Council holds Red Smith-area planned unit development after hours of public comment

GREEN BAY, Wis. — The Green Bay Common Council voted 7-5 on Tuesday to hold consideration of a planned unit development (PUD) that would cover roughly 68 acres near Red Smith School until the council’s April 15 meeting, after hours of testimony from developers, neighborhood residents and civic groups.

The vote leaves the proposal — which would mix single-family lots, duplexes, roughly 160 multifamily apartments and a small commercial parcel — pending while city staff and the developer continue conversations about traffic, stormwater, environmental protections and lot design.

The PUD applicant said the proposal would add about 227 single-family lots, nine duplexes and ten 16-unit apartment buildings (about 160 apartments), with roughly 30 acres set aside as open space. “We’re proposing 2.4 less than what is existing out there today,” developer representative Brad Reimer said, describing the plan’s density relative to older plats for the same area.

City staff and the developer described the project as a mixed residential plan that reduces the road length and impervious surface footprint compared with an earlier, higher-density layout recorded decades ago. Reimer said the full site totals about 68 acres, with approximately 15 acres proposed for single-family housing, about 17 acres for multifamily and roughly 6 acres for commercial uses; the remainder would be open space and stormwater facilities.

Residents and local groups pressed councillors on several fronts. Speakers described persistent flooding and groundwater flow from the escarpment above the site, morning traffic congestion near Red Smith School and the potential ecological sensitivity of the Niagara Escarpment corridor. “I can’t even back out of my driveway for about an hour in the morning because of the way the traffic queues up,” resident Steve McDonnell told the council.

Environmental concerns included possible habitat for species of interest near the escarpment; several speakers asked the council to seek additional ecological study or create conservation buffers. Members of the Niagara Escarpment Resource Network and other conservation advocates urged larger setbacks and trails that could protect the escarpment while providing public access.

Supporters of the PUD included the Realtors Association of Northeast Wisconsin, whose representative, Jennifer Sundstrom, told the council the region has a multi-year housing shortfall and that the project would add a mix of housing types. “Does this proposed project help meet the housing needs of Green Bay in a responsible manner? If the answer is yes, the project should be approved,” Sundstrom said.

Council members pressed the developer and staff on technical points: whether the site’s wetlands and steep slopes limit buildable area, how stormwater ponds would be phased and whether the school district had capacity. The developer said stormwater ponds are typically built with each development phase and said the project team is willing to explore upsizing ponds and other measures in coordination with the city to address off‑site runoff, though they noted state and county permitting limits.

Several alderpersons urged additional time to work with residents and the developer. “We need to treat that with the sensitivity it deserves,” Alder Johnson said before supporting the motion to hold. Others said the PUD overlay is the only vehicle that brings some of these details before council and that rejecting the PUD outright could leave the property in a less controlled state.

The council’s hold preserves the developer’s application in its current form and returns discussion to the April 15 meeting; council members noted they could adopt, amend or reject the PUD at that time. During the hold period staff and council members indicated they would continue to discuss traffic mitigation, stormwater engineering and potential protections for the escarpment.

The PUD drew a large turnout: residents, developers and neighborhood leaders used the meeting’s public comment period to press the council on design changes and mitigation. City staff said the PUD and subsequent plat and site plan reviews would involve additional technical hearings and agency reviews, including wetland and stormwater permitting.

The council did not take a final vote on zoning or platting; the PUD remains on the council’s agenda for the April 15 meeting.