Farmington Hills council postpones vote on Culver's drive-through after residents cite traffic and parking concerns

Council members postponed final action on a proposed Culver's drive-through at the Orchard 12 shopping center on Jan. 12, saying they need more engineering review and neighborhood outreach before approving substantial variances to setback and drive-through standards.

Charmaine Kettler Schmolt, the city's director of planning and community development, described the application as a major PUD amendment that seeks relief from setback rules in the underlying B-4 district and an exception to the city's ordinance limiting ordering boards and queuing in the front yard. Joe, a Giffels Webster consultant presenting staff's review, told council the current plan shows a 44.7-foot front setback where the code requires 120 feet (and a 60-foot drive-through setback) and that the proposed ordering boards would sit closer than standards allow. He listed outstanding items including stacking, lighting, and design details that the applicant had revised only in the days before the meeting.

Alan Isember, the applicant's engineer, said the team moved most of the waiting and food pickup to the rear, proposed a 30-inch hedge (which could be raised), added pedestrian connections and widened an aisle for fire access. He said the site would rely on shared parking with adjacent rows and a cross-access easement to help meet parking demand.

Nearby business owners and residents opposed the location at the public hearing. Randall Karan, owner of Scramblers restaurant at the same center, said the proposed carve-out would remove parking his restaurant currently uses at lunch and on weekends and that the developer's traffic work was incomplete. Several neighbors said 12 Mile and Orchard Lake Road are already congested and that vehicles could back up on 12 Mile if queuing spills into the right of way.

Council members from across the dais expressed the same practical concerns. One councilmember said satellite images and on-the-ground observations produced different impressions of parking availability; another said tandem-drive-through operations may reduce time per car but still leave unacceptable queuing in the front yard. Those concerns, plus engineering comments the applicant had only recently received, led the motion to be withdrawn and replaced with a postponement.

The council voted to postpone final action to its Feb. 23 regular meeting and added explicit conditions: the proponent must submit a revised traffic impact study and engineering must have a minimum of two weeks to review it; the applicant should pursue and document outreach with nearby property owners for potential shared or employee parking; and outstanding engineering and plan-review items must be addressed to the satisfaction of city staff before council again considers approvals.

The postponement carried with one recorded opposition. The council's action keeps the public hearing record open until the date certain so staff and the proponent can provide additional documentation.