Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2010-09-28MINUTES OF THE 1,002X0 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 28, 2010, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,002otl 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: Ashley Krueger Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Lynda Scheel Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Gerald Taylor Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taylor is absent. He underwent a full knee replacement this afternoon. I'm sure the Commission and the Department Staff wish him a speedy recovery so he can again join us here for the Commission meetings. 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 pefifion 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 dale of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these pefifions 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 2010-08-02-14 SUSHI & ROLLS Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Pefifion 2010-08- 02-14 submitted by Young O. Coutts requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Sushi & Rolls) at 17382 Haggerty Road within the College Park Marketplace retail center, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six September 28, 2010 25484 Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of corespondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated September 16, 2010, which reads as follows: "The Engineering Division has reviewed the information received for the above -referenced item. Thisproject involves the interior renovation of the space formerty occupied by Coldstone Creamery. The address for this unit within the building is confirmed to be 17384 Haggerty Road. The owner should be aware that best management practices regarding grease generated by the business should be practiced at all times to minimize the risk of sanitary building lead blockage or City sanitary sewer blockage. In addition, should this project be increased in scrape to include any site work which would involve a change in existing drainage patterns, three sets of plans must be submitted to the DPW -Engineering Division for review." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 7, 2010, 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 Ead W. Fester, Senior Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 3, 2010, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with Sushi & Rolls Restaurant, located at 17382 Haggerty. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 20, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. This petition shows only one restroom. A maximum occupancy including customers and employees must not exceed 15 persons. If an occupancy of more than 15 persons is used, then a second restroom would be required. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the corespondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? September 28, 2010 25485 Ms. Smiley: Thank you, Mr. Chair. They're obviously going to need the second restroom. Is that what they're saying? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Yes. Ms. Smiley: They'd have to install a second restroom. Mr. Taormina: Our Inspection Department probably wasn't aware of the total sealing since the plan that was submitted with the application doesn't show it. Ms. Smiley: Did youjusllell me ilwas 40? Mr. Taormina: Yes, it's 40 seats. They're going to have to modify the plans. In order to get a building permit and an occupancy permit, they'll have to provide the second restroom. Ms. Smiley: Thankyou Mr. Morrow: Any other questions? Seeing no further questions, is the petitioner here tonight? Mr. Taormina were you aware that perhaps the petitioner is going to be late or perhaps a no show? Mr. Taormina: We were not notified of any problems involving the petitioner. I don't know. You may want to place this at the end and see if they artive. Mr. Morrow: We'll keep the public hearing open. The Chair will move them to the last item on the agenda. Should they not be present at that time, I'll ask the Commission for a recommendation. Is the Commission comfortable with that? Ms. Smiley: Yes, that's fine. Mr. Morrow: Then we will leave that open and we will go to Agenda Item #2. Note: Before the public hearing was closed, the Commission retumed to this item to determine if the petitioner arrived late. Mr. Morrow: Has a representative appeared here tonight? They have not come. We're not aware of any delay or any information that they would not be, so I'm going to ask the Commission for direction on how to handle this particular Agenda Item #1. Mr. Taormina, should a tabling motion appear, should we go to the audience or would we hold that until we bring it back? Mr. Taormina: I will do that. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much ITEM #2 PETMON 2010-08-02-15 LaVIDA MASSAGE Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 08-02-15 submitted by Vijay M. Patel requesting waiver use approval to operate a massage establishment (LaVida Massage Center) at 30985 Five Mile Road within the Livonia Plaza shopping center, located on the north side of Five Mile Road September 28, 2010 25486 Mr. Taormina: I'm going to leave that up to the Planning Commission. There is nothing to prevent you from opening the public hearing back up 6 this item should be tabled. You can seek public comment again. But if there is somebody here that would like to speak regarding that item, maybe this would be a good opportunity to do so. Mr. Morrow: Thank you for the direction on that. Is there anyone here that was going to speak to Agenda Item #1? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing tonight. We'll wail to see what the Commission desires to do. A motion is in order. Mr. Wilshaw: I'm going to offer a tabling resolution to give the petitioner an opportunity to show up at our next regularly scheduled meeting. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-64-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 28, 2010, on Petition 2010-08-02-14 submitted by Young O. Coutts requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant (Sushi & Rolls) at 17382 Haggerty Road within the College Park Marketplace retail center, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby table this item. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina, will you indicate to the petitioner that we will bring this up at the next study session, that it has been tabled, and we will expect them to be there the next time we bring it up before the public? Mr. Taormina: I will do that. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much ITEM #2 PETMON 2010-08-02-15 LaVIDA MASSAGE Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 08-02-15 submitted by Vijay M. Patel requesting waiver use approval to operate a massage establishment (LaVida Massage Center) at 30985 Five Mile Road within the Livonia Plaza shopping center, located on the north side of Five Mile Road September 28, 2010 25487 between Merriman Road and Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest 114 of Section 23. Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated September 2, 2010, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description provided does not describe the exact premises. The attached legal description describes the property and the exact premises. The address according to our records is 30985 Five Mile Road." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 7, 2010, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for a waiver use approval to operate a massage establishment on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 3, 2010, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with LaVida Massage Center, located at 30985 Five Mile. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 13, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 30, 2010, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. This property is located closer than 400 feet to the property of a pre-existing school. A super majority of Council would be required to waive this requirement. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, is the petitioner here this evening? Please come forward and give us your name and address for the record and anything you'd like to add to the presentation. Vijay M. Patel, 29609 Lori Street, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? September 28, 2010 25488 Mr. Patel: No comments. Mr. Morrow: Do we have any questions of the petitioner by the Commission? Ms. Smiley: I received a LaVida Massage card in the mail. Do you have an interest in any of these other frenchises? There's one in Canton. There's one in Troy, one in Commerce. Do you have any interest in any of those other franchises? Mr. Patel: You mean to buy any of it? Ms. Smiley: Yes. Are you involved in any of the other ones? Mr. Patel: Actually, one in Illinois that is opening in two weeks. Ms. Smiley: Sothis is a national chain? Mr. Palet: Yes, this is a national chain. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Any otherquestions? Ms. McDermott: I went over to the location today in Canton and I Teamed a little bit there. Maybe you could give us an history of the corporation, how long the corporation has been around and some background. Mr. Patel: A franchise opened three years back in Michigan. There's a location in Commerce right now. About the massage, 78 percent of people don't gel a massage. That's the number that came up when I went to the corporate training, and that's why I was interested. This is new and it's growing right now. It's a business that is growing in industry. Retail and restaurants, those businesses are pretty much saturated. This business is growing right now about 7 to 8 percent increase over a year. Ms. McDermott: Do you know how many franchise locations there are in the corporation? Mr. Patel: In Michigan, there's about seven. Out of Michigan, currently about eight. Ms. McDermott: Okay. What type of advertising do you plan on using? Mr. Patel: That's basically national development, Clipper magazine, all those that come in the mail basically. September 28, 2010 25489 Ms. McDermott: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wlshaw: How many employees are you going to have at this location? Mr. Patel: It varies. At a time, eight to ten therapists. A receptionist. It varies. It depends. If a therapist works full time, then I might only have six therapists. They usually do it part time, basically. Mr. Wlshaw: Do your customers make appointments to come in? Mr. Patel: Yes. Mr. Wlshaw: So if you know you have a lot of appointments, you may bring in some additional therapists. Mr. Patel: Yes. Mr. Wlshaw: And they are both male and female therapists? Mr. Patel: Yes. Mr. Wlshaw: Okay. We talked about this at the study meeting. You're aware that the therapists need to have training and certification per our City ordinance, right? Mr. Patel: Yes. Mr. Wlshaw: Okay. And all your therapists are going to do that. Are you going to do that as well? Mr. Patel: No. Mr. Wlshaw: Okay. So you're just going to ran the business? Mr. Patel: I'm going to run the business. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. But all your therapists will be certified? Mr. Patel: Yes. The therapists will be certified. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And we talked about when it comes to advertising, that if this is approved, we'll likely not allow you to have any sandwich board signs on the sidewalk or have any person walking around with a sign. And that's okay, right? Mr. Patel: That's okay. Yes. September 28, 2010 25490 Mr. Wilshaw: Good. I also took a look at the website for LaVida and it looks like a nice operation, and it looks like they're going to keep ... I guess they control the appearance of the stores and the layout so that it all matches their corporate image. Right? Mr. Patel: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That looks pretty good. I feel pretty good about this particular business. I appreciate your cooperation. Thank you. Mr. Patel: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Second time, would anyone like to come forward, for or against? Do you have any further comments before I close the public hearing? Mr. Patel: No, sir. Mr. Morrow: The public hearing is closed. A motion would be in order. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-65-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 28, 2010, on Petition 2010-08-02-15 submitted by Vijay M. Patel requesting waiver use approval to operate a massage establishment (LaVida Massage Center) at 30985 Five Mile Road within the Livonia Plaza shopping center, located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, which property is zoned C-2, P and RUF, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010- 08-02-15 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the use of a massage establishment at this location shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the Zoning Ordinance standard set forth in Section 11.03(u)(3) requiring that no massage establishment be located within 400 feel of a preexisting school is waived by the City Council; 2. That this facility shall comply with all of the other special waiver use standards and requirements pertaining to massage establishments as set forth in Section 11.03(u) of the Zoning Ordinance #543; September 28, 2010 25491 3. That this facility shall conform to the provisions set forth in Chapter 5.49 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances pertaining to massage establishments; 4. That the petitioner shall enter into a conditional agreement limiting this waiver use to this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use to a new user only upon the approval of the new user by the City Council; 5. That only conforming wall signage is approved with this petition; 6. That no type of freestanding signage is approved with this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; and 7. The Petitioner shall not engage in any form of solicitation for business within the public rights-of-way. Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Should you be approved at that level, we wish you well in your venture in Livonia. Thank you for coming. September 28, 2010 25492 ITEM #3 PETITION 2010-09-02-16 JOE'S PRODUCE Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 09-02-16 submitted by Joe's Produce requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Tavern license (sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises) at 33152 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3. Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 20, 2010, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description provided by DPSBA Land Surveyors appears correct (in and of itself) for the Parcel A area occupied by Joe's Pmduce. This is the same legal description that was included in theirrezoning request of July, 2010 (Petition 2010-07-01-02). Parcel A is part of a larger parcel which is described as the overall parcel. When companng the legal description for the overall parcel with that on We with the City for the overall parcel, a discrepancy arses. However, for the sake of a Waiver Use request, 1 believe that the description for the area described as Parcel A is sufficient Joe's Produce occupies a building that bears the address of 33152 West Seven Mile Road.. This is consistent with the fact that the overall parcel has been assigned an address range of 33000 through 33152 Seven Mile Road. Finally, if the scope of this project is increased to include any outdoor work which would affect site drainage, plans of the project must be submitted to the DPW Engineering Division for our review." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 16, 2010, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with Joe's Produce, located at 33152 Seven Mile. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 27, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition was reviewed based on the proposed rezoning of this property. (2) This establishment is located closer than 1000 feel to two other currently licensed establishments. This would need to be waived by a super majority of Council. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome September 28, 2010 25493 Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. The fourth letter is from a resident dated September 22, 2010, which reads as follows: "l live in the area where Joe's Produce is located. We have two bars in this area, Coaches Comer and Wmtergarden Bar, also Wine Castle liquor store. We do not need another Tavern. Please consider my household against expanding Joe's or adding another bar to this area." The letter is signed by Chnstine Littler, 19016 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan 48152. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we'll go right to the petitioner. Is the petitioner here tonight? We'll need your name and address for the record. Joseph Maiorana, Jr., 1214 Coppenvood Drive, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation by Mr. Taormina? Mr. Maiorana: We own and operate a food and vegetable gourmet market. We're doing this for wine education. We're doing this to complement our food to leach people how to pair wine and food. This is in no way going to be a bar, no way going to function in that way whatsoever. This is a standard model that is being done at Holiday Markel in Canton, in Royal Oak, Vincent Joe's, Papa Joe's. There are several grocery stores that have these. So this is going to be something that is going to educate our customer to some different wines that they may have never experienced before. In no way are we going to jeopardize or leverage our 70 years, three generation business to do anything improper. Our goal is to promote our wine sales, to educate our customer, and to just enhance the experience at Joe's Produce. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Any questions or comments? Mr. Wilshaw: Are these wine lasting events that you're going to have, Joe, are they going to be by invitation or how are people going to know about them? Mr. Maiorana: We'll post them in the store. We'll have days that we have the events. We do cooking classes now. We have a sign-up for that and we do those every other month. We probably have 20 to 30 people and sometimes it's as intimate as 12 people. We leach them. Basically, we put out whether we want to do a certain type of dish. If they're interested in learning how to cook that, then at that point we would pair the wine with that dish. Then we'd have wine lashings with maybe 10 or 12 people. We don't really want this to be a raucous or an overblown affair. We September 28, 2010 25494 also have several customers that buy high end wines, and at that point, we would open the wine, lel them try that, and enhance our sales. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. What fime of the day would you expect to be doing these events? Mr. Maiorana: We do the cooking classes on Sundays, at like 6:00 p.m. We might have a wine lasting on a Tuesday. The time will vary. Maybe at 6:00 p.m., something like that. We may have some education on maybe a Saturday, maybe at 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. where we have people come back into the wine department and expose them to some wine that way. Mr. W lshaw: Okay. How late do you expect those people would stay at your facility before leaving? Mr. Maiomna: There may be limes we have a wine maker come in from California. Al that point, lops would be 11:00 p.m. We have a sommelier on hand who purchases our wine, and he would be the one who would coordinate with the winemaker. I can't believe that they wouldn't want to have that wrapped up by 11:00 p.m. and be out of there. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. How are you going to insure that the people that come to these events are of drinking age? Mr. Maiomna: If you've shopped at Joe's Produce, our customers are generally middle-aged to a little older. We would definitely card the patrons. We would police that very closely. Again, we would not do anything to jeopardize our standing. Joe's Produce has been a long member in good standing with Livonia. We've won several awards. We would take this very seriously and we don't have a young clientele. Teenagers may come in with their parents, but its not a hangout. As our person who buys our wine, we don't want to tum this into Club Joe. That's not what we're looking for. Mr. Wilshaw: I kind of expected that answer. I don't see a lot of people who are 20 years old in the store shopping on their own, but it's possible that someone would want to go to one of those taste tests. Mr. Maiomna: I understand your questioning. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Morrow: Any otherquesfions? September 28, 2010 25495 Ms. Smiley: Its more of a comment. I haven't personally had an opportunity to participate in one of these, but my brother was telling me about one he attended at Papa Joe's, and it is not a bar. I realize ifs a Tavern License but that's not really what it's set up for or what it's utilized for. It's more of an educational or class type of thing. I appreciate if you thought I was middle age, but I'm a client at Joe's. From what I've seen of the establishment, I have no anticipation of any kind of problem with this set up. Mr. Maiorana: Thank you. We're actually having a wine tasting at Rocky's. We have them once a month on Tuesday. We're having one right now. It starts at 7:00 p.m. Basically, we just explain several different wines. They pair some food with it. So we would be able to do it at our facility. Mind you, it's going to be 10, 15 maybe 20 people, not a big elaborate event. Ms. McDermott: I just want to double check. I'm looking at the layout picture of the store. We have the wine department circled and we have the wine tasting area actually shown up front where the hot foods are located. Mr. Maiorana: It could be in both places. Ms. McDermott: Okay. Thais just what l wanted to clarify. Mr. Maiomna: Our executive chef worked for the Ritz. She's very accomplished. We have 12 culinarians who graduated from SchoolcraR College. We want to basically show off what we can do to our customers. We feel that if we pair the wine and the food, it would be a great experience for our customers. In today's business climate, it's very challenging. So whatever you can do to define yourself, carve your niche out, become a little different, will help keep you around, and that's what we're trying to do. Ms. McDermott: Okay. Thank you for the answer. I'd like to add as well that we're frequent shoppers. I'm past middle age as well, but thank you very much. My husband is actually there every Sunday. Mr. Maiorana: I didn't mean anything by the comment. We just don't have ... I'm 50. We dont have ... Mr. Morrow: You realize that's going in the minutes! Ms. McDermott: Thank you. September 28, 2010 25496 Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I'll go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? I see one gentleman coming forward. If there's anyone else in the audience that wants to speak to this, I'd appreciate it if you could come down and