HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-10-27 •
16484
MINUTES OF THE 774th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 27, 1998, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
774th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings 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 Elaine Koons
Dan Piercecchi Michael Hale William LaPine
Members absent: None
Messrs. Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning
request,this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will
hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request
or site plan approval, and the request is denied,the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the
decision in writing to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition.
Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by
the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them
depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is Petition 98-8-2-16 by
Dale T. Culver d/b/a Culver Custom Homes requesting waiver use approval to
construct a detached condominium project on property located on the north side of
Schoolcraft Road between Park Avenue and Fairway Drive in the S.E. 'A of Section
20.
Mr. McCann: This item has been discussed at length in prior meetings therefore there will only be
limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent
from the Commission. Is there anything additional on this?
Mr.Nowak: No, we haven't received anything new on this.
tie Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
Mr. Hale: I will make a motion to deny this petition.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion.
16485
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to make a comment, Mr. Chairman, before the vote is taken. I notice,
Mr. Chairman,that on the cluster layout that the home sites are 40' X 40' on the
layout drawing and this leads to a serious dilemma to me. While the colonial is
only 7" deeper than 40', the ranch is 6'4" deeper making the layout, namely,the
rear setbacks are totally in error. I don't see how we can expect to approve such a
confusing layout in addition to one which shows additional units over
conventional platting. I was under the opinion, Mr. Chairman, that the original
tabling motion was to also include via a mix increasing rear yard setbacks and
reduce the number of units, I detect neither over the process of handling this
particular item.
Mr. McCann: Is there any other discussion?
Mr. Hale: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a brief comment. I have studied this from both
sides of the issue,up to and including today. I have even spoken with some of the
neighbors and my view of this is that the proposed use on this is too intense. I
think we can do something better with this particular parcel than what is currently
being proposed. Thank you.
Mrs. Koons: At our last vote, I voted against the denying resolution because I felt there was still
work we could do together. I voted for the tabling resolution hoping that we could
do some work together. I feel that what we have asked for, a reduction in the lots
and more consideration to the setbacks,has not been met. Thank you.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and approved, it was
#10-180-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on September 15, 1998, on Petition 98-8-2-16 by Dale
Culver d/b/a Culver Custom Homes requesting waiver use approval to construct a
detached condominium project on property located on the north side of Schoolcraft
Road between Park Avenue and Fairway Drive in the S.E. '/4 of Section 20, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-
8-2-16 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is
in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements
as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance#543;
2) That the proposed project will not be in character with the existing
residential development in the area;
3) That the proposed project will have a detrimental effect on abutting
residential properties; and
16486
4) That the proposed project will overburden the subject land with more
dwelling units than would ordinarily be possible with conventional
subdivision platting.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Mr. Hale, Mr. Piercecchi, Mrs. Koons, Mr. McCann
NAYS: Mr. Alanskas, Mr. LaPine
ABSENT: None
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-9-1-18 by John J.
Wheeler and Janice Mayes requesting to rezone property located on the north side
of Plymouth Road between Chase Boulevard and Newburgh Road in the S.E. '/4 of
Section 30 from RUF to R-1.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything new?
LMr.Nowak: There is nothing new on this one.
Mr. McCann: Any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I don't see anything wrong with this package so I will offer an
approving resolution.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#10-181-98 RESOLVED that, a public hearing having been held by the City Planning
Commission on October 13, 1998 on Petition 98-9-1-18 by John J. Wheeler and
Janice Mayes requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Chase Boulevard and Newburgh Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 30
from RUF to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 98-9-1-18 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use
Plan;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing
Lcharacter of the area;
16487
3) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical extension of an existing
zoning district in the area; and
4) That the proposed change of zoning provides a compatible zoning district
for the subject area.
FURTHER RESOLVED,that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public
hearing pursuant to Council Resolution#597-98 to determine whether or not to
amend Section 18.17 of the zoning ordinance for the purpose of granting valid
nonconforming use status to existing nonconforming produce markets and
nurseries.
Mr. McCann: We will hold a public hearing on this. For the audience, we are looking at the
existing markets and nurseries in the City and their current zoning.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#10-182-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does
hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not
to amend Section 18.17 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of granting valid
nonconforming use status to existing nonconforming produce markets and
nurseries.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance#543,the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted
to the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is the approval of the
minutes of the 771st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on September 15,
1998.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, a question. I wish to change my vote on Petition 98-7-1-16,the
Church, and I want to know if that is permissible?
Mr. McCann: Is that in these minutes?
