HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-08-24 17101
MINUTES OF THE 7913` REGULAR MEETING HELD BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 24, 1999, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
791st Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Michael Hale
Dan Piercecchi Elaine Koons William LaPine
H. G. Shane
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, and Bill Poppenger were
also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning
request,this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold
its own public hearing, and will make the final determination as to whether a petition is
approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for
preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to
the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan is denied tonight,the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City
Planning Commission becomes effective seven(7) days after the date of adoption. The
Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon
their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the
proceedings tonight. We will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plans for our agenda.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-8-GB-4 by James
Martin requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as
outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 20414
Farmington Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: No,there is no correspondence. If you would like, I will give you a brief
presentation of their request. This petition involves a request by the owners of
a parcel of land located in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 3 which is presently
developed as a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial building which is located on the east
side of Farmington Road just south of Eight Mile. The site, as you can see, is
uniquely shaped. It is an "L" shaped parcel. It houses three commercial tenants
including the Butcher Block, Allie's Gift Gallery and Headlines Hair Salon.
The request this evening involves substituting a greenbelt in lieu of a protective
17102
screen wall along the rear of the property extending back adjacent to the
residential zoned area R-3 district to the east. The greenbelt was approved for
variances back in 1987 when this site was originally developed. The width of
this greenbelt presently is about 25 feet. There was a landscape plan that was
submitted as part of the original site plan and waiver request. The area
presently contains a variety of landscape material including a number of
evergreens that are staggered along the top of the berm. The parcel to the east
which is zoned residential is about 300 to 345 feet in depth and is presently
developed. The site also contains an area along the southeast corner where the
parking zone is adjacent to residential zoned property. The request this
evening includes a total of 130 feet along the east property line plus an
additional 45 feet along what would be the south property line in the southeast
corner of the site. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? If there are none, is the
petitioner here this evening?
James Martin, 18211 Pershing, Livonia.
Mr. McCann: Tell us why you are requesting this petition this evening.
Mr. Martin: We have had it since 1987 but there are no other berms behind Napa and
Leather Bottle and the lot where the berm is, is overgrown. It's not like it's a
real nice area. I mean, it's not a bad area but it's not like a real fancy house
backyard. Scott told me to check out the possibility of getting approval for it.
Mr. McCann: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Who maintains the area back there?
Mr. Martin: The berm?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Martin: I have a landscape fellow.
Mr. Alanskas: Is he there once a month, or once a week?
Mr. Martin: Once a week.
Mr. Alanskas: He comes there once a week?
Mr. Martin: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: When you were granted the variance back in 1987, were you required to put
any landscaping back there?
17103
Mr. Martin: There is landscaping back there. There are fir trees back there and some grass.
The trees are pretty big now.
Mr. LaPine: There are some trees there now and a very small berm. Behind that is your
property too, is it not? Somebody is doing a lot of dumping back there. There
is grass and all kinds of stuff back there.
Mr. Martin: The fellow, I think his name is Mike that works at the Village Green lives in
that house. He dumps a lot of stuff back there. Is there grass back there?
Mr. LaPine: There is grass back there. There are weeds. It's a mess quite frankly. O.K.
Thank you. Let me ask one more question. If you were granted a variance to
keep a landscape back there and if you originally put up some good landscape,
did you ever go back there to and check on it to see if it was being maintained
or if somebody was taking care of it?
Mr. Martin: Well, I didn't until this came up. It looks kind of rough back there. We are
going to have to put new grass back there. The weeds are encroaching from the
guys lot. It does look kind of rough. It has been cut but it's not real nice.
Mr. LaPine: It is hard for me to believe that from 1987 to 1999, which is 12 years ago that
you haven't maintained your greenbelt like you promised you were going to do
when you were given a waiver back in 1987. This is one of the reasons why I
ow am not in favor of greenbelts because once they are up, nobody wants to take
care of them. Who suffers, is not in this instance so bad because of the trees
back there, is the residential property owners because it is the responsibility of
the commercial property owner to maintain the greenbelt that he had a waiver
for which saved you a considerable amount of money back in 1987.
Mr. Martin: Right.
Mr. Alanskas: That is why I asked you who maintained this and you said you had a
landscaping company that is there once a month?