be ready to go when this gentleman finishes. We'll need your name and address for the record. Mike Driscoll, 19229 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1 live right behind Joe's Produce. I trust that Joe is sincere in his application and what he said here tonight. I do believe that its probably a good improvement for his establishment. However, there are quite a few issues that would be really nice if our neighborhood could get resolved with Joe's Produce. One of the things is the traffic. We continue to have parking lot access onto our side street. People regulady cul through our neighborhood. It's a residential street. We have a lot of children on the street. They live right across the street, 80 feel from Joe's establishment. My house, the house behind Joe's, you know, we have a lot of children on our street and that driveway has always been a problem for our neighborhood. It does need to be closed eventually one way or another. Gelling out onto Seven Mile with oncoming traffic coming into Shadyside has always been a problem. A lot of accidents out there on Seven Mile with people trying to tum in. It would be nice if there was a stop light maybe out in front of the apartment complex entrance there. There's other issues too, though. The expanding use to a Tavern license with the other two bars that are located so close just increases the density. Of course, as the letter had stated from one of the other residents here, my neighbor, we do have a liquor store wine store right there. They might want to petition for the same thing and have wine tasting there. It may be a little bit loo much but there's also other considerations that seem to be kind of overlooked here, which is the church across the street from the establishment, the building itself. I've never noticed any public bathrooms in the establishment even though they do serve food and coffee and pastries and such. There's also the noise. The noise never seems to slop. There's the engine generator that seems to want to run continuously. I think it ran for seven days straight through Labor Day weekend, started before Labor Day weekend and didn't slop until after Labor Day weekend. There's was no power outage. I talked to Detroit Edison. I called the Inspection Department. It seems the only reason this engine generator was running there, and it's, I mean, a mere, across the street, we're talking 60 feet from my neighbor's house. They have three children under the age of five there. And this, you know, 200 kilowatt engine generator, which is got to be at lead 6 cylinder or 12 cylinder diesel, just blaring away. September 28, 2010 25497 My mother had to keep the upstairs windows closed while she was visiting, had to keep the air conditioning on, and it was only 70 degrees outside, you know, but we had to run our air conditioning all through Labor Day weekend because of the noise. There continues to be the early morning deliveries and things that lake place there. So it's difficult being a good neighbor to that location. I want the Planning Commission and the City Council to lake a real close look at this before they decide on what they're going to allow at this location. I think these issues I've raised need to be addressed eventually. There's been talk all the way back into the '70's of closing off Shadyside and even Westmore and turning that whole frontage into commercial property. There's always been discontent between the neighborhood and the business establishments. I won't go into the kind of things that go on over at Coach's Comer and the Winlergarden, but that traffic does come into our neighborhood. It does cause problems for my neighbors behind me. I do hear about their horror stories and I continually listen to the noise that takes place at those locations Tale at night. So it is difficult for us. Again, I do believe that the petitioner is sincere in his request. Eleven o'clock at night, maybe on a Sunday, you know, they're getting done over there, more traffic, people that have been drinking and driving through our neighborhood because, you know, they don't want to turn out onto Seven Mile after they've been drinking. I mean, it goes on whether it's from Coaches Corner or Winlergarden or now, maybe in the future, Joe's Produce, but I would like to see him stay competitive and I would like some of these other issues addressed. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions or comments of Mr. Driscoll? Mr. Wilshaw: Just one question. Mr. Driscoll, you mentioned the generator running for seven days straight and that you called Inspection. What did you find out from that? Mr. Driscoll: I did receive a call back from Inspection at 4:30 p.m. I missed the call. I returned the call and left a message and have not heard back from them. I also contacted the Mayors office about that since in my employment engine generators are a small part of it, but I'm very familiar with power. The only reason I can think that was done was to cut down the peak rate that the establishment would be paying for the month of August, September, utilifies, since it was one of the hottest summers. If they're trying to lower their energy utility rale at our expense, disrupting our neighborhood, I dont think that's fair. Their easy access, their patrons onto our side street, you know, we like shopping there, but its difficult for us. It's going to be difficult for September 28, 2010 25498 my neighbor to sell their houses, especially the guy, the first house, his family. You know, you got an engine generator that wasn't approved by the City. Edison put it there because they purchased it right after the big power outage in 2002, and Edison installed it without asking the City. Then came the air conditioning system, the refrigeration units that sit right next to it now that should have been put up on the roof or located somewhere else, but, no, they had to go right on our residential street between the building and the sidewalk. That was also supposed to done with new landscaping, privacy and sound barriers and paint. Never was done. All those promises fall by the wayside. So, its difficult. I can see, you know, my neighbor's going to have a hard time selling their house. It's going to affect our property value. They rebuilt the whole house. It's a beautiful setup for him, but, you know, I just see his property values going down and ours too. We're already in a depressed market. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Any other questions or comments for Mr. Driscoll? Thankyou, Mr. Driscoll. Mr. Driscoll: Thank you, sir. Mr. Morrow: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak to this petition, either for or against? Seeing no one coming forward, Mr. Maiomna, do you have any comment before I close the public hearing? Mr. Maiomna: Seeing there must be, I don't know, 20 residents that live on Shadyside, Mr. Driscoll seems to have his own agenda, and it seems he has the biggest problem with Coaches Comer and the other bar. Our generator never ran for seven days. We never put our generator on to ciroumvenl paying for energy. When the power goes out, we gel power from Farmington and from Livonia. We don't turn our generator on to lower our bill. I think Mr. Driscoll is mistaken. The generator never ren for seven days. If there is a way that I could prove that, I will do that. Our generator did run over Labor Day weekend and we were out of power. We also do a lot of catering. If it was someone's wedding or retirement party or birthday party or special function, which we do all these things, and our building was out of power, we wouldn't be able to cater or take care of those events. We have 10,000 customers that frequent our store every week. If we were out of power, we wouldn't be