Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

I got to sit out there. Oh, yes. I like the Ark meeting because it was a meeting I wasn't running or responsible for. All right, testing. There we go. You think we're recording? One second. We are. Okay, super. All right, I will call to order the plan commission meeting of September 9th. Uh, we do not need to call the role. So, the first item on the agenda is to approve the minutes of the regular meeting from July 28th. I would move approval. Move approval. Okay. Any Is there a second? So, for the minutes,

I'll second. Thank you, Jay. Uh any further discussion on the minutes which were quite lengthy this yes last time very thorough. Hearing no comments. Um all those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. The only item on the agenda tonight is uh for new business to review the recommendation of the village review and make a recommendation to the village board on a planned development district petition to develop a grocery store at 500 East Silver Spring, otherwise known as Sendex. Kelsey, would you like to start us off?

Yeah, happy to. Um so the pre-etition um for this proposed development was originally presented to the plan commission on July 28th. Um you'll recall at that time that SEDIX presented their request um the proposed project and then following that meeting they submitted the full plan development district resoning request and package. Um from there it went to the village board um who referred the um full request to the architectural review commission, the public works committee as well as the plan commission. So that's why you're seeing it this evening. This is a routine part of the process where it starts with the pre-etition with plan commission then goes to village board um once the full package has been submitted and then plan commission reviews again it makes all of those bodies that I mentioned the ARC plan commission and public works committee are making recommendations to the village board who will then ultimately vote on um the proposed resoning to the plan development district. Um so as I mentioned this evening um you all will be evaluating the full submitt um you're looking to see if it meets the standards and requirements of the PDD resoning um and then providing that recommendation to the village board. Uh Grafe has um acted as our um planning experts on this matter and has completed a review on behalf of the village. So they were hired by the village um and have been completing that review um with us in mind essentially. So Craig Hebner will be presenting his memo and can answer any um technical questions you all may have um about the submitt or your role this evening as plan commissioners. In terms of the next steps um this the submitt is going to the architectural review commission on September 18th and then the public hearing is scheduled for October 6th with the village board. With that I'll answer any questions if you have them before Craig comes up. I I do have a question and that's just to further refine what we're doing here today and I'm not sure if this is a

question for you or perhaps Chris and that is um to specify exactly what the plan commissioners are vetting today. Um there there is in at least in my mind a little bit of confusion in that the plan commission deals with zoning and and and the entirety of the PDD comes to this board, right? But there's not a developer agreement yet that's been so we're not vetting the developer agreement. We're what what precisely are we vetting and what are we not vetting? You know like are we vetting public works things? Are we vetting architecture review things? Why don't you give us your best shot at answering that question?

So, I think Craig's memo actually did a really good job. He went through the code and it's his memo is actually structured around the code and what the plan commission is tasked with reviewing. The short answer to that question is you're reviewing parking placement on the site um site access. Uh what you're not reviewing is obviously the architecture which is going that's the ARC committee as well as the public improvements surrounding the site that's public works committee. Um you all are also reviewing landscaping um plan. I'm trying to think of what else but there's the the I thought the most helpful piece was there's like a box at the top of his memo. Let me find the page. Um okay. So it start Yeah, it starts on page four of his memo. It looks like it's page 12 of the packet and that outlines like the requirements of the submitt which he'll be going through and then it talks it goes into like all these text boxes basically outlines okay here's the base zoning requirements and this is the requested deviations. A plan development district is a flexible development district but you compare against the base zoning district. So any deviations from that district 11, which is the base zoning district, that's what you all would want to be understanding those deviations and determining if you're comfortable with that. Um because the reality is if it met all those requirements, it wouldn't it would just be approved. It wouldn't need to go through all of these same processes. So Craig's going to explain this a lot better than me, but yeah, wherever whichever you want to go to.

I'm just I'm sorry. Can I just add one thing? Um, and Kevin, I'm glad you asked that question because if you hadn't, I was going to and I think it's prudent to add this add that explanation, right? echoing to add this explanation in the minutes because there are so many public meetings on this and so many it's such a complex issue with so many public um public hearings that you know if someone were to hear that you know we approved whatever is in front of us tonight that they think that you know that's going to be a for sure thing or if we didn't approve that it was a are, you know, not a thing. I just I I want to make sure that that's reflected in the minutes for if if anyone is going through the minutes and wanting to know exactly what we're doing tonight that they would that because this is so complex and so many different pieces have to be approved or not approved, you know, as we move forward that that it's explained in that or that people can understand exactly what we're going through versus, pardon me, ARC public works, etc. Understood. Good. Good ad.

Great, Craig.

Um, so yeah, Craig Heapner with Grafe. Um, so in your packets, what I'm going to do is try to kind of walk through, it's 12 pages, but I promise we're not going to go in detail. What I try to do in these reviews is I'll bold text uh that I feel is important. So, I'm going to kind of walk through um kind of key aspects as part of this uh development. And whoever's controlling hopefully I'll reference page numbers. But if we go to page two of 12 um in my memo um what we want to start with um that shows on this page again this is a plan development district and the key with this again is a PDD is a means to facilitate desirable development while affording flexibility with land uses and development standards. So this is a tool that the village has to provide flexibility from your base zoning. So, what this memo will go through and we'll walk through tonight is the base zoning for this is the Silver Spring Drive business district. So, what we did as your planning consultant is looked at what is the actual standards if someone was not doing a PDD that someone would need to follow. But the PDD allows for that flexibility, what we call departures from the base zoning, Silver Spring uh Silver Spring Drive business district. So this memo is meant to outline and kind of highlight the key things that from our planning review uh departed or were deviated from that base zoning for you as a plan commission to consider whether that is acceptable to again support the intent of the PDD. Um so with that at the bottom of uh page two goes into section two. As part of any reasonzoning, we always want to uh look at your comprehensive plan and consistency with that comprehensive plan. Um adopted as part of your comprehensive plan was a specific Silver Spring Drive master plan update. Uh in the memo on page two and carrying into page three were uh three different items that we highlighted as part of that master plan. Uh the third one that I just wanted to

