Council introduces North Van Dyke corridor zoning district after planner presentation; public raises floodplain concerns

The Sterling Heights City Council on Tuesday introduced two companion ordinances to rezone and establish development standards for the North Van Dyke Avenue corridor, a step officials said is intended to guide future redevelopment around Van Dyke, Utica and Riverland Drive.

City Planner Dr. Jake Parcells presented the map amendment and text for the proposed North Van Dyke Corridor District (case PZ24‑0008). He told council the proposal converts the existing overlay into a standalone zoning district with four subdistricts (District Core, Utica Triangle, Parkside and NVDA Industrial), updates permitted uses to encourage mixed‑use and “missing middle” housing, and adds dimensional standards such as maximum heights, river setbacks and minimum pedestrian sidewalk widths. The ordinance would set a 100‑foot minimum setback from the Clinton River top‑of‑bank for new development that abuts the watercourse and reduce maximum building heights from earlier drafts (the city planner said the core would allow up to 60 feet and other subdistricts up to 48 feet in typical cases).

Parcells also described an environmental‑bonus program: developers who include green design measures (pervious paving, stormwater treatment swales, green roofs, native plantings and other items enumerated in the draft) could gain modest allowances in height, lot coverage and parking reduction.

During public comment, resident Jim Bauer raised technical concerns about flood elevations along the Riverland Shopping Center and in the Utica Triangle. Bauer cited local GIS elevations and the base flood elevation, arguing that new ground‑floor building levels would require filling that in turn requires compensating cuts and stormwater handling; he asked how the ordinance accounts for elevation changes and where cut material and stormwater would be accommodated. He also noted several instances in the draft ordinance that give the Planning Office discretion to approve up to 10% changes without returning to council.

Parcells, CIA representative Ben Bonner and City Attorney staff said the draft ordinance is conceptual in parts and that specific projects would undergo separate site plan, engineering and state reviews as required. City Attorney feedback noted that the city’s nonconforming use rules (Article 27) and standard site plan and engineering review would apply; planners said the ordinance was drafted to minimize creation of new nonconforming uses where feasible. Parcells said traffic and right‑of‑way changes are separate, larger undertakings handled by engineering and county/state partners; the ordinance establishes pedestrian standards, but major reconfiguration of Van Dyke would require additional engineering, interagency coordination and likely a separate council action.

Councilmember Mary Taylor pressed for clarity about parking and rooftop uses; Parcells confirmed the draft encourages accessory parking structures that are attached to development rather than standalone parking garages and that roof gardens and roof‑top dining were supported by the ordinance’s design approach. Council also clarified naming/branding questions: the ordinance title is the North Van Dyke Avenue Corridor District, while a separate public identity (signage using “North Van Dyke River” branding) would be a branding decision and not part of the ordinance text.

Council voted to introduce both measures: (1) amending the official zoning map to delineate parcels comprising the North Van Dyke Corridor District and its four subdistricts, and (2) adding Article 14c to zoning ordinance No. 278 to create development and design standards for the district. Both motions were introduced and supported by council and carried on voice votes; a subsequent ordinance adoption hearing and vote will be scheduled per the city’s ordinance process.

Planners and the Corridor Improvement Authority said they will continue outreach and financial feasibility work (including floodplain analysis where relevant) before any developer requests final approvals. The city noted that specific proposals will trigger engineering review, floodplain compliance, and state approvals (including, where required, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy).