Waukesha plan commission approves 219-unit Delafield Street PUD amid neighborhood opposition

The Waukesha City Plan Commission voted 5–2 to approve final site plan, architectural review and PUD documentation for a two‑building apartment development on Delafield Street that would add about 219 units on roughly 5.24 acres.

Doug, the city planner presenting the proposal, said the project includes two four‑story buildings (113 units in the north building, 106 in the south), underground parking, plazas and surface parking and would be consistent with the city’s central‑city plan and PUD provisions (section 22.53 of the zoning code). Staff noted the site would provide roughly 1.33 parking spaces per unit overall and that 110 trees identified for removal were largely invasive or in poor health, per a city forester review.

The developer’s representative, Dan Romnick of Mandel Group, told commissioners the design uses the slope to tuck much parking below grade, argued the density is in line with other central‑city projects and said traffic studies reviewed by city engineering showed peak‑hour movements that could be managed with the proposed access configuration.

Residents and nearby property owners urged the commission to delay or alter the plan. Craig Swerdahl said renderings understate the visual impact and asked why a full 3‑D context rendering had not been provided. Russ Nielsen and other neighbors questioned the traffic counts and asked that peak hours extend earlier and later to capture hospital traffic and bus runs. Several speakers criticized the proposed Madison Street entrance and asked the developer to adopt an alternate access plan the community called “Plan A.” Lisa Seldt and a written submission from Josh Folsick also argued the traffic addendum could produce long queueing that would worsen nearby intersections.

Multiple neighbors raised concerns about losing views and the effect of building mass on adjacent historic properties; one resident said, “I feel frustrated and disappointed,” expressing the sentiment that the project would change the character of the neighborhood. The record shows a disagreement between engineering’s review and residents’ interpretation of the traffic modelling and queueing metrics.

Commission discussion addressed traffic access (exit‑only vs. full ingress/egress configurations), relative building height on the sloped site (staff said the rooflines remain below airport height limits), removal and replacement of trees, and the PUD relief requested (setbacks, height and parking levels). The motion to approve required that all city department review comments be addressed before final permits are issued.

The commission’s approval is subject to standard staff and departmental comments and to final common‑council action on any PUD rezoning attachments required by code. The decision followed lengthy public comment and several commissioners who said they were persuaded by staff and engineering reviews despite neighborhood objections.