Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2018-09-18 MINUTES OF THE 1,129th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 18, 2018, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,129th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Sam Caramagno Glen Long Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Peter Ventura Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Wilshaw informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. 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 2018-09-07-01 MASTER PLAN Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 09-07-01 submitted by the Livonia Planning Commission requesting to concur with the recommendation of the Livonia Master Plan Steering Committee to submit the proposed Comprehensive Master Plan (LIVONIA VISION 21) to the Livonia City Council for review and comment and to authorize distribution of the Plan pursuant to MCL 125.3841 of P.A. 33 of 2008, as amended, the Michigan Planning Enabling Act. September 18, 2018 28719 Mr. Taormina: This evening we are pleased to have Mr. Paul Lippens here from McKenna & Associates to present to the Planning Commission the draft of Livonia Vision 21. As all of you know, this has been a project we have been undertaking now for the past ten months. It has included a very robust public engagement process culminating in a charrette that was held a few months back where we received a tremendous amount of input from the public. There were other forms of public engagement that Paul will discuss briefly tonight, but what I'd like to do is hand it over to him and run through the draft of the plan. Again, our goal this evening is for the Planning Commission in reviewing this to accept it as a draft and forward it to the City Council to allow it, pursuant to State law, for review and comment and thereafter authorize distribution of that Plan for a 63-day public comment period. Changes can be made depending on the input we receive, both from the Planning Commission and City Council as well as the public, and then go through a formal adoption process involving another review by the Planning Commission and then a receive and file by City Council. This really is the initial step in the beginning of the review process as required by State law. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Paul Mr. Wilshaw: Sounds good. Mr. Lippens. Paul Lippens: Thank you very much. It's my pleasure to be here tonight to provide this update and to present to you the draft of the Livonia Vision 21 plan. If you recall, I was here back in April when we were doing the charrette and updated you on what we were hoping to accomplish with the charrette and some of the preliminary research that had been done at that time, as well as a little bit on the role that master plans play in guiding city policy. I do plan tonight to provide a brief background on master plans, similar to what I provided at that time for the benefit of the public. My goal is to actually go through some of the recommendations and the draft plan. As Mark said, this action tonight that the Planning Commission could choose to take to recommend that City Council consider the Plan for distribution to the public is the beginning of the State's required adoption procedures for master plans. What we've done up to this time essentially follows the State requirements for preparing that draft. We've gone a little beyond what the State requires by working with the Steering Committee. All the meetings with the Steering Committee have been public advertised meetings, in addition to conducting the public outreach process, which I'll talk about a bit tonight as well. This is the formalized adoption process for master plans, which involve posting this draft plan for 63 days, distributing the draft plan to surrounding communities as well as other agencies that September 18, 2018 28720 do planning, like SEMCOG and the County, for any comments from other planning agencies on how the Plan might address or be affected by their plans as well. So what is a Master Plan? Master Plans are guides for future development. They are not the only policy document that a city has, but they are somewhat the organizing document for many city policies, including parks and recreation plans. They can guide the city's capital improvement plan, and they can also be related to sub-area plans, like the Bike/Walk Livonia plan. This Plan is hoping to incorporate that plan as policy and be the Plan that you adopt that formalizes some of those policies. Master Plans are the basis for zoning changes. When the Planning Commission might consider a petition for changing zoning, one of the key questions you ask is, is this change in zoning consistent with our Future Master Plan, with the plan that we have for guiding land use in the city. One of the good things about having and using a Master Plan for that policy is that it helps create clarity in the city's policy for developing sites, for guiding future development and it can be a reference both for residents and developers as well as public officials and appointed Planning Commission members in making recommendations. In summary, the Master Plan is policy whereas the Zoning Ordinance is actually the law and regulation that applies to land development. Master Plans are adopted by the Planning Commission in Livonia. The State does permit city councils to basically pass resolutions making them the adopting body, but in Livonia, the Planning Commission is the adopting body. Zoning Ordinances by State law are adopted by the City Council which is why you make a recommendation on zoning changes to your City Council. Master Plans are really future- oriented documents. They show 10 years, 20 years, what's the vision for the changing development patterns or the protection of development patterns. The Zoning Ordinance shows how those development patterns are regulated today and what laws apply to those plans today. Your Master Plan contains a Future Land Use map that has classifications or designations for future land use categories, and they are intended to be coordinated with your zoning district but different from your zoning district. So these maps don't necessarily always coincide. This example above shows how a public service district, the green area, might be actually zoned in an area that was planned for the future to be industrial. That difference is shown at the bottom left corner of these two illustrative diagrams. And that's really just to show that over time you rezone properties, you imagine the changing development patterns of the city, and your Future Land Use Plan is what guides you in making those decisions. It's not law but it does outline the future policy. The project planning process is a circular process. Master Plans are recommended to be updated September 18, 2018 28721 every five years. The update we've done with Livonia Vision 21 is fairly comprehensive and more involved than some of the prior planning efforts. It does include a synopsis of all the goals established in all of Livonia's planning processes and we took the time to do analysis of Livonia's prior goals and objectives to incorporate them and modernize them with this planning effort. Once assessing the community desires, we formalized what we heard in public engagement into what the City's goals and objectives are, the alternative development options for the plan, and then formalizing those in what the Steering Committee is recommending as a consensus plan, a plan that they felt has been thoroughly vetted, that we've talked about a variety of alternative directions, and really incorporated what they've asked us to look at and study as well as what we heard from the public and what the public wanted to be looked at and evaluated through this process. We've created that into a consensus plan or a draft plan for the Planning Commission to consider and to be released to the public for the formal process. When that plan would be adopted, the Plan still has to be an action document. It has to be worked on and become a part of creating work plans to become a document that's referenced in zoning updates. It will require periodic review and update, but as I said, the State guidelines require municipalities to re-look at this process at least every five years and then reassess what you've been doing to implement them and update any goals, objectives or land use policies that need to be updated as the economy changes. An overview of the process. This was imagined as a year-long process that we kicked off in January. We did have a meeting in December but that was preparing us for the year. We stayed pretty much on schedule with this being month nine, September, and looking to launch the statutory review period, which is 63 days, and going back to the Planning Commission when you would hold a formal public hearing at the end of that process to allow for public comment prior to taking any action on adopting the Plan. Mark mentioned that we had a charrette as part of our public outreach process, but we also did an extensive on-line outreach process. We created a website as part of this plan, and the City has an active social media director who helped to live stream many of the events as well as coordinate outreach through the City's Facebook page to drive traffic to take some of the surveys. I have a little summary here. In addition to the charrette, which we had many visitors kind of floating in and out of a variety of events, our website generated almost 7,000 page views. We had over 2,500 unique visitors to that website. We generated more than 1,700 survey responses and 1,600 of those were on-line. Through the charrette we got 135 formal survey responses. We had many more people participate in the charrette but not everybody does 11. 4 September 18, 2018 28722 every survey when they come to those open houses. So we were very happy with the responses we got and the goal to doing the online outreach was to basically provide the same program, the same type of feedback opportunity online as we did in person. We really standardized that process and kind of provided the same outreach opportunities in person as we did on line so that the information could be replicable to each other. That's my background on the Master Plan process as well as what the role of the Master Plan plays in the City's process. I did want to take a few minutes to share some of the contents of the draft plan. The Planning Commission obviously has the entire plan in your packet for review, but I wanted to give a synopsis tonight for the people attending as well as anyone who is viewing at home. So the Master Plan, the Vision 21 plan, is divided into four books. The reason why we did four books is so that people could actually read this in bite-size chunks. I have the whole thing printed here, but it will be much easier to kind of have one short magazine. These are divided into 30 or 40 page chunks. The first book is Livonia Starts Now. This is where Livonia is today. The second book is the Land Development Book which describes how Livonia should grow. The third book is Systems Development, which is how do we get there. The fourth book is Development Strategies, how to secure the future. The contents of the first book really are related to demographics, understanding the economic and social trends that have changed or are changing, as well as the report back of all of the public comments and surveys. That is handled in this book as well. We think that it's really important to both base recommendations on that public comment but also report back because there's actually value in understanding the raw data that was provided and how that was analyzed. Book 2, Land Development, is functionally the Future Land Use recommendations of the Plan. That is the book that includes the Future Land Use Plan as well as sub-area plans for special parts of the city. Book 3, Systems Development, includes the transportation recommendations for future transportation patterns and systems, as well as guidelines for the City's infrastructure systems, housing systems, parks and those types of related city system. Book 4, Strategic Development, is really the action plan. Here we outlined some priority projects as well as specific guidelines and priorities for implementing all the City's goals and objectives. What were some of the public engagement findings? For housing and neighborhoods, the surveys indicated Livonia residents, seeing that the existing neighborhoods are a true asset to the community and wanting all the policy to focus on improving and protecting the City's neighborhoods. Related to creating a downtown, survey responders recognized the need for the re-development of underutilized commercial properties and, September 18, 2018 28723 specifically, the creation not just of one downtown, but of multiple centers, but also elevating the future City Center to