highlight was that development should um clearly depict features that will make Silver Spring Drive a more effective public space. Um so the applicant has done um a good job of proposing a variety of different uh public spaces uh that'll be utilized by the public. There's two um at the corner um of the site and then right in the center of the site there's a larger gathering space that's been enhanced and enlarged since the last pre-etition submitt uh that kind of serves as the front door and and public entry into the site. Um but the reason why I highlight that again in the middle of page three of 12 um is this you know sufficiently upholding what your master plan um included and for you as a plan commission to determine that. Um, one other thing with comprehensive plan, um, your 2019 comprehensive plan had a strong emphasis on sustainability initiatives. Again, the applicant in their narrative cover letter outlined, um, a variety of different sustainable uh, approaches primarily geared towards materiality um, that's used with the site. Um, but I would say is consistent with what your comprehensive plan uh, looks at as well. Um, as I'm going through this, please, you know, interrupt me. I'll try not to be too exhaustive with this, but if you have any questions as I'm going, uh, that's that's fine as well. Um, moving on to then section three of the memo standards uh, for submitt. Um, on page four of 12, as Kelsey mentioned, there are specific submittal requirements um, as part of a PDD. And, um, what I wanted to just highlight uh, specifically is the first uh, row there, uses. So the applicants is proposing a variety of uses. The primary being that grocery store with a few other uh ancillary or accessory uses within the building. Uh the key here is you know uses are something that the PDD should look at. Um and are all of these uses in line with what the plan commission feels are acceptable? Um so if acceptable the plan commission would say yes, these are all uses permitted as part of this resoning

PDD. So this this would be an example where the plan commission would be more familiar with like a conditional use, but whatever is written into the PDD is an allowable use. So that those these are the types of things you should be looking at. Hours of operation use.

Exactly. So I'll I'll touch on that a little bit later, but you know, exactly the you know, proposed hours of operation, you know, would be subject to, you know, you as a plan commission having, you know, a different recommendation other than what the applicant, you know, has submitted if if there's any concern with anything there. um page four into page five. I won't go into this, but there's a series of different uh drawings uh information that needs to be submitted. The applicant from our review has submitted all of those uh elements. So, I won't go into detail, but that does outline uh the different exact drawings that were submitted as part of this. Uh moving on to page five of 12 um in section four of the memo. Uh here's where our planning staff looked and actually started to compare um again the Silver Spring Drive business district and any departures that the applicant is proposing as part of this. So how this table is organized in the next couple pages on the left is what your zoning code requires. In the middle is what the applicant has proposed and then on the right if a departure is required meaning you know this plan development will not be in you know exact adherence to that code do you as a plan commission feel like this is appropriate to again meet the intent of this of this PDD. Uh so the first standard is looking at vehicular access. Uh here the standard talks about actually um limiting uh access points on Silver Spring Drive to embrace pedestrian friendly and walkability along the street edge. Uh it talks about the physical width of any access drives that access the property itself. Um as well as a couple other um access related items. Uh the applicant um has proposed no access points on Silver Spring Drive which is in alignment with this uh zoning uh code provision. they are proposing slightly wider access drives at 26 feet wide instead of the code 24. So again uh for you as a plan commission to consider is it acceptable to allow this departure uh

from a width standpoint for the for the axis drives. Uh the next page page 6 of 12 um we go into uh the category of build to and setback lines. Silver Silver Spring Drive business district again the intent is to embrace walkability. So in addition to what are often included of building setbacks, there's what's called build to zones, meaning the building placement on the site wants to be in close proximity to the actual sidewalk itself to really not have buildings far further set back, which often are not as pedestrian friendly and vibrant um in in their uh layout. Um the code itself mandates a certain percentage of the entire lot actually be occupied by either building or uh a public space, landscaped public space as part of this. Um so our planning review um identified that about 50% of Silver Spring Drive lot coverage is either covered by that building uh frontage or with their proposed public space, but the remainder of that is a parking lot. Uh the parking lot does include uh a nice landscaped edge, but how we interpret this is more of kind of a publicly engaging, you know, space as far as the code um is written. So again, um the applicant has done, I feel like, a good job with the portion of the building and the public space to to front that Silver Spring Drive business district, but again, as far as the code requirements, 90% of the lot would have to be required. So this would be a departure uh for you as a plan commission to consider. Um next section landscaping and screening. Um the intent here is a combination of both uh landscaping low-level planting as well as trees um uh being proposed as part of the site. The code also references a recommendation to explore different storm water features like bioills or permeable paving. It doesn't require those things per uh storm water

management but it is kind of a a recommendation. So in the middle column again what's being proposed um you know per our review there's no bio areas or permeable paving within the sites although some are potentially being explored within public rightway. The landscape plan does identify uh street trees along council um but it does not include any uh street trees within the lot itself um along Silver Spring Drive which is what the code requires. There are street trees though just to be aware you know along Silver Spring Drive. So factor that in, you know, as part of this review that there will be terrace, uh, sidewalk, street trees, but the code, how it's written, it's saying on top of that that the actual parking lot perimeter would also require, uh, trees as part of that screening element. Um, so again, for you as a plan commission to consider, should there be additional uh, trees um, within the 6 foot wide about parking lot buffered space uh, that the applicant is proposing. Right now they have a a nice um lilac kind of edge edging of landscaping along with a decorative fence between the sidewalk and the parking lot.

I asked a question on that one. So on on the landscaping plan along Silver Spring there they show the lilocks. Yeah. I don't see any trees being shown in Silver Spring. I just drove by it. There's there's about seven or eight smaller trees that are existing. Are those being taken out or are they just not shown in the landscaping plan? My understanding, and Kelsey, correct me. I believe if they're not in the terrace now, they are being part of this redo of Silver Spring Drive, but I could be incorrect with the public improvements as part of the street trees, but I could be wrong. I I recall trees every 70 ft or something that

ft to the room. the the guideline is every 25 figure 25 ft within like the private lot. So like where they're showing the lilac bushes, you know, and how they're showing it on council, they're adhering to kind of that setup. So you can kind of see along the left side, those are four proposed trees um along along the street, but those are actually within, you know, the private lot. Okay. So what the code says is also along Silver Spring Drive, there would be that similar requirement. However, you know, at least my understanding, there is though within the public right of way still going to be street trees. Yes.