16488
Mr. LaPine: Yes, in these minutes.
Mr. McCann: What we need to do then, is to bring it back, we have to have two members...
Mr. LaPine: Robert's Rule of Order says that a member has a right to change his vote up to the
time the results were announced which that time has passed. That was in July.
After that he can make a change only by permission of the assembly which can be
given by unanimous consent or by the adoption of a motion to grant a motion to
change his vote, which is debatable. So basically what it means now is that there
are two questions here. Our rules of procedure say that the issue is dead after 7
days, otherwise if this issue has been before council, it would be mute. On the
other hand, I have heard that until the minutes are approved, our action is not valid.
Mr. McCann: We are a recommending body though and we have already made a recommendation
to the Council. If the Council hasn't acted on it, I think Council goes on the basis
that if one or more of the winning side, you need at least two who wish to
reconsider their vote,that you can bring it back. In this instance it was unanimous.
This won't have an affect as to the outcome. I guess in that instance if Robert's
Rules, as you are bringing that to me, and I haven't looked at them, I would say if
we had unanimous consent, we would allow you to change it before the minutes are
printed. Is that agreeable with the other commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: I would like to state my reasons why. As I read it, it has to be unanimous.
Mr. McCann: Is it going to make a difference if we adjourn this for two weeks?
Mr. LaPine: It doesn't make any difference to me.
Mr. McCann: Why don't we adjourn these minutes for two weeks. I will make a motion to
adjourn these minutes for two weeks and we can take a look at the issue then.
Mr. LaPine: O.K.
Mr. McCann: Is there support?
Mrs. Koons: Support.
Mr. Piercecchi: What are we going to do with Item#4?
Mr. McCann: We are going to table the Minutes to the next Regular Meeting.
On a motion by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-183-98 RESOLVED that,the minutes of the 771st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings by
16489
the City Planning Commission held on September 15, 1998, the Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table until the next Regular Meeting.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is the approval of the
minutes of then 772nd Regular Meeting held on September 29, 1998.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-184-98 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 772nd Regular Meeting by the City Planning
Commission held on September 29, 1998 are hereby approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann: This concludes the pending items or our agenda. We will go on to the
miscellaneous site plans. People in the audience may speak to these items either for
or against them. If the secretary is ready,please call the first item.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-10-8-33 by River
Pines Development, Inc. requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site
plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct the River Pines Site Condominiums on property located at
34825 Seven Mile Road in the N.W. I/4 of Section 9.
Mr. Miller: This site is located is on the south side of Seven Mile between Wayne and Gary,
the zoning is R-4B. The petitioner is requesting approval to develop a site
condominium development on Lots 4 and 5 of the Winfield Estates Subdivision.
The submitted Site Plan shows that the new development would consist of twenty-
one (21) condominium lots. It will be called"River Pines Condominiums".
Access would be achieved by a proposed north/south 60 foot wide street that would
end in a cul-de-sac. The existing wetlands that runs through this site is identified as
the "common area" of the development.
The petitioner has also submitted a Landscape and Entrance Marker Plan. The
proposed landscaping would be installed within the 30 foot wide greenbelt that runs
along Seven Mile Road and inside the islands of the entrance boulevard and cul-de-
sac. The plan also shows that the petitioner is proposing decorative fencing along
the entire front width of the greenbelt. Because this fencing is within the required
front yard setback, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals is required. The
entrance marker shown on the plan is conforming at 9 sq. ft. and would be located
within the entrance boulevard island.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Dean Piekarski, 358 Gleneagles, Highland, MI.
16490
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional that you would like to tell us?
Mr. Piekarski: Yes there is. Yesterday evening I became aware of the fact that we have three
lots that don't conform to the minimum lot width. This morning my engineers
and I made some changes to Lots 1, 3 & 11 and they are all now conforming to
the 90' width requirement so no variance will be required from the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
Mr. McCann: Did you get those plans to the City Planning Commission?
Mr. Piekarski: No, I brought them with me here tonight. We scrambled this morning to get
everything done. I can submit them to you now.
Mr. McCann: If you will pass then to the gentleman seated behind you. He will take a look at
them. We can pass on them subject to the plans being approved.
Mr. Alanskas: What lots are those?
Mr. Piekarski: Lots 1, 3 & 11. We moved a couple of boundaries around just slightly 6' here
and changed a location of a manhole and fire hydrant so that they are in between
lots.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. These two common areas,they
basically are flood plains, are they not?
Mr. Nowak: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: How can they be considered common areas in that you really can't use them for
anything. They basically are for floods.
