Plan Commission approves PUD amendments for St. Mary’s redevelopment; allows 117-foot tower now and potential higher future height

The Green Bay Plan Commission on Sept. 29 recommended approval of amendments to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for St. Mary’s Hospital Medical Center at 1726 and 1760 Shawano Avenue to allow a phased redevelopment that includes a 117-foot hospital tower in phase one and provisions that could permit higher future expansion.

City staff outlined proposed PUD changes to bring the 2007-era PUD into current code (Chapter 44), to revise landscape-buffering and parking standards, to update allowable building materials for contemporary construction and to amend maximum building height standards in the West Medical District. The applicant presented a conceptual site plan showing a phased approach: phase one would replace an existing wing with a 117-foot tower (noting the 117 number includes lower-level structure references) and realign the hospital’s primary entrance to the west; a phase-two option in the future could allow additional floors with a potential ultimate height up to 195 feet, which would exceed current city building heights.

Applicant and staff said the phase-one project as presented meets current parking and setback metrics; the conceptual plan provides more than the code-required number of parking stalls for the first phase, with staff estimating on-site parking would exceed requirements by roughly 100 stalls for the initial development. St. Mary’s representatives and their consultant emphasized design-quality goals, saying the intent is to set a high material standard for the corridor and that proposed material flexibility is meant to allow modern, high-quality facades rather than lower-cost materials.

Commission discussion focused on traffic (including a 200-page traffic-impact analysis submitted to the city), driveway spacing, buffering for adjacent multifamily properties, reflective glazing and the absence of the City’s former Community Design Review Team (staff proposed that final building elevations and materials be reviewed by the director of Community and Economic Development or her designee). Neighbors and commission members raised questions about the existing traffic signal at Seigler and whether it would remain; staff said signal and state-highway issues fall to the Department of Public Works and state highway authorities and that the applicants are working with DPW.

The applicant told the commission it had formally requested removal of the Seigler traffic signal and had coordinated with DPW; the applicant’s team reported a current on-site parking inventory of 1,191 stalls and a projected parking need, if the tower were built as proposed, of 1,169 stalls—meaning the site as proposed would meet the numerical parking requirement for the conceptual build-out.

Motion and next steps: The commission voted to recommend approval of the PUD amendments as presented; the measure will be forwarded to City Council for final consideration. Staff and the applicant will return with final building elevations, material specifications and any traffic-signal or driveway adjustments required during detailed engineering and site-plan review.

Any future phase-two increase in height beyond the initial tower would require additional review, and staff said they would require documentation at the building-permit stage to address potential reflection from large areas of glass or metal.