Mr. Martin: No, he comes once a week or every two weeks and cuts everything. When I
went back there the grass is sparse because the trees are really big now. We
need to do something with that. I'll grant you we will do something with that.
Mr. Alanskas: The thing that concerns me is that you said to the Commissioners that now that
you are before us you have been taking a look at the back but in all those years
you haven't been doing anything at all or not even being concerned about it.
Now that you want a permanent berm waiver use, now you say you may do
something.
17104
Mr. Martin: Well, we cut it. All there is is grass and trees back there and it has always been
cut. The grass is getting sparse back there. I don't know if it is because the
trees are so darn big, we could do something else with it.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann; Are there any more questions? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience
wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Mark Martin, 31260 Mayville. I am not exactly sure, are you talking about the back side of the
berm or the property behind the berm?
Mr. Alanskas: The berm itself.
Mr. Martin: Because you were talking about overgrowth and it seems to me that he was
saying that the grass is sparse. You were talking overgrowth?
Mr. Alanskas: I was saying there are a lot of weeds back there also.
Mr. Martin: O.K. If it is sparse, it is either weeds or it is sparse.
Mr. Alanskas: Either one should not be there. There should be no weeds and it should not be
sparse. There should be grass there and it should be maintained in a proper
condition.
`r
Mr. Martin: I agree with that. All I am saying is that you were mentioning overgrowth
because the property directly behind the store is not his.
Mr. Alanskas: I understand that.
Mr. Martin: That is a field back there.
Mr. Alanskas: I am referring just to the berm part itself
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone else? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine , seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously denied it was
#8-151-99 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 99-
8-GB-4 by James Martin requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the
protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for
property located at 20414 Farmington Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3
for the following reasons:
1) That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements as set
forth in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2) That the applicant shall renew their temporary variance with the Zoning
Board of Appeals or install the protective wall immediately.
17105
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
You will have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals or you have 10 days
in which to appeal our decision to the City Council.
Mr. Martin: So you are saying you would rather have a wall?
Mr. McCann: No. We feel that with the waiver use that you might maintain the greenbelt
better if you have to go back and check on it or that the wall would be
appropriate. Is that correct? Do you have any additional comments?
Mr. LaPine: No,that is exactly right. You go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If they
grant you another waiver, and they may or they may not, my gut feeling is that
they may not because they are going to look at what is back there and say you
didn't go by what you promised you were going to do. They may say we'll
give you another two years and see what it looks like and then you come back
to them in two years and if you maintain it and it is in good shape, they may
give you a 5 or 10 year variance.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-8-GB-5 by Melvin
Herner& Kevin Konat, on behalf of the Classic Interiors Furniture Store,
requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined
in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 20292
`'" Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Taormina: This request to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of a protective wall is on property
located on the east side of Middlebelt between Seven Mile and Morlock The
property is zoned C-l. Local Business and it is approximately 2.73 acres in
area. It is presently occupied by Classic Interiors Furniture. As you can see,
this is a rather large building that occupies a substantial portion of the site. The
site is bordered by a church to the north, an office complex to the south and
residential to the east. The ordinance requires a protective wall wherever the
site is adjacent to residentially zoned property which would include both the
north side of the property, which is approximately 600 feet in length, as well as
the east side of the property, which is about 195 feet in length. As I mentioned
earlier, the parcel to the north is presently developed with the church. That
requirement to install a wall would be quite excessive. In lieu of that, the
petitioner has developed a landscape plan which really provides a mixture of
materials that are not necessarily designed to screen the store from the adjacent
property but really to add to the current mix of existing plant material which is
primarily mature trees. There is a variety of plant material including red twig
dogwood, spirea and forsythia. All these plants are pretty much low growing
shrubs that will help to in-fill some of the area between the more mature
vegetation. On the other hand, the area along the east side of the property,
which is approximately 15 feet in width by 195 feet in length, contains a very
thick growth of native plant material. It is primarily deciduous plants. The
residential property to the east is about 300 feet in depth. The rear of the
property is presently being used for parking as well as loading and unloading
17106
of material to the back portion of the store which is mainly warehousing.