Mr.Nowak: It is similar to what you have when you have a subdivision. It is more of an open
space area than a common area.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. So homeowners could use that area to put swings down there if they wanted
to?
Mr. Nowak: They could.
Mr. Piekarski: If I might make a comment. Even though it is a flood plain,the homeowner that
has lived there for 26 years has never had a problem with flooding. Basically the
water stays in the creek. It hasn't flood it is just designated a flood plain. It is a
wooded area. It is very attractive. It wasn't a requirement of us to have the density
of the lot. The lots meet the requirement whether we have that open space or not.
Mr. LaPine: Are you going to be selling these lots? Or are you going to be actually building
16491
these condos yourself?
Mr. Piekarski: I will be selling the lots. I did submit some sample plans of what kind of product
we will be building there. We may actually strike a deal with that company to buy
the lots. If not,the homes will probably be in the nature of what is on Gary Lane
and in the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. LaPine: But in reality if somebody buys a lot and he hires his own builder he can build any
type of home he wants as long as it conforms to the bylaws?
Mr. Piekarski: We have retained architectural approval, which will be me, and obviously the value
to our lots is that all of the homes are attractive and as large as possible.
Mr. LaPine: What are the lots going to sell for?
Mr. Piekarski: We don't know for sure yet. Probably between $90,000 and $100,000.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Is this your first endeavor in regards to subdivisions?
Mr. Piekarski: No, it is not.
Mr. Alanskas: Where have you done this before?
Mr. Piekarski: I represented Ford Motor Company and developed the Tournament Players Club
in Dearborn. I also did a small development in Westland. This is my third venture.
I do have a team of people who have a lot of experience in developing subdivisions
throughout the area who are aiding me as far as the construction of it.
Mr. Alanskas: Are these people you have on your committee, have they built in Livonia before?
Mr. Piekarski: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions?
Mrs. Koons: I was wondering if Al could fill us in on the correspondence dated October 26,
1998.
Mr.Nowak: There is a letter from the Inspection Department dated October 26, 1998 which
states: "Pursuant to your request of October 14, 1998, the site plan for the above
subject petition has been reviewed. For your consideration, the following issues
are being brought to your attention:
16492
I) The proposed ground sign is required to have a minimum of 10'setback
and requires approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals to be located
within the median strip.
2) The ornamental fence will require approval from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for its proposed location.
3) R-4 district regulations require the lot width to be 90'at the required
minimum front yard setback. Lots #1, #3 and#11 are deficient in width at
the required front yard setback and would require a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals prior to obtaining a building permit.
I trust this has provided the requested information. Signed by David M Woodcox, Senior
Building Inspector. "
Mr. McCann: Anything else?
Mr.Nowak: There is a letter from the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division dated
October 22, 1998 stating: Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no
objections to the project, However, the Engineering Division has the following
concerns regarding the proposed project:
1) The developer will need to obtain a permit from the Michigan D.E.Q. to
discharge storm sewers into State waters and to construct the bridge over
the existing natural stream.
2) Sediment basins as shown must be sized for detention purposes.
3) An approach permit for access to Seven Mile Road will have to be
obtained from Wayne County.
4) The typical permits for sanitary and water will have to be obtained from the
County/State and City of Detroit respectively.
5) Finally, the Engineering Division will require the typical Soil Erosion and
Engineering Development permits with bonds and insurance in the required
City's form.
All of the above items must be completed prior to the Building Department issuing any
permits to construct condominiums. "
Mr.Nowak: I have one other letter from the Department of Public Safety Fire and Rescue dated
16493
October 19, 1998 which states: This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct a condominium development on property
located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Wayne Road and Gary
Avenue in the NW. '/ of Section 9. This Division has no objection to this petition.
However, because spacing between structures appears to be less than 31 feet, the
most remote hydrant south of Seven Mile shall flow a minimum of 1,000 G.P.M.
with a residual pressure of 20 P.S.I. The letter is signed by Rockney L. Whitehead,
Fire Marshal.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Scott, have you had a chance to look at the plans?
Mr. Miller: Yes. They have the 90' setbacks.
Mr. McCann: They are conforming?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. McCann: What about the marker?
Mr. Miller: They still have to go to the Zoning Board.
Mr. McCann: What about the plans. Do we need to amend the dates?
Mr. Miller: Yes, we can amend the dates to tonight's meeting, showing the date as received
by the Planning Commission tonight, October 27.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman. All the objections that the Engineering Department has, they will
all be taken care of in routine fashion?
Mr. McCann: They are part of the approving resolution.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Piekarski, have you received notice of all these concerns?
