HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-10-23MINUTES OF THE 953x" PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 23, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 953d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley Ashley Varloogian Ian Wilshaw
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Al Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge
Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs 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 len 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.
ITEM#1 PETITION 2007-09-01-07 FARMINGTON ROAD
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-09-
01-07 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #422-07, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to
rezone properly at 18301 Farmington Road, located on the west
side of Farmington Road between Pickford Avenue and Curtis
Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 9, from R-3 to OS.
October 23, 2007
24418
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated September 13, 2007, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal, the assigned address or legal description
contained herewith. Please be advised that Parcel B will have
to be assigned a new address on Filmore Avenue once the split
is complete. The address of 18301 Farmington Road will stay
with Parcel A." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant
CityEngineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one coming forward, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-121-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 23, 2007, on
Petition 2007-09-01-07 submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #422-07, and
Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
to determine whether or not to rezone property at 18301
Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road
between Pickford Avenue and Curtis Road in the Northeast'''/ of
Section 9, from R-3 to OS, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-09-01-
07 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will constitute an
expansion of an existing adjacent zoning district;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will more readily
accommodate the development of the subject property for
office use in conjunction with the adjoining property to the
north;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the Farmington Road frontage
October23, 2007
24419
properties in the area between Curtis Road and Seven Mile
Road;and
5. That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the
Future Land Use Plan which recommends office use in this
area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, 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 2007-09-0237 QDOBA GRILL
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
09-02-37 submitted by Great Lakes Fresh Max requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate a full service
restaurant (Qdoba Mexican Grill) at 29515 Plymouth Road,
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebett
Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast'''/ of Section 35.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 11, 2007, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objection to the proposal or legal description contained
herewith. The assigned address for this unit is as listed above."
The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated September 27, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to operate a full service restaurant on property located
at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fester, Fire
Inspection. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
September 27, 2007, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in connection with Qdoba Mexican Grill,
located at the southwest comer of Plymouth and Middlebe#
October 23, 2007
24420
Roads. We have no objections or recommendations to the
plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated October 5, 2007, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 20, 2007, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we'll go out
to the pefitioner. Is the petitioner here this evening?
David Schmidt,
Schostak Brothers, 17672 Laurel Park Drive North, Livonia,
Michigan 48152.
Mr. Walsh:
Good evening. Is there anything you'd like to add to the
presentation thus far?
Mr. Schmidt:
Not at the moment, unless you have any questions.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Morrow:
As far as the outdoor sealing, is there parking adjacent or
fronting into the outdoor seating?
Mr. Schmidt:
Yes, there is. There is parking here as well as along that side.
Mr. Morrow:
My concern would be, I know you've got the wrought iron
fences, but is there any type of a barrier in the parking area to
preclude a vehicle from by chance getting away from the driver
and running into that seating area?
Mr. Schmidt:
You mean other than the curb?
Mr. Morrow:
Well, that's what I wanted to find out. There will be a curb?
Mr. Schmidt:
There is a curb there.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, where is the Beaners Coffee Shop in relafionship to this?
Mr. Taormina:
It is right here.
Mr. La Pine:
My question to you is, there's nothing in your petition that says
you want a drive-lhru carry out. Is that corect?
October 23, 2007
24421
Mr. Schmidt:
Correct.
Mr. La Pine:
Do you have any of these restaurants throughout the
Metropolitan Detroit area with drive-thms?
Mr. Schmidt:
The petitioner is not here. I'm here on behalf of Schoslak
Brothers, but the actual operator is not here. They operate 14
stores in Metropolitan Detroit right now and none of them have a
drwe4hru.
Mr. La Pine:
So you don't anticipant coming back in a few years and asking
to change it for a drive 4hru?
Mr. Schmidt:
As the one who has driven the leasing on this entire project
here, no.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by
McDermott, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted,
R was
#10-122-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 23, 2007, on
Petition 2007-09-02-37 submitted by Great Lakes Fresh Mex
requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a full
service restaurant (Qdoba Mexican Grill) at 29515 Plymouth
Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebell Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast % of
Section 35, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2007-09-02-37 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Floor Plan marked Sheet At prepared by
Creekwood Architecture, Inc., dated August 28, 2007, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the maximum customer seating count shall not
exceed a total of 94 seals, including 72 interior seats and
22 exterior patio seals;
3. That the outdoor patio sealing, which shall lie behind and
be bounded by sections of three (3) foot high wroughtiron
October 23, 2007
24422
fencing, shall be confined to the areas designated for that
purpose on the above -referenced Floor Plan;
4. That a trash receptacle shall be provided for the outdoor
patio area and shall be emptied regularly as needed;
5. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
6. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
7. That wall signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business closes; and
8. That the specific plan 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 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 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
October23, 2007
24423
ITEM #3 PETITION 2007-09-0238 VERIZON WIRELESS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
09-02-38 submitted by Verizon Wreless requesting waiver use
approval to construct a 150 foot high wireless communication
cellular antenna lower at Bicentennial Park, 36228 Seven Mile
Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Gary Lane and Levan Court in the Southeast''/. of Section 5.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated October 2, 2007, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description
for the easement has an error that we have highlighted on the
plan. Further, the plan lists the Livonia School District as the
owner, which is incorrect, the owner of the park is the City of
Livonia. The above address number of 36228 is the overall
address for the park, an additional address will be assigned to
the cell tower at the time of construction should it be approved."