There is an area at the rear that includes the dumpster location. Two
dumpsters, in fact, are located back here. One of the suggestions that we
�... would make this evening is that if the Commission is inclined to grant the
waiver along the east property line, consideration should be given to properly
screen those dumpsters. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Kevin Konat, 15525 Lincoln, East Pointe.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us about your petition?
Mr. Konat: A lot of the trees there were existing when we first built the property were
cherry trees. At one point the church asked us during this period of having the
greenbelt when the store was first built if we would fill in for them. We did
and we put in some forsythia bushes in there now that are approximately 10 to
12 feet tall along with some of the other trees that are there. They are matured
growth, 20 feet to 30 feet tall. There isn't a huge amount of open areas but the
plan that we got from the nursery suggested a lot of trees that would not only
fill in but grow at least 6 feet tall, if not taller, along that side of the building.
This past spring there were three dead trees that we took down, not because the
church asked us to but because we wanted to properly maintain the greenbelt
so we took those three down. The area on the east behind us that is 20 to 30
New year old growth that had been there originally before the property was
purchased. There was a dead tree there that one of the homeowners behind us,
directly behind us, was worried about the possibility of it coming down in a
storm so approximately a year ago when he came to us asking if we could take
that tree down, we did. We paid for that. Throughout the years of the three
homeowners that lived behind the store and in the development of the history
of the store, they have asked us at variance times to either pay for or pay half
of a chain link fence or a privacy fence behind the property which we did do.
Along with getting the variance greenbelt rather than putting up a stone wall
originally when the store was built. That in conjunction with a landscaping
company we have, which we have tour the area once a week, my warehouse
people go out and check the bushes, trim them, clean up the area in case
anything from the dumpsters would blow out, we would try to keep that area
clean too and then along the side that has the office buildings which would be
the south side, we have a retention pond and we went ahead and put in six or
seven maple trees, lilac bushes coming up from the property line along that
side too just so there was a continuation of a greenbelt and the people that had
office space on that side would be looking at trees rather than just an open area
and parking lot.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: The office building, there is a building in the front and there is a building to
the rear of the office building, behind they have a wall, does your property go
back as far as that wall?
17107
Mr. Konat: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: It does? What is the problem with you extending another wall to extend
behind your building and hook it right on behind that one? Then we've got a
wall behind two parcels there. My problem is this. I don't see any need to
have a wall and a greenbelt. If we are going to have a greenbelt, we should
have put a greenbelt behind the other building. To me, the wall is what the
ordinance calls for. At this time, I think it is time the wall goes up so we've
got a continuous wall between two commercial parcels that abut the residential
property unless you have a really good argument for me why the greenbelt
should be in lieu of the wall.
Mr. Konat: There are three reasons actually. When we originally built the store, my
father, when he was alive, went to the neighbors behind us and the question of
the wall was posed to them. Would they prefer having a brick or stone wall
that they would look at or would they rather have large greenbelt trees,
something like that to look at and the three neighbors behind us all told us that
they would rather have the look of trees and bushes and plants behind them
because at that particular point, even though their houses are closer to the street
and have large back yards,just from a viewing standpoint what they would like
to see. At that point was when we originally went to the Commission and
asked for a variance for a greenbelt. Throughout the years we have been
granted renewals of that greenbelt and it is just that this particular case now, it
is my understanding we had a choice of either a permanent greenbelt or going
for another variance for another 4 or 5 years. The second thing is, I checked
out the wall that is built along the east side of the property that goes behind the
office complex. At the point where it joins my property it is approximately 6
feet tall but as it goes down the line towards Clarenceville School, it steps
down and ends up at the parking lot at 4 feet. At that particular time I happen
to notice, this was last Saturday, that one of the residential people behind them
is having a wedding reception with tables and having it there. All their guests
came and all they were able to see was a partial brick wall with the back of the
building. To me I don't think that is as nice a setting as if that was all greenbelt
there. Thirdly, the neighbors behind me have never said they would like a
wall. It is not a situation where they have come and complained that they don't
like what we are doing back there. I know the ordinance is a City ordinance. I
understand that but I also believe the reason why that division is there is to
divide commercial property from residential property. It would seem to me
that if the homeowners would have any kind of a say in it, that they would
prefer something green and nice looking rather than just a cold some wall.