Mr. Piekarski: Yes I have and we have already dealt with them. We don't want any
nonconforming lots that had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. That's why
we submitted the new plan tonight. As far as the sign on the fence,we are willing
to change the look of that but we did do something to make this development look
real special for Livonia. If the Zoning Board of Appeals does not approve that we
are willing to look at their suggestions and do whatever is necessary to comply
with Livonia.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions?
16494
Mr. Alanskas: I have just one. Sir, you want you wanted to make the homes look like the
surrounding area. Most of those homes are entirely all brick. Are you aware of
that?
Mr. Piekarski: I have seen the homes in that area. We will require all first floor brick and many of
our front face elevations will be all brick similar to what I submitted to you with the
exception of the windows and things.
Mr. Alanskas: You will find if you get an approved resolution that we require the total amount of
brick on all four sides on a ranch would be 80% and on a two story not less than
55%.
Mr. Piekarski: That's fine because we are going to comply with what is required.
Mr. Alanskas: It is at least that amount.
Mr. Piekarski: O.K. Our ranch homes will be required to have brick all the way around on the
first floor so that would probably make them about 80%brick. Our colonials being
that the first floor is usually larger than the second floor and that is all brick, we
will easily comply with the 55%.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
#10-185-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 98-10-8-33 by River Pines Development, Inc. requesting
approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the
zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct the River Pines Site
Condominiums on property located at 34825 Seven Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of
Section 9 be approved subject the following conditions:
1) That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the Subdivision
Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.40 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinance, and Article XX of Ordinance #543, Section 20.01-20.06 of the
ordinance, except for the fact the following shall be incorporated:
that the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or
stone on all four sides, and the total amount of brick or stone on each
unit shall not be less than 55% on two-story and not less than 80%
on one-story homes;
2) That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be
full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions;
16495
3) That the Site Plan prepared by Mickalich and Associates, as received by the
Planning Commission on October 27, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
4) That the Site Plan prepared by Don C. Geake—Land Planning Consultant,
as received by the Planning Commission on October 6, 1998, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5) That the Landscape Plan prepared by Cohnroy & Associates, as received by
the Planning Commission on October 6, 1998, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
6) That the Entrance Marker shown on the Landscape Plan, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
7) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances by the
Zoning Board of Appeals, and any conditions related thereto, for the
following as outlined in the correspondence from the Inspection Department
dated October 26, 1998:
• deficient setback of the decorative fencing along Seven Mile Road
• for the entrance marker within the public right-of-way;
8) That the petitioner shall meet to the Engineering Department's satisfaction
the requirement as outlined in the correspondence dated October 22, 1998.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary announced that the next item on the agenda is Extension of Petition 97-
7-8-18 by Communicare Health Services, on behalf of Beacon Rose of Livonia,
requesting a one year extension of all plans in connection with the construction of
an assisted living facility on property located at 25670 Newburgh Road in the S.W.
1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Chuck Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia. We are here to request an extension of the site
plan approval. The plan has not changed at all. It is the same site plan that was
approved by the Planning Commission and Council approximately one year ago.
They have been working with the architect during the past year. Unfortunately
some of the problems were not ironed out until just recently. They plan to be under
construction in the spring.
Mr. McCann: You expect they will start in about six months?
16496
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
Mr. Hale: Chuck, do you think you really need a full year for an extension?
Mr. Tangora: It will all depend on what the weather conditions are in the spring. If you limit it to
six months, we could have a very wet spring. I think a year is reasonable.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing
no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it
was
#10-186-98 RESOLVED,that pursuant to a letter dated September 25, 1998 from Steve
Mombach requesting an extension of approval of Petition 97-7-8-18 by
Communicare Health Services, on behalf of Beacon Rose of Livonia, requesting to
construct an assisted living facility on property located on the east side of
Newburgh Road between Five Mile Road and Ladywood Road in the S.W. '/4 of
Section 17,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that an extension be granted for a period of one year from the date of this
resolution and shall be subject to all conditions and requirements set forth in the
original resolution.
Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, this conditional use approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY
from the date of approval, and unless a building permit is obtained and construction
commenced within that period, or an extension of time obtained, this approval shall
be null and void at the expiration of said period.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. This
will go on to Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is a Sign Permit Application
by the Idea Studio, on behalf of Lutheran Heritage Village,requesting approval for
an entrance marker for the senior housing development located at 14845
Farmington Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 21.
