_03022026-1047

MINUTES OF THE BROWN DEER BUILDING BOARD Virtual Meeting Phone/Video March 2 , 202 6 The meeting was called to order at 4:0 2 p.m. I ROLL CALL Present: Ryan Thacker, Will Manley , Chris Eger , Nicole Robbins Excused : Mary Buckley Also Present: Nate Piotrowski, Community Development Director; Aaron Hemquist, Arwin Chan, Jeanette Majek-Day, Target; Bill Morris, Samantha Baker, Eihab Atout, Atlas Assisted Living II PERSONS DESIRING TO BE HEARD None III CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES M r. Eger motioned, and M s. Robbins seconded to approve the minutes of October 6 , 202 5 . Approval was unanimous. IV OLD BUSINESS 1. N one V PLANS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION The following item s w ere on the a genda for review: 1. Wall Sign – AT&T, 5960 W. Brown Deer Road Mr. Piotrowski reviewed the proposal and noted that the monument sign , which was previously reviewed in 2024 , was still larger than allowed per code. He stated that the Board could approve the tenant panel on condition that the monument sign com e into compliance. The building wall sign did meet code standards. Mr. Eger motioned for approval of the signs and Ms. Robbins seconded on condition that the tenant panel fit a monument sign that complies with Village code standards . Motion to approve the new signs was unanimous. 2. New Retail Building – Target, 9034 N. Green Bay Road Mr. Piotrowski discussed the proposed development and introduced Aaron Hemquist and Arwin Chan with Target. Mr. Hemquist discussed the site plan details and Arwin Chan discussed the design features of the proposed building. Mr. Eger asked if it was possible to screen the loading dock as that area would be highly visible to the south. Mr. Hemquist stated that landscaping around the perimeter would help to screen the view but if desired an 8 ’ screen wall could be added. Mr. Eger and other members felt that additional screening beyond landscaping would be preferred. Mr. Eger asked for clarification on the red panels if they were precast or metal based on the reflection shown in the rendering. He added that he was concerned with fading of the panels if precast . Ms. Chan replied that the panels were precast with a Target branded red color that was applied in the field. She noted that this was a specialized paint that was tested for enhanced durability. Mr. Hemquist noted that it is in Target ’s best corporate interest to keep the color in good condition and not let it fad to pink. He stated that they have found that precast works the best to preserve the color over other materials such as wood, metal or EIFS. Mr. Eger asked if some additional visual interest could be added to the north elevation since that would face new residential development. He suggested perhaps adding windows. Ms. Chand replied that additional windows on this elevation were difficult given the interior layout and that target did not wish to use fake windows. Mr. Thacker asked if the textured precast panels could be used on this elevation to provide more visual interest. Ms. Chan stated that they could look to introduce the textured panels and or additional red color to this elevation. Mr. Thacker asked if the screening of the loading docks would be do n e with cast in place concrete. Mr. Hemquist stated that this was the likely solution. Mr . Thacker encouraged the design team to look at alternative screening material s such as metal or composite to help soften the appearance of the wall. Mr. Manley stated he generally liked the design but had similar concerns about the loading area and north elevation. He asked about the window film that was designated for some of the storefront windows. Ms. Chan stated that some of the lower sections of the window would have a patterned 3M film to hide “ back of house ” operations but they would be clear above a certain height. She stated that the pattern and design for the film was not yet finalized. A discussion ensued as to requesting an additional review which would show the requested changes. It was consensus of the committee to request a resubmittal of the building plans to show revisions along the north elevation, screening for the loading dock and detail on the film to be used for the storefront windows 3. Building Sign Package- Target, 9034 N. Green Bay Road Mr. Piotrowski introduced the sign package and Janette Majek-Day representing Target . Ms. Majek-Day walked the committee through the various signs proposed for the building. Mr. Eger asked if the signs would be illuminated. Ms. Majek-Day replied that all signs would be internally illuminated. Mr. Eger asked if the signs conformed to code. Mr. Piotrowski replied that the code was flexible given the planned development zoning and that generally the scale of this building put it well beyond typical code limits. He noted that really it is up to the Board to determine if the proposed signage matched the aesthetics of the building and did not overwhelm the various elevations. Mr. Thacker stated that he was comfortable with the amount and scale of signage. Mr. Thacker motioned for approval of the signs and Mr. Eger seconded . Motion to approve the new sign package was unanimous. 4. New Senior Care Building – Atlas Assisted Living, 4740 W. Bradley Road Mr. Piotrowski reviewed the proposal and introduced Bill Morris the project architect. Mr. Eger stated that he would prefer to see the monotony of the single windows broken up along with masonry added to the base of the canopy pillars . Mr. Morris stated this is something he could look into . Mr. Thacker agreed that some changes to the windows should be made and suggested that sizing could vary or trim could be added. He stated that spacing should be consistent. Ms. Robbins asked whether landscaping could be used to soften the front elevation. Ms. Baker, the owner , responded that a complete landscape plan is proposed to help provide curb appeal. Mr. Piotrowski noted this plan was previously reviewed and approved by the Beautification Committee. Mr. Eger asked whether the scale and pitch of roof was necessary to hide mechanicals as he was concerned with its scale relative to the vertical wall sections. Mr. Morris replied that the roof was indeed hiding mechanicals but noted that he could explore dormers to help provide further visual relief to the roof line. Mr. Eger thought that could help along with the possible introduction of different siding material or perhaps a vertical orientation of the siding material. Mr. Thacker asked about the comments the Board made when the project was previously reviewed in 2023. Mr. Piotrowski shared the minutes from the 2023 review and noted that many of the same comments being made reflected concerns from 2023. He added that while the designs were conditionally approved in 2023, the delay in construction caused the approval to lapse and there were changes to the building footprint during that time which necessitated a new review . Mr. Manley stated that he would like to see further articulation of the building façade , shared the concern about window placement and sizing and questioned if other siding material could be explored. Mr. Morris said that he could look at other material but ruled out EIFS . It was consensus of the committee to request a resubmittal of the building plans to show revisions to window sizing and placement, additional articulation of the roof line and or front elevation, possible alternative siding material and masonry elements to the base of the canopy VII ADJOURNMENT M r. Piotrowski moved adjournment. Approval was unanimous. The meeting adjourned at 5 :04 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting i s March 16 , 202 6 Nate Piotrowski ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Development Director , Village of Brown Deer