Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-03-14 13946 MINUTES OF THE 700th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMMIISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 14, 1995, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 700th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jim McCann, Vice Chairman, called the mooting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas William T. Pine Daniel Piercecchi Patricia Blomberg Members absent: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow 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 and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision 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. In the absence of Mr. Morrow, Mr. Alanskas was Acting Secretary. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-1-1 by William L. Roskelly requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Stark Road, between Pinetree Avenue and Edward Hines Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33 from PL to R-1. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, do you have anything further on this? Mr. Nagy: We have a new piece of correspondence from Alex and Lisa Hudy, who give their address as 10269 Stark Road, dated March 5, 1995 stating as follows: "I want to thank you for listening to the community's views last Tuesday regarding the proposed rezoning of the school property at Stark and Pinetree (petition 95-1-1-1) . "The major complaint expressed by many of the residents was not against building houses on the land, but was specifically against the Ri (60'x120') zoning requested. We agree with the commission that the land will be developed. However, the new development should be in harmony with the surrounding community. "The distinguishing features of the area are: 1.) Large spacing between houses 13947 "2. ) Average size of houses 2,000 sq. ft. 3. ) Deep lots These qualities are not achievable in R1, R2 (70'x120') , or R3 (80'x120') zoning. They require R4 (90'x130') zoning or larger. 'to.. "Please visit our area. Take Farmington Road to Richland and turn West. Look at the houses as you drive down Richland, and see if you can tell the difference between the lots at the beginning of the block and those at the end. Next, go to Plymouth and turn South on Stark. Think about what it would look like to drive down a long block of RUF style properties, and then see six R1 houses right in a row. "After this trip, we are sure you will agree that changing the zoning from PL to R4 is the best decision." That is the extent of new correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I am representing Camborne Construction. At the last meting my petition indicated that I was looking for R-1 zoning, which would be 60'x120' lots. In the discussion I had indicated that perhaps I would entertain an R-2, which would be 70'x120'. In revisiting all the various items, etc. , I, at this time, would like to say I am rescinding my idea of an R-2 and I would like a vote on either rejection or approval of the R-1 that was requested. In comment to the letter Mr. Nagy read, the fact that these houses are 2000 square feet I submit to you, and I am sure you have all looked at the area, that this person must be 'taw speaking of several houses that are not in the immediate vicinity of this school site. My observation is that 60% to 70% of the homes are far less. I would guess in the area of 1000 square feet or less. As far as the depth of lots, in this day and age you have certain lots there that are undesirable as well as the fact that the new plat act would not permit any lot which has a depth that is more than four times its width. I think at this time this Planning Commission has an opportunity to remove what I consider a 25,000 foot albatross building which is an accident waiting to happen. I don't know what other use could go there. It was suggested by some of the citizens that it become a church or school. I would submit if it is a traffic problem, certainly 17 residential lots is not going to overtax the traffic situation very much. So at this time I would request that in my opinion this would not impede health, welfare or safety. I believe it behooves this board to recommend approval. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, are you telling me you won't go with the 70 foot lots? Mr. Roskelly: I said at this time I have decided that I want action on the petition that I asked for, R-1, 60 foot lots. 13948 Mr. TaPine: So there is no compromising with you? You either get your 60 foot lots or you want to go on to the Council? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Because when I originally spoke on this I wanted 80 foot lots. I revisited the location Saturday, probably spent about 20 minutes in the area, and I came to the conclusion maybe 80 foot lots, I was looking too far ahead, so I figured we might get a compromise here. You want 60 foot lots, the residents want 90 foot lots. I thought maybe we could compromise here with 70 foot lots. Everybody has to give a little here. You have a problem because you cut a deal with the school board that you have to give up four lots. Well instead of giving them four, give them three, and give us 70 foot lots and I can vote for the proposal. But if you are going to stand up and say this is what I want, vote me up or down, I am going to vote you down. I think you should compromise. You have been in this business a long time. You have built a lot of homes in Livonia. I have yet to see any home that you have built that wasn't sold. I have been in Livonia for 40 years. I moved here in 1955. Homes were selling from $15,000 to $25,000. They are selling now anywhere from $120,000 to $250,000. You show me one subdivision, one subdivision, in those 40 years that hasn't sold out, and you can't tell me that you can't sell 70 foot lots here. You can. I grant you that you may not make the profit you feel you should on that property. You may have to take a lower profit but you can help yourself by telling the school board that instead of giving them four lots, give them three lots. There has to be some compromise. `r.. Mr. Roskelly: Mr. LaPine, one of the items that I also did not bring up at the last meeting was the fact that through engineering with this so-called water drainage, in view of the fact that there is not a storm sewer along Stark Road, one of two things would have to occur. Either a storm sewer would have to be placed and/or one of the lots, I would think it would be Lot 7, would have to be removed from the plat and used as a detention basin to allow only agricultural runoff onto Stark Road. I understand what you are saying, and in most cases I am a compromising person, but in this case I have to say no sir. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Roskelly, my mathematics seem to add up this way. The original 17 sites, you were going to build on 12, 4 were going to go to the school system and 1 is going to be used for retention? Mr. Roskelly: If the retention is required, which I believe at this time it is, yes sir. Mr. Piercecchi: Then in an R-2 you were going to have 15 sites. You would build on 11, 3 to the school and 1 retention. You are only losing one lot. It makes that much difference? 13949 Mr. Roskelly: Yes. I would like to remark to you that perhaps if on a 60 foot lot you can put a home with an attached garage with three bedrooms, what is the difference of the ten feet? "vr. Mr. Piercecchi: I think the difference here is compromise. I think that is part of the formula here. I understand your position. Mr. LaPine has a point that the residents in that area want larger lots. It would never go because you could not make any profit. I understand it is between $125,000 to $150,000 just to remove that eyesore, which is getting to be a safety problem Mr. Chairman. The roof is leaking so bad. I contacted the school today and had a long discussion over this matter and it really has to go. I understand. I know it is a lot of money but one lot, it seems very strange that such a firm position on just one lot. If we were taking away three or four I could understand. When you divide $150,000 to remove the building, you are looking at roughly $12,000 per unit in one and about $13,000 per unit with the other. It would really only be about $1,000 difference between the 60 and 70 foot lots but if that is your position, I would certainly reconsider. The residents would at least get some consolation out of it. They are very concerned about it. I agree with you on the traffic. I don't believe it is going to be a real problem, and I think housing in there will be an asset. I know that there is a lot of talk but I had the City Planning Department today go through all the assessed valuations of all the homes in that perimeter, and houses in the $140,000 class, which you said you are going to put in there, that would be assessed at $70,000. There are only four houses out of 26 around the perimeter that are valued in that class. They range from $16,000 to $76,000, and the average is $42,000 assessed valuation. With the R-2 I think it would be an asset and good for the City plus the eyesore, plus the safety factor. Like you said initially, it is an accident waiting to happen and it could very well be vacant property, and it has been vacant now for roughly about 15 years. Mr. Roskelly: My concern is indeed this. My agreement with the school board is that I would initiate this if in the event I got an R-1 or an R-2 zoning, certainly subject to my ability to proceed. If, in fact, at this point I indicate to you that I will entertain an R-2 but I still want the door open to go to Council to still solicit R-1, is that possible, or by me saying I will accept an R-2, am I relinquishing my right to an R-1? Mr. McCann: I will refer to John. Mr. Nagy: If he amends his petition to R-2, it is R-2 Bill. Mr. Roskelly: But Mr. Chairman, if I suggest that I am asking for an R-1, could not this honorable board suggest that you are offering a denial resolution for R-1 but that you would put a recommending approval on an R-2 without my relinquishing my R-1? ``rr 13950 Mr. McCann: You are saying you are bound if it is R-2, and you want to go to Council to see if they have a kinder ear than we have. Mr. Roskelly: That is correct. That is exactly right. `. Mr. McCann: That is absolutely up to the Commission and yourself and your ability to amend your petition at this point. We can't force it. Mr. Roskelly: I guess what I am saying Mr. Chairman, I am not amending my petition, but it would seem to me, through Robert's Rules, perhaps that this Commission could deny my request but perhaps recommend approval on the R-2 without me losing my original request for R-1. Mr. TaPine: I don't think legally we could do that. Either we pass on a petition for R-1 or we pass on a petition for R-2. We just can't say well we want R-2 but if you people feel that he should have R-1, you go ahead and do it. I think we either have to go one way or the other. Mr. McCann: I think that would be up to the Commission. I think we can say whatever we want in our notes, feeling R-1 is not appropriate and therefore we deny it, we felt it should be R-2 or greater. That would be up to the individual commissioner who makes the motion. Mr. Alanskas: Of the original 17 lots, how many would be ranches? Mr. Roskelly: I would suggest that would be a matter of marketing. Mr. Alanskas: What would you think? Mr. Roskelly: Generally speaking the ranches seem to be less popular than the cape cods and the colonials. I suggest you might be looking at out of the 17, 3 or 4 ranches and the balance colonials or cape cods. Mr. Alanskas: What do you think the colonials would be going for, roughly? Mr. Roskelly: I suggest, if we would relate to Western Golf Estates which has 99 lots, we originally started at $119,900 and now our average is $158,000, and the colonials, ranches and capes are now between $140,000, as high as $195,000. Mr. McCann: I will go to the audience at this point. If anyone wishes to speak, you may. We have already held the public hearing on this item. I will allow some additional comments from the audience. However, if you have a group representative here, that would be great. If that person