This comment pertains to the entire zoning update instead of just residential zoning.
I oppose the zoning rewrite as drafted. It shifts substantial discretion from public hearings and elected bodies to a single “Zoning Administrator,” with unclear identity and limits. Exceptions, approvals, and even amendments to major projects could be handled administratively, with weaker notice and no guaranteed opportunity for neighbors to be heard. That reduces transparency, erodes accountability, and invites inconsistent outcomes.
Requested fixes before adoption
-Define the “Zoning Administrator” in ordinance by specific title and chain of accountability.
-Retain public hearings for variances, conditional uses, PUD approvals, and all “major” amendments, do not convert these to staff approvals.
-Guarantee notice and appeal rights for any administrative decision (posted/mailed notice, written findings of fact, and a clear appeal path to Plan Commission/Council within a set timeline).
-Publish a weekly, searchable log of all administrative approvals online.
-Release a redlined, side-by-side comparison of current vs. proposed code and allow at least 60 days for public review with district-level listening sessions.
Additional concerns & specific asks
-Parking & traffic: Parking impacts are under-addressed. Require project-level parking analysis and transportation demand management with enforceable conditions and reporting.
-Research Park Master Plan: The draft appears to pre-bake outcomes from the forthcoming plan into zoning before public vetting. Adopt the plan first, then calibrate zoning to it.
-Institutional carve-outs: The framework risks granting large institutions broad latitude with minimal review. Remove carve-outs so campus expansions, height/density bonuses, and parking reductions receive full public hearings.
-Form-Based Code follow-up: The promised evaluation of a form-based code (FBC) never received a public response. Publish what was studied and why FBC wasn’t pursued.
-Transitions to single-family neighborhoods: Add objective transition standards (e.g., height caps within 50–100 feet of R-district lots, upper-story step-backs facing residential, and required landscape buffer yards) to ensure predictable, respectful edges between dense projects and adjacent homes.
-Environmental safeguards: Require Phase I ESAs for rezoning/PUDs (and Phase II where RECs are found); publish WDNR case numbers/closure letters for transparency; prohibit residential approvals on unremediated brownfields or in mapped floodways; require green infrastructure with no-net-increase runoff and heat-island mitigation (tree canopy targets)
Residents deserve predictable rules and meaningful participation on projects that affect their homes, streets, schools, and taxes.
Andrew Meindl, Wauwatosa resident [and alderperson]
6537 Washington Cir, Wauwatosa Wisconsin
This comment pertains to the entire zoning update instead of just residential zoning.
I oppose the zoning rewrite as drafted. It shifts substantial discretion from public hearings and elected bodies to a single “Zoning Administrator,” with unclear identity and limits. Exceptions, approvals, and even amendments to major projects could be handled administratively, with weaker notice and no guaranteed opportunity for neighbors to be heard. That reduces transparency, erodes accountability, and invites inconsistent outcomes.
Requested fixes before adoption
-Define the “Zoning Administrator” in ordinance by specific title and chain of accountability.
-Retain public hearings for variances, conditional uses, PUD approvals, and all “major” amendments, do not convert these to staff approvals.
-Guarantee notice and appeal rights for any administrative decision (posted/mailed notice, written findings of fact, and a clear appeal path to Plan Commission/Council within a set timeline).
-Publish a weekly, searchable log of all administrative approvals online.
-Release a redlined, side-by-side comparison of current vs. proposed code and allow at least 60 days for public review with district-level listening sessions.
Additional concerns & specific asks
-Parking & traffic: Parking impacts are under-addressed. Require project-level parking analysis and transportation demand management with enforceable conditions and reporting.
-Research Park Master Plan: The draft appears to pre-bake outcomes from the forthcoming plan into zoning before public vetting. Adopt the plan first, then calibrate zoning to it.
-Institutional carve-outs: The framework risks granting large institutions broad latitude with minimal review. Remove carve-outs so campus expansions, height/density bonuses, and parking reductions receive full public hearings.
-Form-Based Code follow-up: The promised evaluation of a form-based code (FBC) never received a public response. Publish what was studied and why FBC wasn’t pursued.
-Transitions to single-family neighborhoods: Add objective transition standards (e.g., height caps within 50–100 feet of R-district lots, upper-story step-backs facing residential, and required landscape buffer yards) to ensure predictable, respectful edges between dense projects and adjacent homes.
-Environmental safeguards: Require Phase I ESAs for rezoning/PUDs (and Phase II where RECs are found); publish WDNR case numbers/closure letters for transparency; prohibit residential approvals on unremediated brownfields or in mapped floodways; require green infrastructure with no-net-increase runoff and heat-island mitigation (tree canopy targets)
Residents deserve predictable rules and meaningful participation on projects that affect their homes, streets, schools, and taxes.
Andrew Meindl, Wauwatosa resident [and alderperson]
6537 Washington Cir, Wauwatosa Wisconsin