Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Council approves comprehensive‑plan amendment, rezoning and PUD for 72.3‑acre South Main/West Rusco development
Summary
The West Bend Common Council approved a comprehensive plan amendment, zoning map changes and a planned‑unit development overlay and resolution for about 72.3 acres at South Main and West Rusco Drive to allow a mix of single‑family, two‑family and multifamily housing tied to the Washington County Next Gen Housing program; council approved motions by voice vote.
The West Bend Common Council voted May 4 to advance a multi‑step development on roughly 72.3 acres at the southeast corner of South Main and West Rusco Drive, approving a comprehensive plan amendment (Amendment 45), corresponding zoning changes and a planned‑unit development (PUD) overlay and plan resolution.
John Fellows of the Department of Community Development told the council the property was placed in Tax Increment District (TID) 18 in August 2025 and that the comprehensive plan amendment would change the recommended land use to a mix of single‑family residential, two‑family residential, multifamily residential and wetland designation where applicable. Fellows described the zoning amendment that converts portions of the site from RS‑4 single‑family and wetland categories to RS‑4, RD‑2 (two‑family), RM‑4 (multifamily) and wetland categories. The RM‑4 portion, officials said, is intended for townhomes.
Fellows said the project is applying to the Washington County Next Gen Housing program to capture "missing middle" housing. In meeting remarks staff listed price caps in the application materials as "$3.40, $3.60 and $4.20" for different unit types; the transcript presents those figures without explicit units and they appear in the meeting record as stated in staff remarks.
The PUD overlay was described as allowing specific lot‑depth, width and setback exceptions in exchange for amenities and design review. Proposed public‑facing amenities include private walking trails through detention areas, three private parks (one with playground equipment) and a central green space and one‑way paired streets. Staff noted that architectural drawings were incomplete for the packet and required a subsequent architectural review by the planning commission before building permits are issued.
Council members moved and seconded the motions for the comprehensive plan amendment, the rezoning, the PUD overlay and the PUD plan resolution; each item passed by voice vote with the mayor declaring the motions carried. The record shows no roll‑call vote tallies for these items.
Next steps identified by staff include administrative review of PUD architectural details by the planning commission and later issuance of building permits only after required design reviews are complete.