misses anything, additional people can come up. Is there anyone that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Mr. Roskelly: I would like to have one more comment. In view of the fact that 13951 I enlightened you as to what my struggle or ideas are, then I would implore you at this time that I would like a vote on R-1, either a denial or an approval. �,. Mr. McCann: I was going to allow you to have a rebuttal. Alex Hudy, 10269 Stark: In my opinion, I am not in favor of the R-2. I guess if there was any compromise to be had, it would have to be a minimum of R-3. Mr. Roskelly has stated that he is selling houses right now in the neighborhood of $150,000 to $190,000. It seems to me if you take the amount it would cost to remove the school and build 10 or 11 lots on the R-3, or even the R-4 for that matter, he would be able to make the money that is necessary on this. I don't see any reason why he needs to go to R-1 or R-2. I think he is just trying to tax the people that live in the area. Dorie Bradley, 9650 Laurel: I also sent everyone on the commission a letter that was not in the file so maybe I will restate what was in there. It was basically the same as the other letter that I urge everyone to come and drive and look at the area so they could see its uniqueness and also the fact that all of the properties on the west end of that lot are in the neighborhood of about 2000-2500 square feet and $150,000 and up. I still feel very strongly that this sub is not in the best interest of the people at R-1 or R-2, and I feel that by approving this it aligns us with the lowest common denominator of the area. Additionally, I have a concern about the whole south of Plymouth area being in the City limits of Livonia, and I feel that your rejection of this proposal at anything less than R-4 will affirm to the people `ti. south of Plymouth that we have not been abandoned by the City of Livonia. Mr. McCann: Any last tents Mr. Roskelly? Mr. Roskelly: Certainly this is a matter of land use. Economics is really not an issue. Number two, in my opinion, this does not impede the health, welfare or safety, which we certainly agree are the basic criteria of a Planning Commission. I think with that remark I implore you to give me an approving resolution for R-1. Mr. McCann: If I take that literally that economics is not a consideration, only land use, then you would have no objection to R-2 or R-3, right? On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #3-40-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 28, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-1-1-1 by William L. Roskelly requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Stark Road, between Pinetree Avenue and Edward Hines Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33 from PL to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-1-1-1 be denied for the following reasons: 13952 1) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the prevailing zoning (RUF) in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes 4w which are inconsistent with the majority of the existing lots in this general area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the general character of the area. 4) That the Planning Commission feels that the area should be rezoned for homes but that 60 foot lots are not large enough lots for the area and not compatible to what is in the neighborhood and that the R-2 zoning classification is preferred. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, raPine, McCann, Piercecchi NAYS: Alanskas ABSENT: Engebretson, Morrow Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition Nay 95-1-2-5 by Eastside Mario's requesting waiver use approval to add an outdoor patio dining area to an existing restaurant located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, is there any new information regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: The Commission did receive a letter from the Livonia Plymouth Road Development Authority referencing Petition 95-1-2-5 by Eastside Mario's stating at the 13th Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on March 2, 1995 the following resolution was unanimously adopted: #95-12 Resolved that, the Plymouth Road Development Authority supports the request by Eastside Mario's to add an outdoor patio dining area to their existing restaurant at 31630 Plymouth Road and strongly urges the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve this petition as long as all requirements of the zoning ordinance are met. That is the extent of our new correspondence. 13953 Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner present this evening? Norman LePage: I am the owner of Eastside Mario's. My address is 3950 Maple Hill West, West Bloomfield. I will just take a couple more fir.. minutes of your time. I took about 35 minutes last time and I don't want to try your patience. I know that the Planning Commission has in mind the best interest of the community and the safety of the community, and so dogs Eastside Mario's. I want to point out a few things to you. Since we opened the restaurant approximately four months ago in the fall, at the beginning of November, we have had snow storms, we have had ice storms, we have had sleet stoLns, we have had torrential rain stoLos on top of ice, we have had construction down the street at the construction site for Henderson Glass, we have had construction at the intersection of Merriman and Plymouth Roads. In short, we have had pretty much every kind of driving condition that you could possibly have. During that period of time we have had thousands of cars pull in and out of our parking lot and to the best of our knowledge there have been absolutely no accidents attributable to the traffic flowing in and out of Eastside Mario's. I am really very happy to say it appears that we have in fact created what will be a continuing and successful business in the City of Livonia. We are pleased to be here. We love the community. We love the types of employe we are getting. Our customers are great. I believe at this point in time we are going to be a continuing source of taxes