To order.

Um, we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please stand.

I've pledged.

And to the Republican.

One nation under God.

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, um, next item is roll call.

Um, present we have Frank Kore, Molson, uh, Granger, Keller, and Riley.

Uh, Commissioners Wallner and Wells were unable to attend tonight.

But we do have a quorum.

Next item is public comment.

Um we take public comment for all the items uh on the agenda except the consent agenda unless it's taken off the consent agenda.

Um if you wish to make comments now, you can, but uh we also allow comments during the item.

So if anyone wishes to make a comment, they can.

And actually, real quick, I'm sorry, Lisa, just um there was a notice that went out to uh property owners near uh Meadowbrook and Summit regarding rezoning uh property from I uh to I1 and R1.

It's also known as the SMART property.

That was taken off the agenda, I think, by the applicant, but um it should come back in the March meeting, which is the fourth Wednesday in March.

New notices will be sent out.

Um so if anyone's here for that, we no action will take place on that.

Okay, Lisa, if you want to comment.

Good evening, Lisa Salb 434 Madison Street.

I'm here for item um 26-03015, and I'll just read it.

Review and possible action on a request from Mandel Group to extend the Plan Commission approval deadline for pulling building permits and commencing construction for the approved 219 unit multifamily development located at 130 Delafield Street, tax key WAKC 1305459.

Um, I am opposed to this extension for the reasons that I have mentioned at previous plan commission meetings, and I ask that you please vote against it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Give us your name and your address if you can.

Good evening.

Um, my name is Melissa, and I live uh on 161 Randall Street, behind the proposed development site at 130 Delfield.

Um, I would like to speak on item 2603015.

Um I understand the request before you is to extend the deadline to pull building permits by two years.

I also understand that some delays, including litigation and conservation easement process may be outside of the developer's control.

However, um extending approvals to late 2028 is not insignificant.

Um the applicant cited evolving market conditions and has also requested flexibility for potential design adjustments.

Those factors suggest that circumstances today may not be identical to the ones that existed when approvals are granted in 2024.

The staff memo states that the redevelopment is projected to add significant tax value and have a positive fiscal impact given changes in the construction cost, interest rates, and financing environment over the past two years.

I believe it would be prudent to confirm that these fiscal projections remain accurate before granting a full two-year extension.

Additionally, because this project sits directly adjacent to established homes.

Any flexibility for design modifications should remain subject to the commission oversight rather than being handled solely at the staff level.

The commission if market conditions and potential design changes are significant enough to require a two-year extension.

Shouldn't the project be re-evaluated rather than automatically extended?

Why should the city absorb extended entitlement risk for private litigation that was known and pending?

The lawsuit was foreseeable.

It was filed shortly after approval.

And can staff clarify what qualifies as minor um adjustments and whether those changes could affect a massing height or neighborhood buffering.

I am sincerely asking the commission to consider whether the conditions require updating fiscal design review would better protect the city and the surrounding neighborhood as circumstances continue to evolve.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay, we'll move on to approval of the minutes.

Um I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of January 28th, 2026, and February 11th, 2022.

26.

Commissioner Molson seconds.

Any discussion?

Okay, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or any abstaining?

That passes unanimously.

Next item is consent under consent agenda for a certified survey map for Prairie Song Drive.

This is to um approve a one lot CSM.

Excuse me, Mayor.

There's two sets of minutes on this agenda.

Yeah, we adopted both.

Well, we did approve both at the same time.

Sorry, I missed that.

I combine them.

Thanks.

Um all right.

So certified survey map.

Uh does anyone wish to have that item removed from consent?

Okay, so that's uh approved unanimously.

Next item is consultation for 222 West St.

Paul Avenue.

This is to discuss potential plans um for business our business model for proposed improvements to the vacant portion of the building uh at 222 West St.

Paul Avenue under the B3 General Business District.

Uh it's a what we're the no action will be taken.

Uh it's for the developer to provide uh their information, receive comments from the plant commission.

The way we do this is staff will do a presentation.

Uh uh the plant commission may ask questions of staff.

If the developer wishes to speak, then they speak.

Um, and if anyone here also wishes to comment, they can too.

So Robin.

Yes, thank you.

Uh so again, uh, this is a consultation uh for 222 West St.

Paul Avenue.

Um the applicant will be looking uh for feedback on the exterior and then also the interior.

Um they may need to come back for plan commission uh for conditional use for some of the um uh potential businesses in that in the interior.

So like the feedback on the plan commission if uh they'd be open to the uh have them coming for conditional use permits or potentially going to the board of zoning appeals.

Uh here is a yeah, is your mic on?

Yes, okay.

Just a little bit closer.

Uh so uh this is zoned uh again B3.

Uh here is a uh street view uh looking um to north uh toward that property.

Uh this is the existing building.

And then uh here's the um elevations uh of that south side that I just showed uh that the developer is proposing.

Uh they're looking to uh repair the uh brick and paint it on the building, uh paint the metal siding and um add new vinyl siding and then also install a new roof as well.

And then here is a rendering uh showing that same uh uh that same elevation, but a rendering of the um what the building would look like then.

Um again, here's another street view.

You can see on the side of the building, there's some overhead doors, uh a large overhead door and two smaller ones.

Uh so um the uh applicant is then again uh looking looking to paint the overhead doors uh and touch up the brick and this uh material on the building as well.

And then you can see a rendering of um what that would look like.

And then here is the um east elevation, uh looking at the side of the building.

Uh and just a note uh this property, this building here will remain.

That is uh that's a different um uh business.

So the work would be done on the building right here.

Here's some uh current photos of the exterior of the building.

So you can see that there's uh there'll be adding new windows, uh again uh repainting and fixing the brick as well.

Uh the vinyl siding, um just uh giving the uh building a new uh look.

And then here are some interior views of uh what the building uh currently looks like.

So here's a site plan of what the interior of the building would look like.

So West St.

Paul is here on the bottom.

Uh here's the uh entryway um into the building.

So what they're looking at potentially doing is having um uh some retail uh commercial type space in these front spaces, uh and then uh in the rear, uh more like light industrial trades, some of the uh manufacturing type of um businesses in those uh larger spaces to the rear.

So what they're looking at potentially doing is having um uh some retail uh commercial type space in these front spaces, uh and then uh in the rear, uh more like light industrial trades, some of the uh manufacturing type of um businesses in those uh larger spaces to the rear, and then the A uh A in the back would be used by the um current owner of the health uh facility.

