Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2009-07-14MINUTES OF THE 983"° PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 14, 2009, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 983d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Deborah McDermott Carol A. Smiley Joe Taylor Ashley Vartoogian Ian Wilshaw Members absent: R. Lee Morrow Lynda Scheel Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present. Acting Chairman Wilshaw 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 tum, will hold its own public hearing and 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 approval 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 become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome oflhe proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2008-08-02-26 VERIZON WIRELESS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2008-08- 02-26 submitted by FMHC Corporation, agents for Verizon Wireless, requesting waiver use approval to construct a wireless communication support structure (120 fool high monopole) and equipment shelter within Fairway Park, located north of Five Mile Road and east of Levan Road (adjacent to Idyl Wyld Golf Course) in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 17. July 14, 2009 25288 Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Wilshaw Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated June 23, 2009, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description of the leased parcel is in need of revision. More specifically, the course prior to the point of beginning bearing should be N 00' 14'34" E, 100 feet not S 00' 14'34" E 100 feet. The address according to our records is 35800 Five Mile Road, not 35550 Five Mile Road. We trust that this provides you with the requested information. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 18, 2009, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for waiver use approval to construct a wireless communication support structure and equipment shelter within Fairway Park, located north of Five Mile Road and East of Levan Road in the Southeast X of Section 17. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated June 16, 2009, which reads as follows: "1'm Joseph Sellinger, Communications Supervisor for the Livonia Police Department 1 find no technical issues to deny the installation of the 120' tower and its equipment proposed by FMHC Corp. at the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17. Their equipment will not cause any interference issues with any of our City's Public Safety Communications. 1 would like to remind the Commission that St. Mary's Hospital has medical emergency Flights routinely and suggest tower lighting be considered." The letter is signed by Joseph Sellinger, Communications Supervisor. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 22, 2009, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 10, 2009, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw Are there any questions for the staff? Would the petitioner please approach? Please start with your name and address for our record and then add anything you'd like to this item. July 14, 2009 25289 Leland Calloway, FMHC Corp., 24445 Northwestern Highway, Suite 225, Southfield, Michigan 48075. 1 represent FMHC Corporation, agent for Verizon Wreless. Our address is 23100 Providence Drive, Southfield, Michigan 48075. 1 guess I'll start by addressing the Engineering Department's report. We will be happy, if the legal description is incorrect, to fix that and to fox any address issues pertaini ng to the site. I think Mr. Taormina did an excellent job in describing the site to you, so I will talk about the things that I think he did not cover. The reason why we need this site and how this site kind of came about, and also, I'm sorry, I'd like to introduce Rob LaBelle, who is counsel for Venzon Wireless, and he can answer some additional questions. We were given kind of a quarter of a mile by quarter of a mile area right at Levan and Five Mile Road to find a site. If you know anything about that area, it's just about small businesses, small lots for commercial businesses and a lot of residential with two large parcels, one being Idyl Wyld and the other one being the park that we're proposing and the school property. With having those limitations, what we tried to do was we tried to find a compromise, find a site that would be kind of hidden from the residences but would also kind of blend in as much as possible with the current uses in the area. This is what we call a capacity site. It's not that there's not coverage in the area; it's that with the amount of housing in the area and the amount of traffic along Five Mile Road and Newburgh and all around, there's not enough capacity with our current sites to cover all of the people that want service in the area. So that's the reason why we need this site. We're not the only ones who need this site. I think the City has been contacted and we have been contacted also by AT&T and TMobile saying that if we ever get this site approved, they are interested in going on the lower. They already have collocation applications in with us. That's basically the reason why and the need for the site. The additional thing that happened in the negotiations was that the storage yard came up. I guess that's a plus. This would be a way to provide revenue for the City for us to help the Parks Department get a storage yard, which I guess they're in need of. I think by clustering those uses - there's a building back there that I guess they use for some kind of ... they have offices and things there. There's a small storage facility for golf carts and other equipment that they use on the golf course there, and there's also a gas station there. So this use wouldn't be completely inconsistent with what's immediately in that area. And Mr. Taormina put up the maps for what we call propagation maps. This is the before map which shows - if you look kind of in the middle of the map, you'll see a lot of red area and then yellow and then green. The red area is actually where we would July 14, 2009 25290 have pretty good coverage. The yellow area is less coverage and the green is where we don't have very good coverage for this site. Mr. Wilshaw: You mean that backwards? Mr. Calloway: Oh, I'm sorry. He's right. Green is great coverage, yellow is worse coverage and red is bad coverage. So if you look in the middle where we're proposing the site, you see red kind of around where the site is and then some yellow. And that red is kind of to the north where there's residential and to tie east, which on the other side of the golf course is more residential. But again, we can't really show you capacity needs in a map like this. What this shows is more coverage. If you go to the after map, you'll see that the coverage increases greatly. Right around the site there's a lot of green and almost no red. Where the red is, is where there's probably topographical issues with the land so the signal won't gel to those areas as well as the areas where you see green and yellow. But those have been lessened quite a bit with the addition of this site. But again, what I was saying before, is that you can't really see the capacity issues. We can't show you a map that will show you the capacity issues, and that's another big problem with this site is that we dont have enough capacity in the area. Would you like to add anything? Mr. Wilshaw: Please come over to the mike. Mr. LaBelle: When we're talking about capacity, we're talking about the number of, let's call it hits, that an antenna will receive. We may have an antenna in the location that properly obtains coverage but if you get enough signals hitting that tower and its antennas, you'll eventually overload it's capacity to handle them and that's what's happening here. And the reason, of course, why that's happening is because the phones are no longer simply voice. They're in addition to your ability to get ahold of your email, your ability to be able to text, your ability to send photos, take and send photos, and on and on and on. These phones are really no longer phones. They are really personal assistants who happen to be in the electronic form. The result of which is that when we try to deal with these sites, and we add sites, in this case, you see a coverage issue that is handled, but as much here you see an issue of dealing with the complaints in this area of persons who are not receiving the ability to use those phones for everything they are capable of doing, and more and more of those phones are becoming means by which business gets done in this area and the United Slates in general. As a result, we need to be able to address those communication needs as July 14, 2009 25291 well. So what you see here is a coverage issue being addressed, but as much as that you see a capacity issue being addressed as well. That's all I simply wanted to add. I also can answer any questions in regard to the lease. It hasn't been signed yet and negotiations are continuing, but to the extent that there are some issues and questions about that like, for example, vis-a-vis the shed, the storage area rather, and how that relates to things and the colocation revenue which the City will obtain as a result of being the owner of the property, I can answer those questions as well. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the Commission? Mr. Taylor: Yes, the name for the record. Did he give his name? Robert LaBelle, 32543 Cambome, Livonia. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Are there any questions from the Commission? Mr. Taylor: Yes. While you're up there, what color is this lower going to be if its put up? Mr. LaBelle: Gray, essentially. The color that we end up using in this case is a color that we have chosen from a long time of experience and realizing that it blends best with the surrounding environment if it's gray. I'm sorry to say that in Michigan, gray works better than blue when you're trying to deal with the issue of trying to be able to blend it to outside around it. It will blend in with the surrounding circumstances better that way. Mr. Taylor: And I see that you took the recommendation of the Police Departmentto put a rather non-glanng Iightup? Mr. LaBelle: Yes. Mr. Taylor: That's for helicopters for Sl. Mary Hospital? Mr. LaBelle: We can do. We can put a low wattage light on lop of this thing in order to do that. We had this discussion in talking about it. Its a trade off, is what it comes down to. If you put a light on it, it becomes more visible because you can see the light that's on it. But at the same time, there is the helicopter traffic. The FAA is well aware of the helicopter traffic and regulates that as well from St. Mary's. And any kind of traffic in anything we do in going forward, we do have to gel FAA approval and they have already told us they would not require us to place a light on this for the purpose of helicopter traffic. We can do so if the Mr. LaBelle: I think that is, in fad, the case. One of the things that I always bring to these is this. This is about one tenth of the material that's available on the FCC website dealing with the question of the safety of towers. If you go on to find those safety issues and talking about them, the Federal Telecommunications Ad has actually addressed that from the standpoint of saying what you're going to be able to do in dealing with this. One at the things that it does, in