have a higher status in the community as really the City's core place of identity. For the transportation network, it was noted that the first priority was to maintain the quality of surface of roads, but we also found there was significant support and desire to look at and evaluate future transit service in the city as well as to adopt and implement the City's Bike/Walk Livonia Plan. Another key priority was the City's parks and open space. The preferred type of open space facilities were split on precedents but people did like to see central plazas within vibrant business districts, but the City has many park resources that the City wanted to see protected and expanded on and connected via transportation facilities. That's kind of a summary of public preferences but those preferences certainly influence the development of the Future Land Use Plan. The goal in developing and modifying the Future Land Use Plan was, one, to consolidate districts. So we've simplified the land use patterns and this will allow us to move towards considering more foreign-based recommendations, looking at design guidelines as well as building guidelines in zoning as opposed to focusing on use. Use is important, but we wanted to simplify it basically to support development and Mixed Use development as well as protecting housing and parks. We have consolidated or really eliminated office categories. We've also combined several commercial categories and kind of modified them. Now we're suggesting a Corridor Commercial category and a regional Commercial category as opposed to one commercial category for those uses. We've created a Mixed Development Center category and City Center category for Mixed Use centers. This is what that looks like. I'll point out that the red along the north/south and east/west corridors is the Corridor Commercial and the idea here is to reinforce the small scale more neighborhood-based commercial development, but to do that in a way that also supports the businesses that are there.We recognize a few areas in the city as having a higher regional commercial impact and those are the areas around Middlebelt and 96 as well as Seven Mile and 275 going south. We also created Mixed Development Centers. Those are areas that are intended to become and support more housing and Mixed Use Commercial development. They would really be like neighborhood downtown areas, is what they're envisioned as, so closer walkable areas to support the northern and southeastern parts of the City that are located around Plymouth Road and Middlebelt, Seven Mile and Middlebelt, Farmington and Seven Mile, and then again at Six Mile and Newburgh. Of course, I mentioned that we elevated the status of the City Center as being the downtown for the entire city. In a couple slides I have some renderings of some site plans for September 18, 2018 28724 these areas or site development concepts for these areas. Another important thing was creating housing opportunities and supporting neighborhoods. We talked a lot about the idea of Missing Middle Housing. Missing Middle Housing is housing that exists between standard apartment complexes or condo complexes and single-family housing. There is a lot of range between there that is somewhat underserved by the market. What we did was define what those building types might be and look at it from a perspective of what building types could be serviced in Missing Middle Housing and say which districts were best and which places in the city were best for considering them. Generally, it was the preference of the Steering Committee that these types of housing be looked at along corridors and at the edge of districts. So what we did was we looked at the City's existing middle density housing district and where that was located in the City, and looked for places along the major corridors where there might be an opportunity to expand that at the edge of some of the Mixed Development districts. We also suggested that this housing type could be added to the City's Corridor Commercial district and be utilized within the Mixed Development Centers and the City Center districts. It really is an opportunity to do some retrofit along the corridors in the city and support new housing types. For special planning areas, we looked to do sub-area plans at three specific locations. These locations were chosen in part because they are good models for the rest of the City. So we examined these in some detail to look at how we might create building codes and modify zoning codes to implement the City's goals through these model areas. So we looked at the City Center site, the former Livonia Mall site and east Plymouth Road as a model for corridor retrofit development. I'll cover this quickly. These results came out of the charrette process where we actually did a design exercise with I think more than 40 or 50 people. We had 12 tables at least 8 to 10 people per table, and it was very well attended. I think we had at least two tables looking at each one of these. I think I said 12 tables, but I think we had more like 8. I don't want to exaggerate. I think we had eight tables and at least two for each and some of them had three. We evaluated, came up with ideas. So this is an example for City Center. There was a desire to create public space, to create new apartment or mixed development opportunities in moving the senior center as well as creating retrofit opportunities on the existing school bus yard, which is located in E. Also, one of the things that we thought was surprising was there was wide consensus for actually building a new city hall and by actually changing that, it created the opportunity to kind of recommend some phase development in modifying this site. We also looked at the former Livonia Mall site. September 18, 2018 28725 This really shows how you could retrofit a lot of under-utilized surface parking to create new neighborhoods and a new commercial center that would really function more as a walkable downtown for the neighborhood surrounding that site. This type of development could be a model for any of the city's areas with large surface parking lots. The Steering Committee also chose this location because it was more of a future development and something that we didn't think there was anything in the pipelines planned for this area now. So it was something we could look at with a little bit more freedom and a little bit more of a future visioning hat. We looked at the east