Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Royal Oak commissioners table controversial 111 North Alexander PUD after design and process concerns
Summary
The Royal Oak City Commission tabled a rezoning request for 111 North Alexander after weeks of public comment and a lengthy commissioner debate about process, neighborhood fit, setbacks and parking; the petitioner will be invited to revise plans addressing setbacks, materials and landscaping.
The Royal Oak City Commission on Jan. 13 tabled a petition to rezone 111 North Alexander Avenue to a planned unit development after prolonged public comment and an extended commission discussion about whether a PUD is the right process for a three-unit project.
The petitioner, owner Ed Metko, and architect Jim Schneider presented a two-building proposal that would remove an existing 1937 house and create three units (one one-bedroom unit in a two-story building facing Alexander and two two-bedroom units in a three-story building with tuck-under parking). Planning staff noted the ordinance requires six parking spaces, which the proposal provides under the rear building; staff also flagged deviations including proposed front-yard setbacks (15 feet proposed vs. a typical 25-foot minimum in the area) and a driveway width that measures about 66.5 feet (ordinance maximum ~25 feet).
Commissioners and residents debated process and compatibility. Opponents — including several speakers during public comment — framed the project as a spot rezoning that would alter single-family neighborhood character and said the PUD tool is typically used for larger mixed-use projects. Supporters noted the site's irregular "dogleg" shape, its proximity to 11 Mile Road and commercial frontage, and the project's sustainability features. Architect Jim Schneider said the design includes electric heat pumps, water heating to avoid natural gas, LED lighting, native landscaping and a commitment to increase tree canopy by about 40 percent.
Several commissioners said their principal concerns were the use of the PUD for a small project, front-yard setbacks and visible hard surface (the current design leaves a large portion of the lot as hardscape). Commissioner Macy said the application "doesn't fit the zoning we have now" and worried about setting inconsistent precedents. Commissioner Douglas said the PUD process "gums up" certainty and should be reserved for larger developments. Commissioner Chisholm and others praised the architectural care but shared process concerns.
Rather than approve or deny, the commission provided the petitioner nonbinding direction — including suggestions to increase the front-yard setback, soften and expand landscaping to screen parked cars and to use materials more compatible with nearby homes — and then voted to table the item indefinitely to allow the petitioner to revise plans (motion to table passed 6–1).
The petitioners said they would work with planning staff on revisions and return with a new submittal if they choose. The commission did not adopt specific conditions; any substantially revised plan would return as a first reading per staff guidance.
The tabling leaves the existing single-family zoning in place for 111 North Alexander until and unless the petitioner re-submits a new application or pursues an alternative approval path.