able to lake care of those customers. Mr. Driscoll lives about 100 yards down Shadyside on the other side of the street. I feel that if I invite any one of you to come on a Saturday and park on Shadyside or next to Shadyside, you would see the majority of September 28, 2010 25499 our traffic does not go down Shadyside. I'm there all the time. I don't see that. It's not frequently done. I couldn't disagree with this gentlemen more. Since we moved our entrance to the middle of Joe's Produce and the strip center, I think the majority of the traffic enters and leaves there. I do believe there is some traffic that comes in off of Seven Mile from Shadyside and enters into Joe's Produce. I believe they may leave that same way. I pay taxes as Mr. Driscoll pays tax. The homeowner that he is speaking of, I don't believe I see that gentleman here talking about how I'm depressing the possibility of selling his home. I do know reallors that say that if they're selling a home on Shadyside that it's next to Joe's Produce, I dont think Joe's Produce is an eyesore. I guess Mr. Driscoll and I couldn't see things any more differently. I take great pride in Joe's Produce. I think the community takes great pride in Joe's Produce. I think Mr. Driscoll has his own agenda. I don't think that closing Shadyside, closing Westmore, serves the community. It may serve Mr. Driscoll but to me that doesn't make sense. It would be a fire hazard. If anything ever happened, how would you gel in and out of that situation? I've lived on Shadyside. I grew up there. I grew up in the house behind the store. I still own that house and I rent it out. People that live behind there, they have teenage boys. They dont have small children. By and large, I think that Joe's Produce is a credit. I think we're a good operation. I think we're community minded. We employ over 100 people, a majorityof them live in the area. I think that we're in a very tough economy. I don't think whether Mr. Driscoll's home value goes down is due to Joe's Produce. I think Joe's Produce is a nice facility and I think it's well taken care of. I think the landscaping along Shadyside is very well taken care of. I have a landscaper that takes care of it. If Mr. Driscoll has a problem with the generator or the refrigeration rack, I think that he has to look at it quickly as he drives by because the refrigeration racks may be 8 feet. I don't think it's that noticeable. There is landscape around it. That's my opinion on the matter. If anybody has any questions. Mr. Morrow: I think we're pretty well set, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to respond. We dont want to go back and forth on @, but we appreciate your comments. There was no else coming forward when I asked, so on that note, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask fora motion. On a motion by Krueger, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-66-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 28, 2010, on Petition 2010-09-02-16 submitted by Joe's Produce September 28, 2010 25500 requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Tavern license (sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises) at 33152 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, which property is in the process of being zoned to G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-09-02-16 be approved subject tothe following conditions: 1. That the use of a Tavern License at this location shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the Zoning Ordinance standard set forth in Section 11.03(h)(1)) requiring that establishments having liquor licenses shall not be located within 1,000 feet of each other is waived by the City Council; 2. That this use shall comply with all of the other special waiver use standards and requirements pertaining to liquor licenses as set forth in Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 3. That this waiver use is granted for the sale of beer and wine only, for consumption on the premises, and shall not include mixed spirit drinks or spirts as defined under the Michigan Liquor Control Code; 4. Thal the petitioner shall enter into a conditional agreement limiting this waiver use to this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use to a new user only upon the approval of the new user by the City Council and the Michigan Liquor Control Commission; and 5. That as long as an on -the -premise consumption license exists at this location, the principal use shall remain that of a produce market. Subject to the preceding conditions, the petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the 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. September 28, 2010 25501 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: Just one other condition that the Commission might consider and that is that the principal use at this location shall remain that of a produce market. Mr. Morrow: Do the maker and supporter of the motion agree? Ms. Krueger: No problem. Ms. Smiley: That's fine. Mr. Morrow: The Chair would like to make a comment. If I followed it correctly tonight, it doesn't sound like we're increasing the customer base appreciably with the granting of this petition. It's more of a service to the current customer base. It may be a variation of a few of the hours but as an ongoing business, as Mr. Taormina points out, the principal use will remain a produce and convenience store type with gourmet foods. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. We will go back to Item #1, Sushi and Rolls. ITEM #4 PETITION 2010-07-06-01 WIRELESS FACILITIES Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition 2010- 07-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #225-10, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Subsections (b) and (d) of Section 18.42A (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Article XVIII of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to better insure that operators and colocalors do not have radio frequency (RF) energy emissions or other detrimental field output and to require colocalors and operators to notify the Inspection Department of changes in ownership and contact information. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, I believe this was tabled at the prior meeting. September 28, 2010 25502 Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: We will need a motion in support to remove it from the table On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-67-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 10, 2010, on Petition 2010-07-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #22570, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Subsections (b) and (d) of Section 18.42A (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Article XVIII of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to better insure that operators and colocators do not have radio frequency (RF) energy emissions or other detrimental field output and to require colocalors and operators to notify the Inspection Department of changes in ownership and contact information, the Planning Commission does hereby remove this item from the table. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, any comments? Mr. Taormina: As the letter from the Law Department indicates, they've had further discussions with representatives of AT&T as well as the F.C.C. regarding two issues that were still outstanding, which appear on page five of the proposed language amendment. The first deals with who would certify compliance with the F.C.C., whether it would be through an independent engineer as was originally proposed by our Law Department or an authorized corporate officer. They've modified the language to allow for the sworn statement by an authorized corporate officer. Then the second major change to 18.42A(d)(1) deals with what was originally a shutdown provision, but what they've done instead is add a general penalty provision. That appears in subsection (2) on page five. All the changes that they're proposing in this latest draft are highlighted. This is the final language as submitted by the Law Department that they would like the Planning Commission to consider for adoption this evening. I know a representative for AT&T is here and he may want to request other changes. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Because this is a petition brought forward by the Planning Commission, I'm going to go directly to anyone in the September 28, 2010 25503 audience wishing to speak for or against the granting of this petition. We need your name and address for the record. Eric Stempien, 37754 Southampton, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Good evening. I know everybody is familiar. This is probably the fourth time I've been in front of you on this, and most of the time it's because we've been continuing to negotiate with the Law Department on different issues, and I will say that they've been great to work with. I mean this has been a collaborative process because, as I've said from the first time I was in front of you guys, I think the intent here in terms of what's trying to be accomplished is the same on both sides. We just wanted to make sure it was done as it's required under the F.C.C., and I think getting the F.C.C. involved, who I understand from the Law Department were very, very helpful. In fad, I guess they spent a couple hours on the phone with the Law Department going over all these issues. As a result of all that, we resolved everything except for one issue, and that one issue remains to be the fees. I know I brought this to your attention initially I think the very first time, and at the last public hearing I was at as well. Just to refresh, the ordinance as proposed by the Law Department provides that the wireless communication companies will have to pay $150.00 for every piece of equipment in which we are providing the certification for, which is every piece of equipment we have within the City. AT&T costs on this would be approximately $4,000 to $5,000 per year. There's probably four or five different wireless communication companies that have these facilities around the City. We're now talking in the $20,000 to $25,000 plus range in fees per year that the City would be collecting from wireless communication companies. Our position on this is that's not actually a fee because a fee is actually supposed to be exactly what the City has to expend to do that. In this instance, what we're really doing is we are providing all the information. We're doing all of the study and upfront work in providing it to the City. I understand there may be some enforcement on the back end, but that's going to be, one, very rare, and, two, its not $25,000. 1 mean, it just isn't. Its not $25,000 worth of work each year. And so because its not actually related to what the City is going to be expending in terms of its time and resources, it's our position that it's an unreasonable request. What our request is that it be $150.00 filing fee. We're going to be filing all these at the same time. It's going to be all 20 or 30 sites that we have coming in with our F.C.C. filings providing them to the Inspection Department and they'll be fled at that time. So as such, this really is, as proposed by the Law Department, more of a tax than a fee, which I would respectfully state is probably not appropriate at this time. We're not looking to gel out of what we should have to pay, but what we're saying is we want it to be September 28, 2010 25504 fair and this is beyond that. So what our proposal is, and I'm not sure if Mr. Taormina got it because I emailed it to him at the end of the day, but I proposed simply, it's on page 5 of the proposal, it's D(1)(a), which is the one that has all of the changes on it, not all of them but most of the changes we made in this one. There's a sentence in there that states that there's an annual fee of $150.00 for each piece of equipment, I believe it says. What we propose is that language be changed, that there be an annual fee of $150.00 for each operator, because that's the language that's used, that there be a $150.00 annual fee for each operator regardless of the number of facilities operated. With that, that's the one request that we have in. We would ask that the Planning Commission adopt @ with that one change tonight. Mr. Morrow: Are you saying it's just $150.00 one time for all? Mr. Stempien: For all, yes. Mr. Morrow: And not per individual. Mr. Stempien: Not per site, not per piece of equipment. Mr. Morrow: So $150.00 would take care of everything you have in Livonia? Mr. Stempien: Right. Yes. So T -Mobile would pay $150.00; AT&T would pay $150.00; Sprint would pay $150.00 for the filing fee for doing this. And understanding that none of this has been charged in the past. This is brand new to the City, and as such, you're taking a look at this for the first time. I understand that, but we're not talking about a significant amount of work for the City. If you remember, originally this was proposed as that there's going to be the studies that were going to be required, going back two months ago when this first came up, and we immediately were able to kind of come off of that scheme. So when you look at it from that perspective, there were going to be these voluminous studies that might be fled and you'd have to have all these reviews and all these things. We're beyond that now. I mean we're at the point where we file the F.C.C. compliance, if we're in compliance, fine. It gets fled away. If we're out of compliance, well, maybe there's some enforcement provisions that come in, but you're not having that huge study that's being fled anymore. Its beyond that. So I think the purposes of that, the Law Department initially had it in there have now been eliminated. Mr. Morrow: My understanding is you're championing AT&T. September 28, 2010 25505 Mr. Stempien: Correct. Mr. Morrow: None of the other providers are aware of this. Mr. Stempien: Well, aware we don't know, but involved, no. That's correct. Mr. Morrow: Do you know if the Law Department's been in touch with any of them? Mr. Stempien: The last I heard, no. They had not heard from anyone other than AT&T. Mr. Morrow: Okay. That's what I wondered. Any other questions or comments you'd like to make? Ms. Krueger: I have a couple questions for Mark. Who, within the City, is going to be responsible for receiving and reviewing certifications and keeping track of which providers have provided the reports and keeping track of who's current on each tower and all that, because it sounds like a Iol of work to me. Mr. Taormina: That's information that would be presented to our Inspection Department so it would be delegated by that department head. Ms. Krueger: So an employee or a number of employees would be in charge of that. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Thank you. One other question is, if at all, how will this impact the police lowers? Mr. Taormina: That particular structure probably has four carriers. So they would have to submiljusl like anybody else. Mr. Krueger: Okay. Thank you. That's all. Ms. Smiley: My question was about, you say fee as opposed to a tax, and I was wondering if you could clarify. Is it because what basically the fee would be, that they would get these reports from the F.C.C. through you. Is that my understanding? Mr. Stempien: Yes. Ms. Smiley: And then would all be filed. Mr. Stempien: Correct. September 28, 2010 25506 Ms. Smiley: Someone would file them in the City. If there's no change, it would be the same report that you're handing in three or four years in a row? Mr. Stempien: Correct. The F.C.C. requirements are that if you make a change in the tower or some physical change, you have to retest, and there's a time limit too as well. But yes, it could be as long as four years between testing. Ms. Smiley: For clarity, previously you didn't pay anything to file these papers. Mr. Slempien: We didn't file any papers with the City before. This is brand new. This is a new scheme. Ms. Smiley: Oh, so now you're going to start fling. Mr. Slempien: This was never required before. Ms. Smiley: We're requesting $150.00 per location. Let's say you had 30, that would $4,500 a year. Mr. Slempien: Right. Ms. Smiley: Okay. So you're going from nothing to $4,500 a year and that's why you believe it's more of a tax than a fee. Mr. Slempien: Right. That's correct because a fee ... there is a legal definition of a fee under State law which is basically that it has to be rationally related to the actual time and expense expended by the governing authority. If it goes beyond that, then by definition it's a tax. I'm not into a legal argument here. I'm just making a point that I think this goes beyond the actual time and expense that the City is going to invest because its all being done on our end and it's really just being filed by the City. Al that point, and if there's a violation, we go to court. If we lose in court, actually you gel court costs loo. You'd be covered. The judge has the authority to fine us $500.00 a day, I believe, under this ordinance requirement if we're out of compliance. So its not as if we're out of compliance. You're going to gel $500.00 a day for every day we're out of compliance beyond 30 days. I just feel the City is protected even under that scenario. So if it's anything more than just putting this piece of paper into a file, there's provisions in there that are more than adequate to cover the City's costs. Ms. Smiley: Thank you very much. I understand what you're saying now. September 28, 2010 25507 Ms. Scheel: Mark, have we received any other correspondence from the other wireless companies? Mr. Taormina: No, we have not. Ms. Scheel: Did we send something out to them to let them know this was happening? Mr. Taormina: We conducted our public notification as we do for all language amendments. Did we send out anything specifically to the carriers? No, we did not send out something separate to each of the carriers. It was something that AT&T, as part of their normal tracking of municipal activity related to the wireless industry, picked up on. Ms. Scheel: The posting that was public notice that was given. Mr. Morrow: We did advertise itthough. Correct? Mr. Taormina: Absolutely. Yes. It was in the paper. Ms. Smiley: You represent AT&T. What are the fees in other cities? Mr. Slempien: This is, I don't want to say unique, but we don't have any other city in Michigan that we know that has this requirement. Nationwide, I dont know. I don't know that we talked about that nationwide but I do know that the AT&T in-house attorneys looked over it and were not able to find a scheme like this in the State of this nature. You have to remember it's not like they're going wild here. The F.C.C. regulates every single lower we have in the entire country. I'm not saying its without regulation. Its just this the first that we know of that a municipality has taken on that role. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Anything else? Ms. Scheel: I just want to follow up on something that Commissioner Smiley had asked. If the filing is done with the F.C.C. and nothing changes, then we don't need to file another report or you do file the same report and pay the same fee even though nothing has changed? Mr. Slempien: Correct. Your second scenario is what's correct. Under the City ordinance, we have to file every single year. Under the F.C.C., we only have to do the testing under certain scenarios. If we physically change it, if we move it, if we change the height, if we put in a new one and after a certain period of time we have to September 28, 2010 25508 re -test. What we file could be identical for up to four years, but we have to do it every single year. Ms. Scheel: Is there something in place that says when you file it for the second year and there's no change, that's going to say there's no change so our Inspection Department, or whoever is in charge through our Inspection Department, will they automatically have to do the review process because something new is fled every year? Mr. Stempien: What we're filing is our F.C.C. documents showing our compliance or noncompliance. Will they have to review it? Yes, I suppose they'd have to review it, but it's going to be an identical document. Ms. Scheel: Thankyou. Mr. W Ishaw: Mr. Stempien, do you have any idea what AT&T's revenues are on an annual basis? Mr. Stempien: No. I don't. I mean I'm not playing coy. Mr. Wilshaw: Is this fee presenting a hardship, is what I'm getting at, in any way to the company? Mr. Stempien: Is it a hardship for one yearly filing of $4,500? I would say it's not going to shut the company down. Certainly not. I mean we want to pay what's reasonable and fair. That's really what it comes down to. Mr. Wilshaw: I was just checking if there was any sort of financial hardship. Mr. Stempien: No. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I do want to comment that I appreciate the work that you've done with the Law Department and with us as we've gone through this. It's very much appreciated, the give and lake we've had back and forth. Mr. Stempien: And we do appreciate it. It's a learning process, I think on both ends to be honest. There's a lot that the AT&T lawyers have Teamed about the municipal process and vice versa. I believe too on the RF and the emissions and things I never thought ever I'd learn. Mr. Wilshaw: Its been enjoyable to work with you. Mr. Stempien: Thanks. September 28, 2010 25509 Mr. Morrow: Anything else? We're going to ask for a motion now. Ms. Smiley: Did we hear from the audience? Mr. Morrow: Would you like to speak to that? It's not a public hearing but we allow the residents to speak if they want to. Mike Driscoll, 29119 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'd thought I'd come back up because it's an interesting conversation. This is an interesting issue because it is about 80 percent of my workload at the office in spectrum engineering. Just a fling fee, filing F.C.0 documents with the City, I can understand the position of Mr. Slempien. But if the City actually wants to take a serous role in managing the spectrum here in Livonia, that means they may need to hire somebody with some spectrum background to review those documents for errors, to try to deal with any issues that may arise from interference between different users, homeowners. It wouldn't be too surprising if we did such a thing, hire someone with those qualifications. It could cost the City considerably. I'm not sure that $150.00 per piece of equipment, I don't know if that was ... each site may have 10 pieces of equipment by each company, colocalor. I'm not sure if it would be just a base fee or exactly how that sounded like it was going to be added up. I heard it a couple of different ways. It is something that needs to be looked at more closely. I don't think this is just a re -fling every year. I think it actually brings somebody on board with expertise and it will be a cost to the City. You can't do this without that training. Mr. Morrow: I think if there are four companies on one lower, each company would have to certify it and pay the $150.00 per lower. Mr. Driscoll This is going to gel