Loading...
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