Troy Planning Commission discusses major rewrite of neighborhood-node zoning (file 258); removes auto-oriented uses, adds small-site category

The City of Troy Planning Commission spent the bulk of its July 22 meeting discussing a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment (file 258) that would recodify “neighborhood nodes” in Troy’s zoning code, add a new small-site category, and remove automobile-oriented uses such as drive-throughs and gas stations from those nodes.

Why it matters: The commission’s steering committee and planning staff said the changes are intended to better align the city’s zoning with the master plan, promote walkable, mixed-use neighborhood nodes, limit negative impacts on adjacent single-family properties and create a specific set of permitted uses for small, transitional parcels.

Ben Carlisle, planning consultant with Carlisle Boardman Associates, told the commission the draft focuses first on updating the neighborhood-node intent statement, then on recoding allowed uses by site type. “We add a third site type — site type C — to provide more flexibility,” Carlisle said, explaining that site type C is intended for smaller parcels typically improved with a single-family home and that single-family detached construction could be permitted by special use in some circumstances. Carlisle said the amendment also removes the prior “street type” regulator and creates a use table just for neighborhood nodes so that uses appropriate to Big Beaver or Maple Road districts do not automatically carry into neighborhood nodes.

The draft separates site types this way: site type A for larger corner parcels allowing higher intensity and mixed-use; site type B for intermediate, transitional sites; and site type C for smaller parcels adjacent to single-family neighborhoods where single-family and duplex forms are permitted and multifamily could be allowed by special use. Carlisle added that certain building forms (labeled D, E and F in the existing ordinance) would be removed from the nodes because they are more appropriate to Big Beaver or Maple Road.

Public comment and related planning items: Fabrice Madauskas, a Troy resident, urged the commission to allow taller residential options in North Troy and called for more flexibility on heights and density. Carlisle and staff said North Troy would return as a distinct zoning conversation soon and that the proposed node changes do not alter the master plan’s direction for North Troy.

Uses and automobile-orientation: The steering committee recommended removing auto-oriented and high-impact commercial uses from the node use table. Carlisle said uses such as gas stations, car washes and drive-throughs were removed from the neighborhood-node allowances so they could still occur elsewhere in the city’s more intensive commercial districts but would not be permitted in nodes. “We eliminated all auto uses,” Carlisle said, adding that drive-throughs would not be allowed even where a permitted retail use otherwise might allow one.

Heights, transitions and buffers: Commissioners pressed staff on height and transition rules. Carlisle said the amendment keeps the existing approach tying maximum heights to adjacency: parcels adjacent to single-family residential are capped (three stories in many cases), and allowable height generally depends on proximity to single-family homes rather than purely on site type. The steering committee also asked the commission to consider stronger transition tools — buffers, stepbacks and landscaping — to reduce visual and privacy impacts on neighboring houses.

Setbacks and landscape buffers: Commissioners debated a proposed standard that a building setback adjacent to a single-family residential parcel would be “no less than the height of the proposed building or 20 feet, whichever is greater.” Several commissioners and members of the public said the value provoked concern from homeowners; one commissioner proposed tying any required setback to the existing rear-yard setback of the abutting single-family zoning district (for example, 35–45 feet depending on the R1 subdistrict). Staff noted that in some commercial districts the current required rear-yard buffer is 30 feet and cautioned commissioners about inadvertently making some commercial redevelopment infeasible. Commissioners asked staff to return with refined language and options (including landscape/berm treatments) that balance neighborhood protection and redevelopment feasibility.

Permits, process and mapping: Carlisle said the current hearing and modification process to change a regulating plan remains, but the draft adds a node-specific modification procedure and clarifies when reclassification of site types requires a public hearing or a rezoning. The amendment is limited to the text; map changes (remapping parcels to site types A/B/C) will follow and be presented separately, parcel by parcel, at a future meeting. Carlisle said after the planning commission completes the text and map work the item would return for public hearing and then be forwarded to city council if recommended.

Code details and building forms: The draft adds a residential building form for site type C, retains mixed-use requirements on larger sites (multifamily typically only as part of a mixed-use project in site type A) and removes large-scale building forms from nodes. The draft also reorganizes use-group tables so neighborhood-node uses have their own list and definitions; language and definitions of remaining uses were not changed, only the list of uses permitted within nodes.

Next steps and follow-up items: Commissioners asked staff to bring back (1) a clearer bifurcation of standards for residential versus commercial building entrances (the “primary entrance” language prompted extended debate about patios and front doors facing major roads), (2) options for setback and landscape buffer language to protect adjacent single-family properties while leaving feasible development footprints, and (3) a detailed mapping package showing proposed site-type designations parcel-by-parcel and illustrative visuals of building/entrance arrangements. Carlisle said staff will prepare refined draft text and the map amendment to return to the commission for public hearing and subsequent recommendation to city council.

Votes at the meeting: The commission voted to approve the evening’s agenda and to approve the minutes from the July 8 meeting. The amendments to the neighborhood-node ordinance were discussed but no formal action was taken on the ordinance text at this meeting.

Credits and context: The discussion was framed as a text-level workshop; Carlisle said the steering committee — including four commission members who worked on the revisions — sought to keep neighborhood nodes as neighborhood-serving, walkable, mixed-use places while tightening controls on scale and incompatible uses. The city’s master plan remains the guiding policy; staff and the consultant said the draft is intended to codify that vision in zoning language rather than change the master plan.

Closing: Commissioners asked staff to return with clarified language on building entrances and on setbacks/landscape buffers and to present the map changes and public-hearing schedule at a future meeting.

Quotes used in this article come from the July 22, 2025 City of Troy Planning Commission meeting transcript and are attributed to speakers identified in the record.