Council approves consent judgment to allow 121-unit mixed-use project at 37600 Van Dyke (Union 53)

Council approves consent judgment to allow 121-unit mixed-use project at 37600 Van Dyke (Union 53) The Sterling Heights City Council voted 5-1 to approve a consent judgment that settles pending litigation and authorizes a mixed-use redevelopment of the Sterling Place Plaza property at 37600 Van Dyke Avenue, a project presented as "Union 53" by Gallo Companies. What the council approved: Staff described a four-story building with 121 residential units (92 one-bedroom and 29 two-bedroom units), three ground-floor retail spaces and associated site improvements intended to reduce a large existing surface parking area. City planner Dr. Jake Purcell told council the site currently contains "1 shy of a thousand parking spaces, so 999 parking spaces." Assistant city planner Sean Keenan and the applicant requested a package of nine deviations from strict zoning standards covering items including curb height, wall signage area, projecting signage, rear-yard setback, parking encroachment into setback, and reduced tree and parking-lot tree counts. Key design and project numbers (from staff and applicant): Keenan described the building as "a 4 story mixed use building that contains 92, 1 bedroom units and 29 2 bedroom units for a total of 121 residential units." Site statistics presented at the meeting included: existing 999 parking spaces; staff said the development would reduce the overall paved sea of parking and cited a proposed parking count discussion of "184 parking spaces" during the presentation; Keenan identified 158 parking spaces proposed to serve residents, roughly 10 spaces dedicated to the mixed retail (noting a shortfall of three from ordinance requirements), and a 21-space shared retail area that staff said would meet retail demand. Keenan also listed landscaping deviations: required frontage trees 20 (applicant proposing 11), required frontage shrubs 50 (applicant 44), required parking lot trees 37 (applicant 26) and substitution of some trees within a water-main easement with shrubs. Keenan said the applicant has proposed 153 shrubs for a required buffer area where it encroaches into the greenbelt. Public comment and council questions: Multiple residents spoke at the meeting. Ken Nelson asked whether the timing of the litigation and the applicant's changed proposal felt "staged." Other speakers raised concerns about neighborhood impacts and whether the site would truly reduce impervious area. Several council members questioned tree counts, project timing and construction schedule; Dr. Purcell and the applicant explained easement constraints and that some plantings could not be sited where the city requires trees because of underground water-main easements. The applicant told council typical rents would be in the $1,500 to $2,000 per month range and that the project team expects market demand; applicant representatives said they expect to provide dedicated resident parking and visitor parking and to maintain permit controls similar to the developer's other Sterling Heights properties. Legal and procedural posture: The consent judgment resolves an appeal following a Zoning Board of Appeals denial for a different use (self-storage) and replaces further litigation with an agreed redevelopment plan subject to the city's approval. Staff told council that the Van Dyke Mixed Use District standards and the city's zoning ordinance permit council to approve development pursuant to a consent judgment. Vote, motion and outcome: A motion to approve the settlement and authorize the city attorney to sign the consent judgment was made and supported; the roll call vote was 5 in favor and 1 opposed (Councilmember Radke). Where council approved deviations, staff recorded them as modifications to the site plan and listed the nine requested modifications. Discussion vs. decision: The council decision was approval of the consent judgment that authorizes the PUD/site plan and the associated deviations. Discussion centered on buffering, tree counts, pedestrian connections and construction timing; several council members asked for additional clarifications and for the applicant to consider measures such as a southern pedestrian connection to the adjacent shopping center, and one council member said the process (consent judgment rather than a standalone PUD hearing) concerned him. Staff noted the site will still return to standard engineering and plan review prior to construction permits. Ending: Council approved the settlement. Staff and the applicant indicated the next steps include final engineering, building permit applications and coordination on landscaping/planting details; staff also noted the applicant offered to pay into the city tree fund to cover any shortfall in required frontage trees if council wished to add that stipulation to the consent judgment.