And then here's a colored rendering showing those, so you can see there is access from each of those units into the hallway and then um the to the restrooms, and then the overhead doors are here on this side.

So uh the tenant in uh D1 would be uh able to use those overhead doors for that.

And then they're again they're looking for potential some commercial retail in the front.

Um being in the B3 B in the B3 zone, um some of those would be uh aren't in the permitted use, but the staff feels that under the uh B3 zone under the um use is similar and reasonably related to principal permitted uses that they would be able to come back to get conditional uses for uh some of the tenants.

They don't they don't have any uh actually like set tenants, but they have an idea of what they're looking to do, what to do with the building.

And then here is a picture uh site plan of the uh second uh floor, and uh they would be looking at having that as just uh some offices.

Uh the second floor is just in the front part right there.

So again, uh this is just uh consultation.

The plan commission may determine if the applicant uh can come back and obtain a conditional use permit for uses similar to and reasonably related to the principal permitted uh permitted principal uses, or if they would need to go to the board of zoning appeals for those for certain tenants, and then the applicant will need to come back to the plan commission to obtain the conditional use permits and a final site plan and architecture review.

Um so the similar uses are thrift store and food prep.

Um that's what I kind of saw in there in contractor's office.

Uh yeah, the one one of the uh tenants they were considering was like a um electrician, and uh the there's there are some um there are some in there that allow for um like hardware or um prof there's professional offices in there.

The retail would be close to like the in the B3 a department store or shops are allowed, but it didn't have retail listed in there, so closely related to or similar to the principal uses.

Okay, um just uh I guess we still quite a bit of discussion, but um uh combining professional offices and um like an electrician's home base or a contractor's home base um will lead to issues, I believe, just uh in outside storage.

I'm concerned about that too.

But Commissioner Keller, I think you had Robin.

This project was approved, I don't know, six, seven years ago.

I think Steve Vanderblumen was in here, and I think the entire building was shown um reworked.

Do you have the plans for that that you can share?

I do not have those plans.

The building on the north side has all been redone.

Right, but I think he proposed some of the building as well.

Yep.

So I think it would be worthwhile looking at that before the plan commission made any judgment.

Um because my recollection it was very different than what's being proposed now, and I think perhaps uh a better solution.

So um that would be my recommendation.

Any questions to staff?

Go ahead.

Uh does the building as this proposed meet the new zoning standards, assuming what we our current draft is like the vinyl siding and all that, does it meet the new rules?

I did not look into uh that aspect of it yet, um, but I did uh for the in uh for some of the interior for the rezoning of that, some of those businesses may be allowed then into the new zoning, but uh I did not look at the new uh one for the exterior at this moment.

Okay, and then um there the one colored picture had the a bunch of black arrows, those are the doors to get in and out of the suites, right?

Yes, correct.

Okay, just off the top of my head, I think you'd get a better retail presence if the door opened to the exterior, and you didn't have to go through two doors to get there.

Those are my comments.

Yeah, and like the interior, so the uses are of our concern how they set it up inside at the planning commission, doesn't have a whole I'm not objecting, they just ask your comments.

And I already commented on combining offices too.

So I guess I just want to try to make that clear.

Um well, before if we don't have any questions of staff, then um if anyone else wishes to speak, they can the applicants are here.

Okay.

Hey, good evening, everyone.

Um Patrick McGraw, I'm a principal with Hanahome Healthcare.

Um parent company, and we're we're in business on the side at 215 West North Street, which is the occupied portion.

Um just to give you a little bit of of our background.

So with the the current proposals, a couple things uh I'd like to address based on uh some of the comments that were raised.

We we did receive Steve Vanderblum's um plans when we originally took occupancy.

Um we have a representative from Thrive Architecture here with us too.

We we looked at Steve's initial plans.

We've had um two or three iterations of additional new plans uh brought together and have worked with uh construction company to bid that out and and work within a budget and really trying to make the math work um as to what the market will bear for for rents, et cetera.

Um, and ended up with really much more of a renovation than a rebuild.

Um some significant expenditures would be things like a roof, and it uh 100% needs a brand new roof, um, and a lot of the additional um fixing up of areas really we think we we have something that is financially viable, but um but barely at this point versus the tear down plans, which we did explore um significantly.

Uh the the some of the concerns I I heard you mention with things like outside storage, we too would be very concerned um in some just initial marketing discussions around this with prospective tenants.

We we had said, you know, we're looking for tenants who even if they had vehicles, right?

We had uh a food truck was brought up.

So one example was that we asked that they had the ability to park indoors and with some of the overhead doors.

You can see um we are not looking for somebody with a fleet of trucks and you know, a whole bunch of outside storage.

We want to keep it uh tidy, etc.

Some of the other types of prospective tenants we've talked to are uh in the construction trade, remodeling, things like that were home base keeping their materials indoors and having uh a place to park.

So all of that would be in those areas that were away from St.

Paul that you saw those other units we had sketched out, where uh on the front retail aspect, we think you know, obviously there's a whole lot of traffic there on St.

Paul, and having a nice presence um to that traffic with the new windows, etc.

would would attract more of a retail space.

But those back areas without replacing all the overhead doors and and significantly redoing it.

Um and that that's really the guidance we're looking for, are those conditional use and the type of tenants we'd we'd want to get.

We'd like some advice on you know this is what we think would be acceptable.

Obviously, if we had somebody who you know wants to put racking outside or store lots and lots of vehicles outside, um, we too feel like that wouldn't be a good fit.

So looking for advice on all of that.

So as we prepare to come back for specific use cases, we've got a better idea of of what the group would think.

Okay.

Go ahead.

So the building on the I think it's the west side was renovated eight years ago, maybe.

Not sure.

Kind of 12-ish, I believe.

Well, there's okay.

I think it's the north side, just so whatever the the uh renovated facade was.

I guess from my perspective, um, because they are kind of looked at together.

I'd like to suggest that whatever you do with the unfinished buildings, you try to blend the two um buildings together visually.

And I don't know if you have to necessarily use the same materials, but I think it's one building, and I think if it's pulled together with a similar material, it'll read as one building, it'll be easier to deal with.

Uh I've been in that building, it's a mess.

It's been you know 50 different solutions over time.

Nothing, nothing lines up, nothing matches, nothing and so forth.

So you're aware of that.

But um my perspective is I think the building would look better if it was tied together visually, whether that's a similar material or color or whatever.

Um that would help.