The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated October 1, 2007, which reads as follows: 'This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
construct a 150 foot high wireless communication facility
(cellular antenna tower) on property located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Gary Lane and Levan Court in the
Southeast X of Section 5. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
September 27, 2007, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in connection with the Bicentennial Park Cell
Tower, located in the northwest corner of Bicentennial Park
(west of the tennis courts). We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 5, 2007,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September
25, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is
signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. The next
letter is from the Department of Parks and Recreation, dated
October23, 2007
24424
August 8, 2007, which reads as follows: "The Parks and
Recreation Commission at its regular meeting held on May 7,
2007, adopted the following resolution: #2934-07 Resolved,
that the Commission approves the placement of a cell tower at
Bicentennial Park. Your consideration of this request is
appreciated." The letter is signed by Karen M. Kapchonick,
Superintendent. The next letter is from J.D. Dinan Co., dated
October 10, 2007, which reads as follows: "1 am writing to voice
my strong opposition to the above-mentioned proposal by
Verizon Wireless to install a cellular tower. Bicentennial has
been an important social and athletic area to me for the past 25
years. It provides many athletic activities in a safe and
woodland environment. Installing a cellular tower would
completely detract from its park image. 1 am sure there are
many alternative locations for this tower that would be less
visually offensive. 1 am very concerned that our parks are not
being protected and the commercial development is
encroaching on every free acre of land located in Livonia.
Therefore, 1 am asking that you do not approve this proposal
and protect Bicentennial Park from further development." The
letter is signed by Kim Paterson, Manager. Also, the Planning
Department was contacted on October 19, 2007, by Jeanette
Livingson, 17510 Mayfield. She communicated to the staff that
she felt the lower would be totally obtrusive to the character of
the park. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff?
Ms. Vartoogian:
Since bis is city -owned properly, do we know anything about
the terms of the proposed lease, specifically the duration?
Mr. Taormina:
I do not have a copy of the proposed lease agreement in front of
me. I do know, however, that most of the terms and conditions
have been negotiated between Venzon and its representative
and the City Attorney. That is something that would have to go
before the City Council for final approval. The gentlemen here
this evening may be able to answer specific questions about the
length of the lease, but I dont know that off the lop of my head.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. And then if we do approve the waiver use to construct
this antenna and later they come out with some new technology,
will they be able to implement that on this leased parcel?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe the lease agreement has a conditon attached to it that
requires removal of this structure if at any lime the carriers are
removed from the structure. So I think that would cover that
concern in a case where the technology becomes outdated or
obsolete and the support structure is no longer needed.
October 23, 2007
24425
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay, so the waiver use is specifically for the antenna?
Mr. Taormina:
It is for the structure. After we approve the support structure,
then each collocator that goes on it is approved under an
administrative review process. Typically what happens is, the
owner of the tower will sublet to other carriers and get the
income from the sublease payments, but the City also derives a
certain percentage of the monthly lease payments from those
collocalors or additional carriers.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. So does the waiver use have anything to do with
allowing Venzon to use this property since it's located within the
park?
Mr. Taormina:
It goes hand in hand. Approval of the support structure, as well
as the equipment shelter, allows Venzon to utilize that area. It
also would allow any additional carriers to go on this lower
provided that there is no material or substantial change to the
antenna support structure itself. Initially, we're showing it at a
height of 120 feel. However, they are showing a total of 150
feel, so we would allow for that extension in the future but it
could not exceed 150 feel in height, nor could they expand the
compound area without coming back to the Planning
Commission and City Council for approval.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
If and when they decide to have another carrier on the pole, do
we derive additional revenue every time a new carrier goes on
the pole?
Mr. Taormina:
Typically, there is some money that comes back to the City for
the additional carriers. I don't know, again, what the terms and
conditions of this lease agreement are but it's customary that
there is a clause whereby the City does get additional revenue.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
David Anton, Tele -Site, Inc., 1015 South Lake Drive, Novi, Michigan 48390. I
want to thank Mr. Taormina for doing a wonderful job on the
presentation. With me is Mr. Ron LaBelle and he'll answer any
lease questions that you, and also Scott Hubble. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions?
