noes for eliminating the back setback. And so then do we want to have a conversation about the front setback? Do you want to change that at all? So you're a no.

So right now there is some small setback that's required for the fourth story. Of the back. Of the front. Is it on the front? No, just at the back.

Of the side of...

borders a different district which is the back which is the for now yes yes so not the front okay but right now there are there any four-story buildings on silver spring that do not have a setback in the bordering silver story buildings you have johnson bank johnson bank the only one is i i am under i am aware of Is anyone talking about building that four-story building? Give it time.

Yeah, I mean, I have definitely met with people that were considering it. They have not moved forward, but there's always a lot of ideas. I mean, Silver Spring is a desirable place right now.

I would move for the setback off of Silver Spring on the fourth story. On the front. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. I'll give you that. And I'm okay with that. And we hardly need to vote for that.

Can we wait to see if something gets closer and we can... Once a project is proposed, we can change the rules at that point.

Okay.

So at least two, and I'm a third who would vote for, and that's a fourth.

And it doesn't matter because I'm...

So my recommendation is to have a front, to basically shift the setback from the back to the front.

I would probably vote no, because I don't see a big risk of tunneling.

Just one of the comments that I'll make is when we did a community survey two years ago, one of the big themes was, please don't become like Sherwood.

I know. But I don't find Sherwood to be that objectionable.

You are in that chunk of people who believe that.

OK.

why would why would you want to be sure it was economically viable and yeah right people live there well i mean keep in mind you you have developer hats and you also have residential living hats economically viable to the developer is fine but at the same time it needs to be uh acceptable acceptable to the community and i don't i don't know that That density is fine for Freud because they had pretty significant density all along. More dense than Whitefish Bay has ever been.

They are the number one dense community in Wisconsin.

I think there's a difference. I don't think Whitefish Bay wants to have that level of density. At least I don't.

Agreed. We asked that question in the survey. We said, basically should whitefish bay try to include increase the population of the village and the answer was very overwhelmingly no yeah okay so can we just do that averaging of setback then

Taking the average of the two.

So it'd be less of a step back on the back where it could be averaged out. Yeah, between the front.

So you're proposing a second option, which is instead of shifting the setback, now we're shifting it a little. It's basically what's happening. We're averaging it. So would you prefer an average?

I prefer it be gone, but average is less bad than average. the whole thing.

What is the setback on the fourth floor? What's the setback, Joel?

10 feet. It's basically now 5 and 5 instead of 10.

How deep is a lot?

10 feet out of...

If our input as the CDA is important to the resolution of this for the village, then I think we ought to get some thought, get some information, and really put it together and discuss it at the next meeting. I don't think it's that urgent.

To your point, Dick, if if we can do that and if we can get some schematic and drawing to see what the heck it looks like that we're talking about. I've got ideas in my mind of what I think we're talking about, but I could be totally wrong. I'm not sure that I know what we're talking about.

I don't, I mean, we took a vote here, but I don't feel like we're in a position as a CDA, as a public body to make a recommendation to the plan commission or to the village board as to what our consensus is on that.

It would take a little effort, but we know what the depths are. We know what the configurations are on the street. It would be useful to take a lot and do an example of what we're talking about. What's the box going to end up looking like when we're done?

There was a diagram, I think, in the plant commission packet shortly ago. Sorry. Yes, Colin.

I was just going to say, I think having a 10% reduction in square footage of a 10-foot step back on a 100-plus wide building is... Not a huge deal. A 20% reduction probably becomes a much bigger consideration for a developer.

And I think what we're saying is currently it is 10%. Currently it's 10%. Do you want to double it? Do you want to double it?

And I would be strongly, I mean, without other information, I would be opposed to doubling it, whether you average it, whether you move it from the front to the back, the back to the front, I don't know.

I think this is very helpful. So this topic started, it was a strategic plan, I know. It started out very broad, right? You were talking about boutique hotels and lots of things. I think we have narrowed in quite a bit, which will give Grave, right now we're looking to narrow it and then it will go through a full process once it's, you know, we have language. So let us go back to Grave and see if we can get some schematics.

I'm ready to say this is the right thing.

Sure.

You know. But I'll tell you that making 10%, 20% reductions in in in building area, whether it's apartments, condos, offices, whatever it is, is significant.

Okay. Yeah, let us take this back to grief and see, like, what kind of visuals that they can provide and.

And so you're again, I look at this as saying this is the second time it's come to the CDA. And so I kind of wanted to resolve it. But are you willing to continue to go to a third time? And is that going to be acceptable for whatever timing we need to do? Faster is always better.

So what about this? How about we just have to go to the village board to do a formal referral to land missions? So at that point, why don't we share the information that we have out with the CDA members as well? And if there is a desire to have another discussion, then a member can request that.

Yeah, well, I think it's all, what does the board want us to consider? I mean, how can we be helpful in helping you come to a decision on these things? If you'd like us, if you really want us to provide you with some meaningful input, it would be important to have an understanding of what we're recommending.

What is interesting is there are two parts to this. The first part is the concept of reducing the possible development of a fourth floor, right? From 10% to 20% or 0% or whatever. And that's like right in the CDA wheelhouse. What's not really in the CDA wheelhouse is architectural design, zoning for residents versus the community. And so I can see that that's one of the reasons we're struggling here.

um no i don't think so because i you know i don't think it matters as i just said to whether this upper floor that's set back some degree is is residential commercial you know what else true true the you know the question of what the what the zoning requirements are regardless of use is something that I think comes out.

I think all you were saying is the question of do you limit the upper floor by 10 percent or 20 percent or 0 percent? That's a CDA question, whether that is faces the residential portion of the residential district or the Silver Spring side of the thing, or like that's an architectural question.

That's really much more. Yeah.

That makes sense.

Okay. All right. So we should, if you, if staff has got their things lined up, all right, then we should move on to Um, to to to to discussion recommendation on the 2027 budgets for tip 1, 2 and 3.

I think this 1 is easy, but it's see it Joel. Oh, you're missing the fun, but it is budget season around village hall. So we wanted to bring forward these draft budgets. The reason I think it's somewhat easy is because a lot of the heavy lifting. was previously done as part of the Sendix project. I just essentially copied the expenses for 2027 from, I think it was Exhibit E in that development agreement, which was TID 1. And then I forgot what TID 3 was, but essentially this just mirrors those exhibits, which was discussed at length during those meetings. So if anybody has any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Just a couple of, I mean, I think I know what is happening here, but it's interesting to see the tax increment from 2024 at 670, then dropped down to 630, and now projected at 716, page 14.

So the reason for the drop was because of the- Evaluation. Yeah, the office bill. In TID 1, ended up coming down so that that decrement was in TID 1.

Office building.

Yeah, so the Sendix office building.

Well, I remember having this conversation that our assessments also went down. And so if their assessments went down, the tax increment would have gone down. And I thought that was what it was for. I'm not sure about the timing to 2025. When did those come down? Whatever.

You want to explain it?

Oh, I don't care about the timing. I don't want to get involved in all that. But I really, I remember having a conversation of looking at the value of TID-1 and it decreased substantially. And it wasn't because of the office. It was because of the reval.

Yeah, there's two things happening. So there was a decrement because of the office building. Because it wasn't used as of January 1st, 2025, then it was basically there's a state law or a court case, I'm not sure which one, that allowed for that value to be zero for the 2025 valuation. And then on top of it, there was also decrement. So there's like two things that were happening. It wasn't really decreases in value. It's the percentage of the assessed value and how it impacts the TID. Yeah, that 80.

Well, in conclusion, it's at 716 now, which is great.

Well, I think this is consistent with what we had projected, though.

Oh, yeah. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that our TID is healthy and just got a little healthier. I mean, 13.6%. I do have a question, and I'm sure someone is. Why is there a revenue for debt premium of $122,000? I didn't quite understand what that was. I'm sure that somebody smarter than me has an explanation.

So we talked about this a little bit during the discussion about the, essentially the additional money that's available for capital projects. And so it's essentially a premium that you get when you issue debt, depending on like the market at that moment. Overall, the general fund benefit, it was like 300 and some thousand dollars.

Some of it came here.

Yep. Based on the percentage of the debt that was issued.

It had to do with the way the bonds are bid.

Yes, exactly.

The underwriter bid a premium on the bonds, which basically they offered to pay you more than the face value of the bond. Got it. And so you got a bonus up front, but then they charge you a higher rate of interest over time. And what ends up happening is that the value of that premium gets calculated as part of the present value in the interest rate calculation. So when you're looking at your total costs over time, it works out. But at the end of the day, you do get a cash infusion up front, which is what this is representing.

So I guess the next question is, Didn't we require $1.885 million, and now we have more than $1.885 million because of the step premium that now we have? Yes. Did we require $1.99 million?

Did we require two? When you sized the bond, did you resize the bonds in order to take into account the debt premium?

I mean, is this bonus money or is this associated with a $2 million debt borrow? You see what I mean? If you add the two together, it's roughly 2 million.

What did we require? Well, what we required was the 1.8, the actual dollar amount. But then they came in and basically said, we're going to give you more money, but we're going to charge you a little bit higher interest.

And it ends up kind of coming out of the wash. Now the TID has $122,000 more than it needed.

Yeah, but then you may end up choosing to use, you can utilize that for your cash flow for debt payments to offset that. It balances it out. Okay.

TID 2, also the tax increment, went 322 down to 278 up to 305. There's no office being demolished there. And then finally, TID 3, which is brand new. And the projected increment is 49.7%. Is that, what will be the projected for 2028? It'll be more? It should be way more. Yes, it will be more. Right? It's probably like quadruple more.

We had the extended spreadsheet shows that.

I probably don't even need the number.

170,000.

Okay, so it's triple-ish more. Got it. Yeah, I just, that was, I don't need the number. I just wanted to know that that was going to increase dramatically. Okay. You probably need a motion on this one, a recommendation.

I'm going to approve the budgets.

Thank you. Second. Thank you, Brian. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. That concludes our general business for the evening. All we need to do is move to adjourn. Dick with the motion. Who's the second? Sure. And Mike with the second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you so much, everybody.