If I may respond along the way, apologies.

I do not want to interrupt, but um from a materials standpoint, um, the Vanderbloom group had left behind some materials that we have talked about the front facing uh along St.

Paul.

We have um some of the cement board that was used on the renovation on the side that's finished, and you're talking about um we've had that repainted last year.

I don't know if you've drove by, but um we we were looking to do something very similar using the same materials on the front using some of the same coloring.

Um some of the hardwood you can see in this picture all the way to the left and top of the picture.

Some of that would also there's some raw materials that were were left behind by the previous owner that we had looked to incorporate um into as well to try to tie things as much as possible.

We we get it.

They didn't necessarily pick materials that had longevity.

They tended to fade out and so forth, and um think they could be stained or painted or whatever, but again, I'm looking at this as a complete building.

It's obviously got a lot of parts and pieces inside, but I think if we somehow find a way to blend it together, it's gonna read better as an object for people driving by and certainly as a demonstrated headquarters for your business.

And so there's a bunch of different ways to do that.

I don't want to suggest how to do that.

I'm just gonna suggest that you should do that because I think it'll help the building read uh as one uh complete structure with different tenants.

Okay, understood uh Commissioner Frank Court then Moulton.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Number one, I support what Commissioner Keller just said about treating it as a complete unit as opposed to different sections that came alive at different times.

Um I do applaud the effort to upgrade the appearance of this.

I've been watching it for a long time, was here when we approve things, uh, when we denied things.

So it's nice to see that something is going to improve the the site on St.

Paul.

I am concerned about the things that the mayor raised, and I'm wondering as the owner of the building, uh do I have that correct that you would own the building?

Correct.

And that you would then be the one to designate what is allowed and what is not.

Absolutely.

So therefore, I would you wanted some feedback.

I think a very important thing is the storage issue and what may not be allowed, and also the parking issue that it is striped or it is organized in such a way because it's so visible from St.

Paul, and you have a nice uh residential facility right across the street from you.

Beautiful and some you know, viable businesses south of you, or yes, I think that would be correct.

That you're you're upgrading the facade, and I would like you to see to blend in with the environment that you have.

Thank you.

Very good feedback.

Um I they had some suggestion that maybe the mix of uses was not appropriate, but I I'm comfortable with what you've what you proposed.

I agree that the back portions of the building would be for non retail, like you wouldn't want traffic there, try to get customers to come back there.

That uh like a contractor home base, I think would be an appropriate use.

Thank you.

Yeah, and the virtually all of the initial discussions we've had, parking is has been an issue from discussion about you know if their customers can get in, even those retail in the in the front, they'd have some street parking, obviously, to deal with.

Um, and then we have parking, and obviously we'd be paving and uh adding parking spaces, but it is rather limited at this point.

Okay, um, I guess my comments are almost anything you do will be an improvement.

Yes.

Um but uh um I think it is important to try to um kind of make the building look as one building.

Um the I'm I'm actually thinking it would be a great idea for it to uh obtain a uh CUP for the simple reason we have uh it for the applicants or the developer, um they won't know if they're gonna get approved until they go through the Board of Appeals and whether it's approved or not.

Um usually that's a little more difficult.

Conditional use permit allows for a give and take for the plant commission to um put conditions on it and probably hopefully end up with um something that we can all be happy with.

Um so the uses that are being proposed, and I don't think that they're set in stone.

Um uh to me don't cause a big problem.

Except I did bring up the, you know, if you have a contractor in there and they think they're gonna store all their stuff outside, that's never gonna be a permitted in any case under a CUP under a CUP, I don't think, um, by the Plan Commission.

So I guess we also I would listen to the two who said they want the building to um be kind of one structure itself and not have one side be one thing and one side be another um because they'll be here uh when you come back.

Um but uh for the I I think the other thing we want to at least uh give direction on is the CUP.

So I'm in favor of it going towards a CUP because I think we would get um uh a building that we would probably be a step above um if it just goes through um variants.

Is this apt to change once the new zoning code is in effect in other words?

What what kind of pitfalls are they looking at in two months when they come back with a final plan?

Some of the some of the uh things that would be conditional use could be in the permitted, but there's still would more likely than not be a few that would still need a conditional use, and that it's I just uh don't know offhand because we don't know what's coming in there yet.

But I just wanted to bring that up because that's sort of hanging out there as a elephant in the room, sir.

And also I think that the it's some of it would be subject to the new code, some of it wouldn't, because it's a it's an existing building.

I mean, you can't make them um bring the bill push the building back further from the road or the side yard setbacks are the way they are right now.

Um I think landscaping would probably be one of the things that the new code would apply towards.

Um maybe the materials um well, there's an aesthetic component that I'm not sure how this shakes out when the zoning code changes.

Yeah.

Um but uh conditional use permit.

I go ahead.

Um I agree with what's being suggested that the staff can assist here and say if here are my preliminary plans, how do they work against what might be adopted as the new zoning code, especially as it uh attaches to materials.

I would say, however, that the Waukesha Memorial Auxiliary thrift store on West Avenue is in a building, and the front of it is the thrift store, so it's a retail, if you will, and the back is a um contractor, and they've used signage and different ways to make sure that the retail has access and that the parking is the way you would like it, but that there still is access to the manufacturer that's in the back of it, and you might want to take a look at how they did that.

What about just I think we should all comment on whether it uh we'd be in favor be open to a C UP versus going having sending them to border zoning appeals.

CUP sounds uh sounds the most reasonable.

Yeah, I I also agree that the C UP is the way to go on that.

I agree.

All right.

So thank you very much.

It was very good guidance, and that's actually exactly what we're looking for.

Is to get you know headed in a direction so we have some clarity to plan our investment as well.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Eric, go ahead.

Introduce yourself too, please.

Hi, Eric Payne.

Um 215 Randall Street, Alderman District 2.

Uh this project, this building falls within District 2.

Um I am very happy.

I I've been inside the building two times.

Previous owner and I met with the owner, present owners.

And they're gonna have to stick a boatload of money in this building.

And I'm really happy that somebody's coming forward finally wanting to fix the building up and and they have a plan.

And uh with that, I I hope that you would make it easy, not not impossible for them to achieve their goal, but uh we it it would be very nice to have that building fixed up, and like I said, it's gonna take a lot of money, and I'm glad they're willing to do something with it.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

Anything else for on this issue?

All right.

Um, so now we'll move to final site plan and architectural review.

Uh 2600 Summit Avenue Montessori School at Walkshaw.