more complex and it's not going to be just wireless. There's going to be a lot of other types of consumer services out there that are going to come here. Just 15 years ago, we all had wire connecting our telephones. Now we're all wireless. Things have changed a lot, and they're going to continue to change. I think that expertise may be required within our City staff and that extra funding, that fee so to speak, may support our Engineering Department. I think it's a good thing. Mr. Morrow: Its not necessarily confined to towers. Sometimes if they put it on a building, they would be under the same requirement as a lower. Mr. Driscoll: Just inspecting these to make sure they are in compliance, I mean it would be a full time job. It's just like the Fire September 28, 2010 25510 Department. They need to inspect factories and public buildings for compliance, and a spectrum engineer within the City or somebody with enough knowledge to perform those inspections for compliance purposes, it would cost us. So I support what the Law Department is doing. Mr. Morrow: We appreciate your comments, Mr. Driscoll. Thank you very much. Any questions? Mr. Stempien: If I may address that for just a moment. With all due respect to Mr. Dnscoll, the ordinance that we're dealing with is not what's represented by Mr. Dnscoll. We're not talking about the City getting involved in spectrum analysis here. In fact, if you recall, the scheme prior to this, and the whole reason this ordinance came up was because the ordinance currently says that the Inspection Department has to go out and test these things. Its never happened in the history of the ordinance. That's the reason we're changing the entire scheme or the reason the Law Department came up with the idea to change the entire scheme. And so right, if the onus was on the Inspection Department to do that kind of work, yes, you'd have to have a spectrum engineer or somebody you go out and hire. The whole idea is that you don't have it. That's why we're going to this new scheme. So this idea that we're going to have all this additional cost is, in fact, incorrect. That's exactly what we're changing. We're changing from that to this. I just wanted to point that out. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Mr. Wilshaw: I do want to make one comment before a motion if that's okay. Mr. Morrow: That's perfectly fine. Mr. Wilshaw: I just want to throw out that I've been listening to the discussion about pieces of equipment and I wonder if it might be better to define what a piece of equipment is, which I don't think it is in this ordinance, by changing the wording of that to say for each transmitter or colocalor at each facility as opposed to each piece of equipment because ... Mr. Morrow: They may not all be colocalors? Mr. W Ishaw: Yes. Each piece of equipment there may not be a transmitter. There might be other boxes there that do other things. I don't know. I'm just thinking that might clarify what we're talking about when we say a piece of equipment. Mr. Morrow: So you're saying a transmitter or a colocalor? September 28, 2010 25511 Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Ijust throw that out there as food for thought. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: This is more in the way of a comment. I'm probably going to vote for it, but I can see Mr. Stempien's ... where this would become more of a tax than an actual fee from what I see that's probably going to happen. I'm not concerned the least about AT&T because I'm pretty sure this fee or tax will be on the bottom of my cell phone bill. I don't think they're going to lake a hit. I want to acknowledge that I realize his point that a fee would be for the amount of work that's required to do this, but it looks like the F.C.C. and the wireless companies are doing the work and then we're just like checking or fling their reports. In particular, if nothing's happening in three or four years, it's just the same report going back in another file. Its checks and balances, and I realize that, but I don't an0cipate that it would take per transmitter that much work to do that. While I will probably be voting yes on this, those are my comments. Mr. Morrow: Mark, what Mr. Wilshaw brought up. Would it be advisable to add what Mr. Wilshaw said and leave it up to the Law Department and the Council to strike it? Mr. Taormina: We can clarify by specifying either transmitter or piece of transmission equipment or something similar to that. We'll consultthe Inspection Department. Mr. Morrow: It may have some merit. I'm not saying we're the greatest leading experts on it. Mr. Wilshaw: Exactly. Mr. Morrow: If it troubled Mr. Wilshaw, I'm confident it does have merit. Mr. Wilshaw: Thanks for the vote of confidence. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything else before I ask for a motion. Seeing none, a mo0on is in order. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Krueger, and adopted, it was #09-68-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 10, 2010, on Petition 2010-07-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolu0on #22570, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, September 28, 2010 25512 to determine whether or not to amend Subsections (b) and (d) of Section 18.42A (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Article XVIII of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to better insure that operators and colocators do not have radio frequency (RF) energy emissions or other detrimental field output and to require colocalors and operators to notify the Inspection Department of changes in ownership and contact information, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-07-06-01 be approved, subject to clarification on the type of equipment being certified, for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment would better insure that operators and colocalors do not have radio frequency (RF) energy emissions or other detrimental field output; 2. Requiring operators and colocalors to notify the Inspection Department of changes in ownership and contact information allows the City to keep track of the controlling entities of each tower; 3. Annual certificafion of facilities and colocafion equipment would guarantee that every operator and all colocalors are authorized to operate under a wireless license granted by the Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.); 4. That the proposed language amendment will clarify and strengthen the district regulations of the Zoning Ordinance; and 5. That the proposed language amendment is in the best interests of the City and its residents. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, Krueger, Smiley, McDermott, Morrow NAYES: Scheel ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Taylor Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. You've certainly been a good advocate for AT&T. Your comments as well as the other comments of Mr. Driscoll will be part of the record. Good luck. September 28, 2010 25513 ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,001sT Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,001` Regular Meeting held on September 14, 2010. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-69-2010 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,001` Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on September 14, 2010, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, McDermott, Krueger, Wilshaw, Scheel, Monow NAYS: None ABSENT: Taylor ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chainnan, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,002otl Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 28, 2010, was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary