By: Onward Tosa with contributions from Andrew Meindl and Joseph Makhlouf
Harlow and Hem
TL;DR
Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are intended to provide flexibility in land use planning, allowing for complex, mixed-use projects that integrate public benefits such as housing, transportation, and sustainability features. In Wauwatosa, several high-profile developments, including Harlow & Hem, AbleLight Cornerstone Village, and Le Bon Vivant, illustrate the PUD process's potential and pitfalls. Key concerns include extended project delays, limited community engagement, and administrative confusion regarding the zoning administrator's role. While PUDs can be a valuable planning tool, stricter guidelines on their use, especially for routine developments like banks or apartment buildings, are necessary to ensure they serve the community's long-term interests. The Wauwatosa Common Council, Mayor, and zoning officials must avoid using PUDs as a workaround to accommodate developers who cannot meet standard zoning requirements.
Thanks for reading Onward Tosa’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.
The Origin and Intent of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)
The concept of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) emerged in the mid-20th century as a response to the limitations of traditional Euclidean zoning. Traditional zoning, named after the landmark case Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926), rigidly segregated land uses into specific categories like residential, commercial, and industrial, which often led to inefficient land use, increased automobile dependency, and urban sprawl (Rohan, 1999). This form of zoning, while predictable, lacked the flexibility needed to adapt to varied land characteristics, such as natural topography and evolving community needs (Moesna & Bangs, 2006).
PUDs were introduced as a zoning tool for greater creativity and flexibility in land development. They enable developers to design projects integrating mixed-use developments, protecting natural resources, and promoting sustainable planning practices. Wisconsin’s statutory framework for PUDs, established under Wis. Stat. § 62.23(7)(b), grants municipalities the authority to create these zoning districts to encourage coordinated area planning, diversified building placement, and mixed compatible uses (Ohm, 2006).
Objectives of PUD Zoning
PUD zoning serves several core purposes:
Flexibility: PUDs permit variations in lot size, density, setbacks, and building heights, allowing developers to adapt to site-specific conditions and community goals (City of Waukesha v. Town of Waukesha, 1995).
Diversification: Developments often feature a mix of residential, commercial, and civic spaces, creating vibrant neighborhoods with proximity between homes, businesses, and recreational areas (Wauwatosa Ordinance 24.05.040).
Comprehensive Planning: True PUDs promote coordinated development, ensuring efficient infrastructure, transportation networks, and environmental sustainability. Open spaces, green infrastructure, and pedestrian-friendly design are prioritized in many plans (Gudder, 1998)
The Financial Impact of PUDs on Taxpayers: Costs, Benefits, and Accountability
Whether or not Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) cost property taxpayers money depends on several factors, including project structure, city oversight, and the development's impact on services and tax revenues. A primary concern involves increased public infrastructure costs. PUDs may require significant investment in new infrastructure, including roads, utility upgrades, and public safety services. If developers do not fully cover these expenses or offset by property tax revenue generated by the development, they can burden taxpayers. This risk is heightened when infrastructure improvements are required upfront, but project completion is delayed. Developments like AbleLight and Le Bon Vivant illustrate this issue, as delays have tied up city resources without delivering the expected tax base growth and public benefits.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) further complicates the financial impact of PUDs. TIF agreements divert future increases in property tax revenue within a designated district to cover development costs, potentially reducing funds available for other municipal priorities. Critics highlight that, without strong accountability measures, TIF-supported PUDs may disproportionately benefit developers at taxpayers' expense. However, if managed effectively, these projects can promote long-term economic growth by attracting businesses and increasing property values. Additionally, public benefits and accountability play a pivotal role in determining the success of PUDs. Developers frequently offer commitments such as affordable housing funding, open spaces, or infrastructure improvements in exchange for zoning concessions. When these promises are not adequately enforced, taxpayers may receive minimal returns on investment. Public benefit requirements and regular monitoring are necessary to ensure PUDs deliver positive outcomes for the community and municipal finances.
Additionally, The League of Municipalities has raised concerns regarding PUDs' flexibility vs. uniformity, noting that while PUDs provide design innovation, they can undermine zoning consistency (League of Wisconsin Municipalities, 2006). Furthermore, discretionary approvals can lead to transparency issues, as local governments may grant extensive deviations based on subjective benefit assessments. This procedure has possibly opened the door to potential abuses, where developers secure favorable terms without delivering adequate public returns. These critiques reinforce the need for stricter policies to ensure PUDs fulfill their intended role as strategic planning tools that benefit the entire community.
The Role of the Zoning Administrator in PUDs
The zoning administrator is crucial in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, overseeing pre-application meetings, advising developers on zoning compliance, and maintaining official records. In Wauwatosa, however, confusion exists over this role's designation. While officials have stated that the City Administrator is the zoning administrator, Wauwatosa Ordinance 17.02.010 specifies the Development Director or their designee should hold this position. If the current Wauwatosa Development Director serves as the "Zoning Administrator," it raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, especially due to the absence of disclosure regarding whether this individual previously held or continues to hold shares in a local real estate and development company. This inconsistency raises concerns about transparency and oversight. Municipalities such as Madison and Green Bay have addressed such issues by separating zoning administration from broader city management, promoting specialized oversight, and minimizing conflicts of interest (Ohm, 2006; Wauwatosa Ordinance 17.02.010).
Planned Unit Developments in Wauwatosa
The City of Wauwatosa has utilized the PUD model to address various developments. The city’s ordinances outline procedures and approval criteria for PUDs. Ordinance 24.05.040 highlights the importance of integrating sustainable features, protecting natural resources, and ensuring compatibility with existing community character.
Recent and Ongoing PUD Projects
Several developments in Wauwatosa highlight the application of the PUD process, each with unique opportunities and challenges:
Harlow & Hem: The Harlow & Hem development on Blanchard Street is a proposed five-story project featuring 157 market-rate apartments with structured parking. While the project aims to promote high-density, concerns remain regarding community engagement, accountability, parking adequacy, traffic study and potential taxpayer subsidies. Addressing these issues is crucial to ensure that the project delivers meaningful benefits without burdening residents and city resources. This project is covered more in depth later in this piece.
AbleLight Cornerstone Village: This project was initially designed to provide affordable housing for individuals with developmental disabilities. Despite receiving potential Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funding and city support, it has faced multiple delays and extensions. Given the ongoing setbacks, there are growing concerns that the project's current scope may no longer include critical components to support individuals with developmental disabilities, undermining its original purpose.
AbleLight Cornerstone Village
Le Bon Vivant: Located at 74th and Wright Streets, this project recently received a one-year extension for its final PUD approval. It aims to revitalize underutilized land, but delays raise concerns about project timelines.
Le Bon Vivant
Le Bon Vivant Location
Chase Bank at 11111 W Burleigh St.: This development involves constructing a single-story banking center with a detached ATM drive-thru. Scheduled to begin in Spring 2024, it illustrates how Wauwatosa leverages PUDs for commercial projects.
1441 Mayfair Project: This project, designed as an event space, adds further complexity to the city's ongoing PUD applications. The project will require close oversight to ensure timely progress.
Ongoing Issues with the AbleLight Development
The AbleLight Cornerstone Village, originally intended to include affordable housing for individuals with developmental disabilities, has faced repeated delays despite significant city support and possible TIF funding (Prism Technical, 2022). In March 2023, Wauwatosa's Common Council approved another one-year extension under the PUD process (City of Wauwatosa, 2023) and again in May of 2024. However, the documentation provided during the committee process during both extension requests lacked critical details, including a clear plan, measurable progress metrics, or timelines for project completion. City staff recommended approval of the extension but did not provide any written justification beyond a brief presentation at the committee meeting, leaving key stakeholders without adequate information to assess the extension request. This lack of transparency and thorough review highlights the need for stricter policies, including detailed staff reports and progress benchmarks, to ensure accountability and that developments deliver their promised benefits to the community.
