[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6518876,"mediaKeyId","5385328-df27b54c5ac4510995af4460db8542d6","parentId",5385328,"title","Votes at a glance: Farmington Hills City Council, July 14, 2025","audioSeconds",6443,"startMs",833000,"endMs",7276000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5385328-df27b54c5ac4510995af4460db8542d6&start=833&end=7276","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5385328-df27b54c5ac4510995af4460db8542d6/thumbnail_833000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6518876/Farmington-Hills-City/Oakland-County/Michigan/Votes-at-a-glance-Farmington-Hills-City-Council-July-14-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518876-56c7f349af34ae8c752740b094782bc5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436893&Signature=EPPm9AWbi0XTMrrIHmLZ6V-6Pp5TNTzaLpzzVA-fnk0FF7IhMISSFl6UPpSG4urryG1SCcaEK1M94peaQEbU1GT-T1YB8z788JFeueyOPx-aRStdZTHpkuA6OtLiWY8BdYMh66qLb6GFH0J1uncDcMIQG70B58fXgH9YbVuUMEjjE8rfPFu838Vb7IfoWSCtUPzAJL39m91lWNYee~DLmBz5jMk6o5bNXPvdHiRsG3XhNKlu8g563ljR2DeBQQ7igSnuwVvApisuyVEOjzAPzyb0nz~~7ldzSfQN6dLIUz-dcw~QCsRO92xMv2lRbK6P~Ymv0I3UpTvrnoJQd0X2Og__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-15T05:35:53.957Z","article","The Farmington Hills City Council took several formal votes at its July 14 meeting. This summary lists each recorded action and the outcome.

Consent agenda: The council approved the consent agenda, which included contracts and awards (roofing supplies, radio improvements, diesel engine rebuild, employment requests, and special event permits), and accepted minutes from prior meetings. The consent items were approved by roll call.

Zoning text amendment (ZTA 3‑20‑25): Council approved ZTA 3‑20‑25 to revise the OS‑4 Office Research District and off‑street parking standards for multifamily residential and office uses, amended to remove section 34‑3.905(e) (height incentive) and to add indoor recreation and private school uses (indoor recreation capped at 3,300 sq ft). Vote: unanimous roll call approval.

Planned Unit Development (PUD 1‑2025, Towns at Woodcreek): Council approved the PUD plan for 24 townhouses at 29150 12 Mile Road subject to multiple conditions (compliance with Planning Commission and consultant review items; compliance with city engineer and fire marshal requirements; eastern property buffering/fence per adjacent homeowner preference; relocation of the pocket park away from the adjacent homeowner; road and utilities easement to eastern property line; traffic review and accommodation of engineering recommendations; and further fire/engineering review of a possible 50‑foot cul‑de‑sac). Vote: unanimous roll call approval with conditions.

Beautification Committee appointments: Council approved appointments to the Beautification Committee: James D. Geisling (term to 02/01/2028) and Frank A. Romano (term to 02/01/2028). Vote: unanimous.

All roll calls recorded in the meeting transcript show unanimous support among attending council members for these items.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Council Meeting: July 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal votes taken at the July 14 Farmington Hills City Council meeting, including consent agenda approvals, zoning text amendment, PUD approval, and committee appointments.","taxTitle","Farmington Hills City, Oakland County, Michigan","taxId",4571,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6518881,"Council approves Towns at Woodcreek PUD with conditions after neighbors raise access and safety concerns",4631,2907000,7538000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5385328-df27b54c5ac4510995af4460db8542d6&start=2907&end=7538","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5385328-df27b54c5ac4510995af4460db8542d6/thumbnail_2907000.jpg","/articles/6518881/Farmington-Hills-City/Oakland-County/Michigan/Council-approves-Towns-at-Woodcreek-PUD-with-conditions-after-neighbors-raise-access-and-safety-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518881-62b3ae56a5be78aaaa62bdfb87d45686/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436893&Signature=JazgVu1Glh3pNiqz5gYv6Lx4sU1wCGdZgUqXz35oc7iVG1SiXhg-uHcISoSdDe9Q8qI4jC8UoAO5rPUHZyQSky8IToQ8fbgtiZ6YjqzJTMdaudwUUdE6GYYZm5HlPsQoxBAPQrwB9aB-iVQlm67pN~u5KJtRl2rKIupoeMato6oWUxBOznT-xXTRzSBPPf38bGjcSkKqFjU7dSFaPClvlmKTqS1sghySpbV0-IWiWWMuLI-Ck6z8QhFY-54Eu0IYfK2pFDqHSJiEpnsOd~ZFeE0~fjGsV015hisb6i9oxzP8vU1BRffDaYbvDeq24D41CCG6QTOuI-oTzybLtfBvxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Farmington Hills City Council on July 14 approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) application PUD 1‑2025 (Towns at Woodcreek), a proposed 24‑unit, two‑story townhouse development on a 4.55‑acre parcel at 29150 12 Mile Road, subject to conditions addressing buffering, emergency access and additional engineering review.