fad, do is say that "no state or local government municipality thereof may regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless cyper facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions" The reason why is because they have determined long ago that a tower, at least the lower itself, poses no safety hazard. The actual electro volt emission at ground level is less than one one - millionth of an electro volt once you gel down to that point. It is thousands of times below the safety limits that have been set by the federal government. The real issue that you're talking about that has come up in connection is the cell phone itself and dealing with whether a cell phone when placed next to your head and the emissions that it might do, the issue has, in fact, arisen there. So when they're dealing with the lowers themselves, they have concluded long ago that, in fact, it does not constitute a safety hazard. In fact, because of the Federal Telecommunications Act, it actually prohibits a municipality from using that as a basis to ... July 14, 2009 25292 Planning Commission would prefer us to do so. What I am saying, basically, is the FAA has already made a determination that its not necessary. Mr. Taylor: Well, I think because of St. Mary's being that close, and I live very close to there and I know the helicopters come over my home and circle around and come back. So it might be a good idea, I think, to do that. Mr. LaBelle: We're willing to do so if we have to in that circumstance. Mr. Taylor: I looked up on the internet the safety of cell lowers. That's always a big thing that has come up with the Council and the Planning Commission. I guess the jury is still out as exactly how safe they are. According to the government, they are safe. But I think there's still some problems going on although we have schools that have them. They are around hospitals. So I guess they're not as dangerous as the government has decided they would be or they wouldn't let them put them around schools, I would guess anyways. Mr. LaBelle: I think that is, in fad, the case. One of the things that I always bring to these is this. This is about one tenth of the material that's available on the FCC website dealing with the question of the safety of towers. If you go on to find those safety issues and talking about them, the Federal Telecommunications Ad has actually addressed that from the standpoint of saying what you're going to be able to do in dealing with this. One at the things that it does, in fad, do is say that "no state or local government municipality thereof may regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless cyper facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions" The reason why is because they have determined long ago that a tower, at least the lower itself, poses no safety hazard. The actual electro volt emission at ground level is less than one one - millionth of an electro volt once you gel down to that point. It is thousands of times below the safety limits that have been set by the federal government. The real issue that you're talking about that has come up in connection is the cell phone itself and dealing with whether a cell phone when placed next to your head and the emissions that it might do, the issue has, in fact, arisen there. So when they're dealing with the lowers themselves, they have concluded long ago that, in fact, it does not constitute a safety hazard. In fact, because of the Federal Telecommunications Act, it actually prohibits a municipality from using that as a basis to ... July 14, 2009 25293 Mr. Taylor: I think (hats a good way to talk about it, but a lot of people slill don't believe that, but that's the way it goes sometimes. How often would you be going down that cart path to the tower itself to service it? Mr. LaBelle: Al most, once or twice a month. Our service facilities, in terms of when people go out there and deal with it, its one of our service members that will go out there. Their main purpose is simply to deal with the switching equipment. So what they will do is access the site, gel into the building, make some changes maybe to the software or maybe change some of the configuration of some of the switching equipment, and then they'll leave. In fad, sometimes all they're doing is just checking to make sure the air conditioning is still working. And they literally only do that once or twice a month. We've actually had discussions with the Law Department about that, and we've agreed within the lease to limit our visits to no more than three times a month. Mr. Taylor: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mrs. Smiley? Ms. Smiley: My questions are pretty much answered, but you agreed to a non -blinking low wattage ... Mr. LaBelle: We can do it. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Mr. LaBelle: I guess what I'm suggesting is that while we can do that, I'm kind of suggesting that perhaps it wouldn't be a good idea simply because of the neighbors. I'm not sure that they would like to see that there but I understand the concern. Like I said, R's a trade off. In one case, its safety with regard to the helicopters; on the other side, it's dealing in terms of the neighbors wanting the light there. You can go both ways on this easily. What we're willing to do is whatever the Planning Commission thinks would be the most reasonable thing to do. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. I appreciate that and I appreciate your information. I too have been investigating the safety for people and came up with the same - probably not nearly as much data as you did, but the hazard is not actually from the pole itself as much as from the instrument. Tha nk you very much. Ms. Malchynski: Okay. My other concern is, you say there is no safety issue, but if your house was right next to it, how would you feel being 300 feel close to one of these lowers? Do you really feel that is not an issue? And you say the cell phones ... we do not have cable and I already notice that if you text in our family room near the television, the signal goes out. So, is this tower going to affect our signal because we do not have cable? So we're just getting normal TV signal. So I dont want it to interfere with that because I think that's important. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Ms. Malchynski: And I dont see the problem with getting cell phone usage. It's four bars at our house. Its four bars by Hoover School and July 14, 2009 25294 Mr. Wilshaw: Anybody else? I will talk just briefly about the issue of the light. That's something that I researched as well since we talked about it at our study meeting. I spoke with a gentleman up at the State of Michigan. His name is Mike Ronell. He's with the Michigan Department of Transportation and Aeronautics Division. He's responsible for dealing with exactly that issue of whether obstructions, lowers, and so on, need lights or not. He said that typically they review any lower that's within a 2510 1 slope from a helipad and they generally recommend a light on anything that is an 8 to 1 slope from a helipad. So if you do the math on distance, we would have to have a really, really tall lower or this would have to be a lot doser to the hospital to be an obstruction based on that standard. Mr. LaBelle: That makes sense. When we make an application to the FAA, the FAA will contact the local state agencies as well. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So I just wanted to throw that in for the Commissioners' benefit. If there's nobody else on the Commission that has any questions, we can go the audience. We ask that people feel free to come forward and speak to this petition. We ask that you please provide your name and address for the record, and please come forward if anybody wants to speak to this petition at this time. If you can line up behind this lady, it would be a little bit faster as well. Good evening. Name and address please. Cathy Matchynski, 16124 Golfview. We live directly north of that site, and we'll see it in our backyard. Our yard backs up to the river. My concern is, isn't it on a flood plain as well being right next to the river there? Mr. Wilshaw: We can check that and get an answer for you in just a second. Ms. Malchynski: Okay. My other concern is, you say there is no safety issue, but if your house was right next to it, how would you feel being 300 feel close to one of these lowers? Do you really feel that is not an issue? And you say the cell phones ... we do not have cable and I already notice that if you text in our family room near the television, the signal goes out. So, is this tower going to affect our signal because we do not have cable? So we're just getting normal TV signal. So I dont want it to interfere with that because I think that's important. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Ms. Malchynski: And I dont see the problem with getting cell phone usage. It's four bars at our house. Its four bars by Hoover School and July 14, 2009 25295 Levan. So I don't see the problem with getting reception. So I don't see the need for it. If there's no need, then don't put it there. And the other thing is, why dont you at least put it closer to Five Mile on the golf course away from the houses and the school? It's right behind the school. So, that's all I have to say. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you very much. Sir, name and address. Mike Sykes, 16110 Golfview. I loo live just north of the site. My house has a southerly view so I'm looking directly at the location where you're going to place the lower. Nice big family room. Two story windows. Nice view of the sky until now. Maybe that's going to change. That's why I'm particularly interested in what's going on here. A couple of things. As Cathy mentioned, that's a large park area. Why this lower is being located within 300 feet of property and 400 feel of properly, or 450, I think you mentioned earlier, when you could place it in the middle of that golf course and probably be 800 feel or more away from anybody's properly. This site is chosen and its the minimum distance allowed by ordinance. My concern is that I plan to live in Livonia until I die and I plan to live at that location. I don't know if that's going to happen, but that's what I plan to do. And looking out my back window, both from my second story office where I work and my family room where I enjoy life, I'm now going to be looking at a cell lower and that doesn't please me. That's not why we bought that location. It's public land. It's parkland. Its undeveloped. Its wooded. There's a nice creek that runs through there. It gets used by the neighborhood a fair amount. Lots of people use that even though it's undeveloped. Kids play in there. People walk their animals. The other part of this that's concerning is the converting of that property into some sort of storage area. The golf course has functioned ... how long has the golf course been there? Does anybody know? Mr. Wilshaw: Its been a long time. Mr. Taormina, do you know? Mr. Sykes: It was before I was born. It has functioned in its capacity as a golf course without any additional storage required. I dont view the storage area, which now, if I look at this right based on the information, is going to be within 300 feet of my house, 125 feet north of the cell lower site. That's a bunch of trees right now which provides coverage for the gas station and the storage area that exists on the golf course. Those trees can't be in the storage area that you've proposed. So not only do I get the pleasure of staring at a lower, I get the pleasure of looking at an open storage area as well to store parked vehicles and golf course materials. That sounds like piles of dirt and rock and anything else they might need to use on the golf course, along July 14, 2009 25296 with cars. That's a less than desirable situation from my point of view. You mentioned lighting. Boy, if the FAA doesn't say its needed, I don't want a light on the tower. I mean that's just flat out ... its probably going to be red, because that's the ... no? What color would it be, sir? Mr. LaBelle: Low wattage while. Mr. Sykes: Low wattage while? Operating whenever dark? Mr. Wilshaw: Please speak to us. What we can do is, we can ask those questions. Mr. Sykes: Well, I'm speaking to everybody. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Sykes: Operating whenever dark. I didn't direct it to anybody in particular. The point is, it's on when its dark, right? That's from 5:00 at night in the winter until who the heck knows, 9:00 in the morning. That's not something I want. What is the lighting going to be for the storage area? Whats the ground lighting going to be for the maintenance area around the tower and the open storage area? Am I looking at other lighting that's going to be impacting? In the winter, that's the biggest issue because there's no foilage on the trees. So, I understand you showed a need plot and people are having issues with maybe getting service at certain times because of the capacity. It looked like you could move that tower into an area that was further away from any residence, not just my residence. I think that would be the direction you would want to go. Access to that can be maintained. There's multiple golf cart paths so access to the site looks like its available anywhere on that park lane, meaning Idyl Wyld golf course. I don't have an objection to having a lower in principal, generally, in the area. We all benefit from that, but but it doesn't need to be located as close as it is to different property areas. And that storage bothers me. I know you guys think, somebody thinks, it was a good deal to gel that thrown in as part of this, but Chats just adding insult to injury. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr.Wilshaw: Sure. Goahead. Mr. Taylor: I look a golf cart today back there and it's pretty much of a mess right now, I can tell you. What they're planning on doing is consolidating that on a pad, more or less. There's equipment all over the place back there and there's a pile of dirt and mulch July 14, 2009 25297 and sand. What they'd like to do, and I talked to Tom Walsh who is a pro at the golf courses, and he said it's going to make it a lot neater for everybody back there if they could do that. It will be less dust. They drive now on dust and dirt. And so, it has a lot of dust going around. If they pave that area, then they won't create all that dust. I guess my question to Mark, do you know how tall those trees are right now, through the Chair? Those have got to be 30- 40 fool trees. Mr. Taormina: They're probably 6010 80 feet, on average. Mr. Taylor: So half of that lower is going to be almost covered with those trees. Its very dense back there. I know that. And its kind of away from the homes from what I could see, and there's not going to be too many trees that will be taken down. Mark, you have a plan on just how many there are, dont you? Mr. Taormina: This would show the larger trees that might be situated in the area. I believe there's a couple here. It's difficult to see on this plan, but I think it does identify the trees that would be removed. Mr. Taylor: It's extremely dense back there. I know that. Because I live in the area, I know there are kids that play back there. My kids went to Hoover and I know they go back there and play, but this will be all fenced in obviously. Our storage area where the gas is has a barbed wire fence on it, and we don't allow barbed wire fences anymore. I dont why its there, but evidently the City is not doing what it's telling other people not to do. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Sykes, anything else that you want to address? Mr. Sykes: Absolutely. A few of the points Mr. Taylor just made, respectfully, I've lived there for 15 years or more. I dont think anybody has complained to me, and I fled no complaints, about the condition of the materials stored on the golf course. Any dust issues or any traffic issues. You move into an area like that. When you buy the home, you see what you're getting. I am not aware of a dust issue. It may be an issue for the guys on the golf course. Maybe they don't like the way it looks, but it's not an issue for at least me, a property owner who is viewing the golf course virtually every day of the year. Mr. Taylor: Well, you could never see where this is anyway. From any of the homes that I've seen, you couldn't see this area. Mr. Sykes: Couldn't see what? Mr. Taylor: Where the shed is. You know, there's a shed there now. July 14, 2009 25298 Mr. Sykes: I see that clearly in the winter, sir. The foilage drops. I know exactly where the shed is. I know where the gas station is. Mr. Taylor: There's no activity in the winter actually. Mr. Sykes: You'd be surprised how much activity there in on a golf course. That's their maintenance time for trees. There are people there all year round. There is no dead time on the golf course. There are no golfers, but that doesn't mean the maintenance crew is not there. Mr. Taylor: I guess we go through this on many items and it all comes back to, not in my backyard, put it someplace else. Mr. Sykes: I'm not saying move it out of that park. I'm saying move it further away from the homes. You're at a minimum setback condition. It's 300 feel to the south; it's 450 feel to the north. The lead it could be is 300 feel. You could put this thing out in the center. I don't know what the distance would be. But you could put it out down the middle fairway someplace and it would be much further away from any residence at that point. Mr. Taylor: You're going to have a lot of golfers here pretty soon. Mr. Sykes: I'm a golfer, sir. I do not give a ... I don't care if there's a ... Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Sykes, I don't want to get into a debate between the Commission and yourself. Is there anything else that you'd like to throw in at this time? Mr. Sykes: Yes. I'm aware that if we're going to have that tower there, that there are things that can be done to address the appearance of the lower. I'm told they can be made to look like pine trees or something along that nature. If we're going to have this within clear site of several homes, I would recommend that we investigate that route, because if I have to look at it, I'd rather not look at an austere mono tower. I've seen the pine tree look from a distance. It looks pretty good. Don't know what it's going to look like scrutinized everyday for the rest of my life. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. Mr. Sykes: I think that's, again, if you dont have to have the light, I can't see putting a light on this thing. As he said, it does draw attention to things. You light something up at night, you see it very readily. I know that's the intent of it, right? That's why you put the light on there. I don't want to look at a light all the time. July 14, 2009 25299 The storage area is a great concern and that doesn't have to be coupled to this tower. These are two separate issues that have been made one. You can have the tower without the storage area. We're getting both and somehow that was looked at as a deal sweetener. I dont see it that way. I do have a question. What is the revenue that the City is going to get from this tower and rental of the storage area? Mr. Wilshaw: That is a question that we cannot answer. There s an agreement that's being negotiated between Verizon and the City which would give some sort of revenue, but that's not been agreed at this time, so we don't know. Mr. Sykes: Okay. Is the only use for the storage area for golf course purposes oris there some other use for that open area as well? Mr. Wilshaw: It would only be for the golf course and Verizon would have their own space where they're going to have a shed for the equipment for the tower itself. Mr. Sykes: Is that storage area being rented in some way? I thought there was some revenue associated with that. Its only the lower where there's revenue? Mr. Wilshaw: The tower, exactly. Mr. Sykes: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: You're welcome. Sir. name and address. Mark Malchynski, 16124 Golfview. I'm a licensed professional engineer, retired, Stale of Michigan, in electrical engineering and communications. We live directly north of the line. The first lady that spoke was my wife. The concerns I have, and I apologize, but I cannot see your plan there. I dont know if you have one that I can see a little bit better. I did a site survey there today and I guess two things. One, the shed is of much more concern to me as well, as that area is even closer to our house than the current shed. And the other thing is that there are trees that would block the lower. And as far as the light, I think the light is probably a ludicrous idea. Those trees are over 100 feet tall, Mr. Taylor. I checked them out today. They're cottonwoods. Can I take a look at that? Maybe I can point them out to you. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, while he's boking, Mark, did I miss something? They're not building a shed, are they? July 14, 2009 25300 Mr. Taormina: Well, I'm not sure what Mr. Malchynski is referring to. If he's Mr. Taormina: referring to the equipment building for the Verizon structure, then that's to the south of the current building. There is no other building proposed. Mr. Malchynski: So its just a storage yard, where they would put aggregate, sand and then it could blow into our areas there. Mr. Wilshaw: Exactly. Mr. Matchynski: That kind of disturbs me. If the fence was done right and it was landscaped or something, then we wouldn't be able to see it as far as that storage area. Mr. Wilshaw: It's possible the storage area, sir, that ... often times you see Mr. Taormina: this. They have a three sided structure around aggregate and other materials to provide for some screening and also to allow itlo be easier to be loaded on the front end loaders and so on. Mr. Matchynski: Living there as I have for 23 years and paying taxes in Livonia, I have never had a dust problem from the golf course or the aggregates stored there. It is somewhat unsightly in back, especially when they park their cars all over by the creek, but they could park them the other side of the fuel tanks as well. That's just the choice of the golf course. f I may, if I can have that other slide up? Can I show you where the large trees are that you'd be taking out? Mr. Wilshaw: Which slide are you looking for? This one? Okay. Mr. Taormina: Maybe I can assist him if you dont mind, sir. I think what pu're referring to are these dots that reference the trees that would come out. I know it's difficult to see, but I'm going to point to them. These are the locations of the trees that are within the lease area and they are identified on the survey. They include the approximate diameter of the trees as well as a notation as to the species, the M standing for Maple, the E presumably for Elm or that could be Cottonwood. These aren't always accurate in terms of species. Mr. Malchynski: To the north of the access road ... Mr. Taormina: To the north of the access road, it's the same situation. You see where the trees have been surveyed, and theyre identified here by the small black dots. Mr. Malchynski: So those will all be removed? Ms. Wielosinski: A couple concerns I have. Right now, I know you're saying that they're going to be coming down there once or twice a month for maintenance. That road is used constantly by vehicles. To add more vehides in there, I know it's supposed to be a maintenance road. They speed up and down that road. There was an accident there last year from someone speeding up and down the road, and its supposed to be just a back maintenance exit or entrance in there. Now you've got more cars that are going to be coming in there. If you're going to be parking more sluff in the back, same thing. You're going to have more vehicles up and down that road to gel into it. The other concern July 14, 2009 25301 Mr. Taormina: Those are all within the area of improvement, so yes, they would have to come down. Mr. Matchynski: Okay, my concern is .... Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Malchynski, could you please come back to the podium just so that we can gel you on the microphone so everyone can hear you? Thank you so much. Mr. Malchynski: Okay. On the bottom left, or the southwest corner of that property ... no, the other properly, the yard. There's two very large Cottonwoods there. Mr. Taormina: Yes, there's a 24 inch identified here, but I can't see what the other one is. Maybe even larger. Mr. Malchynski: 24 inch. Its more than that. But anyways, those are the over 100 fool tall trees. So what you're saying is that those would be coming down so we would have a clear view of not the top 20 feet of the lower, but just about the entire tower. There are some 40 fool trees on the creek line which would provide some relief, but its a much less desirable situation to take out those very large trees which are there. And I agree with Mike. Any kind of a green effect would be much better. You know, I'm not saying we shouldn't have a tower there or anything like that. That's fine, but let's lake some care as far as how we present it to the neighborhood. Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate that, Mr. Malchynski. Anything else? I appreciate R. Thank you very much. Hello, ma'am. Can we have your name and address? Dawn Wielosinski, 15782 Golfview. I'm the house that's exactly 300 feet from the tower. So I'm in that comer. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. And your comments? Ms. Wielosinski: A couple concerns I have. Right now, I know you're saying that they're going to be coming down there once or twice a month for maintenance. That road is used constantly by vehicles. To add more vehides in there, I know it's supposed to be a maintenance road. They speed up and down that road. There was an accident there last year from someone speeding up and down the road, and its supposed to be just a back maintenance exit or entrance in there. Now you've got more cars that are going to be coming in there. If you're going to be parking more sluff in the back, same thing. You're going to have more vehicles up and down that road to gel into it. The other concern July 14, 2009 25302 I have, since I live right next to the woods, kids are playing in those woods all the time. Theyre paint balling back there. They're running around. They're partying back there. They're drinking. They're smoking. I mean the kids that are back there, theyre going to come up and theyre going to vandalize all that sluff. How are you supposed to track what's going on with that lower? A six fool fence is not going to hold any of those kids out. They're back there constantly playing paint balls. I mean that's going to do it. Under the bridge on the other side, they party over there all the time. Its another place you're going to have kids coming in there and hiding and trying to gel into places. And the other question is, I know, like I said since I live there, it's always wet back there. Is that not a wetland in that area? It's constantly wet back in those woods. So how do we know that it's not a wetland right there with the stream that's coming to the back of it? Do we know? Has that been checked into to know that's not an area thatis a wetland? Mr. Wilshaw: We're going to ask those questions after everyone has had a chance to speak. Ms. Wielosinski: Okay. As far as the pictures of the dirt and the gravel, oh, I have the pictures of the dirt and the gravel. I have to stare at that everyday all the sluff that's silting out there. The golf course is actually very easy to work with. I've asked them on sluff and they've actually moved sluff. But like I said, I stare out my window just as the other ones from the other side, and I'm staring at that stuff all the time. They've got tractors coming in and out of there. It's annoying. And now I'm going to open up the window and I'm going to see the big lower in the backyard. So I do agree with the light. I dont want to look at a light. I can see lights that go clear across the golf course when their back porch lights tum on. So to have another light right there, I mean there's a bunch of things. I understand the tower. I have Verizon service. I have full service and I'm in the corner. So I'm kind of confused. I'm in my basement, and I've got full service. I live right in that corner. So I'm not quite sure as far as the service. I've also been told there's a lower that's already been proposed and accepted, what, half a mile down at Dickinson, not turned on yet. How do we know that's not going to work for the coverage? So that's a couple questions that I've got so far. And I agree with the trees to cover it. If it's going to be there, make it look decent so I dont have to stare at this ugly lower. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. Ms. Wielosinski: So that's all that I have right now. July 14, 2009 25303 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you very much. Hello, ma'am. Name and address please. Nancy Engels, 15706 Golfview. I'm a couple doors down. My backyard will not be looking directly at the lower, but the question I have is similar to what Ms. Wielosinski had. There are towers proposed and approved to go into Dickinson and at the Livonia Public School headquarters off of Farmington. If I understand, all lowers have to accommodate three different carriers. Why can't Verizon put their equipment on those two towers and not have to have a third lower in that little tiny woodland? Its not a giant park. It's a small woods. If you guys do do it, like they pointed out, please don't cut down the big trees. Green the thing up. But does it really have to happen? We traveled across the State this weekend, went to Ludington. Along the highway up, every five miles there's a cell lower because we're really being attentive to see, ok, is this what we're going to get? Ooh, don't like this one. But you don't have them every mile. They're every five miles. So if the rest of Michigan can have them every 5 miles, and I had Verizon coverage all the way across Michigan. I live four doors away from where they're proposing this lower. I have perfect coverage. Why do we need another lower, especially when the one at Dickinson hasn't even gone up yet? And who knows if that's going to solve the problem of those two or three dropped calls. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you very much. Hello, sir. Tom Karabatakis, 16115 Fairway. Hello. I back up to the creek so I'm right there behind the park and next to the golf course. I do look at that shed building storage unit. From what I understood, there is not going to be another storage unit built, just a yard that's going to be used. Will thalslorage unit stay where it is, the current one? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Mr. Karabatakis: Okay. My concerns are a lot of what's been said here also and especially the wetland issue. I did go back there a couple days ago, and there were flags there that stated wefland delineation. It looks like somebody's doing a study currently of whether that's a wetland and being that those flags were there, to me it seems like they've designated it as a wetland. Now if that is true, if its designated as wefland, would this cancel this zoning or planning? July 14, 2009 25304 Mr. Wilshaw: I think it would definitely change the scope of this. We're going to ask about that after everyone's had a chance to speak and see if we can hammer that out for you. Mr. Karabatakis: Okay. For the money that is going to be received for lease payments, is there any usage assigned to that? Do you know what it's going to be spent on, the extra income? Mr. Wilshaw: I believe the funds from the cellular lower go into the General Fund but that's another question. I'm getting a yes, that it goes into our General Fund so it can be used for anything in the City. Mr. Karabatakis: Another concern that I've had as I'm doing some research on this, with this being approved, that it could change 53 other sites that could also be designated for waiver usage. Can you expand on that a little bit? Mr. Wilshaw: I believe you're looking at the second item on our agenda, which is not related to the cellular lower. Mr. Karabatakis: Being that you're asking for a waiver use for this site, wouldn't that set some kind of precedent where parks would now be allowed to have cell lowers? Mr. Wilshaw: No, no. The Item #2 on our agenda is for Future Land Use planning, which is essentially a guide as to what each parcel of properly throughout the City is used for. That has absolutely no relation to the cell tower proposal here. Mr. Karabatakis: Would this waiver go against the Master Plan that Livonia has? Mr. Wilshaw: No. This is parkland. So it's not a change of zoning. The Master Plan deals with what type of zoning should be in certain areas. This is not a change of zoning. Its just a waiver to allow a small portion to be used for something other than its original use. Mr. Karabatakis: I guess that's where I'm sure a lot of people are upset too, is that they're using a park for a cell tower where it does seem like there should be other areas that it can be away from houses. I know everyone does have the "not in my backyard" mentality, but there is a point where if it is that close to a house, it has to have some substance to it where there is so much in Livonia. I mean that's what the industrial park part of Livonia was kind of created for, was to put the unsightly buildings that are a necessity for commerce and for manufacturing, but no one wants something that unsightly next to their home and that's July 14, 2009 25305 why Livonia was created as it is, to have the industrial area separated from the residential area. Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. Mr. Karabatakis: I think that should be continued, that thought process. Mr. Wilshaw: I'm sure the folks from the cellular company can talk to this as well, but one of the things that we're dealing with in the City as we see more and more cellular tower petitions come before is, is that residents and people's use of cellular phones has changed over the years, as opposed to just being a mobile phone that's in their car. So you put towers near freeways. Now people want to use their cell phones as their home phone. Therefore, the towers are now getting closer to their homes so that they can have proper and full coverage within their homes. Mr. Karabatakis: What's the worse case scenario that would happen if this tower did not go where it is regarding coverage? Mr. Wilshaw: That would be a question that the Verizon folks can answer, and I will ask that. Mr. Karabatakis: All right. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else that would like to speak at this time? If not, we'll ask that the petitioner come up, and if you'd like to address some of the cencems that have been mentioned, you can go ahead. Otherwise, we have a few questions for you. Mr. LaBelle: Sure, (would like to. Let me start first with the coverage issue. The people here are getting coverage, great. I'm glad you are. The situation is that anytime you see a coverage map, and if you could put that coverage map up again, the one before rather than after. In any circumstance where you see that, you'll see that there are areas that have little pockets that show that they have it. And even the red area, you can gel a signal. But the point of the matter is, is that the reason why that is showing red and the reason why we are here is because we have received numerous complaints about dropped and lost coverage and lost ability to be able to use the additional services that are available. That's the capacity issue. Bottom line, we do not want to build lowers. Il may feel like that's what we want to do, but it costs us upwards of $400,000 to build these things. If we could gel away with building no more lowers at all and just keep working the way it is right now, we would, because we make more money if we don't have to spend $400,000 to put a tower July 14, 2009 25306 up. But under the Federal Telecommunications Ad, in order to maintain our license to be able to broadcast on this, we have to respond to complaints. So we are doing this because we have received those complaints. Persons here may be getting coverage, but a lot of other people aren't, and those are the persons who we're addressing by doing this. If you could put the after map up. The concept here is just to deal with that, and that's the reason why it gets stuck in there at that point. These map coverages are the result of RF frequency results, and the fad that this particular site is as high on our prionty list as it is, is the direct result of the number of complaints and dropped calls that we have registered either within our system or as a result of direct complaints from the customers. So this is a coverage issue whether or not they're having a problem there or not. I'd also like to address the issue of what it would look like. If I could have the map up again that shows the site plan. That one there. I'm going to start first by noting for the Planning Commission, under the Federal Communications Act, which I've already referenced, we have obligations with regard to providing coverage to our customers. In order to maintain the licenses that we pay for in the first place and retain, we have to provide that service. One of the things that's provided in the Federal Communications Act is the reference to the fad that any decision by a stale or local government to deny a request to place, construct or modify a personal wireless service facility shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in written record. That's basically the standard which is established by the federal government with regard to what has to happen at this point. I understand the concerns of the citizens with regard to a telecommunications tower. I'll start to address some of the issues about how it will look and what we can do with regard to that. But the basic concept, it's ugly, is not substantial evidence in the record, and it has been held several times as not being one the things that can be established. From our standpoint in terms of dealing with this, we went, I think it was described earlier that we have actually been in negotiations with the City of Livonia for over a year with regard to the location. Two years? Two years with the City of Livonia with regard to where to put this. We have been all over this golf course with regard to where to located it. One of the places that was, in fad, suggested that was, in fad, rejected by the Parks and Recreation Department is right in the middle of the fairway out there. Put it out somewhere out there. And its not because the golfers are going to have a problem with it. Its because it's even more visible out there. If you stick it out in the middle of the fairway, there are no trees around it. Instead of two-thirds of it to three-quarters of it being covered by trees, nothing is covered by trees, and it becomes completely visible. July 14, 2009 25307 It may not be as visible to the persons immediately adjacent to R, but everyone along the rest of the north of Idyl Wyld golf course would suddenly see the entire width of the tower, including the shelter that exists below it. So that was part of our reason for putting it where it is. With regard to where it is located in this circumstance, if you take a look at this map carefully, you will know that a number of the trees that are being taken out dont include the biggest trees that are available there. One of the trees that is being retained is a 36 foot wide Oak. Another one is a 24 fool wide Oak. Another one is a 25 fool wide Oak, and this is thick brush. These are all designed and left that way. And its designed to be that way in order to be able to shelter as much as we can possible do the location of this. As far as the tower itself is concerned, like I said before, it is painted a gray color to try to blend into the background of the area in general. I began working for Verizon about seven years ago. Prior to that time period, I drove down Telegraph Road to go to my workplace every day and never noticed the wireless towers that dot the whole thing. They are literally all the way along there. After I started working for them, I suddenly started noticing them. I noticed that they were there. It may be hard to believe, but after a certain amount of time, you begin to ignore them. They really are not very obtrusive when you get to the question of what they look like on the long lens. As far as a stealth lower is concerned, which is what the reference was to a pine tree and the like, it can be done and we certainly have done it in certain places. I will tell you that its not that stealthy. If you get 120 feet up and the rest of the trees are 80 feet up, usually you can figure out that that's not a real tree when it's sticking up higher than everything else. The other big thing that is a difference between it and doing it just as a regular monopole is the collocalors. If you place essentially camouflaging on the lop of it, you eliminate locations where collocalors can go on the lower, the result of which is the people that have already talked to us about collocating on this, T -Mobil, AT&T, they won't be able to go on this lower if it becomes a stealth lower. Al that point, they will have to be asking themselves to put up lowers elsewhere, approximately in the same areas. As to the question about what other lowers are available to go onto, the two lowers that were mentioned, one of them is our lower. That's the one at the Livonia Public Schools facility. That's ours and we've already had requests by other parties to collocate on that one as well. This is why it's called cellular coverage: cellular coverage tries to take each individual location, each tower, and fl the cell that's created around that tower with every other cell without overlapping. The more you overlap these cells, the more you gel them overlapped with one another, the more you actually gel reduced coverage because July 14, 2009 25308 within the area where they overlap, you gel destructive interference between the signals, the result of which you can actually decrease the coverage by having them loo close together. But at the same time, they do need to be able to link up, and they do link up about two to three mile radius from each other. It's not as large as you would think, and I know along 4 75 or along 496, you may have seen that there's a lot them. What you're not seeing is lowers that are farther back from the road, which are, in fact, only two to three feel away, but you just can't see them because they are loo far away from the road itself, and they are 120 fool lowers. So when we gel down to the question of whether we need it or not, we definlely need it. The question of whether we can go on someplace else, we can't because we're the ones putting those lowers up in the first place. And then lastly, with regard to how .... Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. LaBelle, did you look atthe Dickinson site at all? Mr. LaBelle: I'm sorry? Mr. Wilshaw: Are you aware of the Dickinson site and did you consider that? Mr. LaBelle: I have to defer here because I'm not sure about the Dickinson site. Mr. Wilshaw: Just if you're going to address this since you're still on that subject right at the moment. Mr. Calloway: No, we didn't look at the Dickinson site. When they give us an area to look in, they've looked at all the other towers and all the other proposed towers. Whenever we propose a tower, that's how AT&T and T -Mobil know that we're proposing this lower. We lel each other know. All the cell phone companies lel each other know that we're proposing a lower at this location. If you're interested, please put in a collocation application with us. So if there's a tower that's being proposed, we look at all of those first, and then they send out a map showing us an area that they would like to locale a lower. So in short, no, we didn't specifically look at the Dickinson site because its not within the map that was given to us where they needed to locate a tower, but our engineer has looked at all the sites around the area where they need coverage to figure out whether they can use one of those sites. It's a lot cheaper for us to collocate than it is to build a lower. Mr. LaBelle: The area that Leland is referring to, he talks about the map. That's called a search ring. It's a point source that says, right here would be the very best place possible for this to go, but I'll Ms. Smiley: I think you wanted to address the security in that area Mr. Wilshaw: Security and lighting of the area. July 14, 2009 25309 let you go about a quarter mile around that. Again, this is all an issue of matching up those cells and not overlapping them. So you can't really get too far away from the optimal coverage point without causing major problems with coverage. You will get destructive interference as well as permanent coverage gaps because you can't fill them up. So that's the reason why. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. Thank you. Would you like to continue? Mr. LaBelle: Okay. There was one other matter that was talked about. Oh, the wetland or the food plain. You actually see on our map, there's a designation of the wefland that is there. The flags that somebody referred to, those are ours. We're the ones who have actually gone out there and done the work necessary to figure out what this is. It's an unregulated wetland. It's not sufficienfly large enough to be regulated under the regulations of the Michigan DNR or the DEC. So as a result, it's not included. But if you take a look at it also, even if you look at the contours of where the wetland is actually located, we are outside of it. No portion of our tower is located within it. Mr. Wilshaw: I think if you put a lower on a wetland, it wouldn't be stable. Correct? Mr. LaBelle: That's correct. We cant dump it on top of wetland. It's possible to put those babies on stilts but you really don't want to do that rf you don't have to. We're not doing that in this circumstance. There was one other matter that was referenced that was basically visibility of the storage area. I can't really talk to what the storage area is going to be used for because it's the City's, and I'm not sure what it's going to be. But as I understand it, the reason why they wanted the storage area in the first place in terms of visibility and the like, was to move the unsightly condition of what was there over into that area, which would be a controlled fenced and, as it turns out, completely surrounded by trees. If you cant see that area now, you're not going to see it after it gets moved over in that storage area because it has to be over to that side. If you can see it now, it is moving to a position where it will behind trees. So it, hopefully, will be less visible in that case. But again like I said, I'm really not sure what the City of Livonia is going to be doing with that, but I do know that it will provide, I would suggest, more coverage, reduced visibility of that material from where they are currently located now. Ms. Smiley: I think you wanted to address the security in that area Mr. Wilshaw: Security and lighting of the area. July 14, 2009 25310 Mr. LaBelle: Yes. Lel me talk about that in general. Let's start with the ground lighting. As far as the lower is concerned and it being lit, we're at the pleasure of the Commission. Whatever they want to do. But as far as the ground lighting is concerned, that site actually isn't lit at all. It has a low wattage security light, 120 wafts, that only goes on when it motion detects anything in that area. The only time that's going to happen is when one of our guys goes there and he is only going to go there once or twice a month. As one person suggested, there's a lot of traffic going back up and down there and we'll add to that. If there's a lot of traffic going up and down now, we will be adding to it in a very diminutonal basis if we're only doing it one vehicle once or twice for about an hour or less at the site once or twice a month. I would not think we would add significantly to the congestion to the extent that there is traffic on the thing now. It's a matter of what the golf course does with it, and I dont think we'll change that situation. As far as the security is concerned on this site, I'll start with the most basic consideration. We have never had a security issue with regard to any of our sites anywhere in the State of Michigan. The reason why is because its got several redundancies in terms of security. The first thing is that the fence itself will be six feel high. It is locked and has no access available to it. It is possible that we could put barbed wire on lop of it. We did not because of the fact that the ordinance doesn't allow us to do so. We do so in some circumstances, put barbed wire on lop of it. But even if you didn't in this circumstance, once you're in this location, if you're actually inside there, there's only two things you can monkey with, if you will, within that area. One would be the building itself and two would be the tower. The tower has access rungs, a ladder, to be able to get onto it. It starts 20 feel high before you can gel up to that point. Unless they went over the lop of this fence with a 20 fool extension ladder, they're not getting up on that lower in any way, shape or form. It won't be possible to gel up there. The building itself is not only locked and secured, the building also has a security system, a motion and security sensor. It will alert a security firm, that we engage as part of our process in doing all of our lowers, that there has been someone who's been detected there. Long before anybody could actually make any access to anything within there, we would be there with our security people to make sure they didn't. I grant you that this is close to a school, but the plain matter of fact is that we actually put our lowers on school property as well, and we've not had issues on those school properties with vandalism or with access to the site. We're well aware of the security issues in connection with these kinds of things with 40,000 some locations across the United States. We've had a little July 14, 2009 25311 experience in trying to deal with those issues and we've got it down to a little bit of a science. So basically, what it comes down to is that I don't think there will be any security issues because there hasn't been any up to now. Mr.Wilshaw: Are there any other questions? Mr. Taylor: Speaking of the building, is it a masonry building? Mr. LaBelle: I'm not sure. Mr. Calloway: Its a prefab concrete building with a veneer, and we can put whatever kind of veneer you like on it. Usually we use an aggregate veneer, but some municipalities want a brick veneer and we accommodate that. Mr. Taylor: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Anything else, Mr. LaBelle? Mr. LaBelle: I think I will rest unless there are other questions from someone with regard to what's happened here. I've tried to address what concerns there are. Mr. Wilshaw: The security was the last one that I had on my list as well, so I appreciate that. Mr. LaBelle: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. LaBelle, or actually Mr. Calloway might be more appropriate, the resident had asked about her TV reception being affected. Mr. Calloway: I would argue that's from the handset. That's what she said, when she started messing with the handset, that she saw that it affected the TV. Mr. Wilshaw: But the lower would not. .. Mr. Calloway: No, it's not the lower. It's the closest thing to the electronic device that you're having an issue with, so that's her handset. Mr. LaBelle: I can speak to that from a legal basis. The Federal Communications Commission is charged with establishing the frequency band with regard to everything that's out. The frequency band within which we operate is significantly higher in most cases than that which is obtained with regard to a TV or radio signal. We're similar to a radio signal in some respects July 14, 2009 25312 but the band widths have been divided up so that they don't allow that and we're regulated by the FCC to maintain within those band widths. We can lose our license if we go outside those band widths. Mr. Wilshaw: Right. If you interfere with TV, then you actually can lose your license. Mr. LaBelle: We can, yes. So if we stay within our band width, which we do, we shouldn't interfere with any TV signal. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you, sir. Based on that, if there are no other questions, I think we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Al this time, a motion is in order. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, itwas #07-42-2009 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 14, 2009, on Petition 2008-08-02-26 submitted by FMHC Corporation, agents for Verizon Wireless, requesting waiver use approval to construct a wireless communication support structure (120 fool high monopole) and equipment shelter within Fairway Park, located north of Five Mile Road and east of Levan Road (adjacent to Idyl Wyld Golf Course) in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 17, which property is zoned PL, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-08-02-26 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Survey and General Information Plan marked Sheet 1 of Job No. 94044-1114 prepared by Midwestern Consulting, dated April 23, 2009, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Site Plan Detail and Pole Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2 of Job No. 94044-1114 prepared by Midwestern Consulting, dated April 23, 2009, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan marked Sheet 3 of Job No. 94044-1114 prepared by Midwestern Consulting, dated April 23, 2009, as revised is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the total overall height of the monopole, together with the antenna platform at the top, shall not exceed 125 feet; July 14, 2009 25313 5. That this monopole antenna support structure shall be designed and constructed so as to accommodate collocation for at least three (3) additional users; 6. That this monopole antenna support structure shall be located at least 300 feet distant from any residence as required; 7. That barbed wire shall not be installed on fence sections bordering the lease area or the City storage yard; 8. That a low -wattage, non -blinking light shall be installed on the monopole for public safety reasons due to its proximity to St. Mary Mercy Hospital's helicopter landing pad, as recommended in the correspondence dated June 16, 2009, from the Police Division of the Department of Public Safety; 9. That the lease area may be decreased in size and its configuration adjusted or modified to the extent possible in orderto minimize any unnecessary tree clearing; and 10. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 18.42A and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding 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. Wilshaw Is there any discussion on this motion? Ms. Smiley: I do have one point and that's the non -blinking light on the tower. In light of the information, I'm not sure exactly ... did July 14, 2009 25314 you want to share again what the Stale of Michigan said about the tower? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. The standards that are used on any lower under 200 feet, actually any object under 200 feel, does not require a light. Anything with a 25:1 slope ratio, which in this particular case, based on the basic estimation from the distance of St. Mary's, the lower would have to be at least 140 feel to be within that guideline. It would then be reviewed by the Stale for a light, and then they use a guide of 8:1 slope ratio before they do recommend a light, which would make this lower have to be several thousand feel probably if that was the case or at lead several hundred feel to require a light. So it definitely does not require a light based on lheirslandards. Ms. Smiley: Do you think that would be something they would look at before it goes to Council? We would have them look at the necessity for a light. Mr. Taylor: We could do that. I have no problem with doing those types of things. What comes to my mind is, you gel a new helicopter pilot that possibly hasn't gone in that area before and doesn't know about that lower, and I know they're supposed to know about those types of things, and I'm looking at the fact of what happens if he happens to run into the lower and the helicopter falls on one of the homes. I think we ought to do everything we can do to make sure there's no accident that happens in that area. That's just the way I feel about it. Ms. Smiley: Okay. That's fine. We'll go ahead with it. Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. McDermott, do you have anything? Ms. McDermott: Well, I'm just concerned about that as well. From the information that we've heard here, I dont think that we have that as a concern. Obviously, I wouldn't want to see a helicopter fall onto one of the houses, either. I sure the residents would not like to see that either, but it doesn't appear, from the information that we have, that that is a concem. So I actually would like to see that removed from the resolution. Mr. Wilshaw: That is something the maker of the motion can offer if you could like, otherwise a substitute resolution can be offered. Mr. Taylor: Well, you have to remember that this a recommending body and that the City Council is going to hear this also. In their wisdom, they would either approve the light or disapprove the light. That's the way I feel about it. I was on the Council before and July 14, 2009 25315 the Council will certainly determine whether they feel its a safety factor or not, and they may even get more information than we have. Mr. Wilshaw: Anything else, Mrs. McDermott? Ms. McDermott: No. Mr. Taormina: If I may request a friendly amendment to the motion and that would be that the size and configuration of the lease area, or the size be minimized and the configuration modified to the extent possible so as to minimize any unnecessary tree clearing. So where we could make adjustments potentially to that size and configuration of the lease area, we could do so in order to save any trees along that edge. Mr. Taylor: I have no problem with that. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Mr. Wilshaw: The maker and the supporter agree? Ms. Smiley: Sure, no problem with me either. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. We'll have that added to the resolution. Is there anything else from the Commission at this time? Then we'll call the roll. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Taylor, Smiley, Vartoogian, Wilshaw NAYES: McDermott ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Scheel, Morrow Mr. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2009-02-07-01 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2009-02- 07-01, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #132-09, to determine whether or not to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, Future Land Use Plan, so as to change the future land use designation of 53 various locations throughoutthe City. July 14, 2009 25316 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Secretary. This is our own item so we can go directly to Mr. Taormina to fill us in on this. Mark Taormina: Thank you. The Planning Commission is seeking to update the Future Land Use Map with respect to 53 locations throughout the City. For each of the proposed changes, the staff has prepared a map with information relating to the location, the size of the subject land area, current zoning, existing land use, as well as the current and proposed Future Land Use designations. The purpose of these amendments is to have the Future Land Use Plan brought up -lo -dale and made current so as to be consistent with recent zoning changes and to reflect changes with respect to actual and/or proposed land uses. We're adding a new land use category called "Mixed Use". Land designated as Mixed Use would provide opportunities for a variety of potential uses, including mixtures of retail, office, institutional, and residential type developments. This category could also act as a transition between low density residential and higher intensity developments. Following tonight's public hearing, if adopted, the Department will submit the final approved Future Land Use Plan to the City Council for certification. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw Mr. Nowak, do you have any additional correspondence? Mr. Nowak: We have correspondence from three communities that were notified of the proposed changes to the Future Land Use Plan. The first item is from the Township of Plymouth, dated April 17, 2009, which reads as follows: "Thank you for forwarding the proposed amendments to the City of Livonia Future Land Use Map for our review and comments. The Charter Township of Plymouth Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed amendments and has no objections to the proposal" The letter is signed by Dennis Cebulski, Planning Commission Chairman. The second letter is from the City of Canton, dated April 14, 2009, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the proposed amendments and have no comments." The letter is signed by Jeffrey A. Goulel, Community Planner. The third letter is from the City of Novi, dated May 20, 2009, which reads as follows: "The City of Novi Planning Commission has reviewed the City of Livonia's proposed Future Land Use Map amendments and the Commission has no objections to the proposed changes. Please consider the attached memo from City of Novi Planner Mark Spencer, dated April 13, 2009, as the Planning Commission's review of the matter. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed Master Plan amendments." The letter is signed by Mark Pehrson, Chairman. Also there is an attached letter from the City of Novi Planner July 14, 2009 25317 that basically states that they have no objections to the proposed changes. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw Thank you, Mr. Nowak. Since this is our own petition, there is no petitioner to come forward. Are there any questions from the Commissioners at this point? No questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Sir, please come forward. If you could provide your name and address, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Wit: First a matter of darification. Are we only talking about that particular spot, or are we talking about all 53 designations? Mr.Wilshaw: Weare talking about all 53 designations. Gary Wilt, 16795 Renwick. I'm speaking to the Clay properly proposal at Six Mile and Newburgh, Fitzgerald and Munger. I am now the Past President of the Kingsbury Heights/Renwick Park Civic Association. Last year I was President. First of all, I want to thank the Future Land Use committee publicly for spending time with me Iasi year to explain their process and to listen to the Association's concerns about the Clay School properly, concerns such as the application for commercial warehousing, condos, school warehousing, school meal services, and so forth. Most of that has been slopped and other solutions have been sought, and now the proposal is low density residential. I especially want to thank the Future Land Use committee for going over their extended time by about half an hour so that we could really discuss the low density residential meaning. So our Association mel prior to this evening to get the input from our residents. Some of the residents are here tonight, but I think we did a pretty good job of explaining what the Future Land Use proposal was. And so I am here to tell you that if and when the School Board decides to sell the Clay property, our Association would not argue with the proposal of the Future Land Use designation of low density residential. We can't speak for every individual landowner on Munger and Fitzgerald but, in general, the Association supports the designation. However, we would like to continue to be involved with the Planning Commission and City Council as plans for that properly progress. In the past, together, we have had some very successful outcomes. Some of you may remember the Newburgh Plaza with Stu Frankel. We reached some very agreeable terms on landscaping and lighting and hours of operation. We worked with the Planning Commission and the City Council on the proposed AT&T cell lower in the past, and we believe that by working together again we could be successful, if required, to work on the Clay property to the satisfaction of the homeowners July 14, 2009 25318 that border that area. Our President, Lou Suveg, is in Pennsylvania this evening with his daughter and his new granddaughter, so he couldn't be here, but also representing our civic association today is our Vice President, Paul Kerby. Paul will share with you some of our concerns and desires regarding low density residential development. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Witt. I know that you attended the meeting, along with several of the Planning Commissioners, and we did spend a lot of time together. Your cooperative nature is hopefully going to result in a positive outcome going forward. We appreciate that. Mr. Wit: I know we've been successful in the past and no reason why we can't continue to be successful. Mr.Wilshaw: Exactly. Thank you very much. Paul Kerby, 37332 Bristol. Good evening. As Mr. Will said, I'm Vice President of the Kingsbury Heights/Renwick Park Civic Association. We had a recent association meeting where we identified three main areas that we would like to highlight and gel on record. Number one, we have the home design. We would like to see that it is compatible. And again, we understand that it is a Future Land Use and this isn't something that is going on, but we'd like to get this on record that this is what we would like. Home design compatible with existing homes, part of that is lot size, footprint, height equivalent with current homes in the area. Number two is egress and ingress. We have a particular concern about a long range plan for a road at one point that was proposed behind Munger Street, behind the residents on Munger. We would not like to see that. Otherwise, ingress and egress at any spot would be a concern, especially if the church decided to sell any parcels there. Number three is a couple of various items, green space, lighting, possible commons area, berming, sidewalks, any of those things. We would just like to see something that is compatible with what we have. A common area was brought up amongst our members that came to the Association meeting. The lighting was another concem. If there was a commons area, that it wasn't intrusive. As any plans for development do progress, all we ask is that our Association is given sensitivity to these items. We would just like to be involved as it goes forward, That's all we have. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you so much, Mr. Kerby. Mr. Kerby: Thank you. July 14, 2009 25319 Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anything else from the Commission at this lime? Mr. Taormina: I would just like to point out that we greatly appreciate the input from the residents when we look at these matters. We spent quite a bit of time with Mr. Witt discussing this particular area, and as the Commissioners who were at that committee meeting will recall, we struggled quite a bit with how we might blend the low density residential portion with possibly an open space area if ever this area is developed in the form of residential. Again, this is only to guide future decision making with respect to rezoning and development proposals. But it was fell that we would keep that in mind that at some point, what we'd like to see would be a combination of both some amount of open space in combination with the residential for any development that might take place on this properly, recognizing that it is presently a school properly and that this school site does offer some level of recreation to the residents. It was felt that we would like to incorporate that at some time into the future design for this site should it ever be redeveloped. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. That particular item has been put on the screen for the area that we're speaking of, which is behind Newburgh Plaza there. Is there anything else from anybody on the Commission? Go ahead, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor: I worked on the plaza. I was on the Council at the time and worked with Mr. Frenkel and got him to meet with the neighbors. I'm glad to see that you have a civic association. There are so many of them that are defunct now, unfortunately. That's what it takes for a group of citizens in their neighborhood to keep a watch on what's going on. This is just the Future Land Use Plan we're talking about. It would have to be rezoned and it's owned by the schools. They would have to have it rezoned in order for any kind of a development to go there. But you keeping your ears and eyes open as to what happens is a great function of what your civic association can do, and I say congratulations to you for doing it. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. If there are no other comments from the Commission, then we will go ahead and close the public hearing at this time. A motion is in order. On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-43-2009 RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acis of Michigan 1931, as amended, and the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia having held a Public July 14, 2009 25320 Hearing on July 14, 2009, for the purpose of amending Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, so as to change the future land use designation of 53 various properties located throughout the City, for the following reasons: 1. That the amendments are necessary to bring the Future Land Use Plan up-to-date so as to be consistent with recent zoning changes and to reflect changes with respect to actual and/or proposed land uses; 2. That the proposed amendments will insure that the Future Land Use Plan will be current in accordance with the Planning Commission's policy; and 3. That the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Plan are logical and reasonable. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of Public Acts of Michigan 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be fled with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McDermott, Vartoogian, Taylor, Smiley, Wilshaw NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Morrow, Sheel Mr. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. We will then go on to our Pending Items section of the agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings; therefore, there will be limited discussion tonight. Audience communication requires unanimous consent from the Commission. July 14, 2009 25321 ITEM#3 PETITION 2009-04-02-08 TROPICAL SMOOTHIE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2009- 04-02-08 submitted by Tropical Smoothie Cafe requesting waiver use approval for outdoor seating in connection with an existing restaurant facility at 30971 Five Mile Road within the Livonia Plaza shopping center, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23. Mr. Wilshaw: This item has been tabled. Do we have a motion to take 0 off the table? On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, 0 was #07-44-2009 RESOLVED, that City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2009-04-02-08 submitted by Tropical Smoothie Cafe requesting waiver use approval for outdoor seating in connection with an existing restaurant facility at 30971 Five Mile Road within the Livonia Plaza shopping center, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, which property is zoned C-2 and P, be removed from the table. Mr. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Are there any updates? Mr. Taormina: No. I see that Mr. John Fakhoury is here. If you have any questions for the petitioner, he's here to answer them. Mr. Wilshaw If the petitioner could come forward, I think we did have a question from our prior meeting that we wanted to ask of you. Please give us your name and address for the record. John Fakhoury, 4408 Firestone, Dearborn, Michigan 48126. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. We had a chance to review pur petition at our last meeting. Is there anything else that you wanted to add at this lime? Mr. Fakhoury: I just feel that we want to improve on the restaurant, and it's not going to hurl nobody. Its to improve the restaurant and the business in the area. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Are there any questions from the Commission? July 14, 2009 25322 Ms. Vartoogian: I just have some questions about the type of seating you'll have. Mr. Fakhoury: It's cast iron. It's all commercial grade for outdoor sealing for restaurants. Ms. Vartoogian: Do you plan on having any type of umbrellas on the tables? Mr. Fakhoury: Yes. We sent in the pictures. We had 26 copies made. It's a diagram of the pictures and the umbrellas. Ms. Vartoogian: I don't think we ever received those. Mr. Wilshaw: Did we gel that, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: I can't remember seeing it. Mr. Nowak: I'm sorry. What was that? Mr. Fakhoury: We had to make 26 copies of the diagram that showed the pictures of the tables and the chairs. Mr. Nowak: When you say pictures, do you mean that showed the layout? Mr. Fakhoury: Yes, like the layout. Mr. Nowak: He's talking about what was originally submitted. Mr. Taormina: Yes, the original submittal. Mr. Wilshaw: Its just an overhead shot. Mr. Taormina: I can't remember if we had pictures of the umbrellas. Mr. Wilshaw: I don't recall that. Ms. Vartoogian: Can you describe what the umbrellas will look like as far as colors or materials? Mr. Fakhoury: Its just going to be a black umbrella with a Tropical Smoothie logo on there. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Thank you. That's all. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anything else from the Commission? Ms. Smiley: I hope so loo. Mr. Taormina: I can personally attest to the quality of the smoothies, a Tropical Smoothie. You should try it. Ms. Smiley: I haven't been to one in years, but I was at the one in Florida and they were very good. Mr. Fakhoury: Well, hopefully the demographics don't do us wrong, because when we did the demographic study, the best place for it to be is in the City of Livonia, out of all of Michigan. Ms. Smiley: Oh, great. Okay. Good luck. Mr. Fakhoury: There's 10 percent off for dl city employees for the month of July. Mr. Wilshaw: Your business is doing well so far? Mr. Fakhoury: It's growing. Like Ms. Smiley said, a lot of people don't really know what it is. They think its just smoothies, but when its a cafe, its a full menu. So we have no problem once they come in. They come back everyday. So we have to let the people July 14, 2009 25323 Ms. Smiley: I haven't had the opportunity to go to your restaurant. I've seen it. Are Tropical Smoothies like fruit smoothies? Do you also serve food? Mr. Fakhoury: Yes, what it is, we're bringing a new way for people to eat in the City of Livonia to promote healthy eating. The smoothies are made with real frail. We don't put any base, you know what I mean? A lot of other people who make smoothies, they put a base of either honey or yogurt or apple juice. But ours are made with just real fruit and ice. We can use Splenda or we have a mw sugar called lurbinado. We have bistro sandwiches, wraps, flat breads, soups and salads. Ms. Smiley: Is this a national chain? Mr. Fakhoury: Yes, it is. Ms. Smiley: Because I think I ate at one in Florida. Mr. Fakhoury: That's where we originated from. Ms. Smiley: Well, they're very good. You should do well. Mr. Fakhoury: I hope so. Ms. Smiley: I hope so loo. Mr. Taormina: I can personally attest to the quality of the smoothies, a Tropical Smoothie. You should try it. Ms. Smiley: I haven't been to one in years, but I was at the one in Florida and they were very good. Mr. Fakhoury: Well, hopefully the demographics don't do us wrong, because when we did the demographic study, the best place for it to be is in the City of Livonia, out of all of Michigan. Ms. Smiley: Oh, great. Okay. Good luck. Mr. Fakhoury: There's 10 percent off for dl city employees for the month of July. Mr. Wilshaw: Your business is doing well so far? Mr. Fakhoury: It's growing. Like Ms. Smiley said, a lot of people don't really know what it is. They think its just smoothies, but when its a cafe, its a full menu. So we have no problem once they come in. They come back everyday. So we have to let the people July 14, 2009 25324 know what we offer. We try to do that through different fors of advertising, fundraisers, to lel people know that ifs more than just real fruit smoothies. Mr. Wilshaw: Hopefully, this little bit of air time you're getting here will help you get another sale or two. Mr. Fakhoury: I hope so. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anything else from the Commission? A motion would be in order then. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-45-2009 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 14, 2009, on Petition 2009-04-02-08 submitted by Tropical Smoothie Cafe requesting waiver use approval for outdoor seating in connection with an exisfing restaurant facility at 30971 Five Mile Road within the Livonia Plaza shopping center, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, which property is zoned C-2 and P, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2009-04-02- 08 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the outdoor seating shall be confined to a portion of the walkway area that lies immediately east of the subject restaurant unit as shown on the outside seating location plan and outside seating arrangement plan submitted by Tropical Smoothie Cafe, received by the Planning Commission on May 4, 2009; 2. That the outdoor seasonal restaurant seating shall not exceed a maximum of 12 seats, which shall be in addition to 22 previously approved interior seats; 3. That the outdoor dining shall be conducted in a manner that will insure that sufficient clear space for pedestrian circulation and egress is maintained on the walkway at all times; 4. That a trash receptacle shall be provided for the outdoor seating area and shall be emptied regularly as needed; 5. That sound levels of any outdoor speakers shall be kept to a reasonable minimum so as to not become objectionable; July 14, 2009 25325 6. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #143- 08, 14308, which granted waiver use approval to operate a restaurant facility at this locafion under Petition 2008-01- 02-06, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with this approval; and 7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of application for a Zoning Compliance Permit for the outdoor dining. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding 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. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 982ntl Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 982n° Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 2, 2008. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted, 8 was #07-46-2009 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 982n° Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2009, are hereby approved. July 14, 2009 25326 A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Taylor, Vartoogian, Smiley, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Morrow ABSTAIN: McDermott Mr. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 983d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 14, 2009, was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, Acting Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary