Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Royal Oak Commission approves first reading to rezone 111 North Alexander to a PUD amid neighborhood pushback
Summary
The Royal Oak City Commission approved first reading of a planned unit development (PUD) for 111 North Alexander, allowing three dwellings on a 40-foot lot, after extensive public comment and split deliberations over master-plan consistency, precedent and affordability.
Royal Oak's City Commission voted on first reading Jan. 12 to rezone 111 North Alexander to a planned unit development, a decision that drew repeated public comment and divided commissioners over whether the small, 40-foot lot should allow three dwellings. Mayor Fournier opened deliberations after staff and the petitioner described the site as 'unique' because it borders commercial property and an alley.
Resident Trish Oliver, who spoke during public comment, told the commission: "If the city commission approves this proposal at 111 North Alexander, it will set a precedent negatively affecting every Royal Oak home by allowing 3 dwellings on a lot zone for just 1 single family unit." Several other neighbors raised similar concerns about compatibility, parking and the lot's existing nonconforming 40-foot width compared with Royal Oak's 50-foot minimum lot size.
City planning staff summarized options available to the petitioner and recommended that the commission evaluate the PUD against master-plan guidance and the city's PUD criteria, which require a 'recognizable and material benefit' to the city or users of the site. The petitioner's representative, Dennis Cowan, said the lot historically faced 11 Mile Road, abuts commercial uses and includes a public alley; Cowan argued those factors distinguish the site from typical single-family parcels.
Architect Jim Schneider described design revisions made after the project's prior appearance before the Planning Commission, including a hipped roof on the front unit, increased brick on the first floor, a three-foot masonry screen wall and added landscape buffering at the rear. Schneider said the two-building approach (a front two-story dwelling and a rear three-story building with two dwellings and six alley-accessed parking spaces) was intended to reduce massing and avoid 'towering' over neighboring homes.
Commissioners debated whether the project meets the PUD threshold. Commissioner Bastian and others raised precedent and master-plan concerns, noting the future land-use designation for the parcel is 'neighborhood residential', which emphasizes principally single-family use with only infrequent historic duplexes or small multifamily buildings. Supporters of the proposal, including Commissioner Chisholm and Commissioner Colos, pointed to master-plan language on 'missing middle' housing and said design changes and unit sizes can deliver more-attainable housing without a larger multifamily project.
Commissioners also discussed affordability and possible rents. A comparative market analysis referenced during Q&A suggested one-bedroom units in the area would need to be about $1,300 per month to be competitive; the architect estimated construction costs in the range of roughly $850,000 to $900,000 (an early estimate, not a guarantee).
After deliberation, a commissioner moved approval of first reading of the PUD; the motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote. The motion approves rezoning for the purpose of advancing a development agreement that would identify the exact project elements, deviations from the zoning code and any negotiated community benefits. The commission recorded the vote in favor and wished the petitioner well.
Next steps: the PUD will return with formal development agreement language if the applicant proceeds; first reading approval does not itself finalize construction permits.
