Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Whitefish Bay board approves Sendex redevelopment, development agreement
Summary
The village board approved Ordinance 1918 to rezone parcels and a development agreement with Sendex for a new 36,500‑square‑foot store, backing public roadway, stormwater and utility improvements funded in part by TID increments; residents raised traffic, parking and pedestrian safety concerns during a public hearing.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Whitefish Bay Village Board on Oct. 6 approved Ordinance 1918 to rezone several parcels at 530 East Silver Spring Drive to a Planned Development District and voted to enter a development agreement with Sendex Silver Spring LLC to build a new Sendex grocery store and related public improvements. The board approved the motions by voice vote after a public hearing and a multi‑month review by staff and village commissions.
The approved development agreement and ordinance require final engineering and building plans, and make the developer responsible for most construction costs. According to the development agreement summary read to the board by village counsel Debbie Tomchek, Sendex has committed at least $10,176,610 in new investment for the project, will guarantee $8,310,000 of new taxable value increment, and will post financial assurances including cash deposits and letters of credit. The agreement uses available Tax Increment District (TID) funds so the village can finance approximately $2,125,000 in public improvements (TID‑1) before that TID’s statutory expenditure deadline. Sendex will front approximately $1,143,610 in TID‑3 public improvements and, once the store opens and the increment is realized, will be reimbursed up to $660,000 through a municipal revenue obligation (per the agreement). Counsel said the structure leaves minimal direct risk to village general levy funds.
Why it mattered: the project replaces an aging store and includes upgrades the village and developer say will benefit downtown. Sendex’s presentation, delivered by Mark Kale, emphasized design changes made after reviews by the Plan Commission, Architectural Review Commission and Public Works Committee: a single exterior color, revised brick size, added and standardized storefront windows and awnings, improved lighting, bike racks, expanded landscaping, and rooftop equipment screening. Sendex also described a plan of operation that preserves current store operating hours in practice, while requesting broader authority for special events and staff access; the company said regular store hours would remain roughly 7 a.m.–9 p.m., with employee access for preparation and cleaning available 24/7.
Public input: dozens of residents spoke during the public comment period. Supporters said Sendex is a local, longstanding business that contributes to community events and downtown vitality. “I want to congratulate the Sendex team and the village for listening to us,” said Bill Himmlarb, a nearby resident. Ray Delasto told the board he and his family have shopped at Sendex for decades and urged approval as a civic asset.
Opponents and concerned residents pressed the board about traffic, parking, and pedestrian safety. Lance Grant argued the project ‘‘prioritizes cars’’ and marginalizes walking and cycling; Dr. Mercedes Fisher said the scale of the new store and expanded vehicle movements worry parents who see middle‑school children biking and walking near the site. Todd Sherman asked for clarification on parking; staff said the Sendex private lot will lose 22 spaces and the overall project will result in a net loss of six public parking spots. Board members and Sendex discussed truck routing and timing: Sendex described proposed semitrailer routing and estimated a small number of larger deliveries (roughly 18 semis a week, or about 2.5 per day on average) with the company saying it can request vendors avoid peak traffic windows.
Regulatory and procedural context: staff told the board that Plan Commission, ARC and Public Works reviewed the project over nine public meetings and that public notice and required code procedures were followed. The board explicitly considered criteria set in village code section 1619C4 in making its findings when voting on the PDD.
What the votes did: a trustee moved to approve Ordinance 1918 (rezoning and PDD) subject to final engineering, stormwater and utility plan review and execution of a development agreement; the motion passed by voice vote. The board then approved the development agreement with Sendex Silver Spring LLC by voice vote as well.
Next steps: council and staff said construction is scheduled to begin in January, with demolition to follow soon after; the developer indicated the project aims to be substantially complete in the next construction season. The development agreement requires Sendex to construct the identified public improvements (diagonal parking, water‑main replacement, stormwater upgrades, a signal at Council and Silver Spring, new curbs and sidewalks, and other right‑of‑way landscaping) and provides financial assurances and one‑year contractor warranty obligations for the village. The board also approved related memoranda of understanding for continued BID funding from TID funds and took up budget and other routine items later in the meeting.
Board members said they will monitor traffic and operational issues after the store opens and consider targeted traffic regulations if needed. “If we find this is a problem, we can make changes,” one trustee said.
Provenance: the board considered Ordinance 1918 and the development agreement during the Oct. 6 meeting’s public hearing, presentation, public comment and final motions (presentation and deliberations opened in staff remarks and Sendex presentation; motions and approvals occurred later in the meeting).