Plymouth Road corridor. Really the idea for corridor development was to do infill, to look at spot infill, to create rear site access so that shared driveways could be used behind facilities, to allow for more site crossings and a pedestrian friendly environment to get across the streets, and then to soften the corridor with quality landscaping and materials used in facade retrofits. Again, I think the value of looking at the east Plymouth Road corridor was that we could use that as a model for any retrofits to any of the city's corridors and to develop design guidelines for the city's corridors. In the Systems Development chapter, we look at future transportation desires. I mentioned there was an interest in looking at transit and specifically kind of orientating those transit systems to connect to the City's Mixed Development Centers, but there was also a lot of feedback that we got just about adopting and implementing the Bike/Walk Livonia Plan. So the Plan does recommend that the Bike/Walk Livonia Plan that the Planning Commission and City Council worked on in 2015 is also adopted as part of your transportation policy. The Plan covers policy and needs for maintaining the City's dedication to infrastructure as well as to providing support for the City's strong residential neighborhoods which really make up most of the city's land use pattern. I should mention that it was really important that we development a plan that had some actionable steps that the City could work on. It contains a list of seven three-year priority projects. This is kind of a short punch list, a work plan for the Planning Commission to work on in concert with your staff, but they include doing a comprehensive update to your Zoning Ordinance, working on a development plan, a feasibility development plan for the City Center development area, outlining the retrofit concept further for the Plymouth Road corridor plan, implementing the Livonia bike loop, which the City has already started to work on, conducting a transit and innovative mobility study to define what if any transit policy the city wanted to pursue, as well as updating the Capital Improvement Plan that the City manages and updating the City's infrastructure plan. Those are the hot projects, but we did outline a number of goals and objectives to address all the great 1 September 18, 2018 28726 information that we heard from the Steering Committee as well as the public and to provide priorities for implementing the City's policy in short and near term time frame as well. So there's an expanded action plan as part of this document as well. I maybe went a little bit longer than I wanted, but not too much longer. I did want to take the time to provide you the highlights of the Plan so that you could ask questions tonight. As Mark mentioned, the action that is recommended is to recommend the Plan for distribution by City Council to the public. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Lippens. Do we have any questions for Mr. Lippens in regard to the Plan that we just saw? I think you covered everything. Mr. Lippens: That's the value of doing a longer presentation. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anybody in the audience that has any comments? I don't see anybody coming forward. I will say, Mr. Lippens, that this is a plan that, compared to some of the other plans that have been produced in many, many years past, which really looked at Livonia in a very futuristic vision, while this plan does look to the future of the city, it looks at it in a very practical and doable way with a lot of realistic goals. I think that's an important thing in this process and I think it's been a good asset. The Steering Committee has done a wonderful job in developing this, and not only is this a good planning tool, but this is also a good marketing tool that can be given to potential realtors, developers, corporations, and so on, to show that these are the things that we have planned for these areas of the city if they're looking to locate in those areas. So I think it's an excellent document. With that, is there any other comments from the Commission? If not, I believe we will need a motion to accept the draft and move it to City Council. Mr. Taormina: As it was explained earlier, this is the beginning of the public comment period. So there will be plenty of opportunity for the Commission to weigh in as you delve into some of the details of the Plan, as well as residents. It is required to go to adjacent communities for their comment and other public agencies involved in planning. We have a draft resolution if you're willing to make that motion. Basically, what it would do is concur in the recommendation of the Master Plan Steering Committee to forward the draft of Livonia Vision 21 to City Council for review and comment, and thereafter submit the Plan for public comment pursuant to the Michigan Planning Enable Act. September 18, 2018 28727 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Yes. This is just the beginning of a 63- day period so there will be plenty of opportunity for people to chime in and continue to massage the Plan. Mr. Caramagno: If we concur on this and move this to Council, they will take a look at it and when will the review start? Mr. Taormina: We have it targeted for mid-to-late October. The Plan would be formally distributed, and the public comment period would begin ticking. Again, 63 days is what the requirement is. Once that's over and we're able to consolidate and incorporate any changes in the Plan based on those comments, it would come back to the Planning Commission. We are targeting late November or maybe even our last meeting in December. We're hoping to kind of close out the year with this Plan. The other exciting news is we're going to turn right around and begin implementing some of the recommendations of this Plan. First and foremost will be a comprehensive overhaul of the Zoning Ordinance. This body is going to be engaged on a very regular basis looking at the Zoning Ordinance from top to bottom. We're going to completely overhaul that. We're just going to keep moving. We'd like to end the year with the adoption of the Plan and then move right into the next phase of the project. Mr. Caramagno: So it will be an action packed 2019. Good. Thank you. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-61-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a public meeting having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 18, 2018, on Petition 2018-09-07-01 submitted by the Livonia Planning Commission, the Planning Commission does hereby concur with the recommendation of the Livonia Master Plan Steering Committee to forward the proposed Comprehensive Master Plan (Livonia Vision 21) to the Livonia City Council for review and comment, and thereafter authorize distribution of the Plan for public comment pursuant to MCL 125.3841 of P.A. 33 of 2008, as amended, commonly known as the Michigan Planning Enabling Act. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. We want to thank you, Mr. Lippens, for your presentation tonight. Mr. Lippens: My pleasure. September 18, 2018 28728 ITEM #2 PETITION 2018-07-02-17 VERIZON Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 07-02-17 submitted by TeleSite Wireless, on behalf of Verizon Wireless, requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 18.42A of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to erect a wireless communication support structure (120-foot-high monopole) and construct a supporting equipment shelter in the southeast corner of the American Legion property at 9318 Newburgh Road, located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Taormina: This is a request on behalf of Verizon Wireless to construct a new wireless communication support structure, a monopole that would be 120 feet in height. It would be located on property owned by the American Legion Post #32 on Newburgh Road between Joy and Ann Arbor Trail. This is property that lies immediately adjacent to Churchill High School, and more specifically, the school's main athletic field. The site of American Legion Post #32 is roughly 2.2 acres. It includes 350 feet of frontage on Newburgh Road and has a depth of 277 feet. There are three different zoning classifications currently on the American Legion Post property. This includes a small area of residential zoning on the north end, C-1 Local Business zoning where the actual hall is located, and then on the southerly portion of the site, which is where the tower is proposed, the zoning is P, Parking, encompassing the southerly 84 feet. Looking at the surrounding properties, immediately to the south, north, and west across Newburgh Road are residentially zoned properties. There is RUF zoning immediately to the south, R-1 zoning to the west across Newburgh Road, and then Kingston Village site condominiums, which is zoned R-C, Residential Condominiums, a higher density housing complex located to the north. To the east adjacent to this site is PL, Public Land and is the site of Churchill High School. A little about the history. It was in 2015 when Verizon first approached the City and requested approval to erect a 120-foot support structure, which would have been on the west side of the high school track adjacent to the bleachers. Like a structure that currently exists on the opposite side of the field, or the east side of the track, it would have served the dual purpose of not only providing support for wireless communication providers like Verizon, but also would provide support for an outdoor lighting fixture for the track and field. The ground equipment in that case would have been located on the American Legion Post property, which is immediately adjacent to where the bleachers are located and where the light pole and tower was September 18, 2018 28729 proposed. The item, however, was tabled to allow Verizon to pursue collocating on the existing support structure, which is owned by Crown Castle and presently contains a single wireless carrier. For reasons that I'll allow the petitioner to explain, they are no longer pursuing to construct a new tower at the high school, as well as collocate on the existing light tower that is owned by Crown Castle. We went into this in quite some detail at the study session, but I'll let the petitioner, for the record, explain the reasons why they are no longer pursuing the tower at either location. The proposed new monopole and equipment shelter would be in the southeast corner of the American Legion property. This is an area that is zoned and used for parking. The area where the tower and the ground equipment would be located is in a rectangular space that measures roughly 38 feet by 20 feet. It would be surrounded by a six-foot high chain link fence. The ground surface would be crushed gravel or limestone, and there would be permanent unobstructed access provided to this area from Newburgh Road through the parking lot of the American Legion property. Again, the tower itself would be in the form a monopole. Most of the towers that you see around the community are of similar design. This would be 120 feet tall, also standard for this type of application. There are many requirements as they relate to wireless communication support structures, but one of those is that it cannot be located any closer to a residential district than the height of the tower plus 25 feet. So in this case, the minimum required setback from the adjoining residentially-zoned property would be 145 feet. The tower as proposed would be roughly 35 feet from the property line, which will have to be waived by City Council. Additional setback requirements in the ordinance are a fall zone of the height of the tower from any adjacent public rights-of-way. Again, in this case, that's 120 feet. It doesn't have the additional 25 feet. It's just the height of the tower from Newburgh Road. In this case, the setback is adequate at 210 feet. Lastly, which really goes to the heart of what the Commission will speak of here, and that's the requirement in the ordinance that any new tower not be located within half a mile from any existing antenna unless it is demonstrated that they are unable to collocate on that tower. We know from the previous petition that there is a similar tower located only 380 feet to the east on the opposite side of the track and field property. Again, I'll allow the petitioner to go into detail as to reasons why they cannot locate there. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. September 18, 2018 28730 Mr. Taormina: There are six items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated August 3, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time. The existing parcel is assigned the address of#9318 Newburgh Road. The submitted legal description appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The existing parcel is currently serviced by public water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Should the proposed project require alterations to the existing services or work within the Newburgh Road right-of-way, drawings will need to be submitted to this department to determine if permits will be required." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 17, 2018, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to erect a wireless communication support structure and construct a supporting equipment shelter on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated August 8, 2018, which reads as follows: I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated August 24, 2018, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. This communication structure is proposed to be located closer than a half mile of an existing communication structure. The petitioner will need to demonstrate that collocation is not feasible. This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The fifth letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated August 7, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The sixth letter is from the Finance Department, dated August 6, 2018, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. That is the extent of the correspondence. September 18, 2018 28731 Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Robert LaBelle, 32543 Camborne, Livonia, Michigan. With me tonight is David Antoun and Claudine Antoun, who are from TeleSite Wireless, the site acquisition specialists for Verizon Wireless and who found the site that we will be discussing tonight. In addition, is Mike Avery who is from our RF Department, Radio Frequency Department, the engineer responsible for determining heights. The propagation maps that you have in your packets and also with regard to siting the location in the initial case, that is creating a search ring. Also with us tonight is Dan Newton from the American Legion Post as the landowner. Obviously, Mark has done a very good job of going through the entire proposal and specifically those things that relate to it. I could go into just those specific things that were addressed. Mark said he would allow the petitioner to go through. I can do that now or we could take comments or questions from the Commission in a more pointed way. Whichever way you want to proceed, I'm happy to do either. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. LaBelle, as we mentioned at our study meeting, we don't really give you an opportunity to give a presentation at that meeting, so this is your chance to go on the record. Mr. LaBelle: All right. We'll start first with a little bit of history. The history talked about the fact that originally we were going to be putting this partially on the Churchill High School property and partially on the American Legion property. That was the original proposal in part because we initially approached the Livonia Public School system for the purpose of being able to place a tower. We often do that because we seek out public entities, churches, schools, etc., try to provide the revenue in that direction. We did, in fact, continue that process up until Livonia Public School said we're not interested any longer. In your packets is information that was provided including emails from them as well as reference to their Board of Education meeting in which they basically declined to consider a site any longer on their facility. So as a result, we reworked all the process to have it located wholly on the American Legion property. Going back even further to the Crown Castle site, we worked for almost three years. It went all the way back to 2015 with Crown Castle trying to seek some way to use their existing tower, and basically the answer is, it's not feasible. The existing tower, and you have the structural report in your files now, shows that the existing structure would fail capacity by over 135 percent. The structure simply isn't capable of handling an additional carrier on it, even with an extension. The only way to September 18, 2018 28732 actually use that property would be to expand the tower and make it larger. The existing light pole that you find there is 90 feet tall, the top of which is the antennas, and then 10 feet below that are the lights that service the football field adjacent to it. That site, in order to expand it and get it higher in that case, would require Crown Castle to modify the tower, and as you can see from the structural report, they concluded that is not possible to do. The structure as built originally was not capable of handling frankly any collocators on it. It was simply built for one party. The site that we're proposing now, and the reason why we're proposing it and at the height we're proposing it, is in order to be able to cover the gap in coverage that exists, which a 90-foot pole cannot do, especially if you have to locate yourself 20 feet below that at only 70 feet. You would have to expand that tower. The light pole obviously was intended to be able to blend in, if you will, to the football field that was adjacent to it. It looks like a light pole with antennas on top of it. It's not camouflaged. You can tell it's a cell phone tower, but it is needed to be just as a light pole. The only way to modify that would be increase its height by over 30 feet. It would be 33 percent higher than it is now and on top of that is another set of antennas. As a result, basically the whole purpose that was behind it is ruined. Your own ordinance in having the tower separation rule of half a mile is trying to limit the intrusiveness of towers. It's trying to say, stay with the one tower in that case. Well, this sort of flies in the opposite of that, and as you can see from the information that was provided to you, Crown Castle also was not willing to do the expense necessary to be able to expand the tower. On top of that, Crown Castle's leased property from the Livonia Public School system was inadequate after you expand the size of the tower because the tower base would have to get much, much larger in order to be taller and able to handle the other equipment that would be put on it as well as the lights. That would have to expand the compound as well and the Livonia Public School system was not interested in that either. So the bottom line out of this is that the existing facility, as much as we would like to collocate, because it's a lot less expensive generally, not in this