Mr. Miller: This development is located on the west side of Farmington Road between Five
Mile Road and Lyndon Avenue. The City granted site plan approval on August 27,
1997, for the construction of senior housing development on this site. As a
condition of that approval it was specified that this approval does not authorize
consent of any signage shown on the plans and that all signage shall come back
before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
Lutheran Heritage Village is requesting approval for an entrance marker for their
16497
development. Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the
sign ordinance, the applicant first had to be granted a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals prior to being presented to the Planning Commission.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Kelli Beam, 4217 Highland Road#202, Waterford, MI. 48328
Mr. McCann: Want to tell us about the changes to your monument sign?
Ms. Beam: As the meeting on Tuesday occurred, the study meeting, I got a call from Scott
Miller informing us that a more monument style sign would be more appealing due
to the fact that the City of Livonia has quite a few of the monument style so we
have put together a new drawing with stone and/or brick that we could submit and
hope to receive your approval from that.
Mr. McCann: Do you have a preference which one you want to go forward, or your client?
Ms. Beam: I do prefer the stone but if it is something, I am hearing a lot of brick during the
meeting this evening, if that is more adequate for your sign,then we can go ahead
and go with that.
Mr. McCann: If there is no one else, I have a question for the staff. Is there a preference from the
staff as far as durability? I have also heard stone could be as durable as brick.
Mr. Alanskas: I believe the stone would be as durable as brick.
Mr. McCann: I think we are getting a consensus for the stone.
Mrs. Koons: Refresh our memory. What is the exterior of your building?
Ms. Beam: The exterior of the building, I am not quite sure of. The owner of that complex is
Les Stauske and he couldn't be here this evening. The other complex that they
have is up in Holt. It resembles this same complex in Livonia with more brick and
it is tandem color and they have very nice landscaping that coincides with that also.
Mr. Piercecchi: If I remember correctly,the basic structure internally is a brick structure. It is not
stone.
Mrs. Koons: I was just wondering about the color. Brick color.
Mr. McCann: We have a long distance between this and the building. This is what is going to be
on Farmington Road. So you are leaving it up to us which one to approve? Either
the stone or the full-face brick?
16498
Mike Lyons, 24734 Rensselaer, Oak Park, MI 48237. I have a question in regards to that. Can
we get approval for both so our client has a choice between the brick or stone?
Mr. McCann: You haven't presented it to your client?
Mr. Lyons: He knows about it.
Ms. Beam: This is something that just came to us late at the end of the week. We have left
numerous messages for him. We have done both ideas and that is where we are at
right now.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: Are you the sign person?
Ms. Beam: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: My preference is the stone. I think the stone gives it a little more prestige look. I
would not want to go back to your client and give him two options. I would prefer
to say we like the one with the stone. That is my personal preference. I think it
does more for it than the brick. What color is this?
Ms. Beam: It is a really dark emerald green with black and white and a gold logo.
Mr. Alanskas: Then what are the colors of the stone?
Ms. Beam: It coincides with the colors around the sign.
Mr. McCann: Any more discussion? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-187-98 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Idea Studio, on behalf of Lutheran
Heritage Village,requesting approval for an entrance marker for the senior housing
development located at 14845 Farmington Road in the N.E. 'A of Section 21, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by The Idea Studio, as received by the
Planning Commission on October 8, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except for the fact that the base or pillars of the entrance marker
shall be constructed out of stone;
2) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
16499
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Satellite Dish Antenna
Application by Michael Carson requesting approval for the installation of a satellite
dish antenna for property located at 14855 Santa Anita Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of
Section 24.
Mr. Miller: The location for this satellite dish antenna is on the south side of Santa Anita
between Five Mile Road and Lyndon Avenue. The satellite dish is located right to
the rear of the house almost adjacent to the house. It is located 14' from the east
property line and approximately 35' from the south property line. The dish is 7.5'
in diameter and is of a steel mesh construction. It is mounted on a 5'8"pole and
the overall height of the apparatus is 10' The dish has been painted the same color
to match the house. Also to help screen the dish,the petitioner is proposing to put
in three birch trees along the south property and also bushes around the satellite
dish. The applicant is requesting approval to retain a satellite dish antenna that was
erected without the required site plan approval by the Planning Commission. Once
the Inspection Department discovered their dish,they informed the property owner
about the correct steps to take in obtaining a permit.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr.Nowak: Yes. We have a petition from the Western Golf Estates Subdivision which states:
We the undersigned homeowners of the Western Golf Estates Subdivision are
opposed to the satellite dish that was installed on Lot#53 also known as 14855
Santa Anita. The reasons we are opposed to this satellite dish remaining include:
1) According to the Homeowners Association By-laws, Article V—Section 5.22
"Objectionable Sights"—states that no television antennae or satellite
dishes shall be constructed or erected upon the exterior of any dwelling on
any lot.
