Ferndale Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 2026

On Wednesday, October 28, 2026, at 6:30 PM, the Ferndale Planning Commission met at City Hall, 300 East Nine Mile, Ferndale, MI. The primary agenda item was a public hearing on a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and site plan application for 165 E. 9 Mile Road (permanent parcels 24-25-27-382-015 and 24-25-27-382-020): a parking structure with retail and residential components. The commission also approved its agenda and draft minutes from September 16, 2026.

Consent Calendar

• The meeting agenda was approved by voice vote (motion by Manuel, second by Azar).
• The draft Planning Commission minutes from September 16, 2026 were approved by voice vote (motion by Manuel, second by Michelle).

Public Hearing - 165 E. 9 Mile Road PUD & Site Plan

• City staff presented the PUD process, project history, public-private partnership, and staff review. The proposal is an 8-story mixed-use building with 108 residential units (88 one-bedroom, 20 two-bedroom), about 1,950 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, 233 parking spaces (108 residential / 125 public), 64 bicycle parking spaces, and EV parking/charging. The current surface lot has about 46 spaces, so the project would add a net 79 parking spaces.
• The applicant, Mike Parks of Cyprus Partners, and architect Jason Krieger of Krieger Klatt Architects described the design, alley and streetscape improvements, activated ground-floor uses, and 11 income-restricted apartments. They said the financial model relies on a self-supporting revenue bond, Brownfield tax increment financing, and parking revenue; city staff estimated the bond at about $12 million and said the final proposal was designed to meet at least a 1.2x debt-service coverage ratio.
• Staff said the project requires PUD deviations, including building height of 99 feet 9 inches versus the 55-foot zoning limit, no upper-story setback, no occupiable second floor, reduced storefront width and glazing, wider entrance spacing, a 114-space parking deviation, and landscaping deviations. Staff found the application generally consistent with Article 11 PUD findings, with additional coordination on engineering, development-agreement terms, and other items.
• PUD next steps, if recommended, would include City Council public hearing on the PUD, development agreement negotiations, Brownfield/TIF approvals, DDA consideration, and a possible City Council revenue bond approval for the parking deck in March-April 2027.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jody Berger, a Vester Street resident, opposed the project, saying it was too large and out of place for Ferndale and expressing concerns about shade, precedent, and affordability.
• Dave LaFon, representing 21 residents of 211 E. 9 Mile, submitted signatures in opposition and requested denial or postponement. He cited a 155-page plan posted shortly before the hearing, excessive height, traffic and pedestrian safety, loss of on-street parking, property values, stormwater, alley access, and insufficient documentation for requested deviations.
• A resident from Academy opposed, saying $13 million for 79 net parking spaces was not worth it; he focused on queuing and traffic congestion at Bermuda and Nine Mile and urged signage and wayfinding.
• Mike Corbin of 211 E. 9 Mile opposed, arguing the net parking gain was overstated because residents and guests would add parking demand and some alley spaces would be lost, and that eight stories was too tall for Ferndale.
• Phil Lombard, a Ferndale resident, opposed, questioning the height, consistency with the master plan, the cost per parking space, and whether more retail space was needed.
• A business owner in the district spoke in support, saying businesses were hurting and needed parking and that there was no alternative plan.
• Nathan, a local business owner, supported the project, calling parking life-or-death for business and welcoming more residents, a possible market, and alley improvements.
• Lebiba Kayum, a resident and DDA board chair, said she was torn: as a resident she questioned the eight-story scale, but as a DDA member she knew businesses needed parking; she asked for long-range financial projections and clarity on DDA/TIF implications.
• Felicia Albacelli, a resident of 21 E. 9 Mile, opposed, saying Nine Mile traffic was already a nightmare and the height far exceeded zoning.
• A resident and business owner who serves on the DDA board said they were torn; they supported parking and alley activation but did not think an eight-story building was the right fit.
• A 220 Vester Street resident opposed, calling the project a monstrosity and raising traffic, infrastructure, loss of green space and sunlight, and comparisons to Royal Oak.
• Seven emailed comments were read into the record: Eric Fuller of Social Kitchen and Bar supported; Michael Haynes of House of Bayou supported and wanted parking built in the Northeast Quadrant; Rafino Valentine of Valentine's Distillery / Bell's Lounge opposed; Chuck Panky Fanning of Elks Lodge supported; Linda E. Day opposed; Patrick Cowan supported; and Josh Humphrey of Como's supported.

Commission Discussion

• Jill Bauer of Fishback presented a trip-generation summary, not a full traffic analysis. Estimated peak-hour trips were: AM peak 37 vehicle, 13 walking, 1 bike, and 12 transit trips; PM peak 43 vehicle, 26 walking, 1 bike, and 12 transit trips, based on ITE data.
• Commissioners questioned the lack of Ferndale-specific local data and asked for a more thorough traffic-impact analysis, including queuing at Bermuda/Nine Mile, left-turn movements, and effects on nearby local streets. Existing congestion caused by I-696 construction was noted.
• Staff and the applicant confirmed the project would not change the width of Nine Mile or alter current alley traffic circulation; one alley would be reopened and improved, and the garage entrance and drop-off area would be on Bermuda.
• Commissioners discussed the need for wayfinding and signage to direct drivers to public parking, the relationship between the PUD and a separate development agreement, ownership structure (city owning the parking deck; developer owning residential/retail in a condominium structure), and the timeline to bond approval.
• The chair acknowledged process concerns but said meeting materials are posted by the Friday before the meeting, and tonight's packet was posted Friday.

Key Outcomes

• The commission approved the agenda and the September 16, 2026 draft minutes by voice vote.
• The public hearing was opened and closed, with in-person testimony and seven emailed comments entered into the record.
• No motion or vote on the PUD or site plan is captured in the available transcript; the transcript ends during commission deliberation. The commission's eventual action would be a recommendation to City Council, which holds final approval authority for the PUD. Staff indicated the City Council hearing could occur as early as the second meeting in November 2026, but December 2026 was more likely.