This is uh final plans uh for a 14,000 square foot building addition.

Once again, we'll have a presentation by staff, and that'll be dug.

Thank you.

So this is for the Montessori School out on Summit Avenue, right near in the corner of University.

This if you recall, some of you I know have been around.

Back in 2018, there was plans for a large addition to Montessori School.

At that time, then a couple years later, they did a small portion of that addition.

And what's before you this evening is basically they did the small portion addition just to the north of the school of the existing building.

And there was also a large addition to the west.

This is basically completing that large addition to the west that you saw in 2018 that was approved.

But now they've uh since it wasn't done, then they've brought it back for final approval for the new plans.

So here's the uh site in question.

Um obviously at the corner of University Drive and Summit Avenue.

Um currently there's the the former church is at the corner of the property, and that will be uh raised with this project as well as the parking lot from that church, and then the addition will go in in this area off to the west of the school.

Um, there'll also be a large parking lot and a drive-through drop-off and pickup area added to the new entrance on this west side as well, as you'll see in the plans.

Um, the whole entire property is already zoned I-1 institutional, um, appropriate for the Montessori school.

Um, and here's just a close-up of the site.

Um this square up in here was that north edition that was done uh back in 2021, um, which was part of that overall larger project that was proposed to you in 2018.

Um so now we'll be finishing off with the western addition and and parking as was always originally envisioned from that 2018 plan approval.

So here's just showing the demo plan, showing the removal of the building and parking lot here to the south with the site plan here.

And you can see this is the uh new building that will be added on.

It's about 14,000 square feet in size.

Um then you can see the large new parking lot with uh I think it's a little over 100 parking spaces that'll be in the parking lot, and um, as well as in darker gray, they outlined the the drive and uh drive-through drop-off and pickup lane.

So you'd come in on the south side here, uh the new entrance and then out to University Avenue again.

Um so hopefully this will alleviate some of the traffic congestion that currently happens on Summit Avenue if you've ever gone through around school times there.

Um, with this plan, you can see at uh the south end um they're proposing a sidewalk connection out to the sidewalk.

There'll be a new sidewalk along um University Avenue on this side, and then they're proposing a sidewalk that will come up along the south driveway up to the school.

Um but they did not put one on the north side, it says a future sidewalk, and staff uh felt strongly that that should be included with this development at this time, um, as there is sidewalk and residential uh further to the north.

Um, also with the uh proposed um opportunities for redevelopment of the UW Waukeshaw site, and that being mostly residential, which is immediately north of this lot line.

Um we envision there could be pedestrian traffic coming to the school from the north side as well, um, and just feel that would be a much safer option while they have the contractors on site doing the project.

Um just to just seems to make sense.

So staff feel strongly that that sidewalk should be put in at this time, not called out as a future sidewalk with no definite time frame.

Um here's the the grading and utility plan.

Um big thing on here at the south end of the site.

Um, as you're all aware, university goes up strongly to the north.

Um, so the water flow is coming to the south and across this site, it will continue to do so.

So they put stormwater facilities at the south side here.

Um, and that will all be handled on the the south end, then you can see the the grading for that.

Um, also on the plan here, you can see there will be a kind of a uh area for paved playground area up here on the north side.

Um, and then at the north end uh of the drive-through drop-off area, they're proposing to have a dumpster enclosures up in this area or a storage garage in dumpster enclosure that's still um undecided which way they'll go if it'll just be an enclosure or a garage.

So they've submitted the plans for both, hoping to have an option.

I think it's going to kind of based on how the costs work out as they finish uh and get into the construction on the project.

I should also point out in the grading plan here.

You can see there's a berm that goes along the parking lot all along University Drive to help create a buffer there.

And when we go to the landscape plan, you can see then they've they've landscaped that broom appropriately with some a mix of uh evergreen trees and shrubs and things to create help create a screen there between the parking lot and university drive.

Um they've also added a couple of landscaped islands into the parking lot, um, and then uh a curved buffer for that drop-off lane, which also has landscaped islands uh designating areas to go in and out of the parking um lot itself.

And then they do have foundation plantings around the school as well.

Uh, they did provide uh lighting plan.

Um poles are not to exceed 20 feet on a four-foot base, and the LED color temperature is to be less than 4,000 K in color.

Getting into the the building itself, then here you can see the in the lighter gray of the existing building as it is, and then the the darker black lines here be the new addition.

Um biggest feature on this new addition out to the west side will be a new gymnasium, and then uh some uh academic and office space is also provided going out to the west here, and then it just south of the gymnasium is where that new entrance is.

Um it's a kind of a covered entrance going out to that drive-through lane.

Here is the uh renderings of the dumpster enclosure I had mentioned.

Um, up here on the top right is just a masonry dumpster enclosure using the um decorative uh block materials that they'll be using to construct the school, and then the same thing with the uh attached kind of garage storage building and uh adjacent dumpster enclosure using the same materials as well.

Um, so staff is comfortable with either of these uh solutions uh for dumpster enclosures and would be comfortable approving a plans that they can go either or if the plan commission feels comfortable with that for this location of the dumpster enclosures being right at the north end of the uh parking lot area, and then here's the elevations to the building.

Um this one down here, the second one up from the bottom would be this elevation that faces out onto university.

Uh, then you have the the south elevation just above that, and the north elevation facing out onto the school playground at the top, and then the kind of the connection into the building.

It's kind of hidden behind, it's not really gonna be visible from the public streets on this lower elevation.

And I mentioned they're using the um the decorative block, like they've used on the other parts of the school.

Um, they've also added in the horizontal banding to kind of break that up, added windows along the lower levels where appropriate, where they have uh academic and administrative spaces.

Um then on the uh elevation of the gymnasium facing out to the uh university drive, they've added a second higher uh horizontal banding as well as some vertical elements there to help break up that facade to give a little nicer view and interest out onto university drive.

And they've provided a couple of renderings just you can kind of see how the uh architecture works and how it ties together.

Um the canopy feature over the entrance and how the vertical elements tie in there on the front of the building, kind of break that up.

Um here you can see the drive-through lane.

Um there is curbing around the landscaped islands in the parking lot.

The renderings don't show it that way, but the engineering drawings do.

Here you can just see a better view of that main entrance again.

And then another view kind of farther back.

You can see the the landscape berm going along university, starting out here.

This is at the southern entrance, obviously, looking kind of to the north into the site.