2) Aesthetically is not consistent with surrounding homes.
3) Creates an eyesore which will reduce personal property values.
4) Will make it more difficult to sell the homes in the area in the future.
5) Not in keeping with Livonia's Civic Standards.
6) Precedence setting for further installations.
7) Did not apply for a permit from the City before the installation.
16500
The petition was signed by 48 people.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Jackie Reeves, 14855 Santa Anita, Livonia. I am also speaking on behalf of my husband,
Michael Carson.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us why the need for the satellite request?
Ms. Reeves: Yes. We have had our satellite dish for approximately five years. We paid $3,000
for it. We had it installed at our previous home in West Dearborn. For a full sized
satellite dish like that, I don't know if anyone here has viewed TV from a home
with a satellite dish but everything is broadcast in stereo, the picture is extremely
clear and unlike cable and mini dishes, the amount of programming you receive is
tremendous; 12 sports channels, 6 difference HBO, Cinamax and Showtime, more
than on any cable stations. Networking feeds from different time zones. Direct
satellite feeds from direct programming. My husband is an avid TV watcher and
we had this dish in previous homes that we have had. When my cable goes out our
satellite dish works fine. It is less restrictive than cable and less costly. The dish is
ours. Also, we don't like the rising rates in the cable industry. We had it installed
in our house shortly after we moved in so we could access television programming.
We were told then that it was against the homeowner's association however we
were not even aware that there was a homeowners association and that there were
covenants, conditions or restrictions. I spoke to four other people in the
subdivision and they were not made aware either by the builder,the realtor or title
insurance company. I asked for the restrictions when I found out that we had them.
It took two weeks before anyone bothered to drop them off at our house after I
requested them. When you review the covenants, conditions and restrictions you
will notice that there are blank sports and dates that are not filled in. I have to have
my attorney review it because this is something that we were not aware of when we
signed our warranty deed. I spoke with another"homeowner to be " and they said
they spoke with the homeowner's association and they were told that satellite
dishes were not allowed. In the restrictions it says it is not allowed. They were
already prejudging whether satellite dishes are allowed by telling someone who
didn't even have one that it is not allowed. When I was speaking with one of our
neighbors who is like the "official neighborhood voice", he said that the whole
neighborhood was against it because it was an eyesore. However, I spoke with six
people in casual conversation because I was going to start a petition and six people
out of six had no problem with us having a satellite dish. And those are all people
in the vicinity of where we live. I did suggest we put up a privacy fence. I was told
the neighbors don't want fences either. I feel like I am being controlled by the
people who live around me. I haven't had a chance to get everything done. We're
doing our landscaping, our sprinklers were installed today. Our grass will be
installed on Friday. Right now it does look strange because it is on a dirt lot. But
we have put in trees. We have bushes around it. The bushes are going to be six to
nine feet high. They are going to be flowering bushes. We are going to put in very
16501
attractive birch trees. We are going to be putting in a deck. We would like to put
in a hot tub and if we put in a hot tub, we are going to have to put in a privacy fence
because I believe the City of Livonia requires that anyway. I think that people are
getting a little bit upset but we are trying to cover it up the best that we can. But
that is the way we prefer to access our television broadcasting. We did take the time
to paint the dish the same color as the house. I do question the homeowner's
association saying that this would reduce the value of the homes. I am wondering
if they have proof of that fact. Because when we sold our last house,people were
dying for us to leave our satellite dish because the larger dishes are pricier. The
neighbors seem to be quick to complain however there are things that I find less
than attractive about their property.
Mr. McCann: Mam' that is not an issue before us tonight. One of the things that we request is
that you get consent letters from the adjoining homeowners. Have you done that?
Ms. Reeves: The people who are moving in next door to us are not the owner of record yet and
they want to remain neutral. The people on the other side of us gave us their
approval. I do have their signature right here.
Mr. McCann: The people behind you?
Ms. Reeves: The people behind us, I did not try to obtain it. I was told by the neighborhood
spokesperson that they would not approve it.
Mr. Alanskas: When you had it five years in Dearborn, did you have a company install it?
Ms. Reeves: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Did they go to the City of Dearborn for a permit?
Ms. Reeves: No they didn't.
Mr. Alanskas: Because any city demands that you have a permit for an antenna. Did you go to
Livonia for a permit?
Ms. Reeves: My husband did question the City of Livonia on it.