The developer, Schaefer Development, presented a clustered plan of six buildings (four units each) with two vehicle garages per unit. The proposal seeks modest exceptions from the underlying RA‑1A district: a lot coverage of 37.5% (the RA‑1A limit is 35%) and the possibility of up to 112 rooms if optional third‑bedroom upgrades are exercised; staff noted the baseline plan totals 94 rooms. The project dedicates roughly 62.8% of the site as open space, includes a stormwater detention basin in the northern portion of the property, and proposes sidewalks only along 12 Mile Road rather than within the interior of the development.

Why it matters: The site borders single‑family lots to the east and north and AIM High School to the west. Neighbors raised concerns about safety, privacy and the location of a proposed stub road and a proposed pocket park near an adjacent backyard. Council balanced those neighborhood concerns against the developer’s claim that the PUD layout preserves more open space and better manages steep slopes and stormwater than conventional subdivision development.

Key project elements and developer statements: The project includes clustered townhome footprints with 24 total units, walkout basements on buildings that face the steep northern slope, and a proposed secondary emergency access to AIM High School based on an existing 2001 recorded shared‑access agreement. Project representative Aaron Schaefer said the clustering preserves open space and noted outreach with adjacent homeowners and AIM; he also read a letter from the Wood Creek Homeowners Association that stated in part, “Wood Creek has no objections or issues with the proposed Schaeffer development PUD proposal.” The developer said the project would provide curbside waste pickup, dawn‑to‑dusk lighting with photocell controls, and landscape buffering along neighboring property lines.

Neighborhood concerns and public comment: Resident David Levy (referred to in the transcript as Mr. Levy) spoke during public comment, saying the wooded area behind his house has been a private, quiet area where he is concerned about people wandering on his property and that additional cars and movement could feel intrusive. He asked that the developer maximize vegetation and provide strong buffering along the shared property line. The council directed the developer to continue direct conversations with the neighbor and to include either additional natural buffering or a fence if needed.

Conditions placed by council: Council approved the PUD but attached multiple conditions to the approval. Those conditions, which will be folded into the PUD agreement and the site‑plan review, include: (1) compliance with Planning Commission recommendations and Giffels Webster review items; (2) compliance with the city engineer and fire marshal review items to their satisfaction; (3) additional buffering or a fence along the eastern property line, to be finalized in consultation with the adjacent homeowner (Mr. Levy); (4) relocation of the proposed pocket park so it is not immediately adjacent to Mr. Levy’s yard; (5) a road and utilities easement extending to the eastern property line so future connection remains possible if adjoining property is developed; (6) review of the traffic study with the engineering department and accommodation of engineering recommendations (for example, any decel lane or other traffic controls); and (7) meetings with the fire marshal and engineering staff about a proposed 50‑foot turning‑radius cul‑de‑sac at the eastern dead end — if the fire marshal and engineer determine a cul‑de‑sac is required at that location, the PUD approval will be negated and the project must return to council for further consideration.

Planning and technical details: Planning staff and consultant Joe Tangieri noted the site’s steep northern slope and the presence of Pebble Creek. The northern third of the site will be preserved as open space and stormwater detention to provide a buffer to the single‑family neighborhood to the north. The developer told council that the parking layout provides two‑car garages for each unit and that the club‑style indoor recreation uses were not part of this PUD; the interior of the development will not include sidewalks in order to maximize the preserved open space, though a sidewalk will remain along 12 Mile Road. Planning staff indicated that final building elevations, landscaping and lighting will be reviewed during the site‑plan process.

Vote and next steps: Council approved the PUD plan by roll call (unanimous). City staff will incorporate the council’s conditions into a draft PUD agreement and the project must return for final site‑plan approval by Planning Commission and PUD agreement execution before building permits can be issued.

Evidence: The approval referenced a recorded shared‑access agreement dated February 2001 among the city, the then‑property user and prior landowners; the developer produced letters of support from adjacent property owners and the Wood Creek HOA during the hearing.","City Council approved the planned unit development (PUD) for the Towns at Woodcreek, a 24‑unit townhouse project at 29150 12 Mile Road, subject to multiple conditions including a utilities/road easement, relocation of a pocket park, further review of a possible cul‑de‑sac and compliance with engineering and fire marshal requirements.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6518885,"Farmington Hills council approves zoning text amendment for 12‑Mile corridor, removes contested height incentive",1535,1355000,2890000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5385328-df27b54c5ac4510995af4460db8542d6&start=1355&end=2890","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5385328-df27b54c5ac4510995af4460db8542d6/thumbnail_1355000.jpg","/articles/6518885/Farmington-Hills-City/Oakland-County/Michigan/Farmington-Hills-council-approves-zoning-text-amendment-for-12Mile-corridor-removes-contested-height-incentive","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6518885-2c816d51fd46d2edb798bdc71100e05b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436893&Signature=eSJ82NqXIR8P3eUZbTmgSsQf6cmE0rp4np-lP~H0N4-Jt7zf~m3-XkiOxU5t9WFWT2SuhL9~aDJM-adPAtxZEqWCbjIKox8VxkFuIzLfYuGsRgbMgUMix2DBEZ1aT1lciCjLphZaEGdlYyU2BojWcWeIbV7xLCbnL1vzD6T0IvTA1cTArVstk8tQEx7V2iO8-lvcc7KyqK31nhtOJZmutIEQjCNM-nXi8Uj9dnUK0mabgchLKYX0Z8aIo3-j1WUkT99HObJ4ijL4KAWsyQkmq68QaU5rwnRFaU7fscNPxgYqMIwqC8RA0~pdgVmOoPleWgUN5QrQH3ytwGavCfxlgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Farmington Hills City Council on July 14 approved Zoning Text Amendment ZTA 3‑20‑25, revising the OS‑4 Office Research district (the 12‑Mile Road corridor and some properties near I‑275) and updating off‑street parking standards for multifamily residential and office uses.

The amendment revises permitted uses and the district intent, adds definitions (including “artisan manufacturing” and “live‑work unit”), reduces vehicular parking requirements for multifamily and office uses, and adds bicycle parking standards and rules for standalone parking structures. It also clarifies permitted restaurant types and lists them directly in the code rather than by cross‑reference.

The city’s planning consultant, Joe Tangieri of Giffels Webster, summarized the changes, saying the update is intended to align the zoning ordinance with the city’s recently adopted master plan and make the code more user‑friendly. \"Sit down restaurants are listed twice, in fact — if they are located within a mixed‑use building they are permitted by right and if they are a stand‑alone building they are a special land use,\" Tangieri told council during the hearing.

Why it matters: The OS‑4 corridor is a target for infill and mixed‑use redevelopment. The amendment is intended to make development proposals more predictable by reducing parking minimums, incentivizing mixed uses, and adding modern categories (for example, artisan manufacturing and live‑work units). Those changes affect property owners, developers and residents along 12 Mile Road and at the I‑275 edge of the city.

What council changed: Council members raised a specific concern about a proposal in the draft ordinance (section 34‑3.905(e)) that would have allowed additional building height in exchange for set‑asides of 15% of site area for public use (park, plaza or public art). Multiple council members, including Mr. Aldred and Ms. Noll, said they wanted more flexibility and additional study of that incentive. Council moved to remove section 34‑3.905(e) from the ordinance and to revisit it later; the motion also added explicit allowances for indoor recreation uses and private schools in the OS‑4 district, with a square‑footage limit for indoor recreation of 3,300 square feet.

Process and next steps: City staff and the consultant said the ordinance will return to council in August with the formal ordinance language for final adoption. Mayor Theresa Rich confirmed the council’s vote was to proceed with the revisions as amended and to bring the complete ordinance back at the next available meeting.

Vote: The council approved the amendment as amended by roll call (unanimous). The ordinance language for the removed section will be returned for further consideration at a later meeting.

Background details: The amendment also explicitly listed restaurant types among permitted uses in mixed‑use buildings, added bicycle parking standards and defined new use categories that city staff said were not previously identified in the code. The planning consultant noted several edits were made after the June study session to improve clarity and user‑friendliness.

What was not decided: Council did not adopt the removed height incentive; members asked staff to return with options, including potentially changing the language from mandatory (\"shall\") to discretionary (\"may\") or moving the incentive into a special approval process (PUD or special land use) to preserve negotiation flexibility.

Evidence and next hearing: Staff said the formal ordinance (with the specified removal of section 34‑3.905(e) and the added indoor recreation/private school provisions) will be provided to council and posted ahead of the August meeting for final action.","City Council unanimously approved Zoning Text Amendment ZTA 3‑20‑25 to update the OS‑4 Office Research district and off‑street parking standards along the 12‑Mile Road corridor, but removed one provision that would have granted extra building height in exchange for a 15% public‑use set‑aside.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Farmington Hills City Council, July 14, 2025

Council approves Towns at Woodcreek PUD with conditions after neighbors raise access and safety concerns

Farmington Hills council approves zoning text amendment for 12‑Mile corridor, removes contested height incentive