Um, some plantings along the entrance and some gardens as well, and then the landscaped islands uh throughout the parking lot that like I said will be curbed.

Um, so at this time, staff would be uh recommending approval of the new 14,000 square foot addition with the following conditions that all city department comments and concerns are to be addressed.

Um that staff uh strongly recommends a pedestrian walk along the north driveway connecting the school to the sidewalk on University Avenue be included at this time, and also the engineering department concurrence letter is required before any building permits will be issued.

Okay, any questions?

Go ahead, Commissioner Keller.

Doug, is there a reason why uh the new building isn't the same color as the existing as opposed to being different?

Um there's representatives here, but I think they're kind of just doing at the set off so we can see where the new building was on these uh renderings.

Uh also are there any play fields that are part of this development?

Baseball um anything soccer not identified as part of this development, but they do have existing play fields to the north.

You can see those on the aerial uh photos up in this area, um, up in to the north of the school up in there commissioner, yeah.

Go ahead.

Uh thank you, Mary.

First of all, it's um wonderful to see that the pick up and drop-off areas coming off of university.

I think anybody that drives through Summit any time during the day is thrilled to see that.

So thank you for that.

Or if you pick up and drop off to their true.

Um also I agree with the staff's recommendation about the north sidewalk being required now rather than putting it on a to-do list.

And I'm wondering, um, Doug, could you make some comment about the what would be the east side or east part of an exhibit?

Because we have single family homes there that abut this property.

Sure, okay.

Yes, so um, I can off of this plan.

So the single family homes would abut over in this section.

Yes.

Um currently there's a drive that goes up along this east side of the building.

Uh, if you remember a year or two ago, they put in a new um solid fence along this property line.

Um and then the existing school is right here, and then the proposed additions on the other side of the school, so we really don't see any impact with this to the properties to the east.

So there is some protection for them.

Yeah, the existing school building is already there as a buffer itself, and they and then they have they uh did the the fence uh several years ago also.

So is there anything that you have that is an exhibit that shows us what someone from Summit View would see or summit from summit?

Um no, we don't have uh yeah, the building renderings.

The renderings kind of did the I mean the uh this one is pretty much from the south, kind of looking up to the north.

So you'd see this face of the building.

There's a small playground off next to that.

Um, and then the the building itself, and you can see the existing building back behind it a little bit.

Go ahead if you want to add to it.

It's sure.

And then Dean Schultz with Excel Engineering in Fawnilac.

Um, I believe would be the south elevation, would really give you a feel for what that is.

I don't know if you can there's the elevation right there.

Yeah.

Um so if you look at the south elevation, that's really what you'd see from summit.

Obviously, we're cutting off part of the building that you ex you know that's existing right now, but what you see would be an extension of what you're seeing right now on Summit.

Is that answer your question?

It does.

And I I guess I would also like to just comment.

I think that Commissioner Keller brought this up, but the materials for the old building and the new building complement one another or are the same.

Basically, we're using the same materials that we did for the last edition onto this.

It may not look like that on the elevations, but that that is the materials that we've chosen.

What what about color?

It's the same color as well.

So it's a cohesive presentation.

Correct.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

All right.

Um, if you have anything else to add, you can.

I I don't I'm just the answer questions.

All right.

Um I'm anyone from the public wish to speak on this.

All right, back to plan commission.

Um we're kind of uh going through things that we had approved years ago, and they're coming back.

Um this I guess I'm uh from my perspective.

I'm in favor of the approval with all the staff comments with the um additional sidewalk because um sidewalk sometime in the future never happens.

Um that was a motion, Commissioner Keller seconds.

Any discussion.

Okay, so the motion is to approve uh the final site plan and architectural review.

Um as um with all staff comments.

Um so all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

But the staff comments said they recommended a sidewalk.

Okay, then it then includes the sidewalk on the north side.

Thank you for that clarification.

Yep, thank you.

Uh so we have ay, any opposed, any abstain.

Okay, that will that was unanimous.

All right.

So thank you.

And uh I used to drive to through into their um parking lot.

I don't anymore.

Uh let's see.

Uh final site plan and architecture review, 1808 Silvernail Road UW Credit Union to build a new 5,000 200 square foot credit union building on the northwest corner of Silvernail Road and Grandview Boulevard.

Um Charlie.

All right.

Uh so this is 1808 Silvernail Road.

It's the uh the northwest corner of the intersection of Silvernail Road and uh North Grandview Boulevard.

And uh currently it's the site of a uh a BP gas station, and the applicants would like to replace the uh the gas station with a new UW credit union branch building.

Um so the the uh building would uh the branch building would have a an area of 5,200 square feet, and then they would also add uh associated parking and a uh drive-through uh ATM as well.

Um they plan to close the the driveway opening that's uh closest to the intersection, uh which is something that uh our public works department is very happy about.

They feel that that would uh increase the safety of the uh intersection, uh, but they will leave uh the access points to the the larger shopping center there and then also to the uh the oil change uh location uh immediately to the west.

So those will those will remain and they do have easements for those.

Um the building itself will include uh teller uh desks as well as a number of uh closing rooms around the the exterior um and then uh rear areas for uh for employees.

Um the applicants have provided parking calculations.

Uh they've they've provided a calculation that does include uh the closing rooms and the the restroom areas, and then one that doesn't uh based on the calculation uh in our with our current code uh the the requirement for 101 space per uh 150 square feet of uh customer area um with including the the uh closing rooms uh they would require 27 parking spaces and not including them, they would require 22, and they are showing a total of 24 parking spaces.

Uh they do believe that that will be sufficient for based on the the operations that they've experienced at their other uh locations.

The 24 spaces they believe will be will be plenty for their needs.

Uh so they are requesting, depending on how you interpret the code, uh they're requesting that the planning commission approve a an exception uh for that.

Um the building itself, uh the primary uh uh building material will be the gray uh masonry that's on the kind of the bottom left of the of the picture there with a number of different accents of uh metal panels as well as composite and some stone sections.

Um along the southwest, which is where the entrance will be the they'll uh they're showing a uh floor to ceiling uh window uh windows with um a red accent uh right over the the entrance doors, and then moving a little further to the east uh towards the corner with grand view.

Uh there's a uh vertical uh masonry feature, uh accent feature as and then get getting into the uh uh further towards the back of the the house.

There's uh you can see it's the primarily the uh dark uh the gray masonry uh with some uh brown uh composite panels as well, and then with a small uh fenced in area for the employee uh employee lunch area um or break area, I guess, uh along that uh that wall as well.