Yeah. There's I know you sent an email to Mustafa today and I don't know if we got an answer um but there is discussion about some of those trees maybe in right away versus on Sendex property, but we'll find a place for them. So, there will be trees along Silver Spring as as normal. They're just not shown in the plant. That's that's that was my concern. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. As they are now the it wouldn't this extras. Yeah. This is just the private correct

what our hopeful goes is replacing the trees that are along SR Drive now but also during that time respacing them so that it's so that it's the same spacing down the street and we we closed up spacing. So right now it's like 70 ft 40T you know it's random. So I think we're going to be done four feet off of the other centers. There's five trees that are going to be uh um basically the same alignment as the council street that will be on Silver Spring in the edge line that was required because of the space uh working public works. There's trees that are going to be further down that will be pushed out towards the street where our curve bumps out. But the trees basically from the bump curve all the way to the corner will be actually in our bank and that that has the stop there at the stop and basically the whole parking lot will be very simple.

Thank you. Great. Um, moving on then, I'm actually going to fast forward and we can kind of backtrack to page 10 of 12. Um, so the next two pages talk about parking requirements. And table three is, uh, I believe, you know, the most helpful summary of the actual parking um, as part of this. So, um, on the top of that page, um, is a table, table three. Um, and what this does is it lays out um the actual area of parking, what is existing, what is proposed, and then the change. Um, there's been some slight revisions uh to this uh based off of the meeting last night, I believe, at the public works. So I to add just another layer layer of confusion the proposed if you go down to the bottom number proposed total is 184 and the proposed total streets is 67 and then the change on the right for total is minus 6 total and the change for total streets is 16.

So it ends up being you know three three or so parking stall difference. um reduction to kind of those uh final categories at the bottom. But what I kind of want to focus on is again existing parking. Got it.

If you look at the SEX uh parking lot itself is 139 spaces and what they're proposing is 117 spaces. In the previous pages here, we talked about what your code actually requires for quantity um of parking spaces. What that quantity comes out to is a code requirement of 164 parking spaces. So if you look at a just very basic does it meet code again 164 spaces would be required. They are proposing 117 spaces within their parking lot. The caveat to that is our code does allow for on street parking to be utilized as to meet the actual parking requirement. So again if the requirement per code is 164 spaces the applicant is proposing including on street parking which would be 184 spaces. So they are you know allocating and identifying on street and their service lot to meet the 164 code requirements. They're actually exceeding that you know you could argue by 20 spaces uh for that total 184 spaces. One other lens to just kind of factor in as part of this is there was a substantial parking study and traffic impact analysis as part of this. That same page of my memo on page 10 of 12. Uh there's a snip um also called table 3 parking summary where that study outlined the 85th uh percentile kind of max parking demand would be 155 spaces. It'll sometimes be slightly higher than that, oftentimes uh lower, but again, if they're providing um 100 um 84 spaces, again, 155 would be more of your highest peak um amount um that you would be seeing on this site. So, with that, you know, it's a lot kind of to factor in, and I know public works is looking very closely at that, but just for you as a

plan commission uh to kind of be aware that the zoning code allows for that. Again, flexibility. You're aware of this from past developments as well. Um, utilization of both on street and off- streetet parking. Kelsey, did I miss anything or No. Um, just for clarification, public works committee is really focused on the public improvements. So, the parking component does rest with the plan commission. Great. You want to take this now or later? A question. Yes. Yeah. Go ahead.

Okay. So, um, we have a strong president on on the plan commission to allow consideration for street parking as part of meeting the requirement. And I I don't see why we would behave any differently for this proposal. Um, as submitted, uh, and as you just suggested, we have actually in excess of 20 spots over the requirements. We received uh quite a bit of concern over some portions of the proposal. Uh many of them related to the Bulmont changes. Uh and as I'm reading this, we're gaining 13 parking spots for making that change to angled parking on both sides of Bulma. So we could meet the requirements without doing that at all. Is my understand you're nodding your head? Okay. Um I'm I'm wondering if there's been any consideration of a midway plan for that street. Uh and that would be to retain the north side of Bulmont as it currently exists. Uh and and expand the angled parking to the south on on the Sendic side the of Bulmont. That would gain probably five or six spots instead of 13. uh still giving us a good cushion, but it would also retain the residential feel, green space, and mature trees that exist on the north side of Bulmont today. Uh and I think it'd be sort of a happy median of trying to to asssure we have adequate parking while retaining the character of the neighborhood. I I know that we at at Village Board we we asked similar questions when we were going I mean literally street by street

around um uh around the around the property. Um one of the things that was brought up was

the church to the north. would would really like to have the the parking on the on the north side. Um but we did talk about do we need it it we did talk about do we need um both sides on Bulmont in in village where we didn't come up with a solution. And it was more of a question as as we were asking questions for then staff to pose to other committees that were going to be looking at this. So that's a valid Did that sum it up pretty well, Kelsey? Mhm. Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. We haven't received any information from the church in this commission. I just remember that came up during during the discussion at the village board level. Can you speak to the Yeah, the church.

Yeah. I mean, we've been meeting with the church and the church has been active. I don't see them this evening, but they've been attending many of the meetings. Um, they've made some requests to we walk the site with them. We were able to preserve two different trees um they wanted on both the east and west side of the area. They also had some adjustments to the loading dock. Um, we worked as best we could but weren't able to accommodate all those, but they understood. They also wanted to see some architectural changes to the north side of the building. um which was also guidance offered by ARC. Um so we have been collaborating quite a bit with them um throughout the process and emailing about every other day I guess with them. Would you say the church is interested in these parking spots?

No, I I wouldn't describe it as that. Um they see as a very good partner who has been um very gracious in sharing parking spots and they understand their parishioners need parking spots. Um, I think their preference to be fair would be that it would remain as a terrace space, but they understand that there's a lot of complexity with this and a need for parking as well.

Yeah, Mark, I I think Trusty Saunders um explained that indeed during our village board meeting, we we had a conversation somewhat like this um amongst 500 other conversations, right? Uh and and and what we tried to do was go around the entire 360 degrees and pick out all the things that we were curious that needed to be vetted. Um this what you just described was certainly something that may not have come out specifically on should we just do it on the north side versus the south or both. Um we did last night at the public works committee have a um analysis of what what is the cost per per um parking spot. Um if I recall correctly though, you know, net net without the northern section of Bumont, we would actually be removing a few spots. And I'm looking I I I can't recall how many. I think there's 10 on the north side. um

13 diagonal 13. Well, I guess now there's now there's 11. Yep. And so existing, you know, I mean it's it's interesting how existing is 190. Proposed is now 184. So we're already down four. Yeah. 18. No, no, no. We're down six. And so that's with adding the northern Bulmont section. And so, you know, the other problem is parking is kind of funible in that um you know, if you're going to the church or more specifically the um uh daycare, what's not daycare? It's that

community preschool. There you go.

Um you tend to use whatever you tend to use Bowmont, but that spills into the Sendex lot. So, um, but generally speaking, our entire Silver Spring business district is not flush with parking spots. And so, um, you know, here here's we're losing six already. Um, your proposal is to remove another 11. So, we're now we're down 17. That that would be a, you know, in this it's almost 10% maybe 8%. Uh, that that would be tough, you know. And then I one other question on this table three on Lake Drive West side. Are those the metered spots that exist now?

Are they metered? There's, I believe, one metered. You're some of them are metered, some of them aren't. Yep. Um because

um Mark, I talked during Village Board when we got to that side of it. I don't want those. I I would like to get rid of those parking spots. Uh because I think the increased traffic um on Lake Drive is going is you know that area already backs up, especially at peak times. And with the design as it is now to no longer permit left-hand turns onto Lake from Bumont, I fear that that that is going to make the problem um on on Lake Drive southbound even worse. So I spoke about getting rid of those seven spots. Uh, I would ra I I would rather have if we need to choose, I would rather have them on Bowmont because I I don't think Bowmont is because of the

the lack of lefthand turn is going to I don't know if it's going to still be as busy as it is now, but I know that Lake Drive is it there will be, you know, I there will be issues um with the with the right turn only on the lake. Anna, could you zoom in on Bulmont Council intersection?

So, when I asked um our engineering team to look at this piece, I had the same thought. The most intrusion is into the church area, is there a way to mediate that? And looking at like the parallel versus the diagonal parking benefit, it's less on the north compared to the south. So, trying to figure out like could we could we have our cake and eat it too? Do exactly what you're describing. So, what the engineering team advised me is that it's hard to see in this aerial. Unfortunately, it's easier to see on a computer. Go walk it as well. But the curb lines are actually they don't match up. And so on the north side, so specifically what they're doing is they're actually pushing this curb line back a couple feet. And then if you go over to the carriage walk, Anna, for the church, I think this is like the easiest way. Oh, and of course there's a tree. But if you walk it, the sidewalk is actually going to be right up against that first stair. And originally we were going to we were needing to push a couple feet into that and we've done a lot of modifications in partnership with the church to adjust that. Um but it's all because we need to adjust the curb line in order to fit the parallel spots. And so when I said could we just retain the south and leave the north as parallel? What our engineering team said after looking at it for quite a while was that there's they can't figure out a way to make it work without like moving. They'd have to move. You could I guess you could do it, but you would still be moving all those curb lines. Does that make sense?

You need to widen the street a little to allow for the angled parking on the other side anyway. Is that what you're saying? And there's I wondered about that. But there is existing parallel parking. So you wouldn't lose 11 spots. You'd lose 11 minus the number of existing parallel spots. So good point. It's really not that much of a net loss. It's but if if you looked at it and engineering wise you you'd still have to cut into that green space and take down trees. You're probably not gaining much. Yep. It's a good point though. But yeah, so what's not true? There wouldn't be enough space between the parallel park and the other side. If you had the parallel parking there, there would be enough space for a parking.

That's what she's saying. We'd have to widen the street anyway is what she's saying. we'd have to widen the curb lanes and at that point like what have you gained um is exactly what they told us. Okay. But I I agree. We've we've definitely looked at that to try to figure out. I I I wasn't aware you had. So, of course, I appreciate the question for that reason. Yeah. Thank you. That makes sense. Anything else on parking? Otherwise, I got one more section here to summarize. Are you satisfied there, Mark? Um I'm I'm satisfied that it meets the requirements. Yes.

Great. Um moving on then to page 11 of 12 of my memo. Um the last review was focused on signage. Uh so the application includes uh two primary types of signs. Um building signage or wall signage and then monument signage. Um so the two rows here uh define what the Silver Spring Drive business district again would require. Um the first row there focuses on number and types of signs. There's limitations on uh the square footage as far as the quantity um of signs that are um allowed within the Silver Spring Drive business district. I would say the key thing on the rights as far as um you know what's being proposed is uh the number of signs is um is higher. So there is a total of nine signs uh proposed when accounting for the monument ground signs exceeding the total uh number of signs. Um the key there or one element to kind of consider too is um we did include kind of the village monument signs as part of this which you know you could argue maybe you know shouldn't be part of this quantity as well but we included it just for the sake of it's multiple signs that people will be looking at and just to kind of factor that in uh to kind of the total number. Um the bottom row there as far as total area and size of signage. Uh here it breaks down uh the wall sign uh square footage and then the monument ground sign square footage. Uh the key here um I got on the far right uh of why it requires a departure. The primary wall sign facing the parking lot um on the west facade is greater than 100 square ft which is the code requirement um only 30 ft higher. Um, the widest proposed monument wall sign exceeds 4 feet. Again, the two kind of village of Whitefish Bay monument signs are 20 ft

