Sterling Heights council pauses new "neighborhood and district nodes" zoning ordinance after property owners raise concerns

Sterling Heights — The City Council introduced an ordinance to create two new types of commercial overlay zones — “neighborhood nodes” and larger “district nodes” — aimed at encouraging walkable retail, restaurant and limited housing development at 11 intersections across the city, but voted to delay final action until its April 1 meeting after property owners and residents urged more time to review the text.

City planner Dr. Jake Parcel told the council the proposal grows out of the 2025 Master Land Use Plan and the city’s 2017 planning framework. “We reimagined the nodes … and the ordinance focuses on connectivity, walkability and a focus on the people who are going to these nodes,” Dr. Parcel said, describing two subdistrict types and a push to add uses such as restaurants and housing while restricting higher‑intensity C3 uses near single‑family homes.

Parcel and staff said the ordinance would reclassify about 11 existing node locations and add two parcels, including part of the Nottingham Square/Kroger parcel at Canal and Shaner. Parcel said the draft would expand allowable commercial uses in many C1 and C2 parcels and make up to roughly 50 previously excluded commercial uses available by special approval, while keeping a shorter list — about a dozen — of impermissible uses to protect nearby residential areas. He proposed one textual change to protect existing fast‑food tenants: “adding the word ‘new’ in front of ‘fast food restaurant’ is an impermissible use,” Parcel said, so existing drive‑through fast‑food locations would remain allowed to renovate without a variance.

Why it matters: supporters say the node ordinance is meant to spur redevelopment at aging strip centers by encouraging restaurants, improved streetscapes and housing that links to adjacent neighborhoods. Opponents warned it could create new nonconforming uses and hurt the financing and operation of long‑standing shopping centers.

Property owners whose parcels would be included urged delay. Jim Epping, a land planner representing Grand Sockwa Companies, said his firm learned this parcel had been added within the past week and asked council to table action so staff and owners could resolve differences in the text. “We’re concerned about creating vacancies as almost collateral damage,” Epping said, noting tenant mix, franchise requirements and lender assumptions tied to current zoning. Richard Sable, who said he represents property owners at Nottingham Square, made a similar request and asked for at least 30 days to work through possible unintended consequences for existing tenants and redevelopment financing.

Residents and small‑business advocates offered mixed views. Paul Smith, a longtime resident, said the proposal amounted to a “fruit market reorganization” that could upset long‑standing setbacks and parking patterns. Other residents, including Evan Sudemyer, said they supported the plan and wanted walkable nodes and more restaurants.

Council deliberations focused on notice and process. Planning staff said the ordinance is tied to the city’s final master land‑use plan, and that parcel designations in an appendix will be finalized after the public‑comment period ends (staff set an April 9 comment deadline). Parcel told council that if the ordinance is adopted now the specific parcels added by the master plan would not affect property owners until the final plan and appendix are adopted.

Motion and outcome: Councilmember John Radke moved to introduce the ordinance; the introduction was moved and supported. Later, after public comment and staff discussion of clarifying edits, a motion to postpone consideration to the council’s April 1 meeting carried on a roll call vote. Councilmembers voting to postpone said the extra time would allow staff, property owners and the planning commission to refine definitions and to add the suggested textual fix to treat existing fast‑food uses as allowed while limiting “new” drive‑through locations.

What remains unresolved: property owners asked for clearer language addressing conversions and expansions of existing tenants (for example, whether an existing restaurant’s reconfiguration would create a nonconforming use) and for explicit handling of tobacco shops and drive‑throughs. Planning staff indicated follow‑up meetings are scheduled with owners and will return refined language with the final master land‑use appendix. Council members also asked staff to mirror prior zoning processes (for example, Van Dyke Mixed Use District) on how ground‑floor residential would be reviewed.

Next steps: staff will continue discussions with affected property owners and the planning commission and return the ordinance to council on April 1 with the master land‑use plan appendix and draft text edits for council review.