On the agenda: Sterling Heights meeting — colocation (Feb 25)

1. Planning Commission Agenda
Documents:
AGENDA_FEBRUARY 25, 2026.PDF
2. Planning Commission Packet
Documents:
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL MEETING PACKET.PDF

STERLING HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY , FEBRUARY 25, 2026
SUPPLEMENTAL MEETING
Nathan Inks , Chairperson
Gerald Rowe, Vice Chairperson
Brandy Wright , Secretary
Ed Kopp

Fiorela Lesaj
Nicole McGill
Parmpreet Sarau
Pashko Ujkic

Meeting to be held at
Sterling Heights City Hall
40555 Utica Road
7:00 p.m.

AGENDA ITEMS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSIDERATIONS
CORRESPONDENCE
NEW BUSINESS
A. Zoning Ordinance Rewrite: Site Standards Policy Review

8. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
9. ADJOURNMENT
NEXT MEETING DATE : March 11, 2026
Jake Parcell, PhD
City Planner and City Development Manager
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that any interested person may appear and comment upon the requests in person,
or by agent or attorney during the public hearing to be held on the date and time, and at the location set forth
above. Pertinent information related to the application may be
reviewed at the Sterling Heights Office of
Planning, during regular business hours. Questions regarding the application can be
directed to the Office of
Planning at 586 -446-2360. Written comments may be submitted to the Sterling Heights Office of Planni
ng,
40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI 48313, or to the City Planner at [email protected] up to
4:30 p.m. of the meeting date.
The City of Sterling Heights will provide necessary reasonable auxiliary aids and services to individuals with
disabilities at the meeting upon seven days’ notice of the Community Relations Office at 586 -446-2470.
Published: Sterling Sentry –

memorandum
DATE:

February 20, 2026

TO:

City of Sterling Heights Planning Commission

FROM:

Jill Bahm, AICP, Andy Aamodt, and Ava Miller, Giffels Webster

SUBJECT:

Zoning Rewrite Policy Discussion: Site Standards

Introduction
Site standards are regulations in the Zoning Ordinance that address site improvements and elements
required in site development. We will organize all site standards, such as landscaping and parking
requirements, into one consolidated section which helps with ordinance navigation and ensures
consistency in the application of standards.
This memo lays out topics and points for discussion regarding site standards. The goal of the February
25th meeting is to address policy surrounding these topics. However, acknowledging that there is a lot to
address in this list, we are looking to just seek a general idea of policy direction; the development of
zoning language to fully capture the policy direction may take some time. Please read through the
topics and note where you may agree, need more info/suggest tweaks, or disagree, with the
policies that are proposed.
Additionally, please refer to the attached Zoning Audit for further reference.

Key Site Standard Topic Areas
Off-Street Parking
The Master Plan envisions ambitious parking policy implementation. Furthermore, the Parking Study
offers a more detailed foundation supporting parking zoning reform. The Planning Commission should
consider how the policy recommendations in the Master Plan and Parking Study can be implemented
here. Most of the City’s parking standards are located in Article 23 of the zoning ordinance; we
recommend cross-referencing Article 23, the Master Plan, and the Parking Study with these following
policy topics.
Topic
Minimum Parking Requirements
Eliminate minimum parking requirements for particular
zoning districts or defined areas. The Master Plan
recommends “[elimination of] minimum parking requirements
where supported by transit and where alternative transportation
options are promoted.” When cross-referencing the SMART
System Map with the City’s mixed-use node future land use
categories (District Node, Neighborhood Node, North Van Dyke
Node, Van Dyke Mixed-Use, Lakeside Village), the following are
planned mixed-use areas containing SMART fixed-route stops:
- Dequindre and 17 Mile (Neighborhood Node)
- Dequindre and 15 Mile (District Node)
- Ryan and 15 Mile (District Node)

Good
idea

Need
more
info

Not
interested

-

Van Dyke Mixed-Use along Van Dyke from 14 Mile to 18
Mile
- North Van Dyke Node from 18 ½ Mile to Canal
- Lakeside Village
- Dodge Park and 15 Mile (Neighborhood Node)
- Schoenherr/Canal/19 Mile (District Node)
- Schoenherr and 15 Mile (District Node)
- Schoenherr and 14 Mile (District Node)
Should minimum parking requirements be eliminated for the
above areas?
Add administrative parking reductions at a reduction rate.
Parking reductions that can be reviewed administratively – and
objectively applied – can help reduce risk/uncertainty in the
development process, whereas reductions that are discretionarily
applied can turn away potential mixed-use development.
Objective reductions tied to geographic proximity to services,
amenities, and transit may be best utilized at a reduction rate,
such as a 50% reduction from the base minimum parking
requirement. The following criteria may qualify a 50% reduction:
- Site is within 1/8 mile (660 feet) from an improved fixedroute SMART stop.
- Site is located in the Lakeside, VDMUD, NVDA, or NDNO
zoning district.
Add administrative parking reductions by a fixed measure.
Objective reductions by a fixed measure can be beneficial to
mixed-use development and neighborhood-scale small
businesses. Tying these fixed measures to alternative modes of
transportation may be beneficial in encouraging these other
modes of transportation and creating a safer traffic network. The
following are examples reductions by a fixed measure:
- One EV charging station space may count as two
required spaces.
- One space dedicated to carpooling or carsharing may
count as two required spaces.
- Five covered (by a shelter or indoors) bicycle parking
spaces may count as one required parking space.
Consider lowering the minimum parking requirement for
multiple-unit housing. The required minimum of two parking
spaces for each one bedroom dwelling unit, plus 0.5 for every
additional bedroom is high and misaligned with the average
household size and vehicle ownership statistics in the city. Per
2022 ACS 5-year data, 44.6% of all renter-occupied households
are one person households, and a total of two-thirds of all renteroccupied households have either one car (49.6%) or no car
(17.1%).
Shared Parking and Parking for Multi-Tenant Commercial
Centers
Provide administrative parking reductions based on shared
parking. Two or more uses’ parking calculations should not be
compounded onto one another in full to create one combined
parking calculation; it's rare that two land uses, let alone two
businesses, would amount to the exact same parking demand,

Site Standards Policy Discussion

2

therefore flexibility should be accounted for in shared parking.
This shared parking strategy would give some relief in the total
number of spaces required, based on peak hours of operation of
the shared businesses. For example, an office should be
calculated in full (100%) during the hours of 7 am to 6 pm, but
this may not be the case for a restaurant,
entertainment/recreation center, or place of worship, whose
demand during the hours of 7 am to 6 pm will be only a fraction of
their full demand.
Accept changes of use of existing multi-tenant commercial
center suites without the need to re-review parking. As
evidenced in the Master Plan and the Parking Study, multi-tenant
commercial centers have some of the most notable excesses in
parking. Allowing a business to re-occupy a multi-tenant or
mixed-use suite without needing a detailed site plan (and review)
for parking is an efficient step towards allowing more small
business opportunities in Sterling Heights.
EV Charging Stations and Bicycle Parking
EV charging readiness. Require EV charging readiness – the
installation of the electrical conduit underground for immediate
installation of charging stations or deferred installation later – for
all new construction or reconstruction (removal and replacement
of surface) of medium- to large-sized parking lots.
Expand bicycle parking requirements. Increase minimum
bicycle parking requirements and consider ratios keyed to the
base vehicular parking requirement. In activity nodes and
mixed‑use areas, encourage a mix of covered and uncovered
facilities to support year‑round ridership.

Planning Commissioner Notes:

Site Standards Policy Discussion

3

Environmental Provisions
The Planning Commission may wish to review the environmental provision standards and consider how
they may affect development decisions. Planning Commissions must consider balanced regulations that
consider the burdens imposed on applicants, as well as the impact that new development has on the
community at large. The following environmental considerations may be reviewed as the City considers
updates to the ordinance.
Topic

Good
idea

Need
more
info

Not
interested

Landscaping
Review permitted plant lists and prioritize climate‑adaptable
native species. The City may wish to consider expanding and
modernizing permitted species lists to include climate‑adaptable
and native trees (e.g., black gum, sweetgum, hophornbeam,
yellowwood), consistent with State and regional guidance and the
City’s Climate Action Plan. Consider a 50% native minimum for
required plantings (mirroring the replacement tree ordinance) and
the authorization of the Office of Planning to maintain the
permitted list and prohibit harmful or invasive species as
conditions evolve.
Establishing side and rear greenbelt expectations. Explore
minimum side and rear yard greenbelts between developments
and/or uses, scaled to intensity and context.
Consider creating a site‑area landscaping minimum.
Consider requiring that at least 20% of the net site area be
landscaped, excluding ROWs and detention/retention basins
unless enhanced as functional green infrastructure. To ensure
canopy growth, consider requiring 1 tree per 1,000 square feet of
required landscaped area for nonresidential and multifamily
projects, and 3 trees per lot/unit for one‑ and two‑family
residential.
Clarify maintenance and yard vegetation standards. Add
maintenance requirements and clarify yard vegetation
expectations in residential districts (e.g., no prolonged bare dirt
conditions).
Frontage and Parking Lot Landscaping
Reorganize and update frontage landscaping standards.
Move Frontage Landscaping out of “Parking Lot Landscaping” so
it applies to all site frontages. Consider making these subsections
under Landscaping. Simplify the standard by establishing a
uniform minimum front yard greenbelt width where no parking,
buildings/structures, or stormwater detention facilities may
encroach; the City may consider a minimum of 15 feet. Simplify
plant quantity calculations using road frontage, such as 1 tree per
30 feet and 1 shrub per 10 feet of frontage.
Refresh frontage species and remove invasive or ill‑suited
trees. Update frontage tree lists to remove Chanticleer/Cleveland
pear due to invasive behavior and impacts on native habitat.
Consider context‑appropriate use of evergreen species; for

Site Standards Policy Discussion

4

example, avoid spruce as a default frontage tree unless the
objective is screening (e.g., outdoor storage), and favor canopy
and native species that reinforce streetscape quality.
Modernize parking lot landscaping requirements. Consider
increasing interior shade and stormwater infiltration by requiring
landscape islands at the ends of rows and within long runs. For
example, at least 1 island per 20 spaces in a row. Consider
clarifying that overhang areas may not count where
evergreen/arborvitae plantings would be damaged by bumpers.
Environmental Buffers and Natural Features
Strengthen buffers for natural features and water resources.
Consider the addition of a buffer standard for wetlands,
watercourses, and water bodies. A baseline 25‑foot no‑disturb
zone to vegetation and activity should be considered across all
zoning districts, with limited exceptions for approved pedestrian
trails, essential public infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, drains,
pathways), and projects with permits/approvals from EGLE. The
intent is to preserve natural function while allowing necessary,
regulated interventions.
Enhance woodland preservation and replacement. Consider
requiring 100% replacement of regulated trees removed,
eliminate oversized‑tree credit multipliers, and allow landscape
trees to count toward replacement. Where existing landscape
trees are removed for additions or site improvements, require
replacement to maintain canopy continuity.
Screening, Fencing, and Enclosures
Update decorative fencing standards for nonresidential
properties. Evaluate allowing durable decorative vinyl fencing
and clarifying language on sharp‑pointed designs and what
constitutes ornamental fencing. Given frequent variances,
consider relaxing select fence standards to reduce variance
volume while protecting safety and design intent.
Standardize dumpster enclosures and service area design.
To improve function and appearance, consider a consistent
15‑foot setback from property lines (subject to fire code),
landscaped screening, and limiting enclosures to side or rear
yards. Other standards to consider could be to require a concrete
pad beneath the dumpster and 10 feet in front of the gate, specify
that walls/gates extend at least one foot above the receptacle
height, encourage side‑entry layouts, prohibit gates from
swinging into drive aisle, prohibit parking in front of enclosure
gates and include enclosures for grease/oil containers and for
gates and lids to remain closed when not in use.
Green Infrastructure
Incentivizing additional trees. To strengthen the street canopy
and pedestrian comfort, consider requiring or incentivizing street
trees in the right‑of‑way, with standards addressing species
suitability, mature height, and native preference. Possibly
incentivize ROW trees and additional trees added on a site
through the granting of density bonuses.

Site Standards Policy Discussion

5

Assess waste management. Assess the zoning ordinance to
ensure that composting and recycling facilities are accessible to
residents, including those in multi-family residential areas.
Incentivize the adoption of sustainable waste management
practices.
Consider requiring energy-efficient designs. Consider
requiring energy-efficient designs for new developments in
certain zoning districts, such as reflective roofing, green roofs, or
sustainable materials.
Incentivize green technology and green spaces. Consider
adding incentives such as density bonuses or landscaping
reductions in developments that implement green spaces,
accessible public or semi-public plazas, renewable energy
resources, energy-efficient infrastructure, and becoming LEED
certified. For example, providing green space or a plaza could
serve as a percentage of required landscaping.
Planning Commissioner Notes:

Site Standards Policy Discussion

6

Signs
Signs: While the City did update the sign standards following the 2015 US Supreme Court decision in the
case of Reed v Town of Gilbert, there are a few standards still addressing content. Some of the key
issues to address in an update include the following:
•

•

Content-based regulations in a sign code are likely to face the strict scrutiny test from the courts,
which is extremely challenging to overcome. It is best to remove sign types such as "directional
sign,” “real estate development sign,” and “agricultural sales sign,” as well as eliminate references
to content on a sign.
Time, place, and manner regulations are generally still acceptable provided they are reasonable.

Staff recommend a broad modernization of the city’s sign standards. Desired changes include simplifying
how total sign area is calculated; updating definitions and measurement methods (e.g., window signs);
refining allowances for electronic message boards; establishing clearer lighting and footcandle
thresholds; and exploring allowances for illuminated signs in multifamily settings. There is also interest in
revisiting maximum sizes for wall and freestanding signs to ensure they are appropriate and not
excessive.
Topic

Good
idea

Need
more
info

Not
interested

Signs
Billboards: Keep the prohibition of billboards
Illumination: Consider additional standards to control lighting and
prevent light trespass from signs onto adjacent properties.
Consider standards for signs projected onto walls and other
surfaces.
A-Frame or sandwich board signs: Consider allowing these for
businesses within 10-20 ft of their entrances and requiring them
to be pulled inside at the end of business.
Temporary signs: Consider removing the distinction between
“short-term” and “long-term” temporary signs. Temporary signs
are, by nature, intended to be short-term and are often
specifically regulated because they tend to degrade in
appearance over time. Consider removing flags from temporary
signage.
Sign sizes: Keep as-is for the time being.
Home occupations: Consider permitting a one- to two-square-foot
sign when a home occupation utilizes a secondary door at a
home.
Planning Commissioner Notes:

Site Standards Policy Discussion

7

Lighting
Staff recommends updating the city’s lighting standards to reflect modern LED technologies, establish
clearer maximum illumination values, prohibit overly bright or decorative window lighting, and ensure
appropriate lighting levels for pedestrian safety.
Topic

Good
idea

Need
more
info

Not
interested

Lighting
Updating lighting standards. Consider clarifying maximum
foot‑candle limits as true maximums (not averages), prohibiting
roof‑mounted light fixtures and outline/window‑frame lighting, and
updating tables/metrics to address LED output characteristics.
Consider establishing lighting minimums. Consider
establishing minimum pedestrian‑area lighting levels for safety
(e.g., walkways, parking lots, and usable areas in mixed-used
developments).
Light fixture heights: Keep as-is unless there have been any
observable conflicts between land uses. However, the Planning
Commission may wish to consider specifying fixture height limits
for single-family lots.
Modification in commercially or industrially zoned
properties. Remove modifications from the ZBA’s authority and
give to the Planning Commission, where it is more appropriate for
site plan review. Add criteria for waivers and maximum waiver
and/or percentage above standards.
Light sources: Update to encourage LED light sources.
Consider provisions for updating nonconforming sites with
respect to lighting
Planning Commissioner Notes:

Site Standards Policy Discussion

8

Miscellaneous Site Standards
The ordinance has a few site standards that are fairly short, but essential.
Topic

Good
idea

Need
more
info

Not
interested

Miscellaneous Standards
Trash Receptacles: Expand trash receptacle standards to
include recycling and composting.
Decorative Fencing: The terminology could be updated to
remove “decorative” to emphasize that all fencing needs to
adhere to these standards regarding limits to chain link,
placement outside the front yard. Consider combining with
required fencing section.
Foundation plantings: Combine with landscaping section
Ground-mounted equipment screening: Consider combining
with roof-mounted equipment screening.
Pedestrian Connections: This section requires pedestrian
connections from sidewalks to building entrances and integration
into landscaping. Consider moving to the landscaping or parking
section to ensure this important requirement is noted.
Bicycle racks: Move to parking section.
Enhanced landscaping treatments: Move this section to
landscaping section.
Planning Commissioner Notes:

Site Standards Policy Discussion

9

Sterling Heights Zoning Ordinance
Health Checkup: A Professional Review and Assessment

Prepared July 2025
Updated February 2026

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 2

Summary

A Zoning Ordinance Health Checkup is an audit of the zoning ordinance that evaluates and
identify outdated language, conflicting provisions, and confusing text, as well as opportunities
for improvement or alignment with current best practices. Areas that may conflict with
state/federal law and case law are also identified, though it important to bear in mind that this
report is written from a planning perspective and does not constitute legal advice. This report
summarizes our findings from a review of the Sterling Heights Zoning Ordinance. Our
findings will follow the order of the ordinance. A summary of our recommended priority items
follows.
February 2026 Update: As the City embarks on a zoning update project, this audit was
updated to include staff feedback on zoning concerns. Relevant input from the 2026
Community and Planning Commission surveys have also been included. The
complete survey summaries are available at the City of Sterling Heights Planning
Office.

Summary of Priority Items
Priority Items
•

•

•

•

District Consolidations, Intents, and Uses:
The existing district intents, particularly those
that are reflective of future land use designations
recently updated in the Master Plan, should be
reviewed and updated to better reflect the
desired direction of the City. Uses should be
reviewed to ensure alignment with the Master
Plan. The residential districts, office districts,
commercial districts, and office research/
innovation support districts could use
considerable updates. Consolidations of certain
districts should also take place.
Re-Organization of Articles and Sections: Reorganizing the ordinance would support many of
the guiding principles for zoning health (see box
to the right), especially principles #2, 3, and 8.
Review of Development Procedures:
Development procedures such as site plan
review, special land use, rezonings, and special
development options (i.e. PUDs) should be
reviewed and updated to ensure a streamlined
process for consistent and predictable
outcomes.
Revisions of Site Standards: Revisions to site
standards, some only minor, may be beneficial
to meet the goals and objectives of the Master
Plan. These may include revisions to parking,
landscaping, and building design requirements.

Guiding Principles for Zoning
Health
Generally, a “healthy” zoning
ordinance follows these guidelines:
1.
The zoning ordinance directs
growth and development as
envisioned in the community’s master
plan.
2.
The zoning ordinance is a
well-structured and intuitively
organized regulatory tool.
3.
The zoning ordinance
language is clear, concise, and easy
to understand.
4.
The zoning ordinance
contains clear illustrations that help to
explain text-based ordinance
requirements.
5.
The zoning ordinance
includes the zoning map for easy
reference.
6.
The zoning ordinance is
consistent with state and federal law
as well as related case law.
7.
Outcomes are consistent and
predictable.
8.
The zoning ordinance is
accessible and easy to find.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 3

Relationship between the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
Master plans capture a community’s vision for the future and establish guiding principles that
help a community create land development policies and make land use decisions. In
Michigan, the value of the master plan as an important community document is recognized,
which is why State law requires the master plan be reviewed every five years. This review
allows communities to check in on their progress and ensure the vision and guiding principles
are still relevant.