Over the years it has become a habitat for ducks. I have a duck family that
comes every year spring and lays eggs and I also have a rabbit family back
there too. It is almost like a wildlife habitat as much covered as it is. Those
are the reasons.
r•- Mr. Alanskas: I think it was nice that years ago your parents asked the people in the back
about the greenbelt. The only thing about that is that neighborhoods change.
Maybe the people you talked to 20 years ago, or 10 or 15 years ago has moved
17108
out and now you've got someone else moved in and they say I would rather
have a wall. It is a give and take situation, because it can change.
Mr. Konat: Right. Well last Saturday, I did take the time to knock on the doors of the three
people that happen to live behind us. Two people were not home but the third
person was home and it was a young couple that had moved in recently and I
asked them if we were doing a good job? If they felt they still had a good
privacy back there with the trees and bushes? They both thought they couldn't
see the store from back there and that they did prefer that I keep it that way
instead of putting up a wall. They even went as far as saying that they would,
if I wanted or needed, they would write a letter recommending that it stay the
way it is because a lot of the property behind, they also have their own
landscaping, trees, bushes and landscaping on their side of the fence.
Mrs. Koons: We realize now at this time of the year that is real thick. What is that like in
the winter?
Mr. Konat: It still stays pretty thick because there are evergreens on the property of the
people behind us. I have taken time in the winters and in the fall, when that
happens, I try to be as consciences as I can to see if the people can see the store
behind us and that, but there is really so much growth and with the houses that
far away from the back of the store,just the angle of them looking up with the
trees and the bushes that are there, it is still difficult for them to see the back of
the store. The back of the store is a light gray color. So most of the time
`w when it is dreary or dark out like that, it is very difficult to discern it from the
sky, actually.
Mr. LaPine: Mark, let's assume that we sent them back to the Zoning Board of Appeals and
they waive the wall for another five years, or whatever. Let's assume five
years down the line they move out of that store, they build another store or a
bigger store and another commercial development moves in, the same type of
operation, but he doesn't do as good a job like this gentleman does and the
neighbors say we now want a wall. If the wall is waived permanently, that's it,
isn't it? We can't come back and say you have to put up a wall because we've
got a different company here and he is doing a bad job so now give us a wall.
That's the problem I have. That is the thing that worries me.
Mr. Taormina: I would suggest that in the event the Planning Commission grants the approval
this evening, and unless there is a change of use that would require
reconsideration of the site plan that yes, a wall waiver would be permanent as
long as the building is occupied by a permitted use.
Mr. LaPine: But if it goes by the zoning ordinance and is not permanent then after five
years, then we could require the wall?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Another item to consider is, I believe the Zoning Board of
Appeals often times schedules periodic inspections as a condition to the
granting of a greenbelt waiver. I think that was done in the one previous to this
case.
17109
Mr. LaPine: In the 27 years I served on the Zoning Board it was never done.
�•- Mr. Konat: I do have, at least once a year, an inspector come out and take a look at the
greenbelt and who makes suggestions of what he would like to see or
suggestions on would I should do. Also I am 43 years old. I been in this
business 20 years and I plan on being in it at least another 25. I am a long
term commercial resident in Livonia.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Taormina, are you saying that if it was granted permanently, the only
recourse we would have would be to inspect it and continuing to add someone
to make it right or fine them or that even if it wasn't taken care of with this
permanent waiver we couldn't then go back and request a wall?
Mr. Taormina: I would have to check that with the Law Department to see what rights we
would have under those circumstances; whether we can go back and require
compliance once a waiver has been granted in the event they fail to comply, or
whether it can be approved conditionally. We can certainly do that and find out
what our limitations are and whether or not we can grant a temporary waiver
or one that would require periodic inspections.
Mr. Piercecchi: Isn't it the fact that when you grant these greenbelts, if the current building is
modified or it is a different type of business that goes in there, that those
permanent greenbelts are null and void and they come up again for another
`,,,,.. look?
Mr. McCann: No. If they change the site plan, they would have to come back.
Mr. Piercecchi: Changing the size of the building is changing the site plan.
