Whitefish Bay plan commission backs Sendex PDD for Silver Spring grocery, with conditions

The Whitefish Bay Plan Commission voted Sept. 9 to recommend that the Village Board approve a plan development district (PDD) petition from Sendex to redevelop 500 E. Silver Spring Drive as a grocery store and mixed‑use site, forwarding the item with conditions that staff said must be addressed before the village board public hearing.

The commission’s recommendation followed a consultant review from Grafe that identified several departures from the Silver Spring Drive business‑district standards. Craig Hebner, Grafe’s planner, told commissioners, “a PDD is a means to facilitate desirable development while affording flexibility” and walked the body through proposed departures for build‑to/setback coverage, parking, landscaping and signage. Hebner said the applicant’s package proposes public gathering spaces and material choices consistent with the village comprehensive plan, while noting some code departures that the commission must evaluate.

Key technical points flagged in the review: the site’s on‑site parking would drop from 139 existing spaces to 117 proposed; the zoning code baseline requires 164 spaces, and the applicant is counting on both on‑site and identified on‑street spaces to reach a stated total of 184. Hebner summarized the numbers: “If you look at the Sendex parking lot itself is 139 spaces and what they’re proposing is 117 spaces,” and added that an 85th‑percentile peak demand study estimated about 155 spaces would be the highest typical demand.

Commissioners debated parking tradeoffs along Bulmont (also spelled Bowmont/Bumont in the record) where angled parking on both sides could add roughly 13 spots but would require curbline changes and could remove mature trees. Engineering staff cautioned that converting to angled parking would move curb lines and could require removing or relocating terrace trees; commissioners discussed a midpoint option that would add fewer spaces while preserving neighborhood character.

Neighborhood concerns surfaced during public comment. A resident who gave an address of 689 North Lake Drive said, “the increase of traffic is my concern and taking down the trees,” and another commenter cited child‑safety worries on Lake View. In response, the Sendex spokesperson emphasized construction and operational constraints, saying the company wants to “keep the existing building open, the business operating during construction” and noted the site “has over 150 employees at this site” the company wants to retain.

Signage and plaza vs. parking layout were also discussed. Hebner noted the proposal includes nine signs and monument signs larger than code allowances (one primary wall sign greater than code‑allowed square footage and monument signs proposed wider than the code maximum). He said renderings should be considered to judge visual impact and proportion for the larger building scale.

As a condition of the commission’s recommendation, members asked the applicant to submit a plan of operation addressing truck routing, delivery and operating hours and staff prep time; the commission’s stated recommendation asks that the plan of operation be reviewed by village staff and included before village board action. Kelsey, village planning staff, told the commission the item will go to ARC and Public Works (for architecture and public‑improvement review) and then to a village board public hearing scheduled for Oct. 6.

The motion to recommend the PDD to the Village Board with the plan‑of‑operation conditions was moved and seconded; commissioners voted in favor and the motion carried. The commission’s recommendation is advisory — the Village Board will hold the public hearing and decide whether to adopt the rezoning and associated development agreement.