Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Commission recommends council consider PUD amendment to allow stand‑alone Culver’s with drive‑through at 12 Mile and Orchard Lake

Farmington Hills Planning Commission · November 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Farmington Hills Planning Commission voted to recommend the city council consider an amendment to a 2014 PUD to permit a stand‑alone Culver’s with a drive‑through, approving relief from front‑setback and other design standards subject to staff conditions and additional landscaping; nearby business owners warned of parking and traffic impacts.

The Farmington Hills Planning Commission on Nov. 20 recommended that the City Council consider an amendment to a 2014 planned unit development to allow a stand‑alone Culver’s restaurant with a drive‑through on an outlot between Marie Scramblers and Comerica Bank at 12 Mile Road and Orchard Lake.

Planning staff told commissioners the proponent is seeking three specific changes to the PUD: (1) to permit a stand‑alone drive‑through restaurant in a B‑4 district, (2) to permit fast food in a standalone building and (3) relief from the district’s 120‑foot front setback requirement. The applicant’s site plan shows the Culver’s building set at 44.7 feet from the right‑of‑way.

City planning and consulting reviewers (Giffels Webster) flagged several design and operational items: the plans do not show pedestrian access along 12 Mile, typical drive‑through setback standards (60 feet) are not met, and order‑confirmation boards are shown toward 12 Mile where the city’s standards discourage placing ordering devices in the front yard. Staff also analyzed parking: the applicant submitted a gross‑floor‑area calculation that suggested about 110 spaces, while staff’s usable‑floor‑area calculation yielded 53 spaces; applying the shopping‑center standard to the entire center, staff concluded the center will meet ordinance parking requirements once the Culver’s is in place.

The commission also heard from the project’s traffic consultant, Luke Liu of AECOM, who said traffic modeling showed an additional maximum queue length of about 49 feet in the morning peak—roughly two to three cars—and about 34 feet in the afternoon—roughly two cars. Staff and engineering said the traffic study had been reviewed and engineering would circulate comments.

During public comment, Randy Carron, who owns Scramblers adjacent to the proposed site, told the commission he was notified only weeks earlier and warned that losing parking in front of his restaurant could “put us out of business 100%,” citing chronic congestion on weekends. The commission discussed alternative sites and Culver’s site selection constraints; the proponent said Culver’s limits site searches to a roughly five‑mile radius and that the selected outlot meets the chain’s requirements.

Commissioners also debated materials and durability standards. Several members expressed concern about EIFS cladding; the proponent said he would work with staff to meet city building‑material requirements. Staff recommended additional landscaping along 12 Mile in exchange for the requested relief, and planning staff noted that any waivers for building materials or window coverage must be justified under the PUD process.

A motion to recommend approval to the city council included findings and conditions that would: permit the drive‑through use and standalone fast‑food building under the PUD, reduce the front setback from 120 feet to 44.7 feet, allow relief from certain design‑material and ground‑floor window‑coverage standards as outlined in the Giffels Webster review, and require the proponent to address outstanding items identified by Giffels Webster, the city engineer and the fire marshal. The motion passed after a roll call; the chair stated, “we have 3 nays, so the motion passed.”

Next steps: the proponent must resolve outstanding engineering, fire and planning comments and finalize a revised landscape plan; staff said the item will be scheduled before City Council in January, timing dependent on resolution of landscape issues.

Votes and formal motion: the commission’s motion will be forwarded as a recommendation to the City Council; outstanding technical comments from Giffels Webster, the city engineer and the fire marshal must be resolved before council action.