Mr. Alanskas: Who did he speak with?
Ms. Reeves: I don't know who he spoke with. He was told that if we do it without a permit and if
your neighbors complain then you will have to pull a permit and go through the
procedure. That is what we are doing now.
Mr. Alanskas: Then why did you take that chance and not get a permit in the first place if you
could be here tonight having this problem ?
16502
Ms. Reeves: I didn't really take that into consideration. I'm sorry. We haven't had a problem in
the past.
Mr. Alanskas: You know we now have these 18"dishes that are very very clear, has a good
picture, has a lot of channels and is not detrimental to the neighborhood. This is a
big satellite dish. We are trying to reframe from having those in the city.
Ms. Reeves: Unfortunately those smaller dishes don't get anywhere near the programming of the
larger dishes and we have already paid $3,000 for this large dish and the investment
in another dish and basically throw away the larger dish that we already paid
$3,000 for would be financially detrimental to us.
Mr. Alanskas: Those new 18" dishes are going for$99.
Ms. Reeves: I know but we have already spent $3,000.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaPine: How long did you have the dish at your Dearborn home?
Ms. Reeves: Over four years.
Mr. LaPine: You had a fair amount of use out of it for four years. Did you buy your house new?
Ms. Reeves: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: At the time that you bought your home did you get a set of deed restrictions from the
builder?
Ms. Reeves: No, we did not.
\Mr. LaPine: If you got a set of deed restrictions, it states in there what is not allowed in the
subdivision like no fences are allowed. That is a subdivision rule.
Ms. Reeves: If we had been provided with that,we would have been aware of that.
Mr. LaPine: You never received anything like that?
Ms. Reeves: No, we did not.
Mr. LaPine: You just assumed you could put it up at this location because you had it at your other
location?
16503
Ms. Reeves: I didn't think it would be a problem and if it is was a problem, we could put up a
privacy fence.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas: Usually on a closing of a new home or a used home an attorney always asks if
there are any restrictions for deeds for a subdivision and I am surprised that yours
did not do that.
Mr. Hale: Mr. Chairman, one question I have is, we at times run into these issues with a
satellite dish. Do you use the dish to view any kind of foreign channels or stations?
Or anything of that nature?
Ms. Reeves: I have watched some occasionally. I also will be using it to access high speed
internet. You can get into the internet even faster than through a cable modem. I
am a systems analysts and I use the internet and I dial into work and I can use that
from home.
Mr. Hale: Do you know whether or not if you can use one of these smaller dishes that Mr.
Alanskas was talking about? That are on the market now?
Ms. Reeves: No, I do not. The only one that I am aware of that can do that is cable modems and
the satellite dish is already twice as fast as a cable modem.
Mr. McCann: With a satellite dish, you can receive but you can't send?
Ms. Reeves: You can actually send.
Mr. McCann: You can send?
Ms. Reeves: You can buy a special receiver for a couple of hundred dollars.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition.
Please come forward and state your name and address for the record.
Said Haymour, 27898 Meadowbrook Court. I live behind the petitioners and down two doors. I
moved into the City of Livonia four years ago. I bought a home in a subdivision. It
is a nice subdivision. My problem is that sitting in my family room or sitting
outside on my deck or upstairs in my family room or from any room from my
house is the view of this dish. I would like to make mention of that first. Second
of all,they said they want to put up a privacy fence. I think that is great. I do not
have any problem with fences. The dish sits 10' tall. No privacy fence is going to
cover this dish. You are not going to be able to put up a privacy fence that tall. I
believe the highest fence you can put up in the City of Livonia is 6' that they allow.
So you will still have 4' above the privacy fence. You are not going to hide this
16504
huge dish. And thirdly, I am not saying this is definitely it, it only happened in the
last 30 days but I have a real problem with my telephone system and with my
garage door opener and I don't know if this is what it is due to but it has just started
since this dish has been up. It is a very unsightly thing to have to look at when I am
sitting out in my back yard trying to enjoy a nice evening and see that. Again, a
fence will not hide that.
Mr. McCann: Yes sir.