Mr. McCann: Then they would have to come back before us and we could take a look at
everything. Also as part of the site plan approval, we approve a certain
greenbelt and it has to be maintained. Any approval of a site plan would
require, we could send out City Inspectors if part of your site plan is
maintaining a greenbelt so even if it is permanent and Mr. Taormina can
correct me if I am wrong, but once we approve a site plan and a greenbelt, if it
is not maintained pursuant to that site plan, the City Inspectors can come out
and issue a violation.
Mr. Piercecchi: But the building, Mr. Chairman, is modified in any way externally, then we've
got a whole new ball game. Correct?
Mr. McCann: That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: I can understand, sir, that the people, the residents behind you, because they
have 300 foot lots so I can appreciate that, at our study meeting Mrs. Koons
brought up a good point about maybe this should be broken down into two
parts and I would like to have her elaborate on that to the petitioner.
17110
Mrs. Koons: At our study meetings we kind of kick around what our thoughts are and I
think it was pretty well agreed that a greenbelt between you and the church
made the most sense. A wall would be silly there. Our questions were, and I
am glad you are here to answer them about the back side and maybe we would
split that up and we would grant a waiver for one and require you to go back to
the Zoning Board for the other just so we can keep the continuation of"what if
the business changes". That was some of our thinking.
Mr. Shane: If this should be denied and it goes back to the Zoning Board of Appeals that
would require a Public Hearing and all those owners behind there would go
on record as to their feelings. The value of that might be that this petitioner
might want to revisit this issue at another time. If he can show that these
neighbors behind him, at a Public Hearing, have no problem with a greenbelt
and he can show that he has been a good neighbor as far as housekeeping the
site, maybe in a couple of years he could revisit it and get the wall waived at
that time. In the time period that the Zoning Board waives it and the five year
period, can he come back to this Commission within that time period and
revisit the greenbelt? I think he can.
Mr. Taormina: I don't know if he would be precluded from re-applying. Yes, that is correct.
Just as a point of information, whenever a waiver is granted, there is a
requirement in the ordinance that there be an inspection every two years by the
Inspection Department to review the condition of the greenbelt.
�,.. Mr. Shane: Not by the ZBA?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition.
Larry Weingarden, 38883 Telegraph Road, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. I am Mr. Konat's
attorney and I thought to bring this up. If, in fact, the legal issue and the
enforcement issue of which has been brought forth, is determinative of your
decision in any way, may I suggest that maybe this matter can be tabled for a
couple of months to allow us time for (1) to take a look at the situation with
regards to enforcement and allow you to do the same and in addition to that
perhaps we could get the neighbors to appear at the next hearing or in the
alternative send letters or affidavits or something that you would accept to
show their feelings. Also, I heard at the onset a comment regarding the dumps
and possible screening of the dumps. That would also afford us an opportunity
to have the planner take a look at it and see if we could do something there that
might satisfy you, if this is a determinative issue.
Mr. McCann: As one Planning Commissioner, I kind of like that idea because I want to take
a look at the masonry walls around the dumpster. That should have been part
of the original site plan. Why it wasn't, I don't know. I am also inclined that
the north wall should definitely be a greenbelt and I don't mind permanent to
that. If we can get letters from the neighbors saying that they would prefer a
17111
greenbelt in back, maybe that would give us some assistance. I will open the
floor right now to a motion, if someone want to make one.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, can I just ask one question. I am just curious about something
Mr. Shane brought up. If he is denied and he goes back to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, the Zoning Board of Appeals has to send out notices to the abutting
property owners. When it comes to us and we can go ahead and say we want
the wall without the neighbors never being notified, why is that? Why aren't
neighbors notified in this particular case? Can someone answer that question
that for me?
Mr. Taormina: The question is whether or not..
Mr. McCann: Why we're not giving notice if they are going to get a temporary variance and
we have to give notification to the neighbors, why when we give a permanent
variance for a permanent greenbelt, we don't give notice to the neighbors.
Mr. Taormina: In the case of variances granted by the ZBA, the statute requires notification.
In this particular case, the zoning ordinance does not require notification for
the substitution of a greenbelt.
Mr. LaPine: If that is the case Mr. Chairman, I think we should take a look at that because I
have in my other file, I don't have it with me, I have a stack about that high
from the Zoning Board of Appeals that they have sent out notices to petitioners
who were going to be coming before us to ask for the permanent waiver of
walls and in my opinion, I would like to hear from the homeowners. I don't
want to waiver something permanent without the neighbors knowing what's
going on.