The zoning ordinance is one of the primary tools for implementing the recently adopted
Sterling Heights Master Plan; there should be a clear connection between master plan goals
and the zoning ordinance. Many of the future land use and implementation action item
recommendations found in the master plan can be directly accomplished by amendments to
the City’s zoning ordinance. These amendments then support the broader goals and
objectives of the master plan. Amendments can range from minor text changes all the way to
the creation of new districts and map amendments. An amended zoning ordinance can also
support policies that encourage redevelopment, upgrades to existing development, and the
maintenance of property.
The 2025 Master Plan provides the basis for zoning policy. Please refer to the appendix for a
full list of the Master Plan’s goals and objectives. In the following subsections, we list the
zoning action items which are the concise - and often short-term - implementable portions of
the Master Plan. We also summarize the future land use plan.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 4

Zoning Action Items to Implement the 2025 Master Plan
A zoning ordinance regulates the use of land. Adopting regulations that support the goals of
the Master Plan helps ensure that future development will be in line with the community’s
goals and vision. It is one of the most important implementation tools at the city’s disposal.
The following pages include a summary of master plan action items by goal. Note that while
“Mixed-Use Nodes” was not a goal category, the development of the Master Plan included a
specific action items summary for this key theme.
Please note that the following zoning action item lists are not a ranking but are in numbered
form for easy reference throughout this document.
Housing
A1.

Zone for a mix of housing types, including singlefamily homes, accessory dwellings, “missing
middle” housing (such as duplex, triplex, and
quadplex housing), townhouses, apartments, and
senior living facilities.

A2.

Create incentives for developers to build smaller,
more affordable housing units.

A3.

Support the development of age-restricted
communities, especially when close to civic facilities and other community goods and
services.

A4.

Zone for mixed-use, including smaller scale stacked-flats and live-works, in not only nodes
but other office or commercial land use areas.

A5.

Promote sustainable development practices, including energy-efficient building materials,
encouraging compact development, and promoting walkability.

A6.

Allow height, setback, or density flexibility in instances that preserve green spaces and
woodlands.

A7.

Support aging-in-place by encouraging the retro-fitting of existing homes, as well as
promoting the development of accessible single-level homes or assisted living units.

A8.

Incentivize the inclusion of smaller units, such as studio apartments, to accommodate
single-person households and young professionals, adding variety to the housing market at
lower price points.

A9.

Incentivize housing development near public transit and walkable areas can reduce reliance
on cars, thereby lowering the overall cost of living.

A10. Utilize density bonuses for affordable or mixed-income units in new residential projects.
A11. Assess the zoning ordinance to identify opportunities for the administrative approval of
missing middle housing and reduce the instances in which discretionary (i.e. special land
use) decisions are required for multi-family development in non-single-family zoning
districts.
A12. Update the zoning ordinance’s use and site regulations to permit multi-family development
types that are more reflective of the recent market push with recent PUDs.
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 5

Local Economy
B1.

Encourage redevelopment of underutilized
commercial properties and foster mixed-use
districts, to meet an increased demand of new
retail space while creating vibrant, pedestrianfriendly retail hubs.

B2.

Encourage the creation of adaptable office
spaces, such as shared coworking spaces, which
will meet the needs of remote workers and local
businesses alike.

B3.

The zoning ordinance should enable flexibility in regards to office building
renovation/redevelopment.

B4.

Strategize zoning and development to blend residential, retail, and office uses, encouraging
compact, pedestrian-friendly communities. The redevelopment of land within the nodes
identified can be the first step in creating these walkable areas.

B5.

Create vibrant, accessible commercial hubs to retain more local spending.

B6.

Ensure zoning and development review is easy to understand and allow for incremental
improvements to not be overly burdensome, while encouraging high-quality development.

B7.

Incentivize the addition of innovative design elements to attract tenants and customers. Use
design guidelines that emphasize pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, adaptable retail spaces,
and modern architectural features.

B8.

Incentivize green technologies like solar panels or rainwater harvesting in developments.

B9.

Incentivize eco-friendly building practices, such as LEED-certified buildings or energyefficient infrastructure.

B10. Integrate sustainable transportation options like bike lanes, electric vehicle charging
stations, and improved public transit to reduce the environmental impact of car-dependent
development.
B11. Incentivize renewable energy sources and adopt sustainable waste management practices.
Environmental Stewardship
C1.

Incentivize green buildings by way of expedited
permits or density bonuses for developments
meeting energy efficiency standards.

C2.

Require energy-efficient designs in new
developments in certain zoning districts, such as
requiring reflective roofing, green roofs, or
sustainable materials.

C3.

Encourage mixed-use zoning in commercial nodes
to integrate residential, commercial, and recreational spaces, promoting walkability and
reducing energy use.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 6

C4.

Allow for more flexible zoning to include accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and missing
middle housing (e.g., duplexes, triplexes).

C5.

Rezone for compact, high-density, mixed-use developments near public transit and existing
infrastructure.

C6.

Ensure renewable energy infrastructure, such as community solar farm installations, are
permitted in the zoning ordinance.

C7.

Incentivize the planting of more trees through density bonuses.

C8.

Increase native species planting requirements for new development.

C9.

Assess the zoning ordinance to ensure that composting and recycling facilities are
accessible to residents, including those in multi-family residential areas.

C10. Allow for flexible zoning for waste drop-off centers in convenient locations.
C11. Allow for flexible zoning for community gardens, urban farms, and residential food
production.
C12. Allow for flexible zoning for rooftop gardens and vertical farming in commercial and
residential zones.
C13. Develop solar access ordinances to protect property owners’ ability to install solar panels.
Transportation
D1.

Eliminate minimum parking requirements where
supported by transit and where alternative
transportation options are promoted.

D2.

Incentivize property owners to participate in shared
parking arrangements by promoting the benefits
and providing model agreement language that
could be adapted as needed.

D3.

Utilize form-based code standards, zoning
strategies that focus primarily on how buildings and site design contribute to shaping the
public realm, making streets and sidewalks more attractive, comfortable, and conducive to
walkable areas.

D4.

Lower minimum parking requirements and establish parking maximums to reduce the
amount of land dedicated for parking automobiles.

Placemaking and Community Building
E1.

Incorporate thoughtful urban design to improve
accessibility, safety, and the overall ambiance of a
place.

E2.

Integrate pedestrian-friendly streets and
driveways, accessible public or semi-public
plazas, and green spaces in or near mixed-use
development.
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 7

E3.

Require appropriate lighting for usable areas accessed at night in mixed-use development.

E4.

Add standards for public art in private development.

Mixed-Use Nodes
F1.

Encourage residential density in mixed-use
nodes.

F2.

Eliminate blanket residential density maximums
in the mixed-use nodes, instead consider
residential density in terms of local context,
including access to jobs, amenities, and local
transportation options.

F3.

Prioritize desirable uses that contribute to place; in additional to residential, restaurants and
cafes (including outdoor seating), retail shops, entertainment venues (in District Nodes), and
pop-up shops and temporary uses should all be permitted by right.

F4.

Prohibit automobile-oriented uses in the mixed-use nodes, including uses such as drivethroughs and uses which cater to automobile-oriented design.

F5.

Analyze land uses in the nodes to ensure sensible regulations for nonconformities. If a
flexible approach with nonconformities is preferred, creation of nonconforming "classes"
may be implemented to ensure certain uses are given flexibility while others are held to
more rigid prohibitions.

F6.

Incentivize shared facilities, including shared parking, shared access drives, and internal
sidewalk/crosswalk connections. These may be incentivized through zoning ordinance
reductions, such as reduction of required parking if shared facilities are provided.

F7.

Require "taming" techniques for minor redevelopment projects. This may include the
following: replacing surface parking, unnecessary pavement, or excess vehicle drives with
pocket parks, plazas, or intentional enhanced landscape treatment areas; improving access
to and from the main entrance of the building to the public sidewalk; and restricting blank
walls along a public road and public or quasi-public sidewalk.

F8.

Require "evolving" or "transforming" techniques for new construction or large redevelopment
projects. This may include the rebuilding of a building, or structurally altering a building in a
manner that orients the building towards a primary driveway or communal space; it may also
include orienting a parking lot to the rear or side of the building, obscuring the parking lot
from public view and pedestrian access.

F9.

Allow for temporary pop-up activity on vacant land or underutilized land (i.e. parking lots).

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 8

2025 Master Plan Future Land Use Plan
Zoning is one of the City’s most effective tools for
implementing the recommendations of the Master
Plan; however, there is not always a direct
correlation between the Plan’s future land use
designations and the City’s current zoning
districts. The reason for this is that the future land
use map represents the City’s preferred longrange land use arrangement, while the zoning
ordinance regulates specific use and
development of property today. Some of the
Plan’s recommendations may spur a need to
create new zoning districts and/or amend existing
districts. As an implementation tool, the zoning
plan illustrates how the future land use
designations described earlier in the Master Plan
generally correspond to the existing zoning
districts. Please refer to the Zoning Plan table to
the right for direction on how future land use
designations should fit to the zoning districts.
We note the following important considerations on
how the zoning ordinance and map may be
amended to align with the Master Plan’s Future
Land Use Plan and Map.
Collapsable Zoning Districts: Simplifying land-use
regulations helps make development more
flexible and efficient. This can encourage
economic growth, reduce bureaucratic barriers, and better align zoning with current
community needs or market conditions. There are opportunities to collapse districts in
Sterling Heights:
•

Large Lot Residential: the R-70, R-80, R-90, and R-100 zoning districts should be
collapsed into one district.

•

Regional Commercial: the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts should be collapsed into one
district.

•

Office: the O-1, O-2, and O-3 zoning districts should be collapsed into one district.

•

Innovation Support: the O-R and TRO should be collapsed into one district.