Developer’s Extension Request for Cornerstone Village PUD Approval - March 2024
City Staff Report for AbleLight 2024 extension request
Real-Time Development Analysis: The Ongoing Case of Harlow & Hem
The Harlow & Hem development, proposed on the publicly-owned Blanchard Street parking lot, includes plans for 157 market-rate apartments with structured parking. The property is expected to be sold to the developer, likely at a significant financial loss to the city, with a potential contribution to Wauwatosa's Affordable Housing Fund. While the project aligns with some key objectives of the PUD model, such as promoting higher density, there are notable concerns. These include a lack of transparency in the PUD process, insufficient community engagement, parking capacity issues due to other developments in the Village, and weak accountability measures regarding public benefits and taxpayer interests.
Community Engagement and Impact
While the project offers housing opportunities and possible public amenities, it is unclear how robust the community engagement process has been. Although Wauwatosa ordinances require neighborhood meetings, little evidence indicates that developers presented multiple options or engaged meaningfully with residents. Issues such as traffic impact, infrastructure strain, out-of-date tax-payer-funded “update sites,” and aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding area may not have been sufficiently addressed.
Screenshot of City of Project “Update” Site for Harlow and Hem as of 2/7/2025
Community Affairs Agenda - 2/11/2025
Affordable Housing Contributions
Harlow & Hem's developer has indicated a contribution to the city's Affordable Housing Fund, reportedly overseen by the Wauwatosa Community Development Authority (CDA), is part of the project agreement. However, concerns persist regarding the adequacy and impact of this contribution. Is it substantial enough to meaningfully address housing affordability, or is it largely symbolic? Additionally, the project does not include affordable housing units, limiting direct benefits to low-income and fixed-income residents. As of this article's publication, the City of Wauwatosa has not provided formal guidelines on the housing fund's structure or management. Further complicating matters, city staff have publicly stated that the CDA operates as a separate entity from the city despite the presence of elected officials on its board. This lack of clear policies and the ambiguous relationship between the city and the CDA raises concerns that the Affordable Housing Fund could become a discretionary "pay-to-play" tool for developers to obtain PUD approvals, eroding transparency, equity, and accountability.
Accountability and Timelines
Under Wisconsin Statute § 62.23(7)(b), PUDs promote coordinated planning but lack deadlines for project timelines, giving municipalities like Wauwatosa significant discretion. Projects like Harlow & Hem highlight the difficulty of balancing flexibility with enforcement, raising concerns about delays and the timely delivery of promised community benefits.
Clear local policies with progress milestones and penalties for delays are essential to prevent projects from stalling indefinitely, straining city resources, and delaying infrastructure and tax revenue growth. Stronger enforcement mechanisms help uphold the statutory goal of planned and orderly development.
Administrative Oversight
The PUD process relies heavily on the zoning administrator's role, but confusion over this role in Wauwatosa complicates oversight. Without clear administrative leadership, decision-making can become fragmented, affecting project approvals and compliance. Who ultimately has the final authority at City Hall to recommend approval of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), such as Harlow and Hem, before they are sent to the Common Council for a vote?
Evaluation of the PUD Model
Finally, a critical question arises: Does the Harlow & Hem project truly exemplify the purpose of a PUD? If the development does not deliver meaningful public benefits beyond what conventional zoning could achieve, its classification as a PUD may be questionable. More substantial criteria for assessing public benefits could help ensure that future PUDs fulfill their intended purpose of enhancing community well-being and sustainability.
Challenges and Considerations
Despite their benefits, PUDs are not without criticism. Concerns about administrative discretion, potential circumvention of zoning standards, and neighborhood opposition can complicate the approval process (Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. City of Miami, 1983). In Wauwatosa, the common council’s role in ensuring compliance with statutory standards and community goals is crucial to maintaining public trust and development integrity.
One significant area for improvement involves setting clear standards for development criteria such as setbacks, density, height limits, and land-use diversity within PUDs. Without these guidelines, PUDs risk becoming ad hoc solutions tailored to individual projects rather than strategic planning tools. Setting such standards would help municipalities avoid arbitrary decisions and ensure that developments align with long-term community goals.
1. Establishing Clear Criteria for PUD Approval
Municipalities should establish clear criteria for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), including minimum acreage, mixed-use integration, and public benefit provisions. For example, Midland, Michigan, requires PUDs to align with the city's Master Plan, promoting development patterns beyond standard zoning (Midland Zoning Ordinance, 2023). Without such criteria, cities risk approving projects that fail to meet strategic goals. The lack of thresholds for setbacks, density, and height limits in Wauwatosa has led to concerns about inconsistent zoning applications, as seen with the Harlow & Hem project.
While PUD flexibility encourages innovative land use, it can also create unpredictability. Wauwatosa allows deviations in setbacks, building heights, and density to promote high-density development (Wauwatosa Ordinance 24.05.040, 2023). However, these deviations are often negotiated individually, with no standard benchmarks to assess public benefits, raising concerns about fairness. Cities like Madison, Wisconsin, address this by capping density and height for PUDs to balance growth with neighborhood preservation. Wauwatosa could adopt similar measures to improve guidance and trust in the process.
To prevent PUDs from becoming "pay-to-play" tools, Wauwatosa should enforce public benefit standards, such as requiring affordable housing, open space allocations, and infrastructure improvements like sidewalks and stormwater systems (Ohm, 2006). Establishing standardized setback criteria would also reduce discretionary approvals and promote project consistency. More precise guidelines would enhance transparency and accountability while ensuring PUDs contribute meaningful benefits to the community.
2. Preventing Overuse of PUDs for Small-Scale Developments
Urban planners frequently express concern about the overuse of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) for minor projects. In some cities, PUDs are applied to small-scale developments or projects unwilling to comply with standard zoning, leading to unnecessary complexity and circumvention of zoning standards. This use of PUDs dilutes their intended purpose, which is to enable innovative, large-scale developments with public benefits.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Davis, California, processed nearly all new developments, including small four-unit projects, under the PUD framework, which critics saw as excessive regulatory control with limited public benefit (Village Homes Davis, 1980s). Similarly, a 2007 PUD approval in Austin, Texas, allowed an apartment complex near a facility to store toxic chemicals, bypassing zoning restrictions and prompting a public outcry over health risks (Austin Chronicle, 2007). In Raleigh, North Carolina, during the 2010s, a significant retail development classified as a PUD failed to deliver promised amenities, leading to a legal dispute and requiring stricter criteria and community engagement (Raleigh Planning Department, 2016).
These cases highlight how poorly defined criteria and oversight can allow PUDs to deviate from their purpose. Municipalities like Wauwatosa can mitigate this by establishing clear project qualifications, enhancing oversight, and promoting early community engagement to ensure PUDs are genuine. Are banks and event spaces truly appropriate uses of the PUD process?
3. Implement Strict Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms
Regular monitoring of approved PUDs ensures compliance with agreed-upon plans and timelines. Municipalities should establish enforcement mechanisms to address deviations or delays. The Community & Environmental Defense Services (CEDS) emphasizes the importance of assessing potential PUD impacts and resolving issues proactively to prevent poorly planned developments from harming neighborhoods and the environment.
4. Encourage Genuine Community Engagement
Developers should be required to engage with the community early in the planning process, incorporating public feedback into the development plans. This approach fosters transparency and ensures the project aligns with community needs and values. The CEDS highlights the importance of identifying issues likely to generate widespread public support to prompt decision-makers to condition approvals in ways that resolve community concerns.
5. Regularly Update Zoning Ordinances
Municipalities should periodically review and update their zoning ordinances to incorporate flexibility within standard zoning districts, reducing the reliance on PUDs as a catch-all solution. This proactive approach can prevent the misuse of PUDs for developments that could be accommodated within existing zoning frameworks.
Conclusion: Evaluating the Necessity of PUDs
While PUDs offer flexibility and innovative land use solutions, their growing application in Wauwatosa for projects like banks, standalone retail centers, and standard apartment complexes has sparked concern. These projects often do not require the extensive zoning deviations that PUDs provide. This process raises questions about whether the Common Council and zoning administrator approve PUDs too readily when developers encounter obstacles under standard zoning rules and land use maps. In such cases, the broad use of PUDs risks diluting their original purpose, to support complex, mixed-use developments that deliver substantial public benefits.
To address this issue, Wauwatosa should establish stricter criteria to justify when a PUD is truly necessary, ensuring that projects offer clear advantages over conventional zoning. Enhanced oversight, transparent processes, and regular reviews of zoning policies will help reinforce accountability and public trust. Ultimately, the city and Common Council must balance fostering responsible development and safeguarding community interests. By refining its approach to PUD approvals, Wauwatosa can maintain the integrity of its zoning framework while advancing its planning and development objectives.
City of Waukesha v. Town of Waukesha, 198 Wis. 2d 592, 543 N.W.2d 515 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).
City of Wauwatosa. (2023). "Common Council Meeting Minutes, March 2023."
City of Wauwatosa. (2025). "Community Affairs Committee Agenda: Harlow & Hem Development."
Gudder, G. R. (1998). A Primer on Planned Unit Developments. Zoning and Planning Law Report, 21(3), 20.
League of Wisconsin Municipalities. (2006). Planned unit development zoning: Opportunities and challenges. League of Wisconsin Municipalities.
Luther Group. (2023, March 7). Extension request for Cornerstone Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval. Wauwatosa Development Department, Wauwatosa, WI.
Midland, MI Zoning Ordinance Article 24.00. "Planned Unit Development."
Moesna, J., & Bangs, M. (2006). "The Evolution of Zoning: From Euclid to Contemporary Planning." Urban Planning Quarterly, 22(3), 45-67.
Ohm, B. W. (2006). "Guide to Community Planning in Wisconsin." University of Wisconsin-Extension.
Prism Technical. (2022). "AbleLight Cornerstone Village Project Report."
Wauwatosa Ordinance 24.05.040. "Planned Unit Development Overlay District."
Onward Tosa
Welcome to Onward Tosa, a grassroots community organization that fosters a more transparent, accountable, and inclusive local government focusing on the City of Wauwatosa. We believe that an informed and engaged community has the power to create meaningful change. Our mission is to unite residents around common goals like government accountability, responsible budgeting, and thoughtful development while ensuring that all voices are heard in decision-making.
Why We Exist
Wauwatosa is a vibrant city, but like many communities, it faces challenges such as rising housing costs, inconsistent communication from elected officials, and sometimes opaque decision-making processes. Onward Tosa exists to bridge the gap between local government and the community, creating a space where residents can come together to advocate for change and hold their leaders accountable.
Join your Tosa Neighbors
Onward Tosa is a non-partisan group open to all residents who want to make Wauwatosa a more transparent, welcoming, and responsible community. Whether you’re interested in just this Substack, attending meetings, advocating for a specific issue, or simply staying informed, we welcome you to join us in shaping the future of Wauwatosa. Please email onwardwauwatosa@gmail.com or visit onwardtosa.org for more information.
If we want less PUD’s we need to change zoning to allow for different uses and densities. The PUD process is expensive, time consuming and adding tremendous development cost to a project for not much gain. Changing density and use classification along with a form based code would give a better outcome at a lower expense.
I would be interested in your analysis of the Research Park PUD, the Mayfair Collection PUD, as well as the PUD’s for the Reserve, River Bend Projects.
If we want less PUD’s we need to change zoning to allow for different uses and densities. The PUD process is expensive, time consuming and adding tremendous development cost to a project for not much gain. Changing density and use classification along with a form based code would give a better outcome at a lower expense.
I would be interested in your analysis of the Research Park PUD, the Mayfair Collection PUD, as well as the PUD’s for the Reserve, River Bend Projects.