Mr. McCann: It may be in the way we do it with this is that with a site plan, we don't give
notice. This is a change of site plan is what we are doing here therefore, I think
that we could internally just suggest that all abutting land owners be given
notice whenever we are going to do a permanent variance on a greenbelt.
Mr. LaPine: Good suggestion, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann: I think we can do that, if there are no objections from the other Planning
Commissioners, internally. We can take that up at a study meeting. As far as
this individual petitioner is concerned, do we have a motion?
Mrs. Koons: Due to the need for more information, I move that we table this to a date
uncertain.
Mr. McCann: Yes, we will do this do a date uncertain until we get the information back from
the petitioner. I am pretty sure we are satisfied with the enforcement although
sometimes it can slip through the cracks. Whereas Mr. LaPine's concern is that
if you get a two year variance, we definitely will take a look at it every two
years. There are a lot of properties within the City.
17112
Mr. Weingarden: Our submission should be through the Planning Commission?
Mr. McCann: Just notify Mr. Taormina at the Planning Department when you have the letters
`�- from the neighbors and when you would like to be rescheduled and that you
have a final plan. I assume that you are going to want to upgrade your
greenbelt and you are going to get a plan for the dumpsters as well.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved it was
#8-152-99 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 99-
8-GB-5 by Melvin Herner and Kevin Konat, on behalf of the Classic Interiors
Furniture Store, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective
wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located
at 20292 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1 to a date uncertain.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-SD-2 by Karl
Robinson requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna on
property located at 32458 Wisconsin Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
34.
Mr. Taormina: Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance requires all petitions for the installation
of satellite dishes to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
�.. where they involve residential properties. This petition involves property that
is located on Wisconsin between Hubbard and Ohio. The Robinsons, the
family resides at 23458 Wisconsin, are requesting the maintenance of an
existing satellite dish that was installed at the rear of their home located
adjacent to their garage. This particular satellite dish is approximately 17 feet
in height, 7-1/2 feet in diameter and it sits on top of a 12 foot high pole. It is
anchored to the southwest corner of the garage and for those of you who have
visited the site and are familiar with it, the house is a tri-level and the dish,
which sits nearly in the middle of the back yard of his property, is oriented in a
southwest direction. The top of the dish is a couple of feet above the height of
the garage that it is supported to and probably equal to, or slightly less, than the
highest point of the existing house. We have received some additional
correspondence regarding this petition. Some of you recall that this was an
item that was reviewed by the Planning Commission a few months ago. The
Robinsons have submitted additional information, first from their contractor,
Brian Bates from Advance Satellite and he has written a letter dated August 3,
1999, which reads as follows: "The subject satellite system was taken down
from the owners former residence in Detroit, transported to and reinstalled at
the present site. The site was selected because it afforded complete sight
obstruction from the street while still extending the customer the ability to
receive signals from the entire satellite arc. Furthermore, the 7.5' antenna is
completely blocked from sight from the thoroughfare behind the residence. It
is an optimal installation in terms of balancing the systems operation with the
need to keep it as unobtrusive as possible." We have also received three
consent letters from adjoining property owners, the first is from Kevin and
17113
Joyce Due1l at 32453 Maryland, the second is from Ralph Frye of 32470
Wisconsin and the third one is from Diane Oakley, 32446 Wisconsin and all
three letters read as follows: "We are aware of the installation of a satellite
Nige- dish antenna at 32458 Wisconsin. It is understood that the dish will be 7 feet in
diameter. It is understand that the height of the pole will be 10 - 12 feet.
Taking the pole along with the diameter of the dish, it is understood that the
total height of the antenna will be approximately 19 feet. I/we have reviewed
the site plan and knowing full well the location and size of the satellite dish
antenna have no objection to its installation." Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Karl Robinson, 32458 Wisconsin.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us why you need a satellite dish?
Mr. Robinson: I got the satellite dish because it is a lot cheaper than cable. My satellite dish I
paid one price for and the receiving part of it is like less than $450 per year.
With cable you are paying, I used to pay $72 a month and that is $864 for 12
months. That is double what I pay for cable and I get more. I get a whole lot
more with the satellite dish than I do with the cable.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
�... Mr. Hale: Is there any way you can lower it down? I checked the site out myself and it
looks very dense in terms of landscaping but sometimes in the fall or the winter
maybe some of that foliage is going to be down. Have you checked with your
company to see if you can lower it in anyway?
Mr. Robinson: You can't lower it anymore than what you've got because the dish rotates and it
is quite close to the roof of the garage now. I listened to the Mr. Taormina
when he said how high the dish is. The dish does just come above over the top
of the garage but my house is a lot taller than that. He said it was about right
even with the house. To see my dish you would have to come back into my
yard to see it. I brought pictures just in case you want to see that you can't see
the dish outside on the street, even across the street. It is not visible. The only
way somebody could see it is if they come back into my backyard.
Mr. Hale: Did you think about putting it anywhere else other than putting it on the
garage? Some people have them right on the ground. I am wondering why
you didn't do that.
Mr. Robinson: This one they put it in the best location that it could be put in. Like I said, I
have pictures of my backyard and you can see I have a lot of, you were talking
about greenbelt, I've got a lot of nursery back there that I can take it and put it
behind the bushes then I wouldn't receive any transmission.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is the problem about the height because it rotates and it would hit the garage?
17114
Mr. Robinson: On this disk it has just like a mike that sticks out in the back of the dish.
Mr. Piercecchi: I've seen the site.
Mr. Robinson: If you try to lower it any more than what it is, the back of it is going to hit it. It
won't rotate. I talked with the guy that installed the dish and he said that was
the best they could do.
Mr. Alanskas: There is no doubt that your dish is well screened. How often do you rotate
this dish? I know most signals come from your southwest.
Mr. Robinson: The dish travels whatever program you want to put it on, in order to get the
transmission it has to rotate to that area. If the signal is coming from the east,
it's got to rotate to the east. If it's coming from the south, it's got to rotate to the
south. Let's just say, off the top of my head, I can call in 50 programs but each
one of the signals does not come from the same direction.
Mr. Alanskas: One concern I have, is the safety of the dish. Where you have it located is
right over the middle of your pool.
Mr. Robinson: Did you notice how well it has been secured?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes. A month ago we had a very large wind storm. My back fence is in
cement pillars, 42 inches deep, and the wind snapped them right off
`„ completely. It tore the fence right down. My only concern is with your dish if
you had a high wind, it could snap off and fall into the pool and if someone
was in the pool they could be harmed. Is your installer here this evening?
Mr. Robinson: No he isn't.
Mr. Alanskas: I am looking here in regards to safety, it says it has a 12 inch diameter, 10
gauge button hooks support plate for greater stability in high wind areas. Do
you know what that means? I don't, that is why I am asking.
Mrs. Robinson: What it means is that it is mounted to the garage, on top of the garage, with the
back of it so it stabilizes it even more.
Mr. Alanskas: Usually when a dish is installed it is a permanent dish. This is the first time I
have seen one that rotates. Usually they are solid and they don't move. With
this thing moving back and forth all the time, not that it would but it could, it
could break off and fall into the pool and that is what I am concerned about.
There is no doubt that you have it very well screened. You cannot see it from
the street but I am concerned about the safety of the dish sometimes breaking
and falling into the pool if someone were in that pool.
Mr. Robinson: That was my concern too and when they installed the dish that was my
concern that I wanted to make sure that that dish wouldn't snap, and I wanted
extra precaution on it and that is why he did what he did about putting that
extra safety as far as holding it.
17115
Mr. Alanskas: So that wouldn't happen. All right, thank you.
Mr. Shane: This dish did not receive a permit, is that correct?
Mr. Robinson: No.
Mr. Shane: So if this is approved, the Inspection Department will have to inspect the dish?
Mr. Robinson: I just applied for the permit.
Mr. Shane: I know but when you apply for a permit the Inspection Department normally
comes out and looks at the footings and the way it is constructed.
Mr. Robinson: That is how this came about because the guy came out there to inspect it. I
didn't know anything about it I was totally unaware that you were suppose to
apply for a permit to have a dish. When they told me I went through the
procedure of what I was suppose to do.
Mr. McCann: One of the approving resolutions is that the Inspection Department shall
inspect the depth of the footings of the antenna.
Mr. Shane: I understand that but I just wondered if that wasn't in there if this would be a
normal thing that would happen if they discovered an item which has been
`r.. erected without a permit, do they then go back through the permit process and
do the normal inspections and if so, they would determine if it is a properly
constructed dish. That was my point to start with.
Mr. McCann: I would just like to add a comment for Mr. Alanskas. I use to have a similar
type dish.
Mr. Alanskas: That rotated?
Mr. McCann: They rotate because they were seeking approximately eight different satellites
that are out there that are all over the sky. The new dishes seek the one system
you are on. You are seeking that satellite so it is a permanent dish for a
permanent satellite whereas these older ones attracted multiple satellites. You
had West Star, I can't remember and of the others because it has been a number
of years since I've had one but every time you change the channel the thing will
rotate to the new satellite to pick up that channel. That is why the rotation. If
he's got it fixed at the base and at the thing, I think the Inspection Department
can do it but we never had a problem with ours blowing over no matter what
the storm was.
Mr. LaPine: He had a satellite dish contractor install the dish, is that correct?
Mr. Robinson: Yes.
17116
Mr. LaPine: So he was suppose to the Building Inspection Department and get a permit.
Isn't that correct? If he is a reliable installer, he would have gone to the
Inspection Department to get a certificate to go ahead and put the dish up and
`r- once it was up it would be inspected. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the petition?
Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
Mr. Shane: I'll move that this petition be approved.
Mrs. Koons: I'll support.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I just want you to know that when this first came before us I as one denied this
but you've done everything that we have asked you to do and your neighbors
have signed that they don't have any objection, so I will be supporting this also.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was
#8-153-99 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Petition 99-6-SD-2 by Karl Robinson requesting approval for the installation of
`.w a satellite dish antenna on property located at 32458 Wisconsin Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 34 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the request to retain the satellite dish antenna at its existing
location is hereby approved;
2) That the Site and Specification Plan submitted by Karl Robinson,
received by the Planning Commission on July 12, 1999, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the Inspection Department shall inspect the depth of the footings of
the antenna, and if satisfied, shall issue the appropriate Permit;
4) That this approval is for this applicant only, in the event that the
property is sold the antenna shall be removed.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on the City Council with an approving recommendation.
Mr. Robinson: I just have to wait on them?
Mr. McCann: Yes sir.
Mr. Robinson: What am I required to do? Just wait on an answer?
17117
Mr. McCann: It will automatically go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
They will notify you when you have to appear before the City Council.
Mr. Robinson: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our agenda we will not
proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been
discussed at length at prior meeting therefore there will only be limited
discussion tonight and audience participation will require unanimous consent
from the Commission. I have received a letter from Ken Hunt which reads as
follows: "Due to a scheduling conflict I will be unable to attend the rezoning
meeting because I will be on vacation. I was hoping I could have this tabled
to your next meeting which I believe is September 7, 1999." The next regular
meeting and public hearing is September 21. My understanding is that agenda
is full right now so the next regular meeting would be October 5, 1999.
Mr. LaPine: Didn't he call today asking for a tabling motion to October 5?
Mr. McCann: That would be the next available meeting. Is there a motion to table?
Mr. Alanskas: So moved.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
`•• #8-154-99 RESOLVED that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-6-1-7 by Kenneth M.
Hunt on behalf of Hunt's Ace Hardware proposing to rezone property located on
the west side of Myron south of Seven Mile in the N.E.1/4 of Section 9 from R-3
to P, the Planning Commission dos hereby recommend that Petition 99-6-1-7 be
tabled to October 5, 1999.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of the Minutes of
the 788th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 13, 1999.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons. seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
#8-155-99 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 788th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on July 13, 1999, are approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of the Minutes of
the 382'd Special Meeting held on July 20, 1999.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved it was
17118
#8-156-99 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the 382"d Special Meeting held on July 20.
1999, are approved.
`NNI Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 791 ` Regular Meeting held on
August 24, 1999, was adjourned at 8:25 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Michael S. Hale, Secretary
ATTEST: (._
James C. McCann, Chairman
/rw