Paul Gagel, 27719 Western Golf Drive. I also live in Western Golf Estates Subdivision. Last year
I had the good fortune to serve as president of the association. I would like to
address the issue that was brought up about the bylaws. We had inherited these
bylaws from the developer, Bill Roskelly, who at the time of his development was
required by the City of Livonia to file these and these documents have been on file
with the County of Wayne since 1991. There is a record of liber with the
documents and somewhere they should turn up. Communication sometimes slip
through. We have made an effort and the current board has made an effort with
builders, realtors and anyone else moving property in that area right now because
the property has changed hands numerous times from Bill Roskelly and to other
builders and sometimes it does slip through. I would like to go on record as saying
when I sat on the Board, we did receive checks from title companies. We had
registered the association with the City of Livonia. It is easily found out that there
is an association. We do send out welcoming baskets shortly after people move in
as soon as we are aware of it and we do try to give them a copy of the bylaws, as
we call them—bylaws, as soon as possible.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
John Hanba, 27897 Meadowbrook Court. I just want to make one comment. Something that is
kind of tangent to the issue. When I first built my house, I put a letter into the city
not to have any privacy fences. I have lived in the area for the last four years. I
know some of the people do have a privacy fence but I don't want any around in
my area. I know that the people across the street who are behind the house with the
antenna and I know three people have signed letters saying they don't want a
privacy fence either. A couple of people I know were not able to be here this
evening asked me about the form I had used to submit my request.
Casimer Kutylowski, 27854 Meadowbrook Court. I am the house directly behind the house that
has the satellite dish and I would just like to say for the record that I am opposed to
having the satellite dish installed on the property. Primarily for the reason that it
was installed before permission was granted. I am an approachable person and I
was never approached to see if there were any different options by the homeowner
and perhaps there is still a way to resolve the problem, but this situation has put
neighbors on the defensive since this problem started when the dish went up. That
is were the whole thing started. None of the communication happened before the
16505
dish went up. The dish went up and then, I agree it is not the way to meet a brand
new neighbor and I apologize, but this is the way we have to met our new
neighbors. The dish went up and then all these discussions took place. I believe it
is incumbent on the new homeowner to know the rules and regulations. If I was in
the court across the parking lot going 50 mph and I got a ticket and I told the judge
that I didn't know the speed limit was 25 mph, the judge would say that ignorance
of the law is no excuse—guilty. So that is my statement.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. I don't see anyone else wishing to speak. You may have the last
comment if you have any.
Ms. Reeves: One point I would like to make. I agree everyone has their own opinion as to what
they like to look at and what they don't like to look at. If we have a privacy fence,
the only part of the dish that is going to show is the top part of the dish. And as
high as the bushes will be growing and with the trees that are going to be there...
We bought 8' trees to start out. I don't think it is going to be as visible as people
think it is going to be. I do have a slight concern as to what concerns the neighbors
around me that don't want a fence but other people around me..... when the
neighbor came over and we spoke about the satellite dish we just installed it was so
we could watch TV. We didn't realize it was going to be an issue. I am trying to
work with them and try to find out what I can do because when the neighbor came
over and we spoke about it, I mentioned the privacy fence. We will do whatever it
takes to make them happy while we still want to have the comforts that we are used
to. Everybody has a different opinion of an eyesore. I have seen a few but that is
their property. This is ours and we are just trying to have a life we like to live. I
just don't see where it will bring down the property values.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Mr. Hale: I am somewhat sympathetic in your plight in your spending a great deal of money
on an item and them all of a sudden someone is telling you you can't use it but I
believe in this great technological age there are other options I believe you could
pursue to get the same thing you have now and it is not going to be completely out
of line from an economic standpoint.
Mr. LaPine: I feel very bad about this. I am going to vote for the motion. I think it is terrible
when we have a new neighbor move in and we already have a feud going on. It is
too bad that they couldn't have all gotten together and found a solution to this.
Maybe we might be able to find a solution to this that will make you happy and
also make the neighbors happy. Apparently that isn't going to happen. I support
the motion.
Mr. Alanskas: Now that you know who the president is, I would make sure that you have a set of
these in regards to your deed restrictions. If you are thinking about a fence, I would
16506
go down to the City and check with our department and if you have a problem you
can still go to the ZBA and ask for a variance.
Mr. McCann: If there is no further discussion, secretary please call the roll.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously denied, it was
#10-188-98 RESOLVED that, Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Michael Carson
requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property
located at 14855 Santa Anita Avenue in the N.E.1/4 of Section 24, is denied.
1) That due to its size and location, this dish antenna would be detrimental to
the aesthetic quality and beauty of the neighborhood by presenting a visual
blight that could jeopardize the property values in the area as set forth in the
comprehensive plan of the Zoning Ordinance;
2) That the dish antenna is disturbing to and not in harmony with the
existing surrounding area.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. You
have ten (10) days in which to appeal it to the City Council.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 774th Regular Meeting held on
October 27 , 1998 was adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
�. Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST: '` w, XL---
J.
es C. McCann, Chairman
/rw