Royal Oak planning staff says multifamily density rules 'have eroded' as city prepares zoning rewrite

Royal Oak Planning Commission — On a regularly scheduled October meeting, the Royal Oak Planning Commission heard a detailed presentation from Planning Director Joseph Murphy on multifamily-residential density standards as staff prepares to write a new zoning ordinance.

Murphy told commissioners that the city’s research shows "allowable density for multifamily developments has eroded over time with ordinance amendments," and that the current density formula in the zoning code "has virtually no relationship with the current market forces" now driving proposed multifamily projects. He outlined the city’s regulatory history (1931, 1957, 1963, 1987 and a comprehensive rewrite in 2001) and explained the present formula requiring a base lot area for the first two dwelling units and additional square footage for each additional unit.

Why it matters: the density formula determines how many housing units are allowed on a parcel without a planned-unit development (PUD), conditional rezoning or variance. Commissioners heard that developers increasingly seek exceptions — PUDs or conditional rezonings — because the current standards can be difficult to meet. That dynamic has produced approved projects with higher units-per-acre than the numeric limits in the code.

Murphy summarized the staff memo and a table of recent developments that show a wide range of approved densities. "Some of these that have come before you for approval and have received approval far exceed the allowable number of dwellings per acre," he said, noting that downtown and Central Business District sites are treated differently because some districts do not have a density standard.

Commission discussion focused on several recurring issues: whether density should be measured by number of dwellings rather than bedrooms (Murphy said the city moved to a flat per-dwelling calculation in the 2001 rewrite to reduce counting tricks where rooms are labeled "studies" rather than bedrooms), whether density should be applied to individual parcels or area-wide settings (blocks or activity centers), and how to reconcile different property owners within a block if one project uses much of the allowed density.

Commissioner questions pushed staff to explain which recent projects achieved density "by right" and which used variances or PUD approvals; Murphy said some achieved higher densities through exceptions or by being in zoning districts without formulas. He recommended that consultant proposals provide implementation examples and alternatives; staff has issued an RFP process and is reviewing proposals with the aim of interviewing finalists in person in December.

Public comment during the meeting included criticism of the staff memo and concerns about notice and process. Tricia (Trish) Oliver, a resident and mayoral candidate, argued that a 10-page staff memo "validates predetermined outcomes" and urged the commission to provide an executive summary so residents can quickly understand impacts. Bill Harrison and other residents urged clearer definitions (for example, whether the master plan’s "neighborhood residential" differs substantively from a single-family designation) and asked for better outreach. Villa Salter and others said prior assurances about delays in any zoning changes left residents confused.

Next steps: staff told the commission that responses to the RFP are due at the end of the month and that commissioners will review consultant proposals next month, with in-person interviews possible in December. Staff emphasized this meeting was informational and that specific text amendments will be developed after consultant input and further public engagement.

No ordinance amendments were adopted at the meeting; the presentation was a staff briefing and discussion to guide future work.