Grosse Pointe Farms council hears Village Market parking reconfiguration; asks for traffic study and design clarifications

Grosse Pointe Farms — The City Council held a public hearing on a preliminary site plan for Village Market’s proposed parking‑lot reconfiguration and McKinley Avenue realignment and directed the applicant to provide a traffic study and other clarifications before the council will consider preliminary site‑plan approval. No formal approvals were taken.

City staff and the market’s representative described a plan to move the private parking lot from the south side of McKinley to the north side and to reconfigure drive aisles so circulation flows counterclockwise. Matthew Baca, the city’s director of buildings, said the design is intended to reduce pedestrians crossing McKinley, slow traffic, and improve overall circulation. Baca said the plan has been reviewed by the consultant McKenna and that several technical questions remain, including vehicle turning widths, hydrant location and the placement of the fire‑department connection.

Applicant Jay Garmo (introduced himself for the record) said the reconfiguration would formalize an existing unpaved lot and increase parking compared with the current informal layout. He told the council his firm counted roughly 109 existing spaces across the broader site and is proposing 134 spaces in the reconfigured plan; he also said an earlier plan that showed 136 was reduced to 134 because of a tight turning curvature.

Councilmembers and residents pressed the applicant for additional technical work. Mayor Pro Tem Soroka and others asked who would pay for construction and whether the plan would harm adjacent businesses by removing curbside spaces on Mac Avenue. Councilmember Jensen and others said they supported the plan’s safety focus but wanted confirmation on fire‑department access and clear signage to prevent trucks from making left turns from the alley.

A stream of residents at the podium raised similar concerns. Marie Finnegan, speaking from McKinley, said residents were effectively "giving up parts of our street" and urged restrictions on commercial traffic from the alley and careful landscaping maintenance so sightlines are not obscured. Tamara Bauvie, a co‑owner of a nearby business, urged the council to verify net parking gains — she reported an informal count of about 17 vehicles on the gravel lot and asked that employee‑only spaces not be counted as public supply. Several residents asked that truck routing be limited and that the city consider timing construction to minimize business disruption.

After public comment, councilmembers outlined conditions they want the applicant to address before the item returns for a preliminary site‑plan review. Those conditions include: retaining a traffic engineering firm (selected by mutual agreement of the city and the applicant) at the applicant’s expense to study circulation, origin/destination patterns and the McKenna report issues; clarifying the net gain in public parking and how employee/employee‑only spaces are counted; providing detailed landscaping and façade plans that prevent sightline obstructions; and proposing ingress/egress controls such as signage or alleyway one‑way routing and a prohibition on left turns where warranted. Staff was asked to review photometric lighting data and to confirm fire‑access dimensions on revised plans.

City administration said ownership and construction responsibilities for any vacated portion of McKinley would be defined later — likely as part of a memorandum of understanding — and that the applicant indicated willingness to assume the lot‑construction cost. Council signaled it is willing to place the item on a future agenda (probable months cited were February or March) after submission and review of the requested materials.

No vote on the Village Market plan was taken at this meeting. The council asked that the applicant provide written responses and deliverables, which will be posted and shared with residents before the next hearing.