Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Mulberry Park Pud topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Farmington Hills council postpones 13 Mile Mulberry Park PUD after residents raise density, drainage and tree-loss concerns

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council tabled a planned unit development for Mulberry Park and the Tabernacle, a proposed 65‑unit multifamily project on 13 Mile Road, after months of revisions and public comment highlighting stormwater, tree removal and neighborhood scale concerns. The developer agreed to further revisions and the item was postponed to Aug. 11, 2025.

Farmington Hills City Council postponed action on Planned Unit Development (PUD) 02/2024 — Mulberry Park and The Tabernacle, a proposed multifamily project along 13 Mile Road west of Middlebelt — after extensive council questions and more than a half‑hour of public comment about density, drainage and tree loss. The council voted to delay a final decision until Aug. 11, 2025, to allow the developer and staff more time to seek changes and provide clearer density benchmarks.

The decision follows several plan revisions from the applicant, Schaeffer Development, which reduced the project from 76 units in January to 65 units in the May resubmittal and increased setbacks along the development’s southern edge. Planning and community development director Charmaine Ketler Schmalt told the council the site is currently zoned RA‑1 and that the city’s 2024 master plan designates this corridor for “flex residential,” a future‑land‑use category meant to allow higher‑density or attached housing through tools such as a PUD.

Developer Aaron Schaeffer said the team had cut units and reconfigured building types after prior meetings, and emphasized voluntary benefits including pocket parks, public art and a larger southern buffer. “We listened and we have tailored back the density,” Schaeffer said during his presentation, and he outlined that the May plan shows roughly 12.46 acres with the revised mix of ranch and townhouse units. The developer said the plan now shows between about 17 and 18 rooms per acre, depending on final interior layouts.

Residents who live behind the site in Holly Hill Farms and Westgate urged the council to deny or substantially alter the plan. “I see my property value dropping if this happens,” resident Wanda Whalen said during public comment. Multiple neighbors submitted photos and engineering concerns about existing backyard flooding and said they feared grading and new impervious surfaces would worsen runoff. A number of speakers urged the council to require fewer units and larger, single‑story rear buildings to reduce visual impacts.

City engineers and the director of public services said the proposed design would require on‑site stormwater detention and would be reviewed against city and Oakland County standards. Jacob Russell, director of public services, told the council the project is required to capture post‑development runoff on site and that the developer’s basin is designed to meet current engineering standards; “what they’re proposing…would actually be a massive improvement to the existing conditions,” Russell said.

Council members highlighted three recurrent issues: traffic, stormwater and density. Councilmember Aldridge said the developer’s agreement to provide a signalized left‑turn connection into Detroit Baptist Manor reduced his traffic concern. But Aldridge and other council members said they remained worried about overall project scale, and several urged converting more units that back the neighborhood to single‑story ranches and lowering total units further. “At minimum … the southern portion that faces Holly Hill should be single story,” Councilmember Aldridge said during deliberations.

The council and the applicant agreed to continue work with city staff on a narrow list of changes, including a clear, agreed density benchmark tied to comparable local developments and additional tree preservation or screening along the southern property line. The council’s motion to postpone to Aug. 11, 2025, passed by a recorded tally of four in favor and two opposed; the item will return for further review and possible action after that date.

If approved at a future meeting, the development would still require final engineering approvals and conditions in a PUD agreement. The planning commission previously recommended the project and a public hearing had been held earlier in the review process; the council closed the public hearing in March before postponing further deliberation to the May meeting.