Traverse City planning commission backs change to R‑2 zoning to allow up to four dwelling units per lot

Traverse City Planning Commission recommended the city commission amend the city code to allow up to four dwelling units per lot in the R‑2 (mixed density residential) district, a move the planning director said would increase permitted density without changing building scale or setbacks.

The commission voted to send the change to Chapter 13.34 and the related Chapter 13.68 size and area provisions to the city commission after a public hearing and more than two hours of discussion; the recommendation passed on a 7–1 roll call vote.

Planning Director Brian Winter said the amendment would raise the maximum number of dwelling units on an R‑2 lot from two to four while leaving height, setbacks, number of buildings and impervious surface limits unchanged. “This amendment proposes … increasing it in the R‑2 from 2 dwelling units to 4 dwelling units, which is what was originally proposed,” Winter said during his presentation, adding that many design controls and infrastructure requirements would still apply.

Why this matters: Commissioners and residents framed the question around how to add housing supply while protecting neighborhood character and managing infrastructure. The amendment would open possibilities such as triplexes, quadplexes, duplexes plus ADUs and similar configurations on lots that now allow single‑family homes, single family with accessory dwelling units, duplexes or two detached homes.

Commission and staff details: Winter and other staff presented SketchUp visuals showing how configurations might fit on a standard city lot (roughly 50 feet by 165 feet with typical 7‑foot side setbacks and an 8–10‑foot front setback). He noted practical consequences of moving to three or more dwelling units on a lot: buildings often require automatic fire suppression (sprinklers) and must meet engineered stormwater management standards. Winter also reminded commissioners that a city charter amendment adopted in 1968 limits the city’s ability to impose design standards on one‑ and two‑family homes, saying, “a charter amendment … says that no ordinance respecting standards for the construction, repair, maintenance, improvement, occupancy, lease or sale of housing of 1 and 2 family homes, can happen unless with a vote of the people.”

Public comment reflected a range of views. Paul McCarthy of 401 Washington urged the commission to send the amendment on to the city commission and said, “I hope that this amendment gets sent up to the city commission. I hope they adopt it and I hope, it passes.” Other residents asked the commission to exclude historic districts or particular neighborhoods, raised concerns about off‑alley parking and management of properties, and urged more neighborhood‑specific design approaches.

Commission debate focused on tradeoffs. Several commissioners said the amendment would increase housing supply without changing building massing because lot coverage, setbacks and maximum structure sizes remain the same. Commissioners and staff noted that the city eliminated minimum residential parking requirements in 2021, so parking for additional units has to be accommodated on private property and counts toward impervious surface limits. Commissioners discussed screening standards for on‑site parking, the city’s tree‑canopy and lighting requirements that apply once properties exceed two units, and the administrative difficulty of enforcing subjective “character” standards.

The motion the planning commission approved recommended the city commission adopt an amendment to Chapter 13.34 (R‑2 mixed density residential district) to allow up to four dwelling units per lot, with all other dimensional standards unchanged and corresponding amendments to Chapter 13.68. The motion was moved by Shay and seconded by K (as recorded in the meeting transcript). The roll call vote was: Commissioner Detturi — yes; Commissioner Hershey — yes; Commissioner Treadwell — yes; Commissioner O’Brien — yes; Commissioner Heller — yes; Commissioner McGillivary — yes; Commissioner Anderson — no; Commissioner Swanson — yes. The chair announced, “Motion carries.”

Next steps: The planning commission’s action is a recommendation; the city commission has the final decision. The charter requires a formal introduction and a 14‑day waiting period before the city commission may vote on zoning amendments. Staff indicated the amendment is on the schedule to be forwarded to the city commission for consideration and that any adopted changes would also be subject to the limitations set by the 1968 charter amendment unless the charter itself were changed by a vote of the people.

What wasn’t changed or decided: The planning commission’s recommendation did not change allowed building heights, lot coverage, setbacks or accessory‑building rules. It did not itself adopt design standards or require specific parking counts beyond what the zoning administrator already enforces for properties with three or more units. The commission also did not alter the charter or propose a charter change — it only recognized the charter constraint noted by staff.

The commission’s recommendation will be included in the public record that goes to the city commission for its consideration and possible ordinance adoption.