Waukesha Plan Commission advances broad zoning-code changes aimed at more mixed housing, fewer parking lots

Waukesha City Plan Commission members spent a large portion of their Jan. 15 meeting reviewing preliminary recommendations for a citywide zoning-code rewrite that staff said is intended to implement the city's 2024 strategic plan and to make rules easier to use.

Jennifer (city planning staff) opened by placing the code update in the strategic-plan context and said planning rose to the top as a priority in that document. Carrie Papelbon, introduced as the project manager for the update, told commissioners the code rewrite is the regulatory step to carry the comprehensive plan into enforceable standards and that the project team has already collected public input through stakeholder interviews (22 interviewees) and an online questionnaire that yielded 147 responses.

The preliminary recommendations cover multiple sections of the code. On housing, staff proposed expanding allowed housing formats to include cottage home courts, defining small-scale multifamily as 5'8 units and large-scale as more than eight units, allowing upper-floor residential uses by right in mixed-use districts, codifying live-work uses in specified districts, and permitting accessory dwelling units in single-family areas where appropriate. Carrie said the distinction between small and large multifamily is intended to make the smaller formats easier to site in more districts.

A central policy question drew extended debate: whether to permit residential uses on the first floor in the B2 downtown district. Commissioners voiced two competing concerns. Several said they did not want to lose street-level storefronts and the 'vibrancy' they provide; others said that in marginal commercial locations permitting residential 'amenity' space or limited first-floor residential could prevent long-term vacancies and help financing. One commissioner argued, 'I'd rather see it go to a good use as residential than it to be held open and vacant for a business,' while staff noted some codes already require a front commercial depth (for example, a 50% ground-floor commercial rule or a 60-foot commercial depth) that can be preserved while allowing flexible uses behind that zone. The commission instructed staff to develop district-specific options (storefront depth, required commercial frontage, and amenity/vestibule treatments) rather than adopting a single citywide rule.

On parking, staff presented two alternatives: eliminate off-street parking minimums and adopt maximums for certain uses, or 'right-size' the existing minimums while introducing a ceiling. Commissioners generally favored the second option: reduce minimums where appropriate and set maximums, with exemptions or tighter minimums retained for residential uses and areas lacking transit. Staff recommended allowing adjustments above a parking maximum if a project provided additional mitigation (for example, stormwater controls or a parking study) or paid a fee in lieu. Carrie noted national practice (for some uses) often looks at square footage (for example, 1 space per 300 sq ft) rather than legacy, overlarge minimums for big-box or grocery sites.

Design and process changes were also a major theme. Staff proposed clearer, objective building- and site-design standards (exterior materials, glazing, entry design and articulation), thresholds to clarify when administrative review is sufficient and when projects require commission review, and a modernized use table with broader categories to reduce enumerated-use complexity. The plan unit development (PUD) process would remain as an overlay for unique proposals but is expected to be used less often if the base code provides more flexibility.

Staff presented a technical analysis of lot-area and lot-width minimums intended to reduce nonconforming parcels. Recommended changes vary by district (examples: RM1 suggested at 5,500 sq ft minimum lot area and 40-foot width; RD2 recommended 8,000 sq ft and 50-foot width). The analysis found those changes would sharply lower the share of nonconforming parcels and would create modest subdivision opportunities where lot depth permits. Staff also demonstrated an online 'nonconformity viewer' that maps parcels that would become conforming under proposed standards and highlights potential subdivision sites.

Public input during the meeting included a question from resident Lisa Soutb (gave a street address), who asked staff to clarify 'zoning mismatch' areas where existing development (single-family) conflicts with multifamily zoning; staff said rezoning to mixed residential districts is one option to reduce nonconformities over time.

Next steps: staff said they will draft the code iteratively (districts and dimensional standards first, followed by development-standards chapters), return to the commission in sections for review, and then hold further public engagement before final adoption. Staff noted potential development proposals on a vacating university site could appear in the summer and that adoption timing remains uncertain. The meeting closed with a reminder that the city attorney had circulated a memo on Act 16 that affects PUD versus straight-zoning project entitlements and that staff could follow up with commissioners on questions.

No formal vote on the zoning code recommendations took place at this session; the commission provided direction and asked staff to prepare district-level standards, objective design requirements, and parking options for subsequent review.