Planning Commission approves site plan for restaurant addition; approval conditioned on ZBA variance for rear setback
Loading...
Summary
The commission approved Site Plan 5232025 for renovation and a 246‑square‑foot cooler addition to an existing B‑3 restaurant (former Mandarin Garden). Approval is conditional on the applicant obtaining a variance for a reduced rear setback and addressing outstanding planning, engineering and fire marshal comments.
The Farmington Hills Planning Commission voted April 16 to approve Site Plan 5232025, a proposal to renovate an existing B‑3 restaurant and add a 246‑square‑foot walk‑in cooler to the rear of the building, subject to conditions including securing a variance for the rear yard setback.
Planner/consultant Joe summarized the application as a modest rear addition to a 2,942‑square‑foot restaurant, noting the site is composed of multiple small, individually owned lots and resembles a chopped‑up downtown rather than a single shopping center. Joe said the addition will reduce an already nonconforming rear setback and therefore a variance is required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. He also said rooftop equipment must be screened and that the applicant had not supplied full lighting details for staff review.
Applicant Jerry Chi, whose father opened the restaurant in 1982, told the commission the business had operated for 43 years and suffered a fire six months earlier; the cooler addition would support reopening. "My father opened the restaurant in 1982. We've been here 43 years now. We had a fire 6 months ago and we're asking for a variance for outdoor cooler," Chi said.
The motion to approve was made with explicit conditions: all outstanding items identified in Giffels Webster’s March 20, 2025 review must be addressed to the reasonable satisfaction of the city planner; outstanding items from the city engineer’s March 2025 review must be resolved to the engineer’s satisfaction; any items from the fire marshal’s March 20, 2025 correspondence must be addressed; and the applicant must secure the necessary variance before the ZBA for the rear yard setback. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote, with all commissioners voting yes.
Commission discussion noted the approval would allow an increase in an existing nonconformity (the rear setback), and commissioners briefly discussed whether additional site improvements could be requested. Staff explained that any additional requirements must relate to the work proposed at the rear of the property and that the ZBA might be a more appropriate venue to consider related changes.
Next steps: the applicant must obtain the rear‑setback variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals and address the outstanding plan review comments before building permits will be issued.