It is important to note that efforts to collapse districts should address refining standards so that
the resulting districts do not render a significant number of properties non-conforming.
New Zoning Districts: The Master Plan identifies several new zoning districts needed to align
the ordinance with the future land use map:
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 9

•

Planned Residential: These areas identified throughout the Master Plan process contain
significant natural features for the most part, and are areas the City should permit
balancing density or dimensional flexibility with natural features preservation. That
means cluster development of diverse housing options should be allowed, as long as the
development clearly protects these natural features. Development proceeding in this
manner may entail a development process similar to a planned unit development, where
such natural feature protections should be clearly identified and tied to a wider public
benefit. This is also supported by action items A6 and C7.

•

Neighborhood and District Nodes: It is our understanding that overlay zoning districts
aligning with the Master Plan’s Neighborhood and District Nodes were recently adopted.

•

North Van Dyke Node: It is our understanding that overlay zoning districts aligning with
the Master Plan’s North Van Dyke Node (based on the 2022 North Van Dyke Avenue
Master Plan) were adopted in the past year. However, as of July 2025, zoning text
pertaining to these districts is not found in the current code of ordinances published
online.

Amended Zoning Districts
•

All residential districts should be amended to enable expanded residential land uses as
articulated in the Large Lot Residential, Suburban Residential, and Compact Residential
future land use designations.

•

Compact Residential fits best with the R-2 zoning district; however, the map should be
substantially amended and district uses/standards should also be amended to match this
intent.

•

Amendments to permitted uses should be considered in other districts, to match the
intent of the Multi-Household Residential, Local Commercial, Regional Commercial,
Office, Innovation Support, and Industrial future land use designations.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 10

Zoning Audit

This zoning ordinance audit starts with a general overview and then is generally ordered by
existing zoning ordinance articles. When sensible, we combine multiple articles within a subheader.

General Overview: User-Friendliness and Organization of the Ordinance
Discussion: As part of this audit, we analyze how the ordinance can be better organized and
made more user-friendly and accessible.
Findings:
User-Friendliness and Accessibility
• The ordinance is currently allocated into 33 articles. This is a lot of articles, which can be
overwhelming to users; however 23 of these are for zoning districts. Other than this large
amount of zoning districts, the remaining articles are structured in a rather coherent,
intuitive manner.
o

However, we would recommend some consolidations, such as Article 23: OffStreet Parking and Loading, Article 24: Environmental Provisions, and relevant
sections within Article 28: General Provisions be organized into a “site standards”
article; such article is helpful because it contains regulations pertaining to site
improvements that are often checked for compliance during site plan review.

•

In relation to the above concern; the vast number of zoning districts and overlays
decreases the readability of the zoning map. Collapsing zoning districts as noted above
will alleviate this condition. There are 35 classifications symbolized in the legend, and
with similar coloring, it may be difficult for the reader to discern from one district to
another. Additionally, we recommend the legend be ordered in an alphabetical or
categorical manner. The online interactive map helps clear up these issues but may be
difficult for a viewer to navigate. Perhaps instructions or a summary on a webpage (see
below) could help make the interactive map easier to navigate.

•

As a required supplement to the zoning ordinance text, the zoning map should be made
more easily accessible online; ideally there should be a webpage that contains both the
zoning ordinance link and zoning map, with a guide on how to use the interactive map.

Organization
• Use-specific standards are often provided for within the zoning districts’ lists of permitted
uses. We recommend moving away from this practice and instead putting use-specific
standards within an article and having each section be dedicated towards each subject
use and its standards. For example, we observe that “churches, synagogues, mosques
and places of group worship” contain use specific standards in the “R” districts and “RM”
districts, and some of these standards repeat. For ordinance readability and
conciseness, we recommend these be placed in one section, and leave the list of
permitted uses simply for listing the use. For efficiency, when a listed use is
complemented by a use-specific section, a reference/link can then be made to said usespecific section.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 11

Articles 1 and 2: Short Title and Interpretation; Zoning Districts and Map
This language appears rather standard and we have no concerns.

Article 3: R-60, R-70, R-80, R-90 and R-100 One-Family Residential
Districts
Discussion/Intent
This district is currently designed for the
lowest-density residential district; the
division between the R’s is for the area,
height and bulk requirements purposes.
The City should consider if a division into
five separate categories remains
necessary.

Zoning Plan’s Future
Land Use Equivalent
R-60 = Suburban
Residential

Master Plan Zoning
Action Items
A1, A2, A7, A11, C4,
C11

R-70 through R-100 =
Large Lot Residential

Findings
•

The “child care facilities” (Section 3.02.N) land use should be more clearly defined. It is
unclear whether this land use includes state-licensed group child care homes (7-12
children), which are likely a prevalent or highly sought out land use in a populated city
like Sterling Heights. If this land use includes group child care homes, some of the usespecific regulations should be amended to make these more permissible. For example,
the City should consider reducing the total play area size – 5,000 square feet is extreme
for these uses for 7-12 children. Also, it may be necessary to remove the requirement
that ingress/egress be on large thoroughfares – these can be compatible, beneficial
uses for residential neighborhoods.

•

Lists of use-specific standards are buried within the lists of permitted uses, as indicated
in the General User-Friendliness and Organization of the Ordinance section of this audit
above. For conciseness and readability, we recommend these go in a section within a
use-specific regulations article.

•

We recommend action items A1, A2, A7, A11, C4, and C11 be considered in future
amendments.
o

Incentivizing smaller homes
might mean reducing the
dimensional (area, height,
and bulk) requirements. For
this reason, it may be
necessary to replicate the R60 dimensional requirements
in the Suburban Residential
areas, and the R-70
dimensional requirements
for the Large Lot Residential
areas.
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 12

o

Permit duplexes and accessory dwelling units by-right in R-60, and permit
duplexes and accessory dwelling units by-right in R-70 given specific site and
design standards. Such site and design standards could mean minimum lot size,
minimum setbacks, minimum parking, or design requirements to require the
dwelling to fit within the neighborhood (i.e. pattern book considerations).

Staff Assessment
•

Childcare Modernization: Staff recommend updating both home-based and commercial
childcare to better align with current state standards. For home-based childcare, this
includes increasing the maximum number of children to match the state’s current
allowance, removing local play-area requirements, simplifying screening to only require
fencing, and shifting adjacency considerations to reflect actual surrounding uses rather
than zoning districts. They also suggest eliminating the requirement for home-based
childcare to be located on major thoroughfares. For commercial childcare, staff support
allowing these facilities as special approval uses in office and residential districts,
maintaining the major thoroughfare requirement due to higher traffic generation,
removing local play-area rules, and applying screening requirements consistent with
other commercial uses.

•

Residential Environmental Standards: Several comments focus on enhancing
environmental stewardship within single-family districts. Staff suggest extending tree
preservation requirements to single-family development, introduce stormwater
management standards specific to new homes, and create standards that support native
front-yard landscaping and gardens.

•

Residential Form and Flexibility: Staff are interested in simplifying and modernizing
development options within single-family districts. This includes reducing residential
setbacks to increase design flexibility and making the One-Family Cluster (open space
preservation) option easier to use. They suggest establishing a minimum open space
set-aside between 25 and 30 percent to ensure meaningful preservation while
streamlining the approval process.

•

Modernizing Uses and Housing Expectations: Staff note several emerging use
considerations for single-family districts. They recommend evaluating whether short-term
rentals should be permitted in single-family or multifamily districts, reviewing the types of
agricultural uses that should be allowed and what screening they may require, and
exploring the inclusion of universal design features in new single-family development to
support accessibility and aging-in-place.

Survey Findings
Survey responses highlighted two main areas for potential refinement. From the community
survey, interest was expressed in requiring permits for tree removal on residential lots, reflecting
a desire for stronger tree preservation and environmental stewardship in established
neighborhoods. The Planning Commission survey additionally supported allowing more
flexibility in building height, provided that any increase is modest and does not significantly alter
the existing neighborhood character.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 13

Article 4: R-2 Two-Family Residential District
Discussion/Intent
This district is currently designed for low
density residential, including two-family
dwellings (duplexes).

Zoning Plan’s Future
Land Use Equivalent
Compact Residential

Master Plan Zoning
Action Items
A1, A2, A7, A8, C4,
C11

Findings
•

Because much of the Compact Residential land falls within walking distance of the
mixed-use nodes (roughly a 5-10 minute walk), this land should be prioritized for
densities slightly higher than the R-60 through R-100 districts. In conjunction with a
density increase, it may be sensible to remove the horse stable and agricultural
accessory uses, so long as such removal will not create significant nonconformities.

•

We recommend action items A1, A2, A7, A8, C4, and C11 be considered in future
amendments.
o

Incentivizing smaller homes might mean reducing the dimensional (area, height,
and bulk) requirements. For this reason, and for the fact that R-60 currently has
more permissible dimensional requirements, the R-2 dimensional requirements
should be amended to be at least as permissible as R-60, if not more
permissible. Lowering the minimum lot size and lot width to values closer to
5,000-6,000 square feet and 50 feet, respectively, may incentivize more
opportunities for “gentle density” or “missing middle housing” here.

o

Permit duplexes and accessory dwelling units by-right, and permit triplexes and
quadplexes as special land uses with site and design standards to fit the
character of the neighborhood. Such site and design standards could mean
minimum lot size, minimum setbacks, minimum parking, or design requirements
to require the dwelling to fit within the neighborhood (i.e. pattern book
considerations). Attached single-family residential (townhomes) should also be
considered here.

Staff Assessment
•

Childcare Modernization: Staff recommend allowing commercial childcare facilities as
special approval uses within Office and residential districts. As with Article 3, they
emphasize aligning local standards with state requirements by removing local play-area
rules and applying screening requirements consistent with other commercial uses.
Because these facilities operate at a larger scale and generate more traffic, staff support
retaining a requirement that they be located on major thoroughfares.