wide, but again, that more or less matches what exists today. I think maybe the more key thing is there's two uh ground signs being proposed at the access points for Sendex into the site. Those are being proposed as I believe 6 feet wide by 12t tall whereas the code requires or states a maximum height of 10 feet tall and 4t wide. So, just to kind of factor in as far as what's being proposed for those signage. Um, my rule of thumb with signage is you look at the renderings and if it looks not great, there's red flags. So, yes, you can look at kind of the requirement uh there, but I would say for for wall signage, you know, it definitely doesn't raise any red flags uh for me there. Yeah, I'd say you have to consider the scale of the building in this and it's not in the guidelines and and it's it's a significant size building. So, I I wouldn't have issue with the proportion of these slightly larger

rounded monument signs uh that are at two entrances are in the package. They're less than a foot base. Okay. Not sure why. Got it then. That's an air. Can you just repeat? Yes. Sorry. 8t tall and a three foot base brick the five foot panel. So 8 foot total height height and the width and the width is still in six feet.

Six feet. Okay. I apologize. Thank you for that. No. Nope. Thanks. And then the other monument sign matching the the existing one with the other one side. And uh one is like 3 foot on one side and the existing one's 3T4 the new one 4T on our side. Did I read that part of the rationale for the monument science was was it's part of your plan for screening the parking lot from view as well? Yeah. Any other sign questions? Should we fight about signs? All right.

Um, sorry. Yep. Thank you. I think I see now the error of uh including the foundation uh subgrade. So, apologies for that. Um, the final page of the memo is just recommendation. And the recommendation here is more again what your uh zoning code um look or asks you as a plan commission to consider. So there's eight different points um again to really factor in as part of your decision-m process. Um so I I won't exhaust those, but I would say that's uh for you as a plan commission to understand your purview and I think Kelsey did a good job just describing you know your arc and public works as well. Not every municipality has those entities where a lot of times those different elements would be, you know, primarily you. But I think the separation of uh ARC and public works and then you as a plan commission with what we've walked through today would would be the good breakdown for that. So I'll take any questions or clarifications that I can make uh to answer any questions.

Questions for Craig? Looks like none. All right. What is our next move? Is it There's a memo here from Clark Deetsz. Do we That's just supplemental information. It's just updated from the pre-etition. It does have a couple of comments. In general, we support the proposed site boundary with the following exceptions. Uh do we need to evaluate those exceptions or that is that going to be

No, there's so the beginning just talks about um that they agree with the proposed in general they agree with the proposed site improvements which is the removal of the driveways on those locations listed um the location of the pedestrian access points, the inclusion of the traffic signals and then the reconstruction of Bulmont with the restricted turning movements and then it goes to talk about. In general, we support the proposed site boundaries with the following exceptions. They have um Ryan and our public works team are working closely together um regarding like the public utilities and the location of those um which the Sendex team is well aware of um and working with our team on. And then we need to incorporate those four trees along Silver Spring Drive um likely into the Sendex portion, which is what Ryan was speaking about. him and CJ are talking pretty regularly as they're both developing their plans. Um, and then the last one is that the Bulmont property line, we're still working through exactly what that right of line right ofway line will be. It's very important to the village that we obviously maintain the property that isn't that serves a public purpose and is um is needed to maintain all of our functions. We also don't want to be owning property that has Sendix landscaping and different elements in it. Um because that is can be very confusing about who pays for what and all those sorts of things. So we're working on exactly where that line will be. Um and then they kind of

Yep.

put in a place that's just not aligned with

and then there's some additional feedback that I would consider to be administrative. Um, but that we'll need to work with the Centix team to get. That includes the trucking route. Um, we'll want to know exactly where those routes plan to be because we need to make sure our public infrastructure, our curbs, all those things that we're not consistently driving over curbs and ruining those. Um, we need to understand their construction phasing, um, impact on right away, all those, um, things that will impact folks throughout the construction, their grading plan, staging area. Um, so those are those are um typical questions Joel would be asking. Um, and I consider to be more administrative and they're just kind of making note of them that we'll need

information from. Send it. Well, that I would think truck routes would be something that the plan commission would, you know, if there was something objectionable about the truck route, but

so um we do CJ has modeled. We what we're really looking for is um final confirmation from Sendix about what that truck route will be. We have been modeling the truck routes because that's how we've been building the public infrastructure is based on the models. And so I've seen all sorts of images that show how they can back into the loading dock and how they're going to pull out and all of those things. But we'll just need final confirmation about Sendex about what their operating plan is so we can confirm those. Long as the truck route goes right down to verse test house, I'm good. You have in other locations limited the hours of deliveries. Is that is there any by the same is that addressed at all in this?

It's not um that would be within the purview of the PDD though and the plan commission. Are they your deliveries aren't changing? Delivery hours aren't changing. We just specify them. Um, okay. That's a good comment to be made that they could be specified in the PDD or in in the development agreement. The development grid. So, not in the Well, whatever. We're just making a recommendation tonight. So, do you have um specific guidance on what you would like those? Uh, I don't. I just want to be consistent with what we've done elsewhere along Silver Spring.

Okay. be subject to an operational plan, you know, approved by village staff. Sure. Okay. That's good. Since I mentioned hours, um I noticed that you have submitted now hours of operation going until 12 a.m. I'm I'm assuming that's because of the beastro and on the second floor. Uh, is is there a a distinction between the hours for the first floor and the second floor or is the whole thing accessible? I'm not quite sure how it works getting to the second floor. You have to go through the first floor to get there. Passage.

So, you could isolate at a sort of after hours. So, you're still planning on having the grocery closing at 90?

Um, staff will generally speak. There may be occasion where All right. I'm sorry. It was a 6 a.m. star is what you request. Is that correct? Yeah. So, would staff be arriving before 6 a.m.? Yes. I I don't know. Maybe we allow that. Should we expand that? Yeah. Yeah.

