Aaron Schafer, representing Schafer Development, told the Planning Commission on May 15 that his company seeks PUD approval for a 28‑unit townhouse community at 12 Mile Road and Middlebelt designed for first‑time buyers, young families and active adults.

The applicant said the 4.55‑acre site is zoned RA‑1A for single‑family residential but was proposed as a transition between higher‑intensity uses to the west and lower‑density single‑family lots to the east. Schafer told commissioners the plan keeps the 28‑unit density previously qualified in October 2024, raises total open space to roughly 62.8 percent and maintains building heights at about 26 feet 6 inches.

The PUD package shows two townhouse footprints, clustered four‑ and five‑unit buildings to increase setbacks along the northern, eastern and western property lines, and a revised landscape plan that adds evergreens and native species along the eastern boundary at a neighbor’s request. Schafer said the design also contemplates a Knox box and a gated secondary emergency access to AIM Academy under terms of a recorded 02/2007 shared access agreement.

Why it matters: The proposal would create new for‑sale housing in Farmington Hills where the parcel is currently master‑planned for single‑family homes. The approach combines development with on‑site open space and creek remediation promises, and will require City Council action and clearance of engineering and safety comments before construction can proceed.

Commission discussion and conditions: Planning staff and the developer described outstanding technical comments from Giffels Webster, the city engineer and the fire marshal. Staff said the proposal reduces an existing nonconformity on right‑of‑way dedication by providing the 60‑foot allocation shown in the right‑of‑way master plan, and that a traffic study for the site concluded proposed site access and operations would function adequately once 12 Mile Road improvements are complete.

The commission’s formal recommendation includes a specific waiver: the developer asked for relief from the RA‑1 lot‑coverage standard; the submittal shows roughly 37.2 percent lot coverage versus the 35 percent requirement, and the motion recommended approval of that deviation as part of the PUD recommendation.

Neighbors and site issues: Don Payne, who owns property immediately north of the site, spoke during public comment and said he does not object to the development but requested a permanent barrier along the northern property edge to prevent children from entering his parcel: "I would like a barrier, a fence or something, a permanent barrier that ran along the north… I just soon not have liability of them entering our property." Schafer responded that the team would investigate fencing or a landscaping/hybrid solution with the neighbor.

Commissioners also discussed creek erosion and engineering requests to provide embankments or other erosion control along the portion of Pebble Creek that runs through the property. A member of the public with Corps of Engineers experience urged caution about clearing stream debris, and Schafer said the developer would follow engineering guidance.

Outcome and next steps: Commissioner Barry moved to recommend City Council approval of PUD Plan 01/2025 (dated 03/07/2025) as revised, subject to addressing comments from Giffels Webster, the city engineer and the fire marshal to the reasonable satisfaction of staff, and to other standard conditions noted in the staff letter. The motion also specified recommendation of the lot‑coverage deviation noted above. The commission voted to recommend approval and will forward the application to City Council; the recommendation is contingent on the outstanding technical items being resolved and on any approvals the City Council requires.

What remains unresolved: The PUD still requires final site‑plan review before record plans are approved; staff flagged missing or incomplete details that will be required at site‑plan stage, including final tree inventory updates, clarification on whether internal sidewalks will be added (the applicant intentionally omitted them to preserve open space), and a lighting plan consistent with the photometric submittal. The developer said curbside waste collection is proposed and that internal sidewalks were omitted to preserve setbacks, but that the applicant is willing to discuss sidewalks with staff and commissioners.

Authorities cited: Giffels Webster review, the city right‑of‑way master plan, the recorded 02/2007 shared access agreement affecting AIM Academy, and the PUD provisions of the zoning ordinance.