Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2014-03-04MINUTES OF THE 1,051 ST PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 4, 2014, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,051" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Scott P. Bahr Kathleen E. McIntyre R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Morrow 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 of the proceedings tonight. We want to welcome a new member, Kathleen McIntyre, to the City Planning Commission. She comes to us with a vast amount of experience involved within the City of Livonia. Her latest assignment was to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We want to welcome you, Kathleen. ITEM #1 PETITION 2014-01-02-02 CVS/Pharmacy Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Pefition 2014-01-02-02 submitted by Woodward Detroit CVS, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 10.03(g) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize an SOD liquor license (sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) in connection with the CVS Pharmacy at 8811 March 4, 2014 26260 Newburgh Road in the Four Oaks Shopping Center, located on the northwest corner of Newburgh Road and Joy Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Taormina: This is a request pursuant to Section 10.03 of the Zoning Ordinance for waiver use approval to utilize a Specially Designated Distributors license at the CVS Pharmacy which is located at the Four Oaks Shopping Center at the northwest corner of Newburgh and Joy Roads. The property is zoned C-1, Local Business. There is residential to the north as well as to the west of this shopping center. To the east is a Walgreens drug store. The PL zoned property denotes Public Lands owned by Livonia Public Schools. Churchill High School is located on the east side of Newburgh Road and the Livonia Career Technical Center is the PL zoned land which is to the north of the subject property. This CVS Pharmacy received waiver use approval in 1995 to utilize an SDM, Specially Designated Merchants license which allows for the sale of packaged wine and beer only and does not include spirits. The request this evening for the SDD would allow for the sale of packaged spirit products. There are a number of special requirements that pertain to SDD licensed businesses. The first is that there must be a minimum 1,000 foot separation from similar licensed businesses. Utilization of an SDD license at this location would be in compliance with that requirement. The nearest SDD licensed establishment is the Livonia Liquor & Fine Wine Store located at 38675 Ann Arbor Road. That's on the south side of Ann Arbor Road, west of Hix Road, and it's approximately 3,900 feel away from the subject site. The second special requirement pertaining to SDD licenses is a minimum 400 fool separation from any church or school building. Again, utilization of an SDD license at the CVS Pharmacy at Joy and Newburgh Roads would be in compliance with this provision. The distance is measured between the actual buildings and not the property lines. The Livonia Career Technical Center is located approximately 560 feel to the north and west of the CVS, and Churchill High School is located approximately 470 feet to the northeast across Newburgh Road. Lastly, there is a special requirement that all SDD licensed establishments whose gross receipts that are derived from the sale of alcohol do not exceed 35 percent of the total receipts of all sales, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic, must display their SDD products behind a counter or in a locked display case with no direct public access. Because this CVS Pharmacy would meet that criteria, they are required to place their products behind a counter or in a locked display case. They have submitted a floor plan that would appear to show all of the March 4, 2014 26261 products stored and displayed behind the sales counter. We will confirm that this evening with the petitioner. So they comply with that provision as well. This requirement, I'll note also, does not apply to SDM products. As you look at this floor plan, you see a couple of highlighted areas. The one on the far right is where the liquor will be stored, and that is the point -of -sales counter there. The other two highlighted areas are coolers and shelving for the wine and beer products. Those are not behind a counter or locked in a case, nor are they required to be under the ordinance. Lastly, a note regarding SDD licenses. Stale law limits the number of SDD licenses based on a community's total population. For the City of Livonia, the established SDD quota is 34. Currently, there are 32 active SDD-licensed businesses and two inactive licenses. The two inactive escrowed licenses include the former CVS drug store at Burton Center Plaza on Farmington Road just north of Six Mile Road and the former Livonia Drug Store on Five Mile just west of Farmington. If approved, the CVS would transfer the license that is in escrow al their former Farmington and Six Mile store to the Newburgh and Joy Road store. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Please Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 28, 2014, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced planning petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The proposed plan indicates that project will affect any existing public utilities, and therefore will not require any Engineering Division permits. The legal description provided with the petition appears to be connect and is acceptable to this office. The existing Four Oaks Shopping Center is assigned an address range of 8811 to 8881 Newburgh Road. The existing store is located on the south end of the shopping center, which corresponds to the address of 8811 Newburgh Road." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer 11. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 27, 2014, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with CVS — SDD License, located at 8811 Newburgh Road (northwest comer of Newburgh and Joy Roads in the northeast quarter of Section 32). After reviewing the plans with the Chief of Police, we have no objection to the waiver being granted, contingent that the petitioner complies with approvals granted to other SDD licensed establishments, whereas liquor displayed for sale must be behind a counter with no direct public March 4, 2014 26262 access. The establishment would be required to supply a qualified employee, at least 18 years of age, to distribute the product to customers. Also, contingent that the petitioner complies with all State Laws, City Ordinances, Stipulations and conditions set by the Livonia Police Department Liquor, Investigation Unit as approved by the Chief of Police, and Stipulations and conditions set by the Traffic Bureau of the Livonia Police Department. We are available to provide any additional information you may desire on this subject." The letter is signed by Jeffrey W. Ronayne, Special Services Bureau. Thal is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mr. Bahr: Through the Chair to Mark. Mark, do you know if the other CVS locations in Livonia currently have SDD licenses? Mr. Taormina: The answer to that is, some do and some do not. I had written those down and if you give me a moment, I can provide you with more detail, or maybe the petitioner knows immediately where those other locations are. Mr. Bahr: My main point is that this isn't a departure from the none as far as other drugstores in the city, whether it be Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid. This is a pretty typical thing for them to have a license like this. Mr. Taormina: We have one other CVS pharmacy that carries an SDD license and a total of four Rile Aids. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Jason Canvasser, Clark Hill P.L.C., 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500, Detroit, Michigan 48226. I'm the aflorney for CVS. Michael Allen, Store Manager, 8811 Newburgh Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. Morrow: You've heard the presentation by Mr. Taormina. Is there anything you'd like to add to it? Mr. Canvasser: Just a little bit to add. I want to first thank the Planning Director for a very thorough and accurate presentation. In regards to CVS's with SDD licenses, I believe there is one on Middlebell Road. It's about nine miles from this current location. March 4, 2014 26263 According to my records, there are three Rite Aids with SDD licenses and an Apex Drug Store that also has an SDD license. There may be others, but these are the ones I'm aware of. As the Planning Director went through, it appears that all the requirements of Section 10.03, the waiver uses for the C-1, Local Business district, have been complied with. I don't have anything to add to that except for the fact that Churchill High School, which is located more than 400 feel away but less than 500 feel away, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission did send them a notice and provided them an opportunity to object. As far as we are aware, they have not voiced any objection to our licensure request. In addition to the 35 percent requirement, this store, the year-to-date beer and wine sales are only about 6.9 percent, so it's far beneath that 35 percent. The closest Livonia store which is located at Six Mile and Haggerty which sells beer, wine and spirits had, I believe, a year -to -dale percent of only 9.2 percent. So again, using the full range of SDD and SDM licenses, we don't expect to be anywhere near the 35 percent. We expect to be sufficiently under that. As the Planning Director also staled, this is an existing store. We are not proposing any new construction. Because its already gone through a planning hearing previously, I would just proffer that we believe that our request complies with Section 19.06, the general waiver requirements and general standards and complies with the spirt and intent of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Livonia. I welcome any questions, but if you'd like, I'd like to present a little bit about how we try to restrict the sale of age -restricted products and specifically alcohol to minors, how the store prevents sales to individuals who may be in an intoxicated condition, and how a store uses their point-of-sale equipment to also check for false identification. So if that's okay, I'll turn it over to the store manager who can provide a little bit of information on that. Mr. Morrow: We would appreciate it very much Mr. Allen: Again, thank you for the opportunity to present some of this information. As a store manager, obviously I'm directly involved with the personnel within the store. As a new hire comes into our organization, they are required to attend new colleague orientation, which is outside of the store. It's an eight hour session which presents information on all of CVS standards, but in addition, they have about an hour to an hour and a half compliance specific training. That compliance training includes alcohol, but we also sell other restricted pharmaceutical products, so that hour and a half training is required by every new hire within the organization. After they complete the March 4, 2014 26264 training, they also are required to take a test and they are required to complete that at 100 percent accuracy within the first 14 days of their hiring. So that is the start of the training involved for compliance, especially with beer and wine and alcohol sales. In addition to that, we have an opportunity to require biannual training for all employees, both pharmacy and front store, including pharmacists. That biannual training is compliance specific. It includes all of those same items, alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical sales restrictions. So they are also required to go through a packet of material that is provided to them and take another compliance test every six months that they are required to pass at 100 percent. If they don't within the quarter, they are actually taken off the schedule and cannot work again until they do finish that compliance training. It is very important training that we put a lot of emphasis on as a company to make sure we are compliant with all those items that we do sell. As far as our pointof-sale equipment, let me back up one second. The biannual training does talk about sales to minors. We have training that is involved with selling to intoxicated persons and falsification of identification, so if anyone presents false ids, they are trained to use a black light to be able to validate ids as well as currency. That is used at the point-of-sale at the register. In addition, some of the other point-of-sale things that we put in place to help with restricted products, we actually, the point-of-sale system when an item that is restricted is scanned, at the point- of-sale there is a hard stop that requests, does that customer have identification? We have to put in the system, yes, that they do provide us identification. At that point, it asks for their dale of birth. We physically have to key in the dale of birth. Al that point the product is then eligible for sale. If it is staled that there is no id, it automatically is a hard slop sale and it does not complete the sale. Once we do put in that they do have an id and we put in the birth dale and it is valid, it will proceed and allow us to finalize the transactions. So that is a hard stop that is built into the system for that product and others that are restricted within our company. I believe I hit on the items that I wanted to as far as the things we do offer as far as training, but also the hard stop that we do employ to make sure we are compliant. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Smiley: What are your hours of operation? Mr. Allen: Our front store hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. everyday. March 4, 2014 26265 Ms. Smiley: But you close at 10:00? Mr. Allen: We close at 10:00, correct. The only adjustment to that is during the holiday timeframe. We do have extended hours for a very short duration between Thanksgiving and Christmas, and we close at midnight during that window. Ms. Smiley: In the evening, how many employees would be in the store? Mr. Allen : There is a minimum of a manager and a cashier at all limes. We also, until 9:00, have a pharmacist because the pharmacy is open until 9:00 Monday through Friday. They are open until 600 on the weekends. So we have a minimum of two employees, a manager and a cashier. During the other times, we have the pharmacy staff that is also available. Ms. Smiley: How long have you been there? Mr. Allen : I've been there for a little over a year and a half now. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: Just curious. Other than the fact that CVS already has a license in escrow, did you have any people asking for liquor at your store or was there a reason why you decided to implement the license here? Mr. Allen : Absolutely. We have a lot of requests from customers. They will come in and ask, do we carry alcohol. Unfortunately, we have to say no, and then I point them in the direction of another location that does sell alcohol. So we do have a fairly significant population that does utilize our store for beer and wine. Like he mentioned before, we're approximately 6.9 percent year to dale of our total front store sales is beer and wine. We don't expect that to be a significantly bumped, but since we have such a customer demand, we're looking to be able to satisfy that customer request. Mr. Taylor: So it could be for the convenience of the customer is what you're saying. Mr. Allen : Absolutely. Since we already have a customer base that is coming in asking for the hard liquor, we would have that opportunity to be able to have it in a secure location but also be able to provide that service to them. March 4, 2014 26266 Mr. Taylor: I think one of the selling points is that we're not adding a new liquor license. All we're doing is moving one. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Does this location have a drive-thm? Mr. Allen: No. that you see on the board in yellow that says "liquor' used to be Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That was my question. Thank you Mr. Taormina: Just a point of clarification going back to the question regarding which facilities carry licenses. We have on record one active SDD license at a CVS at Six Mile and Middlebelt. Then they have three active SDM licensed stores and the one that's in escrow that I mentioned. In the case of Rite Aid, there are four active SDD licenses. Of the three major drug chains, Walgreens does not have either, SDD or SDM. Then if I may, ask one question of the petitioner? Could you describe where the actual liquor will be stored? Will it be behind the cashier? It's difficult to read on the floor plan where the product will actually be shelved, if that's directly at the cashier or if it's adjacent to it at another location that is secured from customers. Mr. Allen: It's within a secured location behind the counter. The location that you see on the board in yellow that says "liquor' used to be where we would develop film. We used to have a lab where we would develop film. That process is no longer available. We've actually gotten rid of that so it's a large area that is secured behind a swing door. There is a cash register at that spot in the corner just across from where the "L" is, where the swing door is. So there is a separate register. We have three registers. Two registers on the counter that's not in front of liquor, and there's one that's directly in front of liquor and theyre all used within the day. Right now, the cigarettes are actually closest to the front door, not where the yellow is, and that's the location where the first cashier is located, if that makes sense. Mr. Taormina: Does the Commission understand? Mr. Morrow: We can see the entryway there in the lower right hand corner. Mr. Taormina: I just circled where the cash registers are that he was speaking about. Apparently, there is also one directly across. Mr. Allen: Its right up at the very corner where the swing door is. Do you mind if I point? I can stand up there and point. It would be just as easy. March 4, 2014 26267 Mr. Wilshaw: We've got the idea. Mr. Allen: It is a completely enclosed area with a swing door that gets into that locafion. Mr. Morrow: I'm assuming they're not locked up. They're just on a shelf. Mr. Allen: Correct. Well, the proposal is that it would be just on the shelf. Many of our locations use liquor caps, secure liquor caps so they're not behind a glass. Obviously we want to make sure we're compliant with every requirement. Mr. Morrow: You're in a protected area so that suffices. Mr. Bahr: Just briefly. This is going to sound really nitpicky but for the sake of the accuracy of our minutes and to limit the confusion of our vast television audience, the CVS that has the SDD license, I believe is at Seven Mile and Middlebelt, not Six Mile and Middlebelt as was indicated earlier. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Bahr: I just wanted to correct that for the record. Thanks. As Chairman Morrow knows, I go by there all the time. Mr. Morrow: We rely very heavily on Mr. Bahr for everything that's happening on Middlebelt Road. Ms. Smiley: We received a violation history of businesses for Woodward Detroit CVS. Are these all that location, Mark? Mr. Taormina: I provided you with the history of 8811 Newburgh. This is the store in question. That is correct. Ms. Smiley: Which is fourviolalions since 1999? Mr. Taormina: No. The one I don't quite understand. You can see the dates. One in 1999. The second one in 2001 doesn't involve a sale to a minor. The most recent one occurred in 2008. Mr. Canvasser: If I may address that quickly? I show the same thing. There was a sale in 1999 to a minor, 2001 and 2008. The current entity, Woodward Detroit CVS came into existence and was approved by the Liquor Control Commission in 2009. As this entity currently exists, there are no violations. It was the predecessor entities that did have a few violations. March 4, 2014 26268 Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: When did the check for having the birth dale in there to proceed with a sale, how long has that been around? Mr. Canvasser: I'm sorry. What was that again? Mr. Morrow: In order to sell to someone, you had indicated they had to provide ID and then there's a stop program at the cash register that until they put that date of birth in, it won't go forward. How long has that system been in existence at CVS? Mr. Allen : Unfortunately, it outpaces me. I've been with the company about three years. It was in the system when I came in. I really can't answer how long prior to that it was in existence. Mr. Morrow: I just thought you might know because apparently two or three did leak by that system if it was in effect, but I'm assuming that it's something relatively new, at least post that date. Mr. Allen : I do know that they've been very stringent on our training and the necessary system requirements to make sure we are compliant, so I would agree with your assumption that that probably went into effect after we had had some challenges and obviously it's something that's been very beneficial because it's something that makes anyone who is brand new stop to follow that process. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Just one quick follow-up question. If an employee of CVS does sell to a minor, either as part of a Liquor Control Commission decoy operation or just sells to a minor or another coworker, or a manager sees that happen and are able to validate that, what happens to that employee? Mr. Allen : Its disciplinary action up to termination and generally any kind of infraction of that sort leads to termination, at any level, whether it be hourly employee or management. If you don't comply, it's effectively termination. Mr. Wilshaw: That's a good answer. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. March 4, 2014 26269 On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-08-2014 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 4, 2014, on Petition 2014-01-02-02 submitted by Woodward Detroit CVS, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 10.03(8) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize an SDD liquor license (sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) in connection with the CVS Pharmacy at 8811 Newburgh Road in the Four Oaks Shopping Center, located on the northwest corner of Newburgh Road and Joy Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, which property is zoned C-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014-01-02-02 be approved subjectto the following conditions: 1. That the proposed use of an SDD liquor license at this location complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed SDD liquor license; 3. That the proposed SDD liquor license is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and 4. That the granting of this petition will not increase the number of SDD liquor licenses in the City of Livonia. 