I I think that the hour that you have to have the hours of operation include the staff to allow them on Yeah. Go ahead. So we have arriving stock and stuff. Yeah. Uh bakers basically. Okay. Yeah. Because there are people there almost

you won't you'll never see them. Craig, I haven't seen this before, but I imagine you could say 24 hours for operating purposes with, you know, a general public. What I would recommend is the applicant can submit, you know, a more, you know, detailed um plan of operation for the business or then village staff and would be included, you know, as village board action. So, your motion tonight could be, you know, subject to um plan of operation business plan being submitted. I like that because then amendment doesn't require a full PDD amendment versus administratively.

Are there any commissioners who are against the concept of operational hours either starting at 3 in the morning or 24 hours? I mean, that's really what it comes down to. I mean, isn't what would you recommend? Isn't that's the way it is now? I mean, yeah. I mean, I hate I mean, this is our this is our moment. No, I I mean I'm just you know I I I don't I don't want to you know that's why I asked Have we heard a single person complain about time to make the donuts guy being there at 3:00 a.m.? I don't think so. I acid in the negative. Like I doubt anybody cares. So try to light the boot. Our recommendation is just figure it out and put it in the PDD.

I'm not trying to be a stickler on this. I just think that that we have the rules in place and and and we should help the applicant uh submit something that would be conforming with that inaccurate consistency. This is the time to be a stickler. That's well I'm being a all right. So, but I for the record I don't have an issue with a baker showing up at 3:00 a.m. One of my best friends worked at Bay Bakery for my whole whole lifetime. So, um and I was always given a hard time because he had to show up at 3:00 a.m. to bake bakeries. Then I'd be out there at 6:00 a.m. getting free donuts out the back. I'm going to make the donuts. Go ahead.

Um, do we have another segment to this? Okay, so I this is one of the more final times for the commissioners to ask any other questions of Craig, Kelsey, Chris, Sundex because then I think I'll go to public comment. Okay. Um, can I ask? Oh, absolutely. I don't remember any mention of a golf simulator in the previous hearing. I just I'm a golfer. I'm curious what you're planning, but or was that an example? There was something in the memo about a golf simulator. Yes, there was.

So, looking I believe Kelsey and I just saw on the floor plans on the second level there appeared to be um simulator um layout. uh if I was spoiling anything there, but that's just what we saw. Yeah, I mean in the PDD you have to spell out the uses and so that's an entertainment use so would need to be outlined. Um but yeah, if we need to remove it. So what's is there a question in there? My question is what what is the use that they intend for that

is the second floor is going to have some really great community meeting spaces. you know, areas that we'd like people to get together and talk and conversationalize. And one of the things that we thought of that was a fun activity around that was actually putting in a few. Thank you. If if there's thought that there might be something else, we might want to broaden the language. So, you guys just let us know if um if you're set on that or if it might be something else so that way the PDD is correct. Interesting use. Any other further questions, Mark? No. Okay. Thank you.

And any other commissioner questions? Okay. Then I would open it up to any member of the public that's interested in speaking on this uh um plan commission item. Going once, going twice. Okay. All right. Then if you Yeah, you have to step up and if you could give your name and address 689 North Lake Drive. I love my fish day. We lived here for 20 years. I live at the church. Um the increase of traffic is my concern and taking down the trees. And I just want to voice my opinion that this makes me kind of sad. It looks very modern and it changes the whole land a lot. So that's it.

I'm concerned about our kids safety, especially with increased traffic on Lake View. I I would just comment that we spent an awful lot of time not on Lake View, but on Bumont. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Really

understood. All right. Any other members of the public? All right. Hearing none, then we'll move back to the commissioners. Uh any final questions, comments, concerns? Uh otherwise, we would make a motion to recommend to the village board um the PDD as described in the memo unless there are some changes with some addendums about operating hours. Um Kelsey, you've taken budgets. I have. Um you can Why don't you read off the four bullet points there?

Yeah. um with the submitt of a plan of operation to include a trucking route um as well as operating hours and any staff prep time. What I have a a question this is a um more of a process question. What is the next the next step for this is to go in front of village board with what this commission is suggesting. Correct. Th this commission as well

as well as arc and public works. Okay. Um okay. it. But before I um Kevin, before a motion is made, can I ask for a threem minute recess? I I I'd like to request a three-minute recess. Sure, why not? We'll have a threeminut recess. 555. Apparently, there's a question to be asked. Talk amongst yourselves for three minutes. Look at that. I'm that good. Okay. So, we've returned from recess. Uh, Trusty Sunders, do you have some comment that you'd like?

I do not. Yeah. Thank you. Can I ask you have a motion? Yeah. Um, before we get to motion, I think there are

a bunch of categories that the grave memo went through where I have no questions, no comments. I think it all makes sense. questions have been answered, but I'd like to understand where in all of this process, the comments that we heard last time and maybe some of the questions we may have about um design, about location on the lot, things that seem to be lingering in the minds of people who live in Whitefish Bay, are those things that get addressed in the development documents and we are simply saying this passes the Chris Jacobs branded smell test at this point. Beyond that, we passed that. We're past that.

That was the first one.

No, that that's a great question. Um, and maybe we could walk through those specifically to make sure that you're having really clear you're getting really clear answers. So, the design the ar the architecture of the building is being reviewed by ARC. So that that piece while the plan commission is welcome to comment on it and it was appropriate to do so in the presubmitt because you're you're trying to provide as much input as possible before they do a full submitt. Um that's not technically within the purview of the plan commission. However, as Craig and I were talking about, you're certainly welcome to comment on it, but what I've been advising the public is those comments are best placed with the ark. Like that the ark exists for that reason. and they're experts in those areas and they're the best suited to be able to address those comments. In terms of the placement of the building on the site, that is plan commission and that's um Craig did walk through it in his memo. Um but that would be plan commission. If there's any are there any other

I mean I think I heard parking. I'm fine with that. Site access, landscaping, I heard satisfactory updated useful information tonight. I think last time I asked if we could hear more tonight about what was considered and maybe rejected um that would address some of the comments we heard from the public about placement on the site. And I don't know if I've heard that. Sure.