The uh drive-through awning will be technically a separate structure, uh, but it's uh right adjacent to the building.

Uh we'll basically have the appearance of an attached structure.

fenced in area for the employee uh employee lunch area um or break area I guess uh along that uh that wall as well the uh drive-thru awning will be technically a separate structure uh but it's uh right adjacent to the building uh will basically have the appearance of an attached structure um and then uh just to note the uh uh trash storage will be in a separate enclosure uh that is attached to the building uh so you can see the entrance to that or the the gate to that uh right on the wall facing the parking lot there um the the drive-thru canopy will have uh a couple of lights on it which will exceed the uh the the requirement in the zoning code for a maximum of a half a foot candle of spillover at the property boundary um the applicants have noted that that is is necessary uh because of their security needs and that uh they can that is dimmable so they can uh they can reduce the light when the uh off the outside of the business hours and that'll be adjacent to property owner or to the uh parking lot for um for a uh uh the restaurant to the north which is in the larger proper or larger shopping center um so staff feels that this it won't be uh a significant uh negative impact um and it is uh something that can be approved uh as part of the uh an amendment to the uh planning and development for that uh for that larger shopping center uh moving to the uh the landscape plan uh the first thing to note is they do plan to extend uh sidewalk currently it extends along the south side of the property uh along Silvernail Road and they ex they plan to extend it all the way um to the north boundary of the property along along Grandview Boulevard uh landscaping itself uh will include a number of um uh shrubs and uh some shade trees uh in the uh in the the parking lot island areas and then also uh significant foundation plantings around the building uh as well as throughout the site uh additional plantings throughout the site uh one thing that staff had asked for would be was some uh screening uh along the outside boundary of the drive-thru area uh to screen uh to screen uh headlights uh from uh traffic uh coming southbound on grand view boulevard they have added some plantings there but uh uh the plantings that they're showing are uh uh reed grass uh which uh we don't believe will be uh really significant especially in the winter months uh so staff would like to see something a little bit more robust and and potentially some evergreen plantings there so that uh that that'll provide a year-round screen so staff recommends approval of uh the final site plan and architecture review uh for the proposed credit union branch at 1808 silver nail with uh that condition that they'll provide additional evergreen landscape screening uh for the drive-thru lane um and that that updated landscape plan would be approved by staff prior to the issuance of building permits uh that the lights in the drive-thru would be uh dimmed when the business is closed and that that would be included in a POD amendment uh to be signed and recorded prior to the issuance of building permits and uh uh that the removal of the fuel tanks from the gas station will be uh approved by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection as required and uh engineering and water utility comments to be addressed.

Charlie um for the additional landscape evergreen landscaping to screen headlights what if it was also or what if it included a berm and then the grasses would that think you'd think that'd work that that certainly would be an option.

Just because you know how much I enjoy evergreens very little um so uh any questions staff go ahead Charlie how's the proponent um dealing with rooftop units I'm sorry how is the proponent dealing with rooftop units so rooftop mechanical that um I can't see it anywhere maybe it's hidden maybe it's in a room yeah I I guess I think uh answer is coming um PJ Theron with UW credit union uh you can see in the photo there kind of behind the the signage we try to incorporate our mechanical screens into the building so there is a mechanical screen there but it uh all the rooftop units would be hidden within that mechanical stream screen but we've worked with our architect for several years and we tried to incorporate the mechanical screen as part of the architecture of the building so okay great any other questions anyone um okay go ahead not really a question but I agree also about the plantings at the drive thru I would a berm with tall grasses would be much better than evergreen and I think having a berm to help block those lights would go far.

I agree with the that there needs to be something that blocks the lights for cars coming down Grandview.

I just see evergreens being used everywhere for everything.

They're hard to keep alive along a highway like that too with the salt we've really struggled with with keeping keeping them alive.

We've really struggled with with keeping keeping them alive.

So I I think it if this is approved, it'll probably be the option of evergreens or and or berm um with uh grasses on it.

That's what I'm thinking.

At least I know I got one vote.

I like burns.

Got three votes.

Um do you have anything else, Ed?

Um, not really, other than you know, the parking lot.

We you know, we have 30 some branches, and that that parking we feel is is adequate for our business needs with the amount of staff we'll have on site and our normal uh members that come in.

The members that come in, are he's coming in to do transactions are not in there for a long time, so the turnover is pretty quick.

So we feel the parking is is adequate and would look look for uh approval on that.

Yeah, I get I don't really have a problem with the number of parking spots, it's being reduced by three or four, I think.

From what would be the code would require if the closing rooms were in there.

Um if every single closing room is being used, though, that's usually two cars for at least two cars for each closing room, maybe three, um, with the closers.

Um, but that happens so infrequently anyway.

So all right, thank you.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak on this?

All right, back to the plant commission.

Um I'll make a motion to uh approve the final site plan and architectural review for UW Credit Union at 1808 Silvernail Road, subject to all staff comments with the addition that um the app can could put in a berm with grasses on the top as opposed to evergreen landscaping.

Um if they wish.

Okay, have a second, any discussion?

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, any abstain?

That passes unanimously.

And that includes the reduction in the number of parking spots.

Um next item is final site plan and architectural review for 400 Wilmont Drive, Superior Crane Corporation.

Um this is uh final plans for a new 31,234 square foot industrial building, um, including a 122-foot wide driveway opening.

Um Robin will provide the background.

Yes, thank you.

Uh so uh this is for Superior Crane, it's owned M2 uh manufacturing district.

They did come uh forward a few a month or so back to uh uh get a certified survey map to combine the two parcels uh where the building will be put on.

Uh so here is the property right here on uh Wilmont, just south of Lespo Parkway.

Um in the yellow is the site, the combined site now where that uh new building will be uh highlighted in blue is uh shows their um the rest of the uh superior crane uh properties and their buildings.

Um here's a street view uh looking north at the site.

Um over here is where the new 31,000 uh 234 square foot uh building will be placed.

And then uh here's the current site plan.

So in red uh is a building that's on that site that's gonna remain.

The one in the blue is the one that's going to be uh uh torn down and replaced.

And then here's a site uh layout of the new proposed building.

Uh one thing to note um highlighted in the red is the new um pavement that will be added, and then uh the applicant is looking to get um request to get a larger driveway opening for 122 feet.

Uh this is uh due so that the um the cranes and the vehicles there can get in safely um to the new building.

