Troy City planning panel recommends approval of Wesley Park 32‑unit townhomes after neighbor negotiations

On Aug. 12, 2025, the Troy City Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of a revised and restated conditional rezoning agreement and preliminary site plan for Wesley Park, a proposed 32‑unit townhome development on the east side of Rochester Road south of Shallowdale.

The development team—originally approved in 2021 as Shallow Brook townhomes and now proposed under MNK Troy 1 LLC with an anticipated handoff to MI Homes—sought a recommendation to restore a conditional rezoning agreement that expired Feb. 8, 2025, and to secure preliminary site plan approval so engineering sign‑offs can be completed. Planning staff summarized that the new submission tracks the previous approvals in unit count (32 units, eight buildings) and building height limits (maximum 30 feet) but replaces an earlier conceptual sketch with a full preliminary site plan packet voluntarily offered by the applicant.

Why this matters: the project was previously conditionally rezoned and received preliminary site plan approval in mid‑June 2021 but the conditional agreement lapsed after the developer did not record an extension. The applicant returned with voluntarily offered conditions and a more detailed site plan so the city can complete engineering reviews and move toward city‑council consideration.

City planner Brent (staff) told commissioners the revised agreement and site plan were “consistent with the original conditional rezoning agreement” and the previously approved plans. The applicant’s representative said the developer sought to keep changes minimal: “We haven't changed the building configurations. We've not changed the unit count,” and said building materials will follow the earlier commitments including hardy siding and brick on fronts and sides.

Homeowners and the applicant said they negotiated changes. Jim McCauley, vice president of the Shellbrook subdivision homeowners association, told the commission he reviewed the revised materials and found two substantive edits from the original voluntary conditions: removal of a requirement described as “similar configuration” from one clause and a change from three landscape rows to two, though the applicant’s latest landscape plan added screening along the east side of the detention pond and extended plantings to the southeast corner of the property. McCauley said he circulated the materials to neighboring property owners and that “only one person was opposed” after his review, adding, “We supported it then, we support it now.”

Commissioners pressed the applicant on screening, light intrusion and grading. The applicant agreed to increase the size of specified trees along the northern property boundary from 5‑foot to 6‑foot stock and to extend evergreen screening along the eastern boundary past the detention area to the southern property line. Engineering staff noted the grading plan shows a proposed berm of about 2 feet behind the buildings adjacent to the property line; staff said shrubbery on that berm could be added to enhance screening but that utility and grading constraints (including an existing gas line identified as roughly 10–12 inches in diameter along the corridor) would affect planting locations.

Planning staff said engineering reviews for sanitary sewer have been approved and water permit comments remain outstanding; staff described the application as being “at the five‑yard line” for engineering completion and said formal council approval of the private development agreement and development‑fee arrangements normally follows planning approval.

Motion and vote: Commissioner Fox offered a resolution that recited the 2021 approvals, the expiration of the prior conditional rezoning agreement, the applicant partnership with MI Homes, and the voluntary conditions in the revised and restated agreement, concluding with a recommendation that the commission approve the revised and restated conditional rezoning agreement and grant preliminary site plan approval for Wesley Park (32 units). The motion carried on a roll call with all voting members recorded as voting yes (Mister Hudson; Mister Crick; Mister Lambert; Miss Malawalali; Mister Chagall; Mister Beakner; Mister Faison; Mister Fox). The planning commission’s action is a recommendation to Troy City Council; final approval and the private development agreement remain subject to council review.

What happens next: Planning staff asked the developer to submit a concise cover letter for city council that lists changes made in response to HOA and commission comments and to provide a revised landscape plan showing the larger trees and the extended screening the commission requested. The project will return to council for final action and for any outstanding engineering permit approvals.

Ending note: Commissioners and neighbors repeatedly credited the collaborative negotiation between the developer and the homeowners association as the reason the item moved forward. The commission’s recommendation preserves the previously approved unit count and most design parameters while requiring clearer, illustrated landscape and screening commitments before council consideration.