If this vote is the last time we have input on that, I want to understand that that's what the vote includes. Yeah, that's a very appropriate question um for this evening and this is the last time the plan commission will see this if there is a vote. Um unless I guess the village board would send it back, but that's not likely. So I think it is a great question. Um Sendix team, would you mind commenting or talking through the different um why you picked the site that you picked or the location you picked on the site? [Laughter] going to rock paper scissors and see who answers that. Is it is it possible for you to go to the microphone because I I see that there are half a dozen or I see there are half a dozen people watching on online. So I'm the older brother and that's why I'm up here and not him even though I'd rather not. Um, obviously we've had this site since 1947. We've contemplated many different things over the years and the site has changed dramatically over the years from 1947 to what it is today. This is the most logical site. In fact, if we were starting from scratch, this is where we would want to put the building. There are many reasons for that, but let me start with this. It is our desire to keep the existing building open, the business operating during construction. It's important for us to serve the community um by staying open. And we also have over 150 employees at this site

that we don't want to lose. So, it's a non-starter for us not to keep that business open during construction. That leaves this spot as the spot for putting the building. Um, people have asked why not put it right on Silver Spring Drive. Aside from the answer that I just gave that it's not practical. Um the building given its size and I I know people think that it's big. It's a small grocery store. Even this remodeled grocery store is still one of our will be one of our smaller stores. The site is 2.2 acres. It's not a big site. Um, the thought I think in the in the master plan of having businesses on Silver Spring is the thought that there are multiple small tenants along a a period of space. That's not the case here. Your entry would not be on Silver Spring Drive. your entry to the business would me up. It would be contiguous to your parking. So even if it was on Silver even if the building was on Silver Spring Drive, your entrance wouldn't be it would be impractical. People wouldn't, you know, don't want to walk around a building to get to an entrance from a parking field. So those are some of the reasons uh why we've put the building where it is. It's it's our desire. That's where we want it to be. We think it makes the most sense and uh is is the most practical and the best use for this property.

Does that answer your questions?

I think so. I mean, I think it was important to me to have a record made for the people that are in the room and watching online that responded to questions that came up last time. I think I more than understand the business realities of it and you've well articulated those points. So, I appreciate it and yeah, I think hopefully there will be some um community consensus and satisfaction with the process and the outcome for having questions answered that way. So, thank you. Yeah, I I would just add that I think it was important to us in this design to anchor the corner of Silver Spring and Lake Drive and I think that it succeeds in this way. Um I would also say that in its current configuration there is not a building on Lake on Silver Spring Drive. There's a parking lot the whole length. So we do have building on Silver Spring Drive in this revised plan. That's an important point. I mean, just that right now it's all parking lot and in the future it'll be

50%. What what's the number? 50. Yeah. Halfway there to to 50. Although we're thinking more like 40, but whatever. You said 50, yeah, we the the code identifies not only building but like gathering spaces for the public area. when you add in kind of the the highly designed, you know, outdoor space, you know, along with the building frontage, that's where that 50% of the lot came from. That that's fine. But if you asked 100 people in Whitefish Bay, is Sendex on Silver Spring Drive? 98 of those 100 people would say yes.

Any further comments? Julie, you seem to have a list that you had kind of gone through of sections. Was there any other section that hadn't been discussed to your satisfaction?

I mean, I I I guess I'm satisfied, but I also feel an obligation for us to actively consider and discuss some of the things that we heard brought to us. And I do think location on the site covered a lot of the comments that we heard. So if nobody else wants to talk more then I think we're done. Yeah. I mean you're nobody has

I just make a followup the same vein of what you know Julie's mentioned around um just making sure that you know we've addressed kind of the community questions as well. this is the last time the plan commission is going to have input um on um you know on the the purview of of the discussion around um what's inside of the the PDD and what's acceptable. I agree I think um the departures from the PDD seem acceptable to me. Um but um you know maybe for the broader board consideration um we heard a lot about Bowmont, the Bowmont community and the the residents in that area. Um you know it's clear I think it's obvious like what the Silver Spring corridor is. I'm not sure it's clear what and I know we've done the traffic studies but practically speaking what the reduction of kind of egress um will look like on that Bowmont street. Um, and you you know I I think one thing is we've got the angled parking, but I'd imagine that where the crosswalks are, I'm not sure that folks are going to walk kind of out of their way to get to either console or lake to cross over the street um based on where I understand the Senate Senex entrance entrances to be. And so that's one thing that I just maybe keep on the record about um kind of if there's anything that makes sense from a pedestrian safety perspective. Um that's the only thing that that comes to mind.

Thank you. Just a question related to that. Are are there not still is there not still a a median and two crosswalks on diversity across Silver Spring? Diversity at Hollywood. Hollywood. Yes. Diversity. No. I meant I meant Holl. So actually that's where the entrance is. Entrance. You know I'm looking. No. It goes right to that block to the main entrance. Like the likelihood that someone's going to walk. Yes. Entrance. Yeah. I can't I think there just going to be a lot of pedestrians either moving walking inside of the church right now. Face. property street.

As a comment last night at public works committee, we increased the width of the median at Hollywood. So now it's an 8 foot median. Well, that's a big safety improvement right there. It is. It is. Is that Is that larger than the one at Berkeley? No, that's nine. So it's one foot shorter. Yeah, cuz because we talked about how it was six, we've got it to eight now. Okay. By manipulating some things. the rendering in the PDD packet. It's like the first page, page one. Yeah. And then zoom out of that one. Oh, yeah.

You could go back. By the way, we those plantings first page, second one. the the plantings um will likely be taken out by snow plows anyway. So I don't think Wisconsin Yeah. So do you want to do you want to explain with the rendering of what you were Yeah. And it's it's a little drift probably difficult to see but yeah the bowont give the man a laser point. I didn't know we had one. Here we go. Um it's really like okay as

as you know this this existing egress is closed off and we have pedestrian walkways across Silver Spring here. Um we know that the there's going to be an increase in density of traffic along Bowmont. Um I don't see in the plan kind of a pedestrian walkway um in the middle of you know Bowmont um into the Sendex and vice versa across towards the church. Um and so if the thought is that um people are going to park and then walk either up to Lake Drive or or west to console to cross over, I think um I think a lot of people are just going to, you know, try to cross traffic um in the middle of Bowmont either to go to the preschool, the church, or um if you're parking on the north side and you're going to um um cross over that way. So that's just a thought around, you know, with pedestrian safety.

Would you think about I I I don't know if this is even possible, but having a a midblock crosswalk like off the western edge of the there, you know, to get people from one side to the other. I think that's a thought and I understand that that would disrupt maybe how many parking spots there are or the current plan. Yeah. But um that would yeah, you know, with a lot of kids going back and forth and um just just just a you know a traffic pattern that we're not practically used to in the village. I just I wonder what that what that might look like.

Yeah, there's no doubt we'll continue to monitor all of these things. I mean that like at the public works committee meeting last night, we were frequently talking about, you know, what's what's what's thing what are things that are painted or signs or a parking spot that could be removed and thinking, well, let's let's see what happens in 6 months, you know, and and monitor the situation and see what we need to do. Did you have a comment, Kelsey? I was specifically I was trying to understand your comment. Are you concerned within the site? So on the Sendex property and how individuals the storefront or across the road? No, it's across. So if you're parking angled on the north side of Bowmont and you're coming to Sendex,

you're I imagine the straightest route is just going to be straight across the street from there as opposed to walking up the lake or you know we're or west towards Consul. that that is one thing I I mean it I don't think it there was a lot of discussion about it but it was something pointed out when we did our 362 tour at the village board level but um I I think our I seem to remember that it wasn't a great concern because we weren't we still weren't sure how many north side of Bowmont parking spots there were going going to be. Um, now are those the are those are the people that are only parking northbound? Is that the only people who we should be concerned about crossing Bulmont? No. So what you're saying is uh you know is is spot on that we need to u because of what we assume is going to be increased traffic on Bulmont have some sort of um pedestrian safety traffic calming what you know what have you. Um so I think your your point is well made.

Yeah that might be a little bit beyond plan condition conversation but that's I yeah I think it is too but I figured so as well. Um, but just wanted to have this is the last bite of your apple. So, if this is it, then you know, um, something to consider moving forward. And just so I'm clear, what Jay was talking about in terms of the parking spots on Lake Drive, that's not part of we're not including that as a recommendation to the board. I think that's Yeah. Okay. All right. No, because it's

I mean it's in the traffic counts, but they would or the parking counts, but they would exceed it either way. That's something that specifically was looked at by the public works committee and will be reviewed again by the village board on Monday. Okay. Okay. Go through it. So that's

so people are figuring out uh maybe we see a added precaution. By the way, I'm all in favor of pedestrians more of it in this and and I'd say regardless of this, you should do it anyway. Um it's needed for the village. But in this particular case, we need to see how traffic and then make a decision.

Great. Okay. Well, hearing that perhaps we've exhausted our questions. Well, really quick, Julie, I wanted to mention just really, I wanted to mention that just because I haven't said anything and when it comes to the question of the location on the property, I have been asking that question since this was first dreamt and ever suggested to us that it's happening. So, I just feel like I've beaten the proverbial dead horse and that's why I haven't spoken up in in in so in in favor or support of your questions. So, I just wanted to say that to you.

I don't even know if they're my questions. I feel like I'm trying to reiterate what what we heard from the public last time. I would say my question is what can be done for I defer to our fine colleagues on the ark but what can be done along Lake Drive to really make it feel accessible and a part of the village. I think the the corner is nice. I think, you know, there probably some design choices that are going to address things that people have brought to us as more uh packaged as location on-site concerns that are really more like what does it look like? What does it feel like? But from my perspective, I do think paying attention to that Lake Drive side and how it will feel to the people who are walking, biking, crossing the street at Lake Drive and Bowmont or even uh Lake View. Um what is that interaction going to be like? But as I understand it, that is a topic that we defer to our fine arc colleagues on and I am okay with that. I do want to clarify that site access isn't just cars, right? That is bicyclists and pedestrians. And so I think what you're referring to is the aesthetics of the design on Lake. And if that's the case, then yes, the architecture is with ARC. But in terms of site access, which is by foot, by bike, by car, that that would be what something that the plan commission would be reviewing.

Yeah, I think I said it last time. In my dream design, there would be access for pedestrians from Lake Drive. If the business realities and the consensus don't support it, then you know, right? All right. I think we're at the point maybe again my fourth try time uh that we could enterain entertain a motion. Uh, in this case, let's state it in the affirmative to recommend the PDD as presented with the four bullet points that Kelsey has described before. Um, would anybody like to make that motion? I have to get the language right.

I just I believe you can say so moved. Yeah, so moved would be I I would say um All right, I'll just say so. I was going to take a stab at it. Okay. Uh, is there a second to Mark's motion? There we go, Dave. Uh, any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of recommending this PDD to the village board say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. Well, that concludes our wonderful plan commission meeting. Um, I appreciate all of the efforts from the Sendex team and from Craig and u Kelsey and all the folks at the village and Joel. Oh no, Joel left. When let me let me just add because we were kidding about this tonight. Um, for those who aren't aware, section 1-10 of the municipal code says you can only speak on something twice. As a commissioner or as a p member of the public. As a commissioner. Okay. Well, members, we're we're going to disregard that role

more than twice. No. And it's funny because it says you you can have somebody speak more, but they have it's by leave of the board, so you have to ask permission. Okay. Well, I grant you permission. Anyhow, we need now a motion to move to adjourn. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Julie. Uh, all those in favor say I. Any opposed? Still. Motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, everybody. You will call inside.