Plan commission denies PUD overlay for 21.7-acre Daisy/Clearview development after intense public opposition

The West Bend Plan Commission voted to deny zoning amendment ZPU 26-0007, a proposed Planned Unit Development overlay for roughly 21.7 acres at the northeast corner of Daisy Drive and Clearview Drive submitted by Diamond Holdings LLC. Staff presented the request as a PUD overlay to enable design flexibility for a proposed 60-unit single-family development with private roads, private utilities and reduced roadway widths; staff recommended approval on density grounds but identified required PUD elements and code criteria to justify an overlay.

The public hearing drew extended comment from nearby residents, who raised repeated concerns about flooding and a high groundwater table, pedestrian and school-bus safety at the Clearview/Creek intersection, limited exit options, reduced separation between homes, the number and location of retention ponds, and the long-term maintenance and liability consequences of private roads and private stormwater infrastructure under an HOA. Kate Barrett, a resident, told commissioners, "To say it's the same is outright lie," arguing that the PUD overlay produced a different development pattern than RS-4 lots and would increase density and traffic. Several speakers cited past rejections of denser concepts on the site and said they bought homes expecting RS-4 zoning.

Developer John Laufer responded to questions about water management and construction standards, saying phase 3 would include retention ponds, homes would be built without basements to avoid groundwater issues and the developer planned fill and engineered base layers where needed. Laufer also said the developer is targeting a price point "trying to hit $400,000" for starter homes and that design flexibility under a PUD enables smaller lots and cost targets. Staff clarified that the PUD, as proposed, matches the underlying RS-4 units-per-acre density when measured over developable acreage but that a PUD changes lot configuration and street/utility ownership patterns.

Commissioner Jed (motion maker) and other commissioners said the request did not meet the full set of PUD approval criteria as presented, expressing concern about the length and width of proposed private roads, sidewalk configuration, proximity of structures and the absence of off-setting amenities or public benefits typical of successful PUDs. A friendly amendment was added to the denial specifying that the petition "does not meet the basis of approval" in the cited zoning code sections. The motion to deny carried by voice vote.

Why it matters: The denial preserves the existing RS-4 character for the area in the near term and signals commissioners' insistence that a PUD must provide demonstrable public benefits (amenities, green space, superior infrastructure design) to justify deviations from standard lotting and public-street infrastructure. Residents will likely monitor any revised submittals on design, stormwater and public-access issues.

The commission recorded the denial and added a record-based reason referencing the zoning code approval criteria; staff and the developer may return with revised materials addressing the concerns raised by neighbors and commissioners.