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. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chair, just another point of clarification. We're going to change that to Section 10.03 as opposed to 11:03 that's referencing the C-2 regulations. We'll correct the record. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. March 4, 2014 26270 ITEM #2 PETMON 2014-02-02-03 VERIZON WIRELESS Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2014-02-02-03 submitted by Verizon Wireless requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 18.42A of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct a wireless communication support structure (75 fool high monopole) and equipment shelter within the Schoolcraft College campus at 18900 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct a wireless communication support structure. It would be located on the grounds of Schoolcraft College which is on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile and Seven Mile Roads. The property in question is zoned PL, Public Lands. All of the area colored in green on the map indicates property owned by Schoolcraft College. What is not shown, a little bit to the south, is additional property owned by the college that is part of College Park retail and office development, which is combination of commeroial and office zoning. As you look al the upper part of the drawing, the purple colored area is also land owned by the college. It is the Seven Mile Crossing high rise office development, which is zoned PO, Professional Office High Rise. The area immediately adjacent to where the tower is proposed is right-of-way owned by the State of Michigan. Its part of the I-275/156 expressway. Wireless communication support structures on PL -zoned land are treated as a waiver use, and they are subject to the standards as provided under Section 18.42A of the Zoning Ordinance. This proposal is by Verizon. They are proposing to construct a monopole support structure along the eastern border of the Schoolcraft College property, adjacent to the 1-275 Expressway. The site of the tower is in an undeveloped portion of the campus. It is just north and east of an existing stone water detention pond. This area is at the apex of a ridge that lies between ground that slopes down towards the highway on one side and slopes down on the other side towards the pond. This area would be graded. It would be covered with gravel. The prescribed lease area is where the lower would be located. That lease area measures about 50 feel in length by 22 feel in width, and would be completely enclosed by a 6 fool high chain link fence. The tower itself would be approximately 75 feel in height. There would be an equipment shelter that would house the Verizon equipment. The shelter would measure about 11 feel by 17 feel in size and it would be constructed of a precast masonry on the exterior. The submitted plan does show how March 4, 2014 26271 two additional carriers could be added at the south end of this lease area and those would be separate leases that would be negotiated with the owner of the property as well as with whoever is managing this particular site, whether it's Verizon or a third party. In terms of getting access to the site, access would commence at Haggerty Road in the northwest corner of College's north parking lot. That road is actually an easement that crosses over a portion of the parking lot. It extends east, south and then east again, and then south once more for a total distance of roughly 1,700 feet. So a portion of the access drive will be across the parking lot and drive aisles of the campus, but when it exits those paved areas, then it would consist of gravel, and would enter the wireless communication facility from the north. The Zoning Ordinance requires that any wireless communications support structure in a PL zone be at least 300 feet from a residence. There are no residential homes within 300 feet of this location. The Zoning Ordinance also requires that support structures be setback from any right-of-way a distance equal to at lead the height of the structure, which in this case is 75 feel. This is the so-called fall -zone. The 75 fool radius measured from the base of the structure is shown extending only a few feel beyond the property line and into the highway right -0f --way. However, we should mention that the highway pavement is an additional 75 feet away from the right- of-way, so that would put the base of the support structure roughly 150 feel from closest traffic lane. Another special requirement of the ordinance is that any new wireless communication support structure be at least a half mile from any existing structures. This proposed Venzon lower is not in compliance with that provision; however, this requirement can be waived by the City Council. SchoolcmR College currently houses a wireless communication support structure that is similarly situated along the expressway. Its about 450 feel north of the proposed site and the existing antenna army is concealed behind a sign that identifies the College and is visible from the expressway. As you drive down the expressway, you can see the SchoolcmR College sign and that actually is a support structure for a wireless carrier. Because it is a stated policy of the City to minimize the number of wireless communication support structures by encouraging colocation, the Petitioner will need to demonstrate that colocation on the existing support structure is not feasible, taking into consideration "reasonable' modification or replacement of the structure. To the best of our knowledge, the structure was designed for only one carrier, Cingular, which is now part of AT&T Mobility. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. March 4, 2014 26272 Mr. Morrow: Please Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated February 11, 2014, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced planning petition. The existing address of 18900 Haggerty Road is currently designated for the Schoolcraft College campus. We have assigned an address of 18750 Haggerty Road for the proposed wireless tower and structure. This address should be used in all future conespondence regarding the proposed project. The legal description provided with the petition matches the printed legal description included with the plans and appears to be correct, and should be used in conjunction with this proposal. The petitioner does not indicate the need for any public utilities to service the proposed structures, indicating there should be no impact to the existing systems. Soil erosion measures are shown on the submitted plans for protection of the existing detention pond and private storm sewer." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer 11. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 19, 2014, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a wireless communication support structure (75 foot high monopole) and equipment shelter within the Schoolcraft College campus located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Any curves or comer of streets shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of fifty-three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. (2) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where access is dead -ended and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum turning radius of fifty- three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. The authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fire lane.