October 23, 2007
24426
Mr. Morrow:
Do we have any regulation or ordinance that encourages
multiple use of these towers?
Mr. Walsh:
The ordinance does encourage multiple users. It was drafted
specifically for that purpose.
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, the lower has to be built in a manner that would allow
for collocation, which this lower would be.
Mr. Morrow:
To the petitioner, I see you've allowed br future buildings to
service that lower.
Mr. Anton:
Correct.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm very familiar with the area because when I was younger, I
used to use those tennis courts, but now I use the golf course
and try not to slice one into the tennis courts.
Mr. Anton:
The lowers are in pretty good shape.
Mr. Morrow:
What is the likelihood that you'll have other companies join you
on that tower?
Rob LaBelle, 32543 Camborne, Livonia, Michigan. Its hard to guess just exactly
whether someone is going to want to be able to locale in a
specific area or not, but the general rule is that when one cell
carrier puts up a tower, the other ones typically follow into that
area at one point or another. I can't put a percentage on it but
let's just say it's pretty likely.
Mr. Morrow:
So you have nobody currently pursuing the use of that tower?
Mr. LaBelle:
Have we received a request yet?
Mr. Anton:
No.
Mr. LaBelle:
Not yet.
Mr. Morrow:
Is it well known in the industry that you're putting one up.
Mr. LaBelle:
They'llfigure it out veryquickly, and we all watch each other.
Mr. Morrow:
We do derive revenue from that. With the likelihood that the
lower will be used by other carriers, I would have no problem. I
think you proposed 120 feel with a 30 fool addition?
Mr. LaBelle:
Extension, yes.
October 23, 2007
24427
Mr. Morrow:
Under these circumstances, I don't see any problem, as one
commissioner, building out the 150 fool lower if you so choose.
Mr. LaBelle:
We asked that it be approved for 150 feel so that when another
collocator comes along and wants to extend it, which by the way
is fairly common in the industry, it happens a lot.
Mr. Morrow:
So that's your request, that you can build up to 150 feet?
Mr. LaBelle:
Right. Our intention is to build to 120 feet and let the collocator
extend it to 150 feel, but yes, we would ask for 150.
Mr. Morrow:
But your plans are now to build 120 rather than 150?
Mr. LaBelle:
That's our plan, yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Because like I say, I am one that would have no problem
allowing you to build a 150 feel if so you chose.
Mr. LaBelle:
We actually don't have a great preference between the two.
Our original petition actually asked for 150 feet, and we were
going to locale ourselves and our antennas at the 120 foot
platform, but if you would prefer us to do the 150 right now, we
can do that too.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, no, I'm not coming from that direction. If you're content
with 120 feel, I'm fine with it. If you want 150 feet, I'd be fine
with that. But if you're with 120, I'll be with 120.
Mr. LaBelle:
I'd like to answer those questions about the lease. The lease
term is five years with four five-year renewals potentially as
options. Under the lease, it does, in fact, provide that if the
lower is ever abandoned, that it's not used, that it must be
removed. Your ordinance also provides exactly the same thing,
that we have to remove it. I think the period is 180 days of non-
use, at which time it has to be removed. The answer, do we
have collocation revenues going back to the city, the answer is
yes. In every circumstance in which a collocation occurs on that
lower, there will be collocation revenue going to the city.
Ms. Varloogian:
I do have another question. So if you no longer are using the
antenna, the tower, will the lease expire at that time, or would
you use the property through the duration of that five-year
period for another purpose?
Mr. LaBelle:
Well, what would end up happening, the two things that would
happen first ... if we slopped using the tower, we would have to
remove it. The second thing is that, we would probably
October23, 2007
24428
terminate the lease at that point because we would no longer
need it in terms of the five years. The lease itself limits the use
of the premises solely for a telecommunications tower. So
frankly, we wouldn't have any use for it after that. If we can't
use it as a communication lower, we can't use it at all.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
If the tower is built at 120 feel instead of 150, and then they
come back later and somebody wants to come on so they have
to go to 150, another 30 feel, is the cost cheaper to build it now
at 150 than it would be to come back and redo to 150?
Mr. LaBelle:
It depends on how you put it. You mean the total cost between
the two locators added up?
Mr. LaPine:
Right.
Mr. LaBelle:
I'm not sure. Would it be more or less?
Mr. Hubble:
Roughly the same. That's from our RF department.
Mr. LaPine:
So it wouldn't be to your advantage to build to 150 because you
never know if you're going to lease the other portion.
Mr. Hubble:
Inaudible reply from petitioner.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
We talked at our study meeting about the height of the lower,
and I think this was nice that you came to this compromise of
having an initial 120 fool lower, which meets your needs and
then us allowing for the 30 fool extension if you need it in the
future for collocalors. A lower that is originally built to 150 feet
but has equipment at 120 feel would look a little unusual
because basically you'd have a piece at the lop that is not being
used. And when you hear talk of aesthetics from some of the
neighbors who have written to us, I'm sensitive to that in the
sense that we want to make this look as aesthetically pleasing
as we can considering what it is. If having the lower only at 120
feet for a given period of time until such time as it needs to be
150 feet makes it more aesthetically pleasing, I'm all for that.
We talked about this a little bit at the study meeting but just for
the sake of having it on the record, and the question did come
up from one of the resident letters, can you explain to us again
why exactly this is the location you need to have this tower at.
You have an RF engineer here. It seems like he may as well
explain it to us again.
October 23, 2007
24429
Mr. LaBelle:
I'll let Scott handle that.
Scott Hubble,
Verizon Wireless, 24242 Northwestern Highway, Southfield,
Michigan 48075. I'm an RF Engineer for Verizon Wireless. The
question is, why did we pick this location for our tower site. The
locafion of the lower is in this general area. This is the after. If
you go back to the before, the yellow coverage is what we
consider average coverage. When you're inside of buildings
that are of substanfial structure, the coverage may be not strong
enough to support a telephone call. The red areas are
unpredictable coverage. What we're doing when we add this
lower, primarily increasing capacity to the area because we
have a general footprint of coverage in this area, but if you go to
the after picture, which is next, you notice that the red area
disappears. We gel rid of that marginal coverage and we
increase the capacity and coverage to this area substantially.
This is a high traffic area especially during busy hours, and
we've at limes reached our maximum capacity br our existing
towers in this area. What that means to the customer is when
they hit the send button on their cellular phone, they gel a fast
busy signal and they're unable to make calls. So we're
addressing a community need to increase the capacity to this
area by adding the lower, as well as improving the in -building
coverage to a lot of the residenfial area that's in this particular
region south of Seven Mile.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I have one additional question. We talked about the removal of
these lowers at some given point in the future hypothetically.
Cellular technology is still relatively young in comparison to
some of the other technologies like land line phones. Al this
point, have you ever had to remove lowers because they simply
weren't needed or are you just putting new towers up at this
point?
Mr. Hubble:
I would say out of 1,000 sites in our particular area that we
manage, we've moved one or two. We've never really
decommissioned one that we slopped using. Less than a tenth
of a percent.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So ft's likely this tower will be used for a long time to come?
Mr. Hubble:
Fora longtime.
Ms. Varloogian:
In this area there are a lot of residential homes. I was just
wondering if you have any information on how many Verizon
customers are located in thatarea.
4. That the proposed evergreen trees to be provided for
screening purposes around the perimeter of the lease area
as portrayed on the above referenced site plan shall
consist of fifteen (15) Mission Blue Colorado Spruce trees
(or similar species), each not less than six (6) feet in
height, which shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
October23, 2007
24430
Mr. Hubble:
If you lake our general marketing statistics in terms of
penetration in a market area like this particular area and the
population density of say five square miles that we're covering
with this, maybe 4,000 Verizon customers, and that's not
accounting for the traffic that probably would exceed 10,000
vehicles a day across those roads.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
is in order.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-123-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 23, 2007, on
Petition 2007-09-02-38 submitted by Verizon Wireless
requesting waiver use approval to construct a 150 fool high
wireless communication cellular antenna lower at Bicentennial
Park, 36228 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Cary Lane and Levan Court in the
Southeast % of Section 5, which property is zoned PL, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2007-09-02-38 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by
Midwestern Consulting, dated October 17, 2007, as
revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Shelter Elevation and Floor Plan marked Sheet 2
prepared by Midwestern Consulting, dated October 5,
2007, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all equipment shelter buildings shall be constructed
with full face 4" brick on all four sides;
4. That the proposed evergreen trees to be provided for
screening purposes around the perimeter of the lease area
as portrayed on the above referenced site plan shall
consist of fifteen (15) Mission Blue Colorado Spruce trees
(or similar species), each not less than six (6) feet in
height, which shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
October23, 2007
24431
5. That barbed wire shall not be allowed anywhere on the
facility; and
6. 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 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow:
If I followed this properly, they have permission to go to 150
feet. Those chose 120 feet. If and when they build the
additional 30 feel, no further action from this body is required.
Is that correct?
Mr. Walsh:
That is correct.
Mr. Morrow:
In other words, all they would have to do is pull some sort of a
permit to make the extension.
Mr. Walsh:
Correct. Administrative approval is what Mr. Taormina had
indicated earlier.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman,
declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
October 23, 2007
24432
ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 925TM Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 951s' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on Seplember25, 2007.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#10-124-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 951s' Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on
September 25, 2007, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Wilshaw, McDermott, LaPine, Morrow, Vartoogian,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 953rd Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 23, 2007, was adjourned at 8:15
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman