Farmington Hills council denies Mulberry Park/Tabernacle PUD after months of debate

Farmington Hills City Council voted 4–3 on Aug. 11 to deny a proposed planned unit development called Tabernacle–Mulberry Park, a mixed proposal that would have placed 63 residential units on 12.46 acres along 13 Mile Road west of Middlebelt Road.

The denial came after 16 months of review, six city hearings and a packed public-comment session in which dozens of neighbors cited traffic, stormwater, tree removal and compatibility with surrounding single-family neighborhoods.

The PUD would have divided the site into a western, age-restricted “Tabernacle” portion of 31 ranch-style units intended for 55-plus occupancy (an extension of the Baptist Manor campus) and an eastern “Mulberry Park” portion with 32 for-sale townhome units. Developer revisions before the Aug. 11 hearing reduced the project from 65 to 63 units, converted the southern-most east-side buildings to one-story ranch duplexes, increased several internal side-yard separations from 20 to 25 feet, and reduced total room count from 229 to 221 rooms, the project team said.

Charmaine Kettler Schmaltz, the city’s director of planning and community development, summarized the review history and the changes since earlier hearings. Joe Tangari, the city planning consultant with Giffels Webster, outlined technical adjustments including a reduced southern rear setback on the Mulberry portion to 74 feet (previously roughly 85.6 feet) and a listed shortfall of 49 replacement trees that remain unresolved in the submittal.

Developer Aaron Schaefer said his team had met with many residents and offered options to address the tree shortfall: “We did express that we would be willing to plant trees on their properties. However, the majority said they would rather just see more hardy trees, like an evergreen tree that retains foliage on all four seasons,” Schaefer said, adding the developer could upsize on-site trees or work with Baptist Manor to place additional plantings on the campus frontage.

Opposition from residents focused on density, stormwater, traffic and the condition of the existing lots. Craig LaPointe (Holly Hill Farms) said the proposal would harm privacy and property values. Resident Lindsay Madich told the council she believed landowners had intentionally let properties deteriorate and that the PUD “ignores the guidance designed to benefit the community while increasing the density beyond the capacity of the area.” Other residents showed photos or video of local flooding and cited a history of for-sale signs and unmanaged lots.

Longtime council member Dr. Bruce (Council Member Bruce) told the council he opposed approval on the principle that the property owners had allowed deterioration and then sought a rezoning-by-PUD to maximize return. “I do not for a moment believe that these properties could not be sold and developed individually at the RA‑1 level,” Bruce said, arguing that awarding the PUD would “reward” years of neglect.

Council debate centered on three recurring issues: traffic, stormwater management and density. Supporters argued the revised plan reduced building heights and improved setbacks along the southern edge; opponents said those concessions were insufficient compared with the master-plan guidance for the site and the degree of density being requested.

Councilmember Dwyer moved to approve the application as revised, with conditions and required consultant/agency sign-offs; that motion failed on a roll call vote. The council later adopted a motion to deny the PUD based on findings that the application did not meet the PUD standards in section 34‑3.20 of the zoning ordinance and would adversely affect public health, safety and welfare. The denial motion was adopted 4–3 (Yes: Noell, Aldred, Bridges, Bruce; No: Dwyer, Boulware, Mayor Teresa Rich).

The council record shows the developer and several residents pledged to continue communication. The denial leaves the property under its current RA‑1 zoning; city staff and the council noted the master plan’s “flex residential” language provides a framework for future discussion but does not automatically change zoning or require approval of the proposed RC‑1-style density.

Votes and formal actions

- Motion to approve PUD (move to adopt PUD with conditions): Mover — Councilmember Dwyer; outcome — failed on roll call (no formal tally entered in the record beyond the failed result). - Motion to deny PUD (findings: did not meet section 34‑3.20 standards; adverse effects on public health/welfare/safety): Mover — not specified in the minutes; outcome — passed, 4–3 (Yes: Noell, Aldred, Bridges, Bruce; No: Dwyer, Boulware, Mayor Teresa Rich).

Why this matters

The parcel’s future has been a focal point for neighbors and the council because it sits between established single‑family subdivisions (Holly Hill Farms, Westgate) and the Baptist Manor campus. The council’s decision preserves the current RA‑1 zoning for now but leaves open future options — including potential ordinance changes or a different applicant proposal — and underscores the political sensitivity of higher-density infill near long‑established neighborhoods.

What the record shows (clarifying details)

- Site area: 12.46 acres. - Unit count change: 65 units (prior submission) → 63 units (revised). - Mulberry Park (east): 32 for‑sale townhome units (three‑bedroom product; several reconfigured to one‑story ranch duplexes along the southern property line). - Tabernacle (west): 31 one‑story, 55+ age‑restricted apartment homes. - Room counts: reduced from 229 to 221 rooms (density metric used by staff). - Rear setback on Mulberry south edge: reduced to ~74 feet (was ~85.57 feet when two‑story buildings were proposed). - Sideyard separations between southern buildings increased from 20 to 25 feet. - Tree replacement: plan currently short by 49 replacement trees per the consultant’s review; developer offered options including upsized on‑site trees or plantings along Baptist Manor frontage if permitted by property owners.

Speakers (attributed in the article)

- Charmaine Kettler Schmaltz — Director, Planning and Community Development (city staff). - Joe Tangari — Planner, Giffels Webster (city planning consultant). - Aaron Schaefer — Developer, Schaefer Development (applicant representative). - Steven Schaefer — Developer team (attended; spoke briefly). - Dr. Bruce — Council member (spoke in opposition). - Councilmember Dwyer — Mover of approval motion. - Councilmember Aldred, Councilmember Bridges, Councilmember Boulware, Councilmember Noell — participated in deliberations and votes. - Public commenters (sample): Eric Schmidt; Craig LaPointe; Lindsay Madich; Catherine Lyke; John and Michelle Nagota; Adam Peplowski; Adele Letterman; Thomas Bader; Dr. Stacy Noire; Angie Smith.

Authorities and references cited in debate

- Zoning ordinance, section 34‑3.20 (PUD standards) — referenced by city attorney and council during deliberations. - Farmington Hills Master Plan — flex residential designation and related guidance (planning discussion referenced page guidance about setbacks and preserved open space). - PUD application identifiers: PUD 2‑2024; Site Plan 56‑8‑2024 (as referenced in the planning staff report).

Community relevance and next steps

Neighbors who opposed the project said they will continue to press for preservation of rear‑yard vegetation and better stormwater protections. Developers said they will keep lines of communication open; any future application (either a new PUD or other proposal) would return to the planning commission and city council and would need to respond to the planning consultant’s outstanding comments.