(3) These issues and other code requirements will be addressed during the plan review process." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 11, 2014, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph Boilos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of the correspondence. March 4, 2014 26273 Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Mark, what is required to be waived by the Council? Mr. Taormina: That would be the separation requirement between the two towers. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Robert Labelle, 32543 Cambome, Livonia, Michigan. With me tonight is Mike Avery, who is our RF engineer; Matt Wilson, who is the Purchasing and Business Operations Manager at Schoolcraft College; and John Wright, who is the Facilities Manager at SchoolcraR College. We will be answering questions. Mark, as always, has done his thorough job of going through our proposal. I do want to go through a couple things that are required under the ordinance for us to demonstrate in connection with some of these, as well as to touch on some of the things Mark first touched on. The first thing, one of the things that was clear in the presentation was the fad that we can get three colocalors onto our site. This is of course part of the ordinance and a requirement that we try to facilitate colocation. That is in contrast to the existing site that is actually a sign if you go along 1-275. I'm sure everyone has seen this thing. It has become frankly iconic in Livonia. It is being very representative of the logo of SchoolcraR and is now emblazoned across all our minds. Its an excellent marketing tool from their standpoint. That particular structure was designed for a single carrier. It goes behind the actual logo. As a result, since there are essentially four major carriers running around right now doing cellular service, that can handle one. We can handle the other three. In that respect, I'd like to note that your ordinance, when it was talking about the one-half mile separation, says that it does not apply to a site where colocation is not feasible at another location within that half mile location. Let me read it directly. 'The distant requirement shall not apply to applicants who have demonstrated that colocation is not feasible pursuant to paragraph F2 below." Of course, that is in fad what we're describing here. The existing structure is in fact not mlocatable. While I agree that ultimately the decision making authority here is at the City Council, this Commission does also have the authority to make its recommendations in connection with that as well pursuant to the ordinance. The next item I'd like to tryto point out here is the fall zone that was discussed. Mark, can we go back to the one that shows the fall zone? Thank you. One thing I want to talk about in terms of cell lowers, while it's called the fall zone by virtue of what the ordinance talks about, that is March 4, 2014 26274 not really the fall zone of a monopole. Monopoles are designed not do to this. They don't topple like trees. They break up. They are built in three sections. In this case, it will be two because it's smaller. It's only 75 feel. Basically, it will fall on itself in any circumstance in which it would fall. The other thing to note is the fad that no Verizon monopole has ever fallen despite having been subjected to hurricanes, tornados, vehicle hits, any number of things you can think of in terms of catastrophes. Not one of them has ever gone down. Their reliability and the chance of anything actually occurring is next to zero. The other thing that is required under your ordinance is to show our need to be able do this, our need to have to present this. In a moment I'm going to ask Mike Avery to come up and present to you what we call a propagation. Mr. Morrow: Mark, could you help them set up the easel? Mr. Taormina: It would probably be easier for you to hold it. Mr. Morrow: We want to make sure the TV cameras can pick it up Mr. Labelle: Obviously, anytime we're looking to put up a lower, we're doing it for the purpose of creafing an additional cell of coverage. It's the reason why it's called cellular coverage. Individual towers create a cell around which there is coverage provided. The cells are supposed to butt up against each other. One of the reasons why we're doing this at all in this place is because this is what we refer to as a replacement site. We are literally moving a site from one location to another, and in this circumstance, we are doing this additional site here. This is actually a better coverage site, now years later after we're producing a new one, than the original site. And to explain why that's true ... Michael Avery, 24242 Northwestern Highway, Southfield, Michigan. We've been asked through Verizon Wireless to remove antennas that are currently located on a rooftop building at this location. So the desire is to keep coverage as close to existing coverage as possible by building a new cell site. We are replacing a location here, moving less than a half mile north. Our goal is to preserve as much of the existing coverage along 1-275, especially between Six and Seven Mile Roads where we currently have good coverage. The fear is that by moving this any more distance than we already are, we'd be altering customers' experience and perhaps degrading coverage where we currently have existing coverage. The red is the intensity of our signal. Red is intense signal, yellow is a little less intense, March 4, 2014 26275 green is cooling off and the purple is kind of poor coverage in residential areas like here. Where we don't have cell sites, they probably have poor in-building service at their homes. Mr. Morrow: What building is it currently on? Mr. Avery: Do you know what building it is? Mr. Labelle: To tell you the truth, I don't know what the address is. Mr. Morrow: Okay, I was just curious. Mr. Avery: It really wasn't our choice to move the site. It's just that the landlord has told us that they would no longer renew our lease. So we had to look for allemative properties. Fortunately, Schoolcratt came back and said that we could look at using a portion of their land for a new site. So we're very grateful for that. Mr. Morrow: They are very cooperative over there. Mr. Taylor: They also have a lot of money. Mr. Morrow: Any questions of the gentlemen? Mr. Taylor: I have a couple. You talked about the monopoles not falling over flat. That one at Schoolcmft sure doesn't look like it would break up if it fell. Mr. Avery: Oh, the existing Schoolcra t sign? Mr. Taylor: Yes. Mr. Avery: I'm not sure how that would collapse. Mr. LaBelle: That's not a monopole. Mr. Avery: That's not a monopole at all. I think it has three legs on R. Mr. Labelle: Lel me try to answer that. The one that's over there at Schoolcratt currently, that one is not a monopole. A monopole is a single telephone pole looking structure. It is self-supporting. It has a very large underground base that basically keeps it stable. Mr. Taylor: And we don't know how that one got up. Nobody approved it. March 4, 2014 26276 Mr. Labelle: Really? Mr. Taylor: Maybe we don't have to approve them. I don't know. The next question is, are there three locators on that? Mr. Avery: On the existing one? Mr. Taylor: Yes, on the existing one. Mr. Avery: No. There is one. They exist behind that structure that's there. The nature of any stealth tower, ones that are disguised to look like something else, is that whatever is used to disguise it, also takes up space that could have been used for antennas. So the result of which is that most stealth towers cannot have as many colocators as a standard monopole can. Mr. Taylor: So there can only be one on that? Mr. Avery: There can only be one. Mr. Taylor: That's why you have to go down farther. That's what I'm gelling at. Mr. Avery: Absolutely. That's correct. Mr. Taylor: And you're planning on three locators on yours? Mr. Avery: Yes, correct, including us. We would be one and there's two others available. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Ms. Smiley: You don't have a map on what's going to happen after you get this proposed tower, do you? Mr. Labelle: That's what this is. That's what this is showing. Ms. Smiley: Oh, this is after with the new lower? Mr. Labelle: The one that is existing right now is right here. Its direction would have been more over here. This one here in the center of the red area is our new proposed location. This shows what the coverage would be like after we put it up. Mr. Avery: It just shows the need for the tower itself. We can't lose that coverage along this important intersection and all the residential areas in this general vicinity. March 4, 2014 26277 Ms. Smiley: You said 75 feel. If you went up another 10-15 feet, would you gel those blue areas? Mr. Avery: It would not make a significant different, 10 or 15 feet. Ms. Smiley: Okay. And you're not proposing anything else to improve your blue areas? Mr. Avery: The blue areas that you see are heavily residential. There is a lot of areas where we simply can't build structures and those are some of the areas where structures are just not viable. Mr. Labelle: Just to give you a little background on this thing, you can increase the size of the lowers, and as Mike already mentioned, R won't do that much difference at least as far as these areas are concemed. The only way you get these areas covered is to plunk one right there, and that's a completely residential area. Mr. Avery: Its residenfial, but even if is blue on the map, you should still have good outside coverage and good coverage in your car also. Its just that when you walk in your house, you may have areas in your home where coverage may be compromised in those areas. Ms. Smiley: Thankyou. Ms. McIntyre: I have two questions. The first is, why are you losing your lease? What's the landlord's objection to the current antennas? Mr. Avery: Basically, we give a term to these leases that have extension periods and we've reached the end of the extension period. On a basis that they're willing to continue to go on, they are not willing to do basically. Essentially what it comes down to is that the terms of pulling up a tower and the like at this location gets us better coverage than we have presently at a lesser price. Ms. McIntyre: And my second question is, I'm assuming that as technology evolves quickly, at some point large cell towers will become obsolete. I'm not asking you to predict when they will become obsolete, but what is the remaining footprint? Lets say in 10 years this is obsolete, what remains? How much of the current lower are you able to lake out and restore it to a pre -lower condition? Is there part of it that has to stay? Is it infrastructure that can't come out? What is the scar, if you will? March 4, 2014 26278 Mr. Avery: Lel me answer your first comment before I answer the second question, which I will. The first comment, is technology changing so we won't need lowers? I will tell you that at least in the last 35 years, we haven't. The reason we're losing the lease where we're at is because we've run out of tens, and it was a 25 year lens. So during that time period at least, we haven't ran out of need for cell lowers, and I don't think its going to happen anytime soon. Basically, the way the process works, its pretty much dependent upon lowers that are positioned in a way to be able to broadcast over a large area. As far as the actual lower is concerned itself, in terms of removal, your ordinance does require that if we abandon the tower or don't use it for six months, we have to remove it, which of course we will. When we do remove it, we can do one of two things. We can remove all the way to the ground leaving the foundation underground there, which means that nothing above ground will show, nothing at all. Literally everything will be taken out. The actual building that we're talking about is actually carted to that location, placed on the pad and can be literally carted away again if it needs to be. The lower itself can be removed. We have literally used these at other locations when we moved them. You can literally move them. It's not a simple process but certainly can be done and certainly we would remove it. The other thing that we can do is remove a portion of the underground facility too. We have a number of these lowers in agricultural locations where somebody is a fanner of some sort. We're often asked to remove it to basically planting depth, which we do. Ms. McIntyre: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Wilshaw, did you have a question? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. I believe your current facility is probably on one of the office buildings in the Laurel Park development. From what I've seen, there's a number of antennas on some of those buildings. Mr. Avery: That's correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Have you looked at any of the other buildings in the Laurel Park complex? There's a number of office buildings that are similar height or even the Seven Mile Crossing buildings, which are under the control of Schoolcratl College, to use as a replacement facility as opposed to a lower? Mr. Avery: I know our real estate personnel looked at all the facilities and buildings in the area. Originally, they had one candidate that March 4, 2014 26279 was interested. It was a building across the street. I don't recall exactly what building it was, and it looked like we were going to go with that, but then the landlord apparently changed his mind so we had to go searching for a new location. Some of it has to do with height, and the height at that particular location is not as high as we could have done in this circumstance and it's also not as close to the freeway. Basically, this is just a better location. Mr. Wilshaw: Also, this location that you're proposing is almost directly next to the oil well that's on the site. How is this facility going to complement or detract or conflict with the oil well and any operations that may exist there if they need to put up a derrick or any other facility? Mr. Labelle: Mark, could you gel to the site plan that we showed? The oil well that you're talking about is actually a pump station at this point. It's no longer anything more. It's a little armature that goes like this. If you lake a look at what we're showing there is bottom and lett of where we are. So it's actually offsite of that particular site plan. The basic answer to your question, how will we affect them, we will not affect them in any way. They existed here before us. They have an easement for the location they're on. We basically have to, by law, not interfere with them simply because they're here first. We are not going to interfere with them in any way because their facility