•

Residential Form and Flexibility: Staff would like to reduce residential setbacks within the
R-2 district to allow greater flexibility in site design and better accommodate
contemporary two-family housing forms.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 14

Survey Findings
Survey feedback for the R-2 district echoed the themes identified in the one-family residential
districts. From the community survey, a request in requiring permits for tree removal. From the
Planning Commission survey, the consideration of allowing more flexibility in building height,
provided that any increase is modest and does not significantly alter the existing neighborhood
character.

Article 5: MHP Mobile Home Park District
We have no comments/concerns regarding this article.
Staff Assessment
Childcare Modernization: Staff recommend permitting commercial childcare facilities as special
approval uses within districts where they currently may not be allowed. As in previous articles,
they emphasize aligning local standards with state requirements by eliminating local play-area
rules and adopting screening standards consistent with other commercial uses. Due to their
larger operational scale and associated traffic, staff support maintaining a requirement that
these facilities be located on major thoroughfares.

Articles 6 and 7: RM-1 and RM-2 Multiple Family Low Rise District; RM-3
Multiple Family Mid and High Rise Districts
Discussion/Intent
These districts are currently designed for
multiple-family dwellings, especially singleuse development.

Zoning Plan’s Future
Land Use Equivalent
Multi-Household
Residential

Master Plan Zoning
Action Items
A3, A7, A8, A10,
A11, A12, C9

Findings
•

Section 6.01.B lists “independent and limited assistance housing for the elderly” as a
permitted land use, and that “only ranch type and/or apartment type dwellings or
rooming units shall be permitted.” This provision should be made more clear; if the
ranch-type is truly desired, then perhaps “single-story” or a definition for “ranch type”
should be provided. Additionally, “rooming units” is termed throughout these articles and
should be defined.

•

Elderly and non-elderly are distinguished in key parts of these regulations, however
these terms are not defined. It may be more clear to distinguish between assisted and/or
independent living versus general multi-household development here.

•

We recommend action items A3, A7, A8, A10, A11, A12, and C9 be considered for
future amendments.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 15

Staff Assessment
•

Childcare Modernization: Staff recommend allowing commercial childcare facilities as
special approval land uses in these multifamily districts, consistent with
recommendations in earlier articles. They propose maintaining the requirement that
these facilities locate on major thoroughfares due to traffic impacts while aligning other
standards, such as play-area requirements and screening, with state regulations and
existing commercial standards.

•

Building Design & Environmental Performance: Staff suggest introducing standards for
roof materials on industrial, commercial, institutional, and multifamily buildings, likely to
address durability, performance, or aesthetic consistency. They also recommend adding
expectations for window placement to support better energy efficiency.

•

Outdoor Recreation Requirements: There is interest in requiring dedicated outdoor
recreation areas for multifamily developments. This reflects a desire to ensure that
higher-density housing provides adequate on-site amenities and access to outdoor
space.

•

Multifamily Form & Layout: Staff raise several questions about building scale and
orientation in multifamily districts. They suggest considering whether maximum building
lengths should be established to avoid overly long structures and recommend including
clear illustrations to show how minimum distances between buildings are calculated.

Articles 8 through 10: O-1 Business and Professional Office District; O-2
Planned Office District; O-3 High Rise Office Commercial Service District
Discussion/Intent
These districts are currently designated for
traditional office uses. They vary in scale
with substantial differences in dimensional
requirements.

Zoning Plan’s Future
Land Use Equivalent
Office

Master Plan Zoning
Action Items
A4, B2, B3, B8

Findings
•

The Office future land use designation considers the opportunity for housing, stating
“secondary uses compatible with office uses may be permitted on the upper stories of
office buildings; such uses may include residential dwelling units.”

•

There are a number of listed uses that are similar in nature to one another and could be
grouped together – for example Section 8.01(A) lists “executive and administrative
offices,” 8.01(C) lists “professional occupations, including attorneys, accountants,
architects, professional engineers, community planners, landscape architects, land
surveyors and similar professional occupations,” and 8.01(D) lists “business offices for
advertising, insurance and real estate agencies and public utilities.” If changes of use
are to require a certain level of zoning compliance or site plan review, the fact that these
are listed as separate uses could stand in the way of redevelopment for land uses that
are practically unnoticeable from one other.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 16

•

O-3 appears to be the most intensive of the three districts, especially demonstrated by
its intent statement and height/scale flexibility, but does not go so far to permit the
special approval land uses of the O-2 district.

•

Each of the three districts contains a “structure and site requirements” section that
contains rather long-winded requirements, some that are difficult to follow.

•

o

Within these sections, various discretionary approvals are required by Planning
Commission, although the findings or criteria upon which Planning Commission
should make the approval are too broad, or in the case of 10.05(A), non-existent.

o

Requirements of these sections that are desirable in the future may be moved to
a particular “site standards” article for utilization across various zoning districts.

The Section 10.06 Specific Parking Requirements section reads like an intent statement
rather than an administrable requirement.

Staff Assessment
Childcare Modernization: Staff recommend allowing commercial childcare facilities as special
approval uses within all office districts. They support maintaining a requirement that these
facilities be located on major thoroughfares, given the traffic associated with larger childcare
operations. They also recommend removing local play-area requirements to align with state
standards and ensuring that screening requirements match those applied to other commercial
uses.

Articles 11, 12, 13, and 14: C-1 Local Convenience Business District; C-2
Planned Comparison District; C-3 General Business District; C-4 Multi-Use
District
Discussion/Intent
These four districts are generally the
commercial-oriented districts. They range in
intensity from C-1 through C-3, then C-4 is
essentially a special development option
that was more functional when more land
was available, and when strip-style
commercial development was popular.

Zoning Plan’s Future
Land Use Equivalent
C-1 = Local
Commercial

Master Plan Zoning
Action Items
A4, B5, B7, C12

C-2 and C-3 =
Regional Commercial

Findings
•

The C-2 and C-3 districts should be collapsed into one district that serves a regional
market.

•

The uses that contain the requirement of location on a 120-foot right-of-way appear
inconsistently applied from one use to another. The intent of this requirement seems to
locate the uses with heaviest traffic along these wider, and more heavily travelled roads.
However, this requirement is not listed for gas stations, but is required for uses
containing less traffic, like veterinary clinics and dry cleaning.
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 17

•

Similar to the Office districts, these districts contain a “structure and site requirements”
section that contains rather long-winded requirements, some that are difficult to follow.

•

Amendments to the C-4 district may be beneficial to help clarify open space provisions,
including shared open space throughout the entire project development area.

Staff Assessment
•

Childcare Modernization: Staff recommend continuing the broader effort to modernize
childcare regulations by allowing commercial childcare facilities as special approval
uses, maintaining a major-thoroughfare siting requirement due to traffic, eliminating local
play-area requirements to match state rules, and aligning screening with other
commercial standards. They also support allowing childcare as an accessory use in
commercial and industrial districts so employers can offer on-site childcare for
employees, reflecting a workplace-supportive approach.

•

Restaurant Regulations: Staff propose allowing restaurants by right in the C-1 district
unless they serve alcohol. For restaurants requiring special approval, they note that
building code requirements like ventilation should not be duplicated or embedded within
SALU conditions.

•

Building Design & Energy Efficiency: To improve summer energy performance, staff
recommend requiring lighter roof colors for industrial and commercial buildings and
prohibiting black roofs on all structures. The intent is to reduce heat absorption and align
building practices with energy-efficiency goals.

•

Use Clarifications & Enhancements: Staff would like clearer guidance regarding the
districts in which massage parlors are permitted, the appropriate minimum separation
between alcohol-serving restaurants and schools or churches (suggested at 500 feet),
and a refinement that minimum lot size requirements for new and used auto dealers
apply only to the dealership use itself.

•

Self-Storage Facilities: Staff recommend adding vertical, multi-story climate-controlled
self-storage facilities as a special approval use within the C-3 district.

Survey Findings
A community respondent suggested defining a single front setback for corner lots in commercial
or office zoning districts, rather than applying two separate front setbacks.

Article 12A: Lakeside Overlay District
Discussion: The Master Plan Update largely re-adopted the land use recommendations from
the 2017 Plan, and there is current momentum with the planned Lakeside redevelopment,
therefore this Audit does not consider any amendments to the Lakeside Overlay District.

Article 14A: Van Dyke Mixed Use District (VDMUD)
Discussion: The Van Dyke Mixed Use District was a topic of discussion by the Planning
Commission throughout the past few years, and recent amendments to the zoning ordinance
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 18

were adopted in 2024. The Master Plan Update largely re-adopted the land use
recommendations from the 2017 Plan, therefore this audit does not recommend any urgent
VDMUD amendments.
Staff Assessment
Childcare Modernization in Mixed-Use Areas: Staff recommend that the Van Dyke Mixed Use
District allow commercial childcare facilities in a manner consistent with the NVDA District. This
reflects the broader citywide goal of making childcare more accessible, aligning regulations
across mixed-use districts, and ensuring consistent treatment of childcare as a compatible use
within walkable, mixed-use environments.

Article 14B: Neighborhood and District Node Overlay District (NDNO)
Discussion/Intent
The Neighborhood and District Node
Overlay (NDNO) District recently replaced
the former Traditional Mixed Use
Development Node district in June. The
new NDNO separates out the
“Neighborhood” and “District” nodes.

Zoning Plan’s Future
Land Use Equivalent
Nodes (District and
Neighborhood Nodes)

Master Plan Zoning
Action Items
A9, A10, B1, B4, C3,
C5, D3; E1 – E4; F1
– F9

Findings
•

The intent statement references the 2030 Visioning Plan, but it should also reference the
City’s Master Plan, being the statutory plan that supports future land use planning and
zoning.

•

Currently, the NDNO is not identified on the zoning map, and the text of Section 14B.01
simply states “the geographic size of these nodes is generally a one-quarter mile in each
direction from the delineated intersections, which represents a walkable area commonly
referred to as a pedestrian shed.” With no further detail, it is unknown if this means a
quarter mile measured in each direction along the road frontage, or a quarter mile radius
“as the bird flies.” We recommend the overlay district be identified on a map with
interpretable boundaries to provide more certainty to the public and property owners,
and more consistent application by the City.

•

Clarity should be provided for the following building/side design standards (14B.06):

•

o

Subsection A states that “buildings shall be designed, where feasible, to be
located along the front yard setback of the abutting major (or other similar)
roadway they abut, with required off-street parking to be located to the side or
rear of the building to create a more vibrant road frontage.” The phrase “along
the front yard setback” should be clarified – does it mean along the front right-ofway line, or the required front setback line?

o

Subsection F states that “the overall node development concept plans for each
specific planning area shall provide a guide for overall node development.” These
should be further articulated.

Some Master Plan action items appear to be already largely conducted, including:
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 19

•

o

F4: the less desirable uses for mixed-use appear to be called out as prohibited.

o

F5: special considerations are granted for certain uses that would otherwise be
made nonconforming, by allowing for redevelopment of certain uses no longer
permitted.

o

F6: shared amenities appear to be incentivized, parking especially.

For development/redevelopment projects, the action items of F7 and F8 should be
considered. “Taming” techniques should be considered minor development projects,
such as projects proposing only minimal site/building changes. “Evolving” or
“transforming” techniques should be considered for new construction projects, largescale renovations, or changes of use to more intensive land uses undergoing minimal
site/building changes.

Staff Assessment
Use and Dimensional Clarifications: Staff recommend refining several elements of the NDNO to
improve clarity and usability. They request clearer guidance on maximum lot coverage and
confirmation of which setback standard applies within Section 14B.10. They also suggest
replacing the term “bifurcation” with terminology more familiar to practitioners and the public,
improving overall ordinance readability. Finally, staff would like to explore allowing buildings to
extend up to the “potential” minimum landscape line, which could support more walkable,
street-oriented site design within the overlay district.

Articles 15 and 16: P-1 Vehicular Parking District and Floodplain Area
Discussion: Consideration should be given towards removing the P-1 vehicular parking district
– is the utilization of standalone parking uses realistic? It may be realistic in the Node areas with
more likelihood of vertical mixed-use development, however it may be more helpful to allow for
parking decks as permitted uses here instead of calling out a standalone parking district.
The Floodplain Area district regulated the flood hazard areas of the city, and we recommend the
City consider regulating such areas with heavy restrictions on uses/structures.
Staff and Survey Assessment
Both staff and responses from the Planning Commission survey recommended removing the P1 district. A note from the Planning Commission survey was to revise the floodplain provisions
so it is clearer that the floodplain boundaries change as the maps change.

Articles 17, 18, and 20A: O-R Office Research District; TRO Technical
Research Office District; and Mound Road Innovation Support District
(MRISD)
Discussion/Intent

Zoning Plan’s Future
Land Use Equivalent

Master Plan Zoning
Action Items

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 20

These zoning districts appear to
accommodate high-tech, research, and
associated uses that often tie to
manufacturing and research industries.
These are geographically located near the
Mound Road corridor.

Innovation Support

A9, B2, B3, B4, B8,
B9, B11, C12

Findings
•

O-R and TRO should be collapsed into one zoning district. Because TRO appears a
touch more permissible in terms of uses and dimensional requirements, perhaps the
TRO district takes precedence.

•

To provide workforce housing opportunities, and supported by the future land use plan,
multi-unit residential should be a permitted use in the O-R or TRO districts.

Staff Assessment
Childcare Modernization: Staff recommend that commercial childcare facilities be permitted as
special approval uses within these office-research and innovation-focused districts. As with
earlier articles, they support requiring these facilities to be located on major thoroughfares to
accommodate higher traffic volumes associated with commercial childcare operations. They
also propose removing local play-area requirements to align with state standards and applying
screening requirements consistent with other commercial uses. These changes are intended to
create consistency across all office and research districts while supporting greater access to
childcare for employees and visitors in employment-oriented areas.

Articles 19 and 20: M-1 Light Industrial District and M-2 Heavy Industrial
District
Discussion/Intent
The M-1 and M-2 zoning districts are the
city’s industrial and manufacturing districts.
As the Mound/Van Dyke corridor is a critical
industrial hub in the metro region,
accommodations to help the present
industries grow, innovate, and adapt should
be prioritized.

Zoning Plan’s Future
Land Use Equivalent
Industrial

Master Plan Zoning
Action Items
B8, B9, B11, C2, C6,
C9, C10, C11, C13

Findings
Accessory uses/structures that pertain to renewable energy infrastructure, composting, and
recycling for these M-1 and M-2 properties should be permitted by-right with as few restrictions
(except for those directly regulating health, safety, and general welfare) as possible.
Staff Assessment
•

Accessory Childcare in Industrial Areas: Staff support allowing childcare as an
accessory use in industrial and commercial districts so that employers can provide
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 21

on-site childcare for employees. This aligns with growing workplace-support practices
and supports employee retention, convenience, and workforce stability within industrial
zones.
•

Site Security & Screening Flexibility: Staff recommend allowing 8-foot fences on
industrial sites with Office of Planning approval. This would provide added security for
industrial operations while ensuring that fencing height and placement remain
context-appropriate through administrative review.

•

Energy-Efficient Roof Standards: Staff propose requiring lighter-colored roofs for all
industrial and commercial construction to reduce heat absorption and improve summer
energy efficiency. They also recommend prohibiting black roofs on all buildings citywide.
These changes are intended to support heat-reduction goals and improve building
performance in large-scale industrial facilities where roof surface areas are significant.

Survey Findings
Planning Commission responses indicated interest in reducing required setbacks when projects
provide enhanced screening or buffering, as well as allowing additional building height. From
the community survey, there was also a suggestion to simplify corner-lot regulations by
establishing a single front setback, rather than applying two separate front setbacks on streets
with commercial or office zoning.

Article 21: PCD Planned Center District
Discussion: With the minimum site area of 100 acres, and the city’s relatively built-out
character, new development under this option is highly unlikely. However, the one large tract of
land containing dozens of businesses at 14 Mile and Van Dyke is currently zoned PCD, and
because of the diversity of land uses permitted here (office, commercial,
manufacturing/industrial), it may be sensible to keep this zoning district to protect the property
rights of these properties.

Article 22: Special Development Options
Discussion: There are seven special development options listed in this article: site
condominiums, one family cluster option, planned subdivision option, planned unit development,
corridor improvement authority/development areas, majority industrial facility redevelopment
option (IFR), and commercial redevelopment planned unit development option.
Findings:
•

The planned unit development (PUD) option is likely the most utilized of these options. If
the one family cluster option and commercial redevelopment planned unit development
(CRPUD) generally follow similar procedural requirements and goals of a PUD, then it
may be worthwhile to remove these and let the PUD option take precedence for these
development styles.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 22

•

Site condominiums are the preferred development style of single-family developers in
our state in the 21st century; because of this trend, is a “planned subdivision option” still
needed?

•

The City may wish to consider if the corridor improvement authority/development areas
and major industrial facility redevelopment options are still feasible as zoning tools.

•

PUD amendments could be made to the following:
o

Eligibility/qualification requirements may be refined to ensure truly desirable,
innovative uses are able to utilize the PUD tool. The Master Plan should be
looked at in determining the goals here.

o

It appears that the residential density for all PUDs is capped at 25% of the
permitted zoning density within the underlying district (and it appears RM-1/RM-2
is used if the base district doesn’t regulate residential density). It should be
clarified if this is modifiable. Nonetheless, this 25% cap may be a hindrance to
developers aiming to provide a feasible number of housing units – using the RM2 requirements, this would only permit a maximum of 13 one-bedroom
apartments per acre.

Staff Assessment
Proposed updates to the Planned Unit Development standards focus on modernizing both
eligibility criteria and qualification factors to better reflect contemporary planning goals. Overall,
the changes aim to broaden and clarify what constitutes a “recognizable net public benefit,”
emphasizing flexibility, design innovation, sustainability, open space provisions, and improved
transitions between land uses. The updates also reinforce expectations for high-quality site and
architectural design, environmental stewardship, universal design and accessibility, green
building practices, and the integration of modern infrastructure such as EV-ready features. This
would seek to create a more predictable, transparent, and performance-based process to
encourage projects that offer community benefits, efficient land use, and thoughtful design while
providing clearer guidance to both applicants and decision-makers.
Survey Findings
Survey responses pointed to multiple areas where the PUD process could benefit from greater
clarity and refinement, with one community participant specifically noting that the article is
confusing as currently written. Planning Commission responses noted uncertainty around the
provision that allows up to a 25% density increase, as past approvals have exceeded this
amount without clear guidance on whether such flexibility was intended. Commissioners also
identified procedural ambiguity in how concept plan approval transitions into site plan review,
particularly for multifamily PUDs where preliminary review has effectively occurred during PUD
approval.
There was also interest in streamlining Article 22 by removing special development options that
are outdated or unused, and in strengthening the PUD framework by adding eligibility criteria to
ensure the tool is not used as a substitute for rezoning. Additionally, Planning Commission
members expressed support for incorporating community benefit requirements into PUDs such
as shared open space or recreation amenities, which are difficult to secure through other
mechanisms in mixed-use areas.
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 23

Article 23: Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements
Discussion: The parking article contains zoning text pertaining to minimum parking
requirements, parking layout, and loading.
Findings:
•

Master Plan action items B10, D1, D2, and D4 support revisions to the parking article,
including but not limited to an elimination of minimum parking requirements where
supported by transit and where alternative transportation options are promoted,
incentivization of shared parking arrangements, and lowering minimum parking
requirements while also implementing a maximum parking requirement.

•

Subsection 23.01(B) contains a confusing tense describing a property that proposes
changes. For example, if a big box store or large commercial strip center wishes to
develop an out-lot, do the existing uses - despite not being a subject of the site
development - need to adhere to the regulations when they were developed or presentday regulations? In zoning, we recommend that when new development occurs, site
improvements such as parking shall follow the regulations in effect at the present time.
o

Further, relative to this point, it is important to consider the impact parking has
with changes of use in multi-tenant sites and mixed-use buildings. An exception
that allows such changes of use with no additional parking may be beneficial to
small business development.

•

The required minimum of two parking spaces for each one bedroom dwelling unit, plus
0.5 for every additional bedroom is high and misaligned with the average household size
and vehicle ownership statistics in the city. Per 2022 ACS 5-year data, 44.6% of all
renter-occupied households are one person households, and a total of two-thirds of all
renter-occupied households have either one car (49.6%) or no car (17.1%).

•

Excepting the mixed-use areas (VDMUD and NDNO districts) and large developments in
O-3 and C-4, the incentive to provide shared parking is not provided throughout all land
uses. Yes, shared parking is permitted, but it is permitted in a manner that requires the
total of all the uses calculated individually (23.01.D). To truly incentivize shared parking,
perhaps a reduction be built-in to this total, such as 90% of the total of all the uses
calculated individually.

•

The need to provide a loading space appears to be a judgment call by the Office of
Planning. Instead, perhaps a list of uses (i.e. commercial, office, industrial, and multi-unit
residential containing more than four units) should be required to provide a loading
space, with a loading waiver able to be granted by Planning Commission or Office of
Planning if the use can demonstrate it does not involve traditional loading/unloading
methods involving large semi-trucks/tractor trailers.

Staff Assessment
•

Parking Modernization & Simplification: Staff feedback highlights a desire to modernize
and simplify the city’s parking standards. This includes evaluating the number and size
of required parking spaces, potentially moving toward fewer or more flexible minimums,
and creating clearer, more uniform design standards such as consistent space widths,
provisions for parallel parking, and adjustments for outdoor restaurant seating. There is
also interest in improving circulation and maneuverability through features like
turn-around space at dead-end aisles, double-striped parking spaces, and clear
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 24

guidance on garage stall sizes. Also mentioned was allowing a reduction in parking for
transit improvements, such as adding additional bike parking or improving an adjacent
bus stop.
•

EV-Ready Infrastructure & Future-Proofing: A notable theme is preparing the city’s
parking standards for ongoing transitions in vehicle technology. Staff recommend adding
provisions for electric vehicle charging or at least EV-ready infrastructure. This would
ensure new development can support future charging needs. Additionally, the
consideration of removing surface parking from floodplains was noted.

•

Site Design Clarity & Aesthetic Standards: Staff support clearer rules around site
elements such as bollards, fencing, and surfacing requirements. This includes clarifying
the circumstances in which bollards are prohibited, identifying exceptions for pedestrian
lighting, and revisiting requirements for paving contractor storage lots. These changes
are aimed at improving site appearance, safety, and consistency.

•

Operational & Functional Improvements: A theme throughout staff comments is
improving the practical function of parking areas. This includes addressing garbage cart
storage needs for multifamily developments with garages, ensuring maneuvering space
is adequate, and considering parallel parking only when it can function safely. The intent
is to ensure that parking areas operate smoothly for users while minimizing conflicts with
travel lanes.

•

Loading & Unloading Standards: Staff recommend updating and clearly defining loading
and unloading requirements. They suggest adding explicit guidance on placement
(typically rear or side yards), minimum dimensions, surfacing expectations, and the
separation of loading areas from parking or maneuvering lanes. There’s also an interest
in modernizing exceptions for office buildings and revisiting the ratios used to determine
loading space size. Overall, the goal is to establish predictable, functional loading
standards that reduce conflicts with public rights-of-way and improve site circulation.

Survey Findings
•

EV Charging Incentives: Planning Commission feedback supports adding provisions that
incentivize EV charging infrastructure within new development. This reflects growing
expectations for future-ready parking design and aligns with broader sustainability goals.

•

Reevaluation of Parking Minimums: Both Planning Commission and community
respondents expressed interest in removing or significantly reducing parking minimums.
Comments noted that eliminating minimums could promote more pedestrian-friendly,
safe, and flexible development patterns.

Article 24: Environmental Provisions
Discussion: The environmental provisions article contains zoning text pertaining to
landscaping, screening, trash receptacles, lighting, as well as other items such as bicycle
parking and pedestrian connections.
As zoning requirements pertaining to building design appear to be buried within the “Site Plan
Review Requirements and Procedures” article (Section 26.01.H), these should be moved here,
or a re-organized article pertaining to site standards altogether.
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 25

Findings:
•

Master Plan action items B7, B8, B9, B11, C2, C7, C8, C9, D3, and E1 through E4
should all be considered for amendments to this article.

•

The frontage landscaping subsection of 24.03.B is contained within the “parking lot
landscaping requirements,” however it appears such requirements should pertain to
frontages of sites whether or not a parking lot is located there. This should be reorganized so it is not within the parking lot landscaping section heading.

•

The required frontage landscaping tree species should be updated. The Chanticleer
pear and Cleveland pear trees should be removed- these are widely accepted to be
invasive and harmful by replacing native plants and important food sources for the
ecosystem. Additionally, a spruce tree may not be the most appropriate frontage tree
unless the purpose is to screen a less desirable use/portion of a site, such as outdoor
storage.

•

The frontage landscaping subsection refers to a “2016 LDFA/Smart Zone Enhancement
Report” but a search of the City’s website does not easily find this report. This should be
updated, and references to specific technical reports should be minimalized throughout
the ordinance.

•

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has developed lists and
resources for climate adaptable trees in our state – some of these trees, such as black
gums, sweetgums, hophornbeams, and yellowwoods should be added to permitted tree
lists. Climate adaptable trees increase the ability for ecosystems to remain resilient in
the face of climate change, a key theme considered in the City’s recently adopted
Climate Action Plan.

•

Few bicycle parking spaces are required by the ordinance – the City should consider if a
larger minimum bicycle parking space requirement should be provided. For example, a
certain number of bicycle parking spaces could be required per the minimum base
vehicular parking requirement.

Staff Assessment
•

Modernized and Strengthened Landscape Standards: Staff recommend a
comprehensive update to the city’s landscaping standards to create simpler, more
consistent, and more environmentally supportive requirements. This includes simplifying
frontage and perimeter greenbelts, establishing clear minimums for landscaped area,
and using straightforward, frontage-based formulas for trees and shrubs. There is a
strong push toward requiring native and endemic plantings, expanding the use of native
vegetation in rights-of-way, and enhancing ecological connectivity throughout
developments.

•

Environmental Protection & Natural Resource Buffers: A major theme is the
enhancement of natural resource protections, including buffers around wetlands,
watercourses, and woodlands. Staff recommend establishing no-disturb zones,
strengthening woodland preservation, and requiring full replacement of regulated trees.
These changes are aimed at better preserving natural features, improving ecological
resilience, and ensuring that development respects sensitive environmental areas.

•

Site Design & Screening Improvements: Staff suggest clearer, more consistent
expectations for screening, fencing, and greenbelts between land uses. This includes
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 26

updates to decorative fencing standards, more standards for dumpsters and enclosures,
and improved screening for service areas.
•

Parking Lot & Hardscape Green Integration: There is support for increasing the amount
and quality of landscaping within parking lots through additional islands and clearer
layout expectations.

•

Lighting Modernization: Staff recommends updating the city’s lighting standards to reflect
modern LED technologies, establish clearer maximum illumination values, prohibit overly
bright or decorative window lighting, and ensure appropriate lighting levels for pedestrian
safety.

•

Sustainable Development Features: Suggestions include EV-ready infrastructure,
bicycle parking requirements (especially in nodes), and better alignment of site
standards with modern mobility habits.

Survey Findings
•

Expanded Planting & Preservation Requirements: Planning Commission feedback
supports increasing landscaping, tree planting, and tree preservation requirements—
including extending stronger standards to residential properties. This reflects a desire for
broader environmental stewardship and more consistent green infrastructure citywide.

•

Hedge Height & Maintenance Standards: Community respondents encouraged adding
clearer standards for hedge heights and tree maintenance to ensure well-kept
landscaping.

•

Fence Requirement Flexibility: Planning Commission members noted that the ZBA
frequently grants fence variances, suggesting the underlying standards may be overly
restrictive. Relaxing some requirements could reduce variance volume and improve
alignment with common fencing needs.

•

Residential Fence Setbacks: Community feedback suggested revising setback
requirements for residential fencing to make them more practical and easier to comply
with.

•

Bike Rack Requirement for Businesses: Community respondents recommended
requiring businesses to provide bike racks, reflecting support for improved multimodal
access and more bike-friendly site design.

Articles 25 and 26: Special Land Use and Other Discretionary Land Use
Approvals; Site Plan Review Requirements and Procedures
Discussion: These articles are where the most common development procedures – special
land uses and site plans – are regulated. It may be beneficial to expand these important
development procedures into a broader article and contain the special development options
(Article 22) within this article as well.
Findings:
•

Master Plan action items A11 and B6 should be considered in any amendments to these
articles.
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 27

•

As mentioned in the previous section of this audit, zoning requirements pertaining to
building design appear to be buried within the “Site Plan Review Requirements and
Procedures” article (Section 26.01.H). These should be moved to the environmental
provisions article, or a re-organized article pertaining to site standards altogether.

•

All changes of use appear to prompt site plan review. To decrease barriers for small
businesses, it may be beneficial to allow changes of use to less intensive uses (use
intensity may be determined by parking calculation, screening requirements, occupancy,
and nuisance factors such as noise, odors, light, hours of operation, etc.) to not require
site plan review and instead use a “land use permit” or “zoning use permit” to document
the change of use.

Survey Findings
Planning Commission feedback suggests removing special land uses that are routinely
approved. Eliminating or reclassifying these uses could simplify the review process, reduce
unnecessary hearings, and shift predictable approvals into by-right or administrative pathways.

Article 27, 29, 30, 32 and 33: Nonconforming Uses, Buildings and
Structures; Administration and Enforcement; Zoning Board of Appeals;
Zoning Changes and Amendments; Penalties, Public Nuisances,
Severability, and Repeal
Discussion: These articles contain general administration and enforcement zoning text,
including nonconformities, which are a considerable topic for a community that is mostly
developed and now undergoing many redevelopment projects.
Findings:
•

Sections 27.01 and 27.03 state that nonconformities that cease for more than a year
shall transition to a use conforming to the district. Time alone should not deem a
nonconformity “abandoned” – a set of criteria should be provided that determines there
is an “intent to abandon.” This criteria could include actions such as
removal/disconnection of utilities; building, property, or grounds fallen into disrepair; or
the voluntary removal/destruction of structures containing the nonconforming use.

•

We do not recommend the granting of variances as part of a conditional rezoning. Such
processes take the part of pseudo-PUD; they are not held to the higher standards of
PUDs in that the application for such variance/modification is not required to prove that
the variance/modification results in higher quality development or provides a higher level
of public benefit.

•

Section 29.05 deals with landscaping and the phasing-in of required landscaping,
therefore it should be located within Article 24 Environmental Provisions or an article
devoted to all site standards.

•

Review criteria for rezonings (map amendments) should be provided.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 28

Survey Findings
•

Refinement of Nonconforming Standards & Redevelopment Flexibility: Community
feedback suggests allowing greater flexibility for long-established commercial and
industrial uses especially within designated nodes targeted for redevelopment and
increased density.

•

Narrowing the Scope of Consent Judgments: Planning Commission respondents
recommend limiting consent judgments, so they address only the issues raised in an
appeal and do not authorize unrelated variances or special land uses. This would help
protect the integrity of the zoning process and ensure that approvals follow proper
procedural pathways.

•

Reevaluation of Nuisance Mitigation Plans: Responses suggest removing nuisance
mitigation plan requirements, as existing nuisance ordinances already regulate these
issues. If retained, respondents recommend shifting approval to an administrative
process to streamline review and reduce redundancy.

Article 28: General Provisions
Discussion: This article contains miscellaneous provisions, many suited for site improvements
and specific, unique uses.
Findings:
•

As stated in the General User-Friendliness and Organization of the Ordinance portion of
this audit, this set of provisions could be re-organized into a “site standards” article for a
coherent set of standards.

•

Section 28.00.B contains an extremely long-winded paragraph with about a dozen
requirements built-in. This should be re-structured in a manner that is more readable.

•

It appears that the sign ordinance is substantially content-neutral, however we
recommend the specific sign size requirements for “real estate development signage” be
removed and instead be grouped with temporary signs.

•

Updates to the wireless communication facilities section (28.18) are needed to align with
State law. This may involve clarity regarding wireless communications equipment colocation, to ensure consistent interpretation for types of co-location required to be
approved administratively, and may also involve the institution of “shot clock”
review/approval timeframe requirements for new facilities.

Staff Assessment
•

Clarification and Modernization of Accessory Use and Structure Standards: Staff
comments indicate a strong need to clarify what constitutes an accessory use or
accessory building, especially in nonresidential districts where the standards are
currently less defined. There is interest in reevaluating how accessory structures
function in single-family districts, including whether to regulate them by number or by
combined square footage, and aligning their setbacks more closely with principal
building standards. Additional clarity is desired around definitions and distinctions for
common structures such as canopies, carports, sheds, garages, and pole barns.
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 29

•

Comprehensive Update to Sign Regulations: Staff recommend a broad modernization of
the city’s sign standards. Desired changes include simplifying how total sign area is
calculated; updating definitions and measurement methods (e.g., window signs); refining
allowances for electronic message boards; establishing clearer lighting and footcandle
thresholds; and exploring allowances for illuminated signs in multifamily settings. There
is also interest in revisiting maximum sizes for wall and freestanding signs to ensure they
are appropriate and not excessive.

Survey Findings
Planning Commission feedback suggests simplifying the sign ordinance overall, including
removing temporary sign rules that rely on determining a sign’s “intended purpose,” since this
approach is subjective and difficult to enforce consistently. Stronger provisions to require
camouflaging or screening for wireless communications facilities was also recommended in
addition to requiring utility wires to be moved underground in the North Van Dyke area and
possibly other mixed-use nodes.

Article 31: Definitions
Discussion: Clearly defining terms that have a function in policy regulation, especially those
that are recurrent, is valuable in ensuring consistent ordinance interpretation.
Findings:
•

The terms “major thoroughfare” and “secondary thoroughfare” should be better defined.
These are not currently defined in a formal definition sense, but the text repeatedly
refers to the City’s Master Road Plan. However, this document is difficult to find on the
City’s website, as a website search reveals master road plans from 1998 and 2008,
lacking the exact nomenclature of “major thoroughfare” or “secondary thoroughfare.”

•

Some of the graphics are difficult to read and could use updating.

Staff Assessment
Modernization and Clarification of Key Definitions: Staff recommend updating several core
definitions to improve clarity, consistency, and alignment with state terminology. A primary focus
is ensuring the ordinance incorporates accurate, up-to-date definitions for childcare facilities that
match state licensing categories and regulatory classifications. Additional clarity is needed
around building-related terms—particularly how the ordinance distinguishes a “story,” how
stories and basements are measured on sloped sites, and how to differentiate between a
required front yard and a general front yard area.
Survey Findings
It was noted in the Planning Commission survey that the “fast food restaurant” definition is
contradictory.

Other Miscellaneous Themes
•

Setback requirements: Many setback requirements are based on the existing right-ofway centerline. In a developing community, this makes sense as road widths may be
more variable and may entertain future expansions. However, Sterling Heights is likely
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 30

built-out enough where road widths are likely set for the future. A front setback from front
lot line or where the lot line adjoins the right-of-way line is now sensible, and more
intuitive, going forward.
•

Improvements to design standards:
o

References to “durable building materials” is often made throughout the
ordinance – it may be helpful for applicants and the approving body to further
refine what this means.

o

In light of the recent Master Plan Update which speaks to a number of action
items pertaining to urban design, pedestrian-friendly environments, and
innovative design elements, policy updates to improving site and building design
may be necessary.

Staff Assessment
•

Emerging Technology & Infrastructure Standards: A major theme involves preparing the
zoning ordinance for emerging technologies, including data centers, battery storage,
utility-scale solar, EV charging, and other modern infrastructure. Staff generally
recommend creating clear standards and approval processes that address noise, energy
efficiency, cooling systems, environmental impacts, and overall compatibility with
surrounding uses.

•

Sustainability, Green Infrastructure & Environmental Protections: Many comments focus
on strengthening the city’s environmental performance through incentives or standards
that promote green buildings, permeable pavements, stormwater BMPs, rooftop
gardens, urban agriculture, and bird-safe glazing. There is also interest in expanding
wetland and floodplain protections, improving tree preservation enforcement, and
requiring environmentally oriented design features in both public and private
development.

•

Housing Flexibility, Missing Middle Options & District Consistency: Staff propose various
ways to expand housing options such as making duplexes and ADUs permitted by right,
and to adopt more consistent and modern standards for setbacks, impervious surface
maximums, and open space requirements. Themes include simplifying and
standardizing district regulations, improving clarity around corner-lot standards, and
eliminating less desirable lot configurations such as flag lots.

•

Mobility, Access & Transit-Supportive Development: Several staff comments emphasize
improving walkability and transit access, including adding incentives for developers who
support bus stop infrastructure, requiring more continuous internal sidewalks, and
ensuring sidewalks on both sides of streets in residential areas. This also includes
promoting bicycle parking and exploring shared access drive standards that prioritize
safe, direct connectivity.

•

Site Design & Outdoor Storage Standards: Staff recommend stronger, clearer standards
for outdoor storage, screening between uses, and accessory structure placement.
Integrated within this theme is interest in updating building material requirements, such
as brick/stone percentages, potential use of metal as a durable material, and consistent
façade expectations for single-family homes. The overall direction is to elevate design
quality, improve compatibility, and ensure durable, attractive development across
districts.
1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 31

•

Administrative Efficiency, Ordinance Clarity & Modernization: A broad theme is
simplifying, reorganizing, and improving the usability of the zoning ordinance. This
includes consolidating area/height/bulk requirements into single tables, using consistent
district formats, improving setback determination rules, addressing inconsistencies in the
Schedule of Regulations, and modernizing procedures such as eliminating conditional
rezonings and use variances.

Survey Findings
•

Expanded Housing Options (ADUs & Missing Middle): Planning Commission feedback
supports allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right and permitting a wider range
of missing-middle housing types, including duplexes through quadplexes, with
higher-intensity forms considered through special approval.

•

Environmental & Natural Features Protections: Suggestions include adding a natural
features setback and providing incentives for green infrastructure. Community feedback
also encouraged developing standards for chickens/hens as a small-scale,
sustainability-oriented accessory use.

•

Modern Utility & Energy Standards: Planning Commission respondents recommended
adding standards for battery storage facilities, small-scale utility solar, and potential
community solar models, ensuring emerging energy technologies are safely and
effectively integrated into local regulations. Data centers were also identified as a use
requiring updated standards.

•

Zoning Structure & Process Improvements: Some commenters recommended
consolidating commercial districts to simplify and modernize the ordinance. Others noted
that current ordinance sections lack sufficient review processes or clear review
standards, suggesting the need for more explicit, consistent guidance.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 32

Appendix
2025 Master Plan’s Goals and Objectives
See the City’s full Master Plan at the link here,
otherwise please refer to the list of the goals and
objectives below. The symbols represent
alignment with the City’s 2040 Visioning Plan,
the Strategic Plan recently developed in 2024.
See the legend to the right.

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 33

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com

Date: February 2026
Project: Sterling Heights Zoning Audit
Page: 34

1025 E. Maple Road, Suite 100 | Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | (248) 852.3100
www.GiffelsWebster.com