Uh so here's the east elevation and the west elevation.

Uh it's gonna be the same materials and um color as the other buildings that they have.

Um it's uh there would be white CMU base around and the blue pre-finished metal panels and the uh metal roof.

And then here are the north and uh um south elevations of that.

Uh south elevation is at entry into the new building.

Um one thing to note is that um there's no windows on this.

Uh the some of their other buildings uh don't have them either.

The reason is because the windows in the past they've um had issues with the welding and things that go in there where the windows get dirty, it's very hard to get up and clean, and it's a safety uh thing um for the um the workers, and it is in the uh manufacturing district on the side road on Wilmont uh drive.

So here again you'll see the colored elevations.

So you'll see that blue uh the blue metal uh panels and then the CMU base.

And then uh here's a street view.

Uh so it's looking over at uh one of their other uh buildings uh to the east, so you can see that buildings gonna match the same colors, uh materials and um the type of buildings that they have on their site, and then just another view uh looking at one of the existing uh buildings that they currently have as well.

And then uh this just shows the photometrics, uh the the uh meet city code, and then uh there will be some uh a little bit of landscaping um added in the front uh portion of the new building that's going to be um um installed, and then here's where the entrance is the driveway apron.

So staff recommends approval of the final site plan and architecture review for 400 Wilmont Drive with the following conditions all engineering fire department and water utility comments to be addressed.

Uh all signs must be applied for and permitted per city code, and engineering concurrence letter must be obtained before building permits may be issued, and then plan commission may make a recommendation to council for an extra wide concrete apron of approximately 122 feet to allow for an oversized products and trucks to safely maneuver onto that site.

Okay.

Um generally um driveway aprons are how wide 60 60.

Okay.

Um I've been out there a number of times.

Um the cranes that come out of there um can be up to I think 200 uh hundreds of feet long.

Um so I do understand the need for an extra wide driveway.

We do get we have gotten driveway requests before for wider driveways, but not for um the reason for them wasn't for a uh a semi that's much much longer than most uh uh things that come out of our work are out of our industrial areas.

So um my understanding is is the the reason for the driveway being so wide is to allow for the semis to leave with their very long cranes.

In the maneuvering of them, yes, correct.

Okay.

Any other questions, Steph?

Go ahead, Commissioner Keller.

Uh Robin, could you go back to the site plan quickly?

In terms of circulation of the vehicles, it looks like the trucks are pulling in straight going north.

Um back into a loading dock kind of on the northeast side.

But the trucks come in and off of the street.

Are there any covenants in this park that require trucks to drive in forward or not maneuver on the roads or backing and acceptable?

Um, not that I'm aware of, uh, but the applicants here they could uh talk about how the trucks currently come in and out.

Some parks actually have covenants against maneuvering in the street.

So I'm just curious.

And that's another reason why for that extra wide drive, then too.

I would think that the trucks normally back in, don't they?

Sure.

Chris here.

Um so part of combining the lots is actually with helping with the flow to limit that.

So you'll see the area in red.

Trucks will come in straight through back into where our other lot is, back in the building, and then they will go out straight in the existing.

So they're the only backing in they will do will be on the parking lot that is at the street level.

So the combining of the lots and the flow is actually improved from what it is now by the way this is laid out.

Okay.

Any other questions?

We got what's the maximum length of vehicle be coming out of there with a crane.

Do you think?

Currently, in our existing building, we're at 150.

With this, this will allow 200.

Okay.

Is that uh that's the crane and the semi-track tractor?

Correct, because most of the time the back part of it overhangs this semi, anyways.

Any other questions?

All right, thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak to this?

All right, back to the plan commission.

Um I'll make a motion to uh approve the final site plan and architectural review for 400 woman drive, subject to staff uh recommendations.

Commissioner Keller seconds any discussion.

All right, only just uh thanks for the investment in our community.

Looks like a great great addition.

All right.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstaining?

That motion passes unanimously.

Yes, uh echo um what Commissioner Moltres said.

Uh thank you for continuing to grow in Walkshaw.

Thank you.

We now are on sign appeal for three 3011 Salesville Road Momentum Daycare.

Um request to approve the location of proposed sign at less than 10 foot minimum setback from the right-of-way along Salesville Road in the B3 General Business District.

Robin?

Yes, thank you.

Um so again, this is a uh sign variant uh sign appeals and variance for uh sign at uh 3011 Salesville Road.

Um this was the former Lawrence School, so just to the north of uh Waukeshaw West High School.

Uh here's a close-up view of that site.

And then here is a street view uh looking there.

The current location of the sign um was placed without um a variance and uh without permits.

Uh this they're requesting a sign but further back onto their site, and you can see in the next slide.

Um it's kind of a unique um property.

The city county boundary line is this red line right here.

So the property line is the green line, so the property line actually goes up into their um parking lot, and actually in the B3, it's a uh 15 foot uh 15 foot setback for signs higher than six feet tall, and this would be eight feet tall.

So um what they're proposing is putting the sign uh still on their property uh but six inches from that property line at this location to help people going down the road safely find the entrance uh to their um building.

Uh here's a rendering of that um monument sign, and then it is um it's uh eight-foot tall sign, but it's uh uh seven inches in width, uh so it can fit onto that site.

So you can see uh from this measurement, it's over uh 35 feet from the uh edge of the road to where their property line is, and uh um it's just a very it's and again the property line is well into their parking lot, and so you can see on the right hand side where that sign will be.

So uh it is on their side of the property line.

So staff with that would recommend approval for the signed uh variants and appeal for 3011 Salesville Road with the following conditions that all staff comments be addressed and all signs must be applied for and permitted per city code.

Okay, I almost went out there, but I I didn't have the time to I because I assume there was already a sign there and it's been there for quite a probably over a decade, um, which is uh even outside their property too, wasn't it?

Yeah, that one was a newer one that they had put a few few years back before that closed that um without the permits.

Yep.

All right.

Any go ahead, Commissioner Keller.

I guess I would argue that um I would suggest we move the sign a few feet off the curb where it's gonna get nailed by snowplaws and cars and everything else that goes in the driveway, even though it's it's already has an issue of being too close to the setbacks.

I think in terms of safety and protecting the sign from drivers that are unaware um would be safer in the long run.

Yeah, and the plan commission could approve that zero foot lot line then so that move up uh uh six inches to be on their property line.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's my suggestion.

I I don't have a problem with that.

I I guess I'd more we can't approve it to be outs outside their property.

Correct.

So that would give us that would give them 12 inches.

That would give them six inches closer to that.

So yeah.

Yeah.

Um anything else?

Anyone wish anyone wish to uh comment on this?

Okay, back to the plan commission.

Um Commissioner Keller, you want to make uh motion to approve the sign with it uh being zero lot line with zero lot line, but with a twelve-inch setback from the curb um as designed.

Well, let's be careful because it it's is it six inches wide or seven inches wide?

Seven inches wide.

So they don't have property more than twelve inches okay.

So just a zero set zero um setback.

Okay, I accept that.

There's a second discussion.

Okay, all in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, Frank Corw was second.

Aye.

Um any abstain or uh oppose that passes unanimously.

Okay.

The next thing is um review and possible action on a request from Mandel group to extend the plan commission approval deadline for pulling building permits and commencing construction for the approved two 219 unit multifamily development um at 130 Delfield Street.

Um Doug.

Thanks.

Yeah, your name's there.

Yes, it is.

I'll just my uh mouse isn't working on the screen right now, and I don't know why.

So I'm just trying to figure that out.

Well, I don't think I have too much to point at on this one, so we should be okay.

Um so this is uh for extension of plan approval.

Um I should probably get to the right slide or reset.

There we go.

For the um Mandel Delfield Street Apartments directly across the street.

Um those were approved by the plan commission on 1119 2024, and they are going to be requesting a uh time limit extension uh for that.

Um so here's the the property we're probably all fairly familiar with directly across the street, um highlighted here in red.

Um and the plan was for 219 units across two uh buildings, and here's a sample of the looking up the uh Delafield Street from the intersection with Madison Street, fresh in what the building was to look like.

Um so in the in our code, it says that the final plan approvals are to expire two years from the date of approval.

Uh, but item B says that the plan commission may grant an extension, and uh the developer has requested an extension on this project um uh for the because there's um circumstances outside their control which have slowed down the process for the city to transfer land, the city still owns the property.

Um so there is a a couple of unresolved issues affecting the sale of the property.

Um first off, there's a neighboring property owner that's filed lawsuit against the city challenging the approval of this project.

Um the city prevailed in circuit court, but then the neighbor has appealed the decision to the court of appeals, and uh we uh do not know when a decision is to be rendered on that.

Um so that's slowed up the process for the city to be able to turn this land over.

Um also the city has been working with the state historical society to establish a historic preservation conservation conservation easement on the site, um, and that has not yet been finalized.

So there's a couple of things out there that are outside the scope of the control of the developer that we're still waiting on before the city can actually make this transfer of land to them.

Um the council has acknowledged this, and their most recent purchase agreement amendment extended the closing date to no later than one year after both the lawsuit and the conservation agreement are fully resolved.

Um we're hoping that that'll happen um in near future, uh, but we're not sure of the date.

So the developer has requested that he get a two-year extension on that.

That should give them plenty of time that after the um issues are resolved, they have a year to close with the city on the property and then be able to pull the permits and get started on the project.

Um so at this time staff is recommending approving a two-year extension on the approved plan review, which would allow the developer until November 19th, 2028 to obtain those building permits.

Um you have November 19, 2028.

That's more than two years.

What um what's the theory behind that?

Well, the uh that's the as I mentioned earlier, it was originally approved on November 19th, 2024.

So we just extended that date out two years because we're not sure what the dates actually gonna fall.

Um most developers, once they have title on the property, they want to get their project going pretty quick.

So we assume that hopefully will fall within that window.

If it goes beyond that, we may have to come back again, um, depending on how the processes go.

But I just was wondering why November 19th.

So that was approval.

Um, the approval date.

Okay.

So it's going two years out from that.

Commissioner Keller.

So Doug, um, as you might imagine if we're staying at two and a half to three percent inflation per year, we're five to six percent of additional cost in 2028, which puts a further burden potentially on the property.

Which would either two things would probably happen.

Uh, either they would add more units to cover that cost, or they would reduce the scope and um quality and or materials and or any of those things to keep the cost in line.

So my recommendation would be to keep the approval as proposed whenever it was done.

Um if it changes, they have to come back to the plan commission.

I think that's fair to the city, and it's fair to everybody here who approved it.

And I think I I well, one, I agree with you, the way the staff recommendation is to their approved plan review, it doesn't allow for changing it without a coming back.

I mean, I know how these things work, and that's a logical thing that'll happen, but I just want to make sure that somebody puts it in the minutes that um it would have to be consistent with what was approved prior.

Sure, and that's all they're asking for is an extension on the date.

There's no talk about the plans, they're comfortable with where their plans were at.

If the plans were to change, this is a PUD, even if it goes into our new zoning code.

PUDs are always gonna come before the plan commission.

So I think we're covered there as well.

Anyone else?

Okay, uh anyone wishes to speak from the audience.

Yep, come on up.

I'm Sarah Hillenbrand with Mandel Group.

Um, I just thank you for the consideration.

We're still very committed to the project.

Would love to get it going as soon as we can overcome these um this lawsuit.

Okay.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

Eric Payne, 215 Randall Street, Alderman District 2, which includes this development.

Um, I I would ask that you denied a request for an extension.

And the reason being is a couple developers ago wanted an extension because all the economy went to crap.

Their investors were hesitant.

Um, they asked for a short extension.

It was denied to give them an extension.

So I don't know why we would offer or entertain uh an extension for Mandel.

That's all.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Um, because of the unresolved issues through no fault of the developer, I move to extend the building permits for their approved development to 1119, 2028.

To the approved development at 130 Delfield Street to November 19th, 2028.

Okay, Commissioner Keller seconds discussion.

Okay, all in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstaining?

Okay, that passes unanimously.

Anything under reports?

Uh, just real quick.

Uh just because we've been going through this process with the zoning code, just wanted to mention on our agenda tonight, all the projects you looked at tonight actually would have come to you under the new zoning code as well.

Um so the first one was a CU uh conditional use permit, so that would come.

The Montessori School didn't meet our glazing requirements or a landscape requirements, so that would have come to you.

UW credit unit was a POD.

Superior Crane didn't meet our glazing or landscaping requirements, so that also would have come to you, and then the sign appeal.

So just kind of trying to orient ourselves as a staff and how this would look in operation, and so just thought I would share that with the commission as well, so we can kind of feel a little bit familiar, more familiar with how things will be um if the code gets approved.

But that's it, thanks.

Okay, thank you.

There's no objections, we are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.