West Bend planning commission denies PUD overlay for 16‑home Daisy/Clearview proposal after heavy neighborhood opposition

The West Bend Planning Commission voted June 4 to recommend denial of a planned unit development overlay for a proposed 16‑home project on a 3.26‑acre parcel east of Daisy Drive and Clearview Drive, after more than an hour of public comment and commissioner discussion.

City planner Jim presented the proposal as a PUD overlay over the existing RS4 (single‑family) district to allow construction of 16 single‑family dwellings on a private cul‑de‑sac. Staff described the lot as 3.26 acres, noted the proposed density of about 4.9 units per acre (within the RS4 density limit), and said the site plan identified 64 parking stalls (two per unit). Jim said the site has high groundwater, a soil mitigation plan had been submitted, and that a stormwater management plan was required before permits would be issued. Staff recommended approval with conditions pending outstanding engineering and architectural revisions.

Residents who live adjacent to the site spoke in large numbers at the public hearing. Kate Barrett of Daisy Drive said the parcel has long been treated as wetland and urged commissioners to keep the RS4 zoning, calling the plan “the definition of tract housing” and warning that private‑road parking restrictions would push visitor and overflow parking onto neighborhood streets. Mary Anne Holzer, who said she has lived on Clearview Drive for 30 years, told commissioners that an earlier RS4 plan had routed stormwater to a nearby creek, but that the proposed plan sends drainage east and risks displacing runoff onto neighboring yards. Dale Sibella and other residents raised similar concerns about parking, setbacks, lack of green or communal space and the suitability of a private road for emergency access.

Mackenzie Swerdout, the applicant’s agent with Paris Survey & Engineering, told the commission the overlay would retain RS4 density limits, that the developer had revised house elevations and materials to improve architectural variety, and that the applicant had submitted a stormwater plan currently under staff review. Swerdout said, “we would be doing nothing that would negatively impact any wetland here,” and reiterated that drainage is being directed to the east with improvements intended to decrease ponding.

Commissioners reported site visits and remarked on visible standing water and continuous sump‑pump discharge at neighboring properties. Several commissioners said they were concerned about the parcel elevation, groundwater and whether the proposal would overburden emergency access, street maintenance and snow storage on a private, narrow road with sidewalks only on one side. One commissioner summarized multiple concerns — offset road alignment, small setbacks, limited green space and emergency access — and said those issues weighed against approving the overlay.

A motion on the record to deny the PUD overlay (referencing the findings in section 17.36/17.364 of the municipal code) was made and seconded; the commission voted in favor and the motion carried. The commission then moved to deny the related site plan and the certified survey map for the proposal; both motions carried.

The action was a recommendation to the Common Council; the planning commission’s denial does not in itself change zoning but will be forwarded to the council as the commission’s recommendation. The commission subsequently moved through other items on the agenda, approving several conditional use permits, site plans and certified survey maps unrelated to the Daisy/Clearview proposal.

Next steps: the developer may elect to revise the proposal and return to the commission, or pursue alternative approaches consistent with RS4 standards. The planning commission’s recommendation will be included in any upcoming Common Council consideration of related applications.