Whitefish Bay commission says no to proposed affordable housing proposal

A proposal to build Whitefish Bay's first publicly financed affordable apartment development sits at a crossroads.

Thursday, the Milwaukee County Board cleared a total of $6.6 million in federal grants for the Whitefish Bay project and two other affordable housing projects in Brown Deer and South Milwaukee.

Later that evening, Village of Whitefish Bay residents voiced opposition at an Architectural Review Commission meeting, culminating in the commission’s rejection of the Whitefish Bay development by a 2-4 vote.

The fate of the proposal known as The Hampton, which would be constructed at 4800-4818 N. Santa Monica Blvd., now lies in the developer's ability to get the rejected plans approved by the village’s Board of Appeals or have revised plans approved by the ARC.

What were the developer's plans?

Plans for the development include building a three-story, 17-unit apartment complex that would replace a one-story office building, which has been vacant for several years; a four-unit apartment building, and a single-family home, according to developer Spoerl Commercial, LLC’s plans for the site.

The Whitefish Bay development, like the Brown Deer and South Milwaukee projects, would use federal affordable housing tax credits as part of its financing.

The county board agreed to give Spoerl $2,855,759 in American Rescue Plan Act funds and $232,329 through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program to help finance the development, which would cost $5.9 million.

The Hampton's monthly rents would be from $1,000 to $1,250, according to a county board report. A $1,250 monthly rent is considered affordable for families earning Milwaukee County's annual median income of $50,000.

Developer said the rejection is a ‘lost opportunity’

Developer Brian Spoerl said though he was surprised by the commission’s opposition, he’s proud of the project and the opportunity to be part of the solution to Whitefish Bay’s 2019 comprehensive plan, which includes prioritization of affordability in the village.

“This is a lost opportunity for everyone if the commission ultimately continues to not approve this,” he said. “Overall, the rest of the community supports affordable housing. And the concept of affordable housing across the country is something that we've all agreed is necessary,” he said.

Village Board Trustee Raisa Koltun said she’s concerned about the ARC’s rejection of the proposal and emphasized affordability as a significant issue for many who work and live in Whitefish Bay.

“There are a lot of different ways of going about that,” she said. “But having some higher density development is a good thing because right now, people like teachers and firefighters are priced out.”

While neighboring residents opposed the project before the affordable element was added, she sees it as a red flag that the proposal was rejected after recently being announced as affordable.

Spoerl is unclear as to why the project was denied, but said he's still considering his options moving forward.

Under village statutes, the commission's role is to rule on whether the construction meets the village’s minimum standards of quality, consistency, and aesthetic design, which Spoerl believes the project clears.

‘We do not want this development': neighbors and commissioners push back

The ARC's vote came after hearing a developer presentation and concerns from neighbors.

At the ARC’s Nov. 2 meeting, residents had raised concerns about the general aesthetic design, parking and congestion, and overall site lighting.

The plans brought Dec. 21 included changes to the exterior building aesthetics and added exterior lighting. However, commissioners and neighboring residents continued to take issue with the aesthetics, parking situation and impact on nearby homes.

“To me, it still does not have a feel that to me would represent Whitefish Bay,” said commissioner Jim Hoffman. “More importantly, I'm concerned that the exterior parking will, in fact, reduce the values of surrounding properties.”

But Spoerl said building a multi-million dollar apartment complex would add value to the neighborhood.

He also pointed out that the existing building hasn’t brought value or parking issues because it’s been vacant for at least a dozen years and any plans for it would increase parking and traffic in the area.

Neighbors weigh in on the proposal

A Whitefish Bay resident who lives in a house the project will replace also weighed in.

Timothy Wilson moved into the single-family home at 4818 N. Santa Monica Blvd., which the project will replace, less than 60 days ago. He voiced frustration with the village and current owner for not informing him of plans to raze the property.

According to the village assessor’s website, the building is listed under ownership of Santa Monica 4818, LLC, which has Arnold Siegert of Mequon listed as its registered agent. Siegert could not be reached for comment.

“It’s not easy to move these days. I’m going to need an ample amount of time, and I don’t know what to do," Wilson said. "I shelled out a lot of cash just to get here.”

Resident Maura Myles, who has lived for over 30 years behind the area where the surface lot had been planned, said she's "very concerned about the goings on and the congestion that this is creating for my corner — my backyard.”

Brad Rosenquist, who also lives near the proposed development, spoke to the high traffic volume at the location.

“At the end of the day, this changes our neighborhood in the village of Whitefish Bay. We do not want this development,” Rosenquist said, referring to a coalition of neighbors who signed a petition earlier this year opposing the project before it was even slated as affordable housing.

Project was initially proposed in mid-2023

The project was first proposed in June with plans consisting of a four-story luxury apartment building and first-floor retail space. Spoerl had initially requested that the village board expand the planned development district's minimum lot size to accommodate the four stories.

The village board referred the proposed PDD change to the Plan Commission, which, over two meetings, declined to recommend the change. The village board followed suit Aug. 7, agreeing to reject the PDD.

Resident Mary Anderson, who has lived in the area for 75 years, said she's also worried about traffic and safety concerns at the location, along with how the development would affect the appraisal of her house.

Regarding the above-ground vs. underground parking, Spoerl noted that the village zoning code doesn’t allow for an underground parking lot, meaning the parking and traffic issues won't disappear if this development fails.

Commissioner Samuel Schultz, who voted in favor of the proposal, said he doesn't think "the problems that the neighborhood brought up are going to go away with a different type of development unless the village completely rezones the property.”

“You can't expect underground parking, but then cap the density and the height limit at the same time," Schultz said. "And at some point, the economics just don't work. We're asking for an impossible building.”

Once Spoerl receives a statute-based explanation for the reasoning behind the commission's rejection, the development company will decide whether to revise and resubmit plans to the commission again or bring the current plans to the Board of Appeals.

Editor's note: This story has been updated to accurately attribute quotes in opposition to the development to Commissioner Jim Hoffman.

Contact Claudia Levens at clevens@gannett.com. Follow her on X at @levensc13

This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Whitefish Bay: Affordable housing project The Hampton rejected