Plan Commission recommends rezonings and comp‑plan changes for Pewaukee Golf Club project; public raises traffic and wetlands concerns

The City of Pewaukee Plan Commission voted to recommend to the common council multiple comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings and certified survey maps for a mixed residential development on the Pewaukee Golf Club property and an adjacent vacant parcel, after an extended public hearing and staff presentation. Commissioners deferred final site-and-building approvals and observed substantial community concern about traffic, wetlands and long‑term density.

The project, proposed by Land by Label, would redevelop roughly two parcels — one described in the hearing as a 19‑acre vacant parcel and a 42‑acre Pewaukee Golf Club parcel — into a mixed residential development that includes multifamily apartments, condominiums, and up to 60 single‑family lots, plus a privately owned park area and connectivity to the Lake Country Trail. Staff summarized the plan: “The multifamily apartments … include 4 19‑unit buildings and 9 23‑unit buildings … with a total of 283 units,” and said the condominium portion would include 27 units while the single‑family portion was limited to no more than 60 lots.

Nick, the city planner, summarized key regulatory and technical issues and told the commission staff’s recommendation that the applicant follow traffic impact analysis recommendations and obtain required environmental approvals. As Nick told the room, “The applicant is proposing a gate, so it'd be emergency access only. Staff is recommending eliminating that gate from the plan.” He also noted the applicant expects to work with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on wetland and permit matters.

Residents from neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the site — Meadowbrook Village, Spice Creek and others on Milkweed Lane and Field Hack Drive — made repeated safety and traffic arguments in the public hearing. Patricia Gustafson, presenting a petition signed by residents of Spice Creek and Meadowbrook Farms, told the commission: “We are not in favor of a second exit for the development to divert traffic onto Field Hack Road.” Several other nearby residents gave similar testimony about pedestrian safety, existing pedestrian and dog‑walking patterns along Field Hack and Milkweed, and the narrowness of Milkweed Lane.

Opponents also questioned the suitability of northern portions of the site for dense development. Bob Laurier, who said he grew up on the land, described the northern parcel’s peat and muck soils and said the area historically had poor drainage: “I very much question if it makes sense, especially in that northerly portion, to be developing that.” In response the applicant’s representative stated the team had performed “exhaustive geotechnical analysis across the site, probably more than 2 dozen borings … nothing we've found in any of our due diligence … suggests that it's not buildable.” The applicant said some foundation approaches (for example slab‑on‑grade for multifamily) can avoid some geotechnical complications.

Staff and the applicant described environmental impacts and permitting: the applicant has identified about 5.19 acres of wetland to be filled in various small areas and additional disturbance to environmental corridor acreage (3.1–3.94 acres reported during discussion); staff said the Army Corps had taken jurisdiction of three wetlands and the DNR review was pending. Nick said the applicant would need Army Corps and DNR approvals for wetland impacts and that staff recommended the applicant follow recommendations in the submitted traffic impact analysis, including cross‑access connections within the site and eastbound improvements on Gulf Road.

Fire and public safety issues were also discussed. Staff said the fire department requested attic sprinklers for the multifamily buildings or, alternatively, modifications to building spacing or drive widths to accommodate ladder trucks. The applicant said attic sprinklers had been budgeted and that turn‑radius and hose‑length analyses would be completed to meet fire department requirements.

After public comment and commissioner discussion, the commission voted to forward the comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, conditional‑use requests and certified survey maps (items 4.1–4.8) to the common council as recommended, while excluding final site and building plan approval so commissioners can review detailed architecture, landscaping and engineering at a later meeting. The motion as adopted included the plan as submitted (which shows a physically connected emergency gate on the new public road) and recorded the commission’s debate: staff preferred a continuous public connection; some commissioners supported a gated emergency‑only connection as a mitigation measure for neighborhood traffic concerns; neighborhood representatives advocated for an emergency‑only connection or no connection at all. The motion carried on a recorded voice vote.

Next steps: the plan commission’s recommendations (comp plan amendments and rezones) will go to the common council for decision; the applicant must complete Army Corps and DNR permitting, finalize geotechnical and stormwater designs, resolve fire‑department requirements, and return to the plan commission for final site and building plan approval before construction permits are issued.