Commission postpones Greenleaf SLU and zoning text amendment; public questions Sheetz traffic review

The Royal Oak Planning Commission postponed consideration of two items to the May meeting after petitioners requested more time, and members of the public used the meeting’s comment period to press the commission on process and a separate Sheetz application.

Staff reintroduced a special land use permit application for 1423 Greenleaf Drive but the petitioner asked to postpone because of a significant plan revision; the commission voted to postpone the decision to the May 13 meeting, keep the public hearing open and hear additional comment then. The motion to postpone was moved by Jim Allison and seconded by Brian Cooper and approved by voice vote.

The commission also opened and then postponed a public hearing on a zoning text amendment (section 770‑22, accessory buildings) at the petitioner’s request; that item was continued to May with the public hearing left open.

During public comment, Gerard Mullen said the planning division memorandum for the Sheetz project had recommended that the city’s traffic consultant complete a peer review of the petitioner’s traffic study and listed nine criteria and nine contingencies, and he asked why the commission had ‘‘ignored the planning division’s recommendation’’ and recommended the application without a peer review. Mullen’s remarks referenced a January 31 planning‑division memorandum.

A separate public commenter who identified themself as PG asked why the city would accept a petitioner’s own traffic study without a peer review and raised questions about driveway placement, boulevard/median plans at 14 Mile Road, notice distribution and whether the public was being fully informed. PG also asserted the commission had treated speakers discourteously at a previous meeting and demanded apologies from specific commissioners; the chair curtailed the personal allegations and emphasized the three‑minute public‑comment limit.

Staff earlier cited a condition in the approved minutes that, prior to review of a conditional zoning agreement by the city commission, the engineering division should submit the petitioner’s traffic study to the city’s traffic consultant for peer review with costs borne by the petitioner (as reflected in the approved minutes discussed by commissioners). The commission did not take final action on Sheetz at this meeting; the public commenters urged continued oversight and community attendance at future meetings.

Both postponed items (1423 Greenleaf SLU and the zoning text amendment 770‑22) will return to the commission at the May meeting.