for the City of Livonia, and it appears that we will be able to provide a lot of jobs for the community. However, in keeping a business successful, one of the things you have to do, you have to be trying new things. r41, That means that you have to be creative and you have to give the public what they want, and you have to give the customers options. That is really what we are talking about here. We would like to be able to give the customer an option. On a beautiful day like today if you would have gone to my restaurant in Birmingham or if you would have gone to Eastside Mario's in Rochester Hills, you would have found both of my patios full and you would have found both of the restaurants half empty on the inside. That is what I described to you the last time I was before you. It really is true that is the way it happens. What it does is it does give the customer an alternative. I really would urge the Planning Commission, in its wisdom, to give the citizens of Livonia the option of choosing to be outside on a beautiful day like today and maybe having a glass of wine or a sandwich at lunch or bring their kids in after dinner and enjoy the atmosphere outside. In closing, I was pleased to hear that the Plymouth Road Development Authority has given us a vote of confidence in regard to this, and one of the things that I have heard a lot about since we have been in Livonia is that there is an interest in the redevelopment of our section of Plymouth Road and I feel like we contributed to that and we expect to continue to contribute to that. In addition to that, I was told just tonight by Tom, the President of the old Rosedale Gardens \r. 13954 Homeowners' Association that they voted last night unanimously to support our petition for outdoor dining and apparently it was a 10 to 0 vote and there was only one member of their Board of Directors that was not at the meeting. They did that as a result *ft. of watching the Planning Commission on TV last week so they did know, according to Tom, what the arguments were. That is really all I have to say. (He presented a plan showing their parking) Mr. TaPine: You have 201 seats now and you want 48 more. Some of the members feel we should increase the parking spaces. What months would the patio area be open? Mr. LePage: It depends on the weather. Even during the summer months you are not able to use it every day. We do open it as early as we can. So we would open it today but probably we would close it day after tomorrow. Mr. LaPine: If we allow you to use 48 spaces outside, would you during the time that the inside is not being used that much, you would remove 48 spaces? Mr. LePage: I think that is feasible. Mr. LaPine: I don't know if it is feasible or how we can police it but that is a solution where we would not increase the overall capacity of the restaurant so you wouldn't have more than 201 seats. Mr. LePage: That is a self-fulfilling prophecy in good weather. That is what happens. However, the only thing I would want not to do is create a situation where a customer wants to sit in a certain spot and I cannot allow the customer to sit in that spot. That would be my only concern. Other than that we wouldn't have a problem. Mr. McCann: Bill if you don't mind, Mr. Nagy I am not sure if we could condition it on that? Mr. Nagy: I think what you could do is allow the expansion of the use for the outdoor area and still restrict it on a maximum seating capacity to still not exceed 201. Mr. McCann: That way they would not have to go to ZBA? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Theoretically they would not be increasing their seating capacity. Mr. McCann: You would not be increasing your seating capacity so you would not have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for another waiver use as far as parking. The parking would be sufficient at this time. Mr. TaPine: John, if we increase it to 249, come the winter months when they 13955 would not be using the outdoor patio area, does that mean he could squeeze 249 people inside? Mr. Nagy: No, according to your recommendation to us last week the approval for outdoor dining for the additional 48 seats was to be used only outside, not inside. That is the way your approving resolution is structured. Mr. LePage: When we have the additional parking spaces from the City lot that would increase our capability as far as seating for the overall property with regard to the patio as well, so that might make it a little bit confusing trying to pick out 48 seats inside the restaurant that they can't sit at. I am concerned about the logistics of it. Mr. Piercecchi: I don't know why the big fuss over ten parking spaces when this body granted St. Mary's Hospital 600 that they were deficient. I don't understand forcing them to go to 152. It seems a little bit much to me. If they have a parking deficiency, it is only going to be ten and if they want to make their customers mad because they can't find a parking space, that is part of the game. Mr. McCann: To the petitioner, you have a choice at this point. If you want to reconfigure seating during the summer months so you will close off seating inside, you can do it that way, and you could probably leave here tonight and start using the patio. Otherwise, you would have to go to ZBA. Would they also need tow. Council approval? Mr. Nagy: They do need Council approval. The waiver use approval does rest with the City Council but they would go forward with an approving resolution. Otherwise, if you deny it, they have to go through the appeal procedure. It is your decision to make. Mr. LePage: I am concerned about the logistics of being able to handle that with regard to the customer's goodwill. I think I would just as soon approach it from the other point of view. Mr. McCann: You would rather ask for an expansion at this point and go to the ZBA? Mr. LePage: Yes. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition tonight? There was no one in the audience wishing to speak on this issue. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. spine, and unanimously approved, it was 13956 #3-41-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 28, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-1-2-5 by Eastside Mario's requesting waiver use approval to add an outdoor patio dining area to an existing restaurant located on the north side view of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-1-2-5 be approved subject to the granting of a variance for deficient parking by the Zoning Board of Appeals and to the following additional conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-i dated 1-20-95, prepared by Roger Sherman Partners, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the maximum number of additional seats to be located in the patio area is 48. 3) That this approval for additional seats is applicable to the outdoor patio area only and shall not be construed as to permit additional seating inside the building. 4) That this approval is contingent upon execution of a lease agreement between East Side Mario's and the City of Livonia regarding the use of City-owned property for off-street parking purposes and such approval shall become null and void upon the termination of such lease agreement. 5) That there be no permanent roof or enclosures around the patio. `11111. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies 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 petitioner has produced written agreements for the use of off-site parking spaces. 3) That the increased seating requested is outdoor seating and therefore seasonal in nature and, consequently, will have a minimal effect on the normal operation of the restaurant and adjacent uses in the 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, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on a proposed 13957 amendment to Section 15.03 of the ML district removing a prohibition of general and professional offices as permitted uses and a proposed amendment to Section 14.02 of the RE district to prohibit waiver uses in OS districts. Mr. McCann: If there are no comments on this, a motion would be in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. TaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #3-42-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Sections 15.03 and 14.02 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to permit general and professional offices in ML districts and to prohibit waiver uses in OS districts in RE districts. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Acting Secretary, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance which would exempt the new smaller satellite dishes from site plan approval. 'ft. Mr. McCann: For the benefit of the audience, this item and the last item were just so we could hold a public hearing on a particular item. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #3-43-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance which would exempt the new smaller type satellite dish antennas from site plan approval. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Mohsin Giryoun for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for residential property located at 32649 Greenland Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15. 13958 Mr. Miller: Off Hubbard between Six Mile and Five Mile you have a road called Greenland Ct. At the end of the court is the petitioner's residential property. The petitioner is requesting to locate a satellite dish in one location but on the site plan he is proposing two locations to the Planning Commission. One is on the roof of his house, which would be on the east side toward the back of his house. The second location would be approximately 30 feet from the rear of the house and 17 feet from the west property line. That would be a ground mount. The satellite dish is 7.6 feet in diameter. It would be located on a 10 foot high pole with total height of the dish and the pole being 14 feet. The petitioner also submitted to the Planning Commission consent letters from the property owners on the west and the east side of the property. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward. Mohsin Giryoun: I have lived in Livonia for about 12 years. I would like it to get more programs and to cut down on cable costs. Mr. McCann: Are there any particular programs that you are looking for? Mr. Giryoun: Some programs for the kids to learn different languages and things like that. Mr. McCann: That is not available on normal cable? Mr. Giryoun: No sir. Ni ` Mr. Alanskas: What color is the satellite dish going to be? Mr. Giryoun: Black. Mr. Alanskas: Is it a wire mesh? Mr. Giryoun: I am not really sure. Mr. Miller: Yes it is. Mr. Piercecchi: When Scott went through the review here, he mentioned two different areas, a roof mount and one on the side lot. It is site number two that we are going to make the judgment on, correct? Mr. McCann: That is correct. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I reviewed that site with the rest of you and I certainly can't see any problems especially with this one on Hubbard Avenue that you can actually see. Our main purpose is not to see these things. The one on Hubbard you can see it. I really have no objection to it myself and would encourage supporting it. ``. 13959 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was Now #3-44-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application by Mohsin Giryoun for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 32649 Greenland Ct. in Section 15 subject to the following condition: 1) That the Site and Specification Plan by Mohsin Giryoun, received by the Planning Commission on February 24, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; except for the fact that only option number two, the ground mount location, is approved. for the following reason: 1) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it will not have any detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties. Mr. McCann, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 700th Regular Meeting held on March 14, 1995 was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Now ,e/ Bob Alanskas, Acting Secretary ATTEST: ,�. J. C. McCann, Vice Chairman jg ' 1 / 'fir.