is essentially self- contained. It is within that one area fenced like ours will be. Our access is partly their access. That's how they got onto this same place, but it was a non-exclusive easement just like ours will be so we can both use it. We'll actually improve it more than they did, compacting on a gravel surface. In fact, if you see that one little jog that goes around there, that's actually an existing path that goes along there. We're going to lake what is right now a dirt path along there and we're going to make it a hard top. So as a result, it will be improved to some extent. Schoolcraft asked us to do that so that we can improve the area a little bit more, and we were happy to do so. The oil facility that is there right now will have no impact on us. We will not have any impact on them. Mr. Wilshaw: Has there been any consideration of using a stealth -type design like the other tower for your facility? Mr. Labelle: Again, as I mentioned before, a stealth application as a general matter makes it more difficult to be able to place things onto it. The stealth application itself will lake up space that could otherwise be used for colocators. We're only 75 feel tall here in March 4, 2014 26280 this circumstance. To be candid, that's as low as I've ever put up a lower ever. If you make it into a stealth or like a tree or something, in that circumstance you're going to have to make it a lot taller. In addition to the tree apparatus that has to be al the lop of it, you have to also in addition place on it the individual tree branches that will lake up the space for the colocalors and since theyre not going to want to be below ... 55 is as low as they're going to go. In fad, that's pretty low as it is. So we'd have to click that up. You'd be looking at a good 110 feel tall by that time. So a 110 fool tall mono pine will not look any better than an existing monopole at 75 feel. To be candid, everyone knows its not a tree. Mr. Wilshaw: I was just thinking if you did something that was more complementary, say Schoolcraft wanted to put their sports logo, the Ocelots or whatever, on another sign to complement the existing sign or maybe the business school or some other entity as part of their operation to promote, that would be more complementary to the existing pole that's there. Mr. Labelle: That's possible but again, colocation is ended. The reason why is because if you consider the size of those panels, we gel to Mr. Taylors concern, which is that you end up with a tripod, and each of those sign panels is now a great wind catch. If you had to put one of those in front of every single antenna that's on there, you've now created massive wind coverage and the structural integrity of the facility is significantly compromised in that circumstance. So basically, any other type of stealth application, other than maybe a tree, and then it would have to be a massive tree, would not be possible here at the size that we're talking about and still gel in three colocalors al the site. Mr. Avery: And the stealth applications that we do have, we always have to use two rad centers for antennas because of the amount of antennas that we have. So if we went at 75 feet on a stealth, we'd only need to be at 65 feel and somebody could be at 55 and 45, 35. Most carriers need two rad centers now, most carriers, on a stealth application such as a flagpole. Mr. Labelle: Rad center refers to the center of the antenna pole. Mr. Avery: Your radiation center. Mr. Wilshaw: Actually, a flagpole might be a consideration, but the concern that obviously some of us have, at least I do, is Schoolcraft College went through a pretty good effort to accommodate a cellular tower but do it in a way that was attractive and kept their March 4, 2014 26281 facility looking nice as you drive along 1-275. A lot of people surprisingly don't know that's a cell lower. They just think it's a sign for SchoolcmR College. So because that effort was made to make that a stealth lower, to now go stick one up right next to R, that's essentially 450 feel away, sort of defeated the whole purpose of doing a stealth one in the first place because the cat's out of the bag now. Mr. Labelle: Let me ask someone from SchoolcraR to talk about this. I'm not sure which of you would like to talk about it, but the reason why that was placed the way it was, as I understand it, again, you can talk to this more specifically, was not to avoid a cell tower along that area to be candid. It was done because this constituted a very significant opportunity for advertisement, and it worked beautifully. Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. Mr. Labelle: So the point is, it wasn't the first time done for the purpose of masking that there was a cell lower there. There's cell lowers all along 1-275. You drive five miles along, you'll find a whole bunch of them. Al any event, basically that was not what it was trying to accomplish. In this circumstance, what it's trying to accomplish, what we're trying to accomplish, can't be accomplished with a stealth tower and still meet the requirements of the Livonia code, which is to try to promote colocalion. You mentioned a flagpole a minute ago. If you put a flagpole up, the stacking that we're talking about gets worse. You don't gel two red centers, you get three or even four. They have to be stacked on lop because they're inside a tiny little pole now. So now they have to wrap all the way down it. Now you're talking about a pole that can't accommodate anything more than one and even then, maybe it has to be taller than 75 feel. Mr. Wilshaw: Yeah, 155 or something like that. Mr. Labelle: Even then, you might not gel more than two on there total. That's basically what it comes down to, but if you want to talk to how the sign, if you'd like SchoolcraR to describe it. Mr. Morrow: Do you have any interest in that, Mr. Wilshaw? Mr. Wilshaw: No. I'm fine. I appreciate the explanation. I'm not a big fan, in all honesty, of flagpole cell tower stealth designs because they're really fat flagpoles and it ends up with a tiny flag on it. It looks sort of awkward in itself. You want to put a big yellow March 4, 2014 26282 pencil up there or something that says education center, a big number two pencil. That makes sense. I dont know. Mr. Labelle: I don't know if we've ever done something like that. Again, 9 would be us and no one else. Mr. Wilshaw: They call it art. Mr. Labelle: We've done artistic ones before. Mr. Wilshaw: Actually, Domino Farms has one. Mr. Labelle: That was the one I was about to reference. That art structure that's there, the sculpture, that's a cell lower. Mr. Morrow: Is that it, Mr. Wilshaw? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Mr. Bahr: Just very quickly so I can get a sense of scale. The current cell tower, the Schoolcraft sign lower, how tall is that? (inaudible response) Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thanks. Mr. Morrow: Any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-09-2014 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 4, 2014, on Petition 2014-02-02-03 submitted by Verizon Wireless requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 18.42A of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct a wireless communication support structure (75 foot high monopole) and equipment shelter within the Schoolcraft College campus at 18900 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7, which property is zoned PL, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2014-02-02-03 be approved subject to the following conditions: March 4, 2014 26283 1. That a wireless communication support structure at this location shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the Zoning Ordinance standard set forth in Section 18.42A(d)l.b. requiring new wireless communication support structures to be located at least one-half ('/) mile from any existing wireless communication support structures is waived by the City Council; 2. That the Site Survey and Gen emI Information Plan marked Sheet 1 of Job No. 05268-8012 prepared by Midwestern Consulting, dated January 31, 2014, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the Site Plan Detail, Pole Elevation and General Notes Plan marked Sheet 2 of Job No. 05268-8012 prepared by Midwestern Consulting, dated January 31, 2014, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the total overall height of the monopole shall not exceed 85 feel, thereby allowing for a 10 fool vertical extension of the pole in order to accommodate one (1) additional carrier platform above the Verizon antenna/platform; 5. That the monopole support structure and ground compound area be designed and constructed so as to accommodate a minimum of three (3) total users; 6. That no signs or advertising shall be placed on or upon any part of the structure or facility that is visible from the expressway; and 7. 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 March 4, 2014 26284 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. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Bahr: I had a question. Condition #6, about no signs or advertising being placed on it, if there was ever a situation in which they would want to do something similar to the other lower, I was one of the people that didn't know that was a cell lower believe it or not, but I think the sign looks great. I think in its own small way, it sets a place for Livonia. It sounds kind of funny but ifs nice. So I understand the reasons why it would make sense, but I also would love it if something similar was done at this site. So if that ever came up, with this condition, does that require that they would have to come before us again in order to do that? I guess (hats a question for Mark. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thanks. Ms. Smiley: Then I had one question. It says 85 feet. I thought we said 75 feel. Mr. Taormina: I just want to clarify that. We proposed that language to give the owner of the lower some flexibility in the event that a second carrier comes in and wants to go above this without having to come back before this body for approval. They're not required to build the structure at 85 feet. They can build it at 75 feel, but if a new user wants to go up 10 feet, then it gives the flexibility of doing that administratively without coming back. Ms. Smiley: Then it still allows for them to have three people on the pole? Mr. Taormina: Yes. It probably provides a greater degree of flexibility for a second and third user to use that structure because one may want to go at 65 feet or 70 feet, and the other one may want to go at 80 or 85 feet. Mr. Taylor: Would that meet the requirements of the fall area there? March 4, 2014 26285 Mr. Taormina: That would be a slight deviation from that, but I think that was pretty well addressed. Mr. Taylor: Okay. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 2014-2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Capital Improvements Program for the years 2014-2019. Mr. Taormina: As many of you know, preparation of the Capital Improvement Plan is done under the authority of the Michigan Planning Enabling Act (PA 33 of 2008). The Planning Commission is required to prepare a Capital Improvements Program and present it to the Mayor and the City Council. Attached for your review and consideration is the preliminary Capital Improvements Program (CIP) that incorporates the recommendations from most of the City Departments and outlines a schedule of public capital expenditures over a six- year period beginning in 2014 and ending in 2019. With that Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions? Mr. Bahr: Mark, by approving this tonight, we're not approving the items in there. We don't have any authority to do that, correct? Mr. Taormina: That is absolutely correct. This is merely a guide. It is presented to the City Council. City Council, the Mayor and other administration officials use It in the preparation of their annual budgets. Mr. Bahr: So its just a matter of procedure that it comes through here? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thanks. Mr. Morrow: I think its used as a priority tool. People have to put what they think is the most pressing to be spent in the first year in addition to the other years. Any other questions or comments? Mark, the staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt March 4, 2014 26286 this. Is there a Commission that would like to make that motion? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. I would like to thank Mr. Taormina and his staff for compiling that information. It's something that is done every few years and it takes a little bit of work to coordinate with each of the departments to get that information. I do appreciate that, and I'm sure the rest of the Commission does. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously approved, it was resolved that #03-10-2014 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, P.A. 33 of 2008, the City Planning Commission is responsible for the preparation of a Capital Improvements Program for the ensuing six years; and WHEREAS, the 2014 — 2019 Capital Improvements Program, prepared through a joint effort of several City departments, has been submitted to the City Planning Commission for consideration; and WHEREAS, a duly -noticed City Planning Commission public meeting was held on March 4, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Capital Improvements Program presents a realistic program to aid in the determination of a complete fiscal planning strategy for the City of Livonia; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission stands ready to do all things necessary to cooperate with the Mayor and City Council in maintaining a functioning program of capital improvements and capital budgeting for the City of Livonia; therefore BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission hereby adopts the 2014 — 2019 Capital Improvements Program; and BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt this Capital Improvements Program and use it as a guide to funding priority capital projects with the program. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go to City Council with an approving recommendation. March 4, 2014 26287 ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,050m Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Acting Secretary, announced the next dem on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,050" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February 11, 2014. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Bahr, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-11-2014 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,050th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2014, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Taylor, Bahr, Smiley, Wilshaw, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: McIntyre Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,051" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 4, 2014, was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Acting Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman