Planning commission denies proposed four‑lot split at Oakcrest/Rock Ridge for not meeting lot‑width requirements

The Farmington Hills Planning Commission on Oct. 16 denied a lot‑split application to divide the former elementary school parcel at Oakcrest Drive and Rock Ridge Lane into four residential lots, finding three of the proposed parcels did not meet the RA‑1 lot‑width requirement in the zoning ordinance.

Background and legal context The property is part of the Franklin Oaks subdivision originally platted in 1945. The applicant obtained a proposed consent judgment in court that would allow the former school lots (Lots 11 and 12) to be divided into four parcels, subject to a set of use restrictions described in the draft consent judgment. City staff noted the consent judgment has not yet been recorded; staff said the split application must meet current zoning standards or the applicant must first obtain variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Why it matters: The proposed split would create four large, wedge‑shaped residential lots in an established single‑family neighborhood at the bulb end of a cul‑de‑sac. The commission must ensure lot splits meet dimensional standards intended to maintain neighborhood character and safe access.

Staff findings - Lot width: The updated survey submitted by the applicant showed lot widths for three of the four proposed parcels that do not meet the RA‑1 minimum lot width requirement (100 feet) and therefore fail the zoning test for an administratively approvable split. - Depth‑to‑width ratio: Staff measured depth‑to‑width ratios and noted they exceed the planning commission’s typical guidance for subdivisions, although the staff memo observed wedge‑shaped lots at a cul‑de‑sac can result in atypical ratios and the ratios themselves can be waived by the commission. - Access and pedestrian easement: The proposed configuration retains a pedestrian easement (historically associated with the former school site) on Parcel 4; staff noted potential driveway placement and emergency access considerations given the relatively narrow frontages.

Commission action and next steps Because the proposed lots did not meet the zoning ordinance lot‑width standard, the planning commission voted to deny the split application. Staff advised the applicants that approval would be possible only after either: (a) the applicants obtain variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the lot‑width shortfalls and any other dimensional variances needed and then resubmit, or (b) revise the lot configuration to comply with the ordinance requirements. The consent judgment recorded in court remains a separate issue; staff noted it cannot override zoning standards without appropriate variances.