The Green Bay Plan Commission on Monday voted to forward to the City Council a package of amendments to Chapter 44 (zoning) and Chapter 36 (subdivisions) of the Green Bay Municipal Code intended to reduce land‑use barriers to more housing types, including accessory dwelling units and small multifamily buildings.

City of Green Bay Department of Community and Economic Development staff said the package implements direction from the city's 2022 Smart Growth comprehensive plan and the pending 2050 plan update and addresses about 93 code sections in chapters 44 and 36. The commission voted, with all present members saying “aye,” to send the ordinance changes to the Council for consideration on Oct. 21, with minor scrivener corrections noted by staff.

Staff told the commission the revisions are aimed at increasing housing supply and options in established neighborhoods while keeping design protections. Key changes described by staff include: allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) more broadly (not limited to carriage‑house forms), permitting duplexes in single‑family (R‑1) areas rather than requiring a conditional use permit in many cases, adding limited 3‑ and 4‑unit multifamily as a by‑right option in R‑1 and R‑2 zones with design standards, reducing minimum new lot sizes (to 5,000 sq. ft. for R‑1 subdivisions), lowering some setback requirements (for example side yards to 5 feet in many contexts), adjusting per‑unit land area rules for some multifamily categories, raising allowable impervious cover by about 10% in residential zones, and reducing required landscape buffer widths adjacent to some nonresidential developments from 25 feet to 8 feet in mixed‑use and infill settings.

The staff presentation said ADUs would be limited to one per parcel, require owner occupancy of either the primary residence or the ADU, must sit behind the principal building's facade plane, may not be used as short‑term rentals, and must provide a minimum of one parking space. The code language also includes a 1,000 square‑foot ceiling for many ADUs (or the size of the primary dwelling, whichever is less) and continues to require that ADUs be architecturally compatible with the principal house and neighborhood.

On small multifamily the proposed standards tie allowable unit counts to minimum lot area per unit (staff recommended 2,000 sq. ft. per unit in R‑1/R‑2 for small multifamily) and set parking and storage minima (for example, a 3‑unit building would need five parking spaces, two of them enclosed, and a dedicated minimum of 120 sq. ft. of storage for units that lack enclosed garage stalls). The package also adds standards intended to keep blocks from converting wholesale to duplexes by limiting duplex conversions to no more than one quarter of a block's linear frontage.

City staff acknowledged the changes are subject to tradeoffs and said departments reviewed the draft. The presentation referenced a number of specific code sections by number (for example article and table citations in Chapter 44 and the city's Article 19 landscaping/green infrastructure rules) and noted that some elements were updated to reflect recent state rules (for instance short‑term rental language).

Speakers at the public hearing broadly supported the changes. Pat Castor, a land‑use and real estate professional, said the package will make development more economical and “make the development process in Green Bay better.” Jesse Wellens of the Fisk Addition Neighborhood Association said the group “wholeheartedly support[s] and are enthusiastic about these proposed changes” and described lived experience with duplexes and triplexes enabling household and caregiving arrangements. Ald. Joey Presley, speaking as a renter and as a member of the city's Equal Rights Commission, said he “enthusiastically support[s]” the proposals. Frank Torres, a community advocate, described the package as “terrific actions” and urged rapid action to respond to the broader housing crisis.

Commissioners discussed possible unintended consequences, including concerns about increased stormwater runoff connected to higher impervious limits and the implication of allowing residential use on ground floors in some mixed‑use/commercial corridors. Staff responded that floodplain and site‑specific review remain part of the development process and that the mixed‑use ground‑floor allowance was crafted with a cap (a maximum percent of a primary‑street first‑floor facade may be residential) to avoid commercial corridor deterioration; staff described the choice as a deliberate balance between preserving commercial vitality and increasing housing supply.

Commissioners moved the ordinance, with a motion that included a request for scrivener corrections and minor wording fixes; the motion passed with all present voting in favor. The ordinance package now proceeds to City Council with staff recommendations and the record of the public hearing.

Forward steps: City Council consideration is scheduled for the Oct. 21 meeting; staff told commissioners they will incorporate minor drafting corrections and any late comments into the Council packet.