Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Map Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff outlines neighborhood‑node map changes and adds 'site type C' for smaller parcels in draft zoning text
Summary
Planning staff and the steering committee presented proposed zoning text and map changes for Troy’s neighborhood nodes on Aug. 12, 2025; commissioners reviewed proposed removals of six nodes, parcel rezoning to commercial or industrial districts, and the addition of a new site type C for small parcels adjacent to single‑family neighborhoods.
On Aug. 12, 2025, Troy City planning staff and the steering‑committee representatives briefed the Planning Commission on proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance’s neighborhood‑node provisions and associated map changes. The commission did not take a formal vote; staff said they will return with two remaining text items (building entrances and setbacks) and then schedule a public hearing.
Why this matters: the revisions implement elements of the city’s master plan and would change how specific intersections and parcel groups are regulated — affecting future redevelopment potential, allowed uses, and the process for reclassifying parcels within node boundaries.
Planning staff summarized two linked actions: (1) remove six intersections from the neighborhood‑node designation and reclassify those parcels to more appropriate existing commercial and industrial zones, and (2) retain 14 nodes but reassign many individual parcels to one of three site types (A, B or new site type C) to better match parcel size and adjacency to single‑family neighborhoods.
Staff described the six nodes recommended for removal as locations where existing land‑use patterns and traffic volumes make neighborhood‑node rules inappropriate. Examples discussed included the DeQuindre corridor and several Long Lake and Rochester intersections; for those the staff recommendation was to rezone parcels back to general business (GB), commercial business (CB) or industrial business (IB), or in one case to community facility (CF) to reflect ownership and existing use. Ben (staff) told the commission the steering committee reviewed “parcel by parcel” and sought alignment with the MASCH master plan and surrounding land uses.
New site type C: The draft adds a smaller site type intended for narrow parcels that are adjacent to single‑family homes. Site type A continues to describe the largest, most intensive parcels; site type B the medium parcels most commonly found in nodes; and site type C the smallest parcels used as transition buffers adjacent to neighborhoods. Staff said the change is intended to encourage lot consolidation (allowing mixed‑use site type A to emerge where parcels are combined) while protecting adjacent residential areas.
Commissioners asked about alternatives such as permitting higher‑density housing on some of the higher‑traffic corridors instead of reverting to commercial zoning. Staff replied that many of the parcels recommended to revert to commercial already carry commercial zoning and that CB and GB both permit mixed‑use and multifamily in certain forms, preserving redevelopment potential while aligning zoning to existing context. Staff also clarified process questions: reclassifying site types within an established node is a planning‑commission action after a public hearing; adding a parcel into a node (expanding the node boundary) would be treated as a rezoning and requires city‑council action.
Public comments during the agenda‑item portion focused on Crooks and Wattles (a frequently discussed intersection). Several residents and nearby property owners urged retention of residential or multifamily options and asked the commission to make sure any change would preserve pedestrian‑oriented, neighborhood‑scale development rather than permitting big, auto‑oriented projects. A nearby property owner urged that his 6‑acre parcel remain in the node because he plans a comprehensive redevelopment; staff said they would review any formal proposal and that a rezoning application could be considered.
Next steps: staff will return with final language on building entrances and setbacks, incorporate steering‑committee edits and then schedule a public hearing. If the public hearing goes forward and the Planning Commission recommends adoption, staff will forward the package to City Council for final action.
Ending note: the steering committee and planning staff emphasized that the map changes are intended to reflect the adopted master plan and current land uses, while the new site types are meant to provide clearer pathways for predictable, context‑sensitive redevelopment.