case, but generally, it's a lot less expensive to be able to collocate on an existing tower rather than build our own. In this case, we're proposing to build what we have because that location is serving a residential area. Our issue that we have as a company is the fact that almost everything that we have to cover now, the gaps in coverage as well as capacity issues, which I'll discuss in a minute, is almost solely located in residential areas now because so many people have abandoned their land lines in favor of their cell phones. As of December of last year, the cell phone is the primary means of phone communication in America. More people have a cell phone only and no land line. And that September 18, 2018 28733 number just keeps increasing. We're probably looking at some point at the end of land lines as a primary means of communication. In any event, the point is that you have this particular use getting so high and beginning to concentrate, especially in residential areas, especially with data, non-voice use of the phone, that as a result, we have to try to find locations that are in the middle of residential areas to service those residential areas without actually going on a residential piece of property, which is a looming feat. In this particular case, the Livonia Public School, Churchill High School, was an ideal site but adjacent to it was an equally ideal site, which was the American Legion site. The American Legion site, as it's already noted, is a commercially zoned piece of property, at least part of it. We're going into the section that's zoned parking, but it's servicing the commercial area. By locating it there, and on the opposite side of where the greater concentration of residential is located, we can keep it out and closer to the school location that we were originally proposing. In that way we'll be able to satisfy both the residential demand that's coming about and also it would deal with locating it consistent with your ordinance and try to locate it at a place where frankly it can serve residential but not be residential. I mentioned capacity, and I think I'll talk about that for a short period of time here, and then I'll end the presentation and take any questions you may have. And again, the people in the audience that we have with us can answer any of the more technical questions that I can't. The coverage and capacity are actually two different elements of a cell tower. The reason why it's called a cell tower, I mean it's cellular meaning that every single tower creates essentially a circular area around it and everyone of those circular areas needs to link up with all the other circular areas that are created by other towers. They can't significantly overlap in their coverage areas because the area of overlap creates a destructive interference between the two existing towers if you do it that way. You can't leave a gap between the two because that gap now becomes permanent. You can't place a tower within the small gap because we'll create a zone of destructive interference. So what you've got to do is link these up like a honeycomb, like a jigsaw puzzle maybe, kind of slide them in so that they fit nicely next to each other. That creates a very small area where you can identify where you're going to place a tower. But now, making it doubly difficult, is the fact that we also have to deal with capacity issues. All of our existing towers, all of them, are being taxed and over-taxed with regards to their ability to handle the incoming signals. The amount of use of cell phones, as I already mentioned, is rising exponentially, especially the non-voice use, and the result of that is that individual towers that already exist and which may have sufficient September 18, 2018 28734 coverage are essentially winking out as they reach their capacity, and even though they have a coverage zone like this, while they're not working, that coverage zone is zero. So as a result, you've got to place a tower nowadays so that it's not only covering a coverage gap, but it's also got to be able to offload the duty, the difficulties that the other towers in an area near it are having so that it's performing some of the work that the other is not, which even further limits where we can actually place them so they will both match up and also be able to offload the capacity issues of other existing towers. That's basically why we're at where we are. It's sort of a bottom line out of this thing. T-Mobile was the original owner of that football field tower. If that had been built to actually accommodate someone else besides T-Mobile, we might have been to go on that tower, but it was not built that way. It was clear that once we got to the process, there's no conceivable way anybody else could have placed something on that tower without collapsing the structure. We're here now because we're trying to rectify what was essentially an error on the part of T-Mobile when they built the first one, and now we're trying to place a tower here which will allow for collocation and is structurally capable of Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. LaBelle, and I'll just note in our packet we did receive extensive information from you in regard to answering all the provisions of our waiver use ordinance and also copies of the coverage maps that you had. I appreciate that. Do we have questions for our petitioner? Ms. Smiley: My question is about the pole itself. The structure of it is such though, you were starting to tell us, that it is not going to tip over and cut the American Legion hall in half. Mr. LaBelle: No, it's not. I mean there are really two elements to this. One is how it's structurally designed. This tower in particular is structurally designed to collapse at two points, so in other words in thirds. So basically, 40 feet in each circumstance. What that means is that the tower, if you look at a monopole, it looks a little like one of those telescoping things. This does something similar. In terms of its collapse points, it will in fact, if done correctly, will collapse like this on itself or down within itself. One of two of those circumstances. What it won't do is this. It will not fall over like a tree. And that has been proven many times by virtue of both the structural reports that we provided you as well as just simply out in the field. The second reason why it's important to note here is the fact that the towers don't fall. No Verizon monopole or monopole built to Verizon's specifications has ever fallen. Many of them have been hit by things like tornadoes and hurricanes. They've been hit by vehicles and floods, etc. They've never come September 18, 2018 28735 down. Right now, North Carolina is being beset by a hurricane. All the towers are up; at least all the Verizon towers are up. Their ability to be able to function and not fall over is actually a significant element to the Department of Homeland Security, which has identified the cell phone as the primary means, as the first line of defense, if you will, with regard to national emergencies, not necessarily terrorism, but anything, like for example a hurricane. In those circumstances, for example when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, almost all the land lines were inactive, and the cell phone towers were still operating. And many, many people were able to be located, GPS, as well as communicated with so they knew help was on the way. The first responders in that area credited cell phones as saving lives. Ninety-three percent of all calls to 911 come from a cell phone, which is not terribly surprising. You have it on you and when you have some kind of an emergency, you have it with you. It's a safety device as much as a communication device nowadays. Ms. Smiley: I don't doubt that, and I know from my own children and grandchildren that they're never without a cell phone and they do all kinds of stuff on them. It's not just for calling. It's for Internet; it's for buying things. I mean it's multi-purpose. Mr. LaBelle: It's essentially a small computer that's able to do a variety of things. For business practices, businesses nowadays absolutely rely on the cell phone as a means to be able to communicate with their offices and customers, with their other employees and management. It's an essential tool of business nowadays too. Ms. Smiley: If we can come up with something to get people to stop using them while they're driving, I'd really appreciate that. Mr. LaBelle: We'll think about it someday about trying to create a lock mechanism on it somehow that can identify you're going too fast. Ms. Smiley: Especially on 96. I find it a little unnerving. Mr. LaBelle: How many people you look over and you see them with their cell phones? I understand. Ms. Smiley: Are you going to show us your map? Mr. LaBelle: Oh, sure. This is a map that's in your packets. This is the coverage currently that we have. It is color coded for convenient reference. This is actually the result of measured data. You can see down here, it gives the megahertz levels and the decibel levels that are reached by each one of these. It's actually September 18, 2018 28736 measured data that results in this. Your basic result here is that if it's green coverage, that's where you're going to get good coverage from any location, from inside the building, outside a building, just about any location within that area. The yellow is spottier coverage so that now you're in a situation where if you're in a building, for example, you're going to have more difficulty and possibly not be able to get a signal. For example, right now when I was in Livonia's library just a few minutes ago, I couldn't get a signal because I was inside the building. Once I went outside, I could. The areas of red are where you're going to get very spotty coverage both inside and outside. And areas that are white, which I don't think we have any in this circumstance, are basically no coverage. In this case, the site that we're proposing nicely fills in this area. On top of that, it's also going to deal with this and this and that and that, which are existing towers that we have right now, all of whom show exhausted sectors. The red is an exhausted sector. The antennas are oriented so that they broadcast in three different directions. They're called sectors. And when a sector is exhausted, it means that it's receiving more signals than it can handle. Many of these sectors, if they're not there already, are getting there. As a result, this tower, located where it is, is going to do a nice job with the coverage issue here and also with the capacity issues of these towers. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions? Ms. McCue: Just to clarify for the lay person. There is a coverage issue right now in that area. Correct? Mr. LaBelle: Correct. Ms. McCue: I'm assuming we take all the residential, we take the school. The school does not help anything, would be my guess. Mr. LaBelle: The school is significant. Ms. McCue: In addition to all of the other things in regard to that area in that neighborhood, this is going to increase cell phone coverage. Mr. LaBelle: It will improve the cell phone coverage. That is correct. Mike can give you the technical details of how that works out, but basically Ms. McCue: That's okay. When it comes down to it, I think most people just want to know, okay, is it going to help us. Mr. LaBelle: Yes. September 18, 2018 28737 Ms. McCue: Okay. Thank you. Mr. LaBelle: It will not only help now, but in the future too. Where it's located is going to help the coverage in that location but it's also going to deal with the off-site and the capacity. So in the future as other sectors start to get exhausted in those other zones,they'll actually have help already. Ms. McCue: It's certainly not going to reduce. Right? Mr. LaBelle: No. Sort of a bottom line on all of this, we're not going to build a tower and invest that kind of money unless we think it's going to improve the coverage and we're going to get more customers. Ms. McCue: One more question. I think you answered this the other day. Did we ever decide why the school did not want to proceed? Mr. LaBelle: You know, I went on online. You saw the email. Ms. McCue: I did. I saw the email and . . . Mr. LaBelle: It was terribly un-educating. It doesn't tell you exactly why they decided not to do that or why they came to that conclusion. We were not invited to the Board of Education's meeting so we don't know what was actually said at that Board meeting. If you go online and try to look up the minutes from the various board meetings, that one is conspicuously missing. That particular one I can't find it. I don't know. No conspiracy. I think it's just not there. So I don't have any minutes to indicate why they came to that conclusion. Ms. McCue: What you have is what we have. Mr. LaBelle: Right. That's all we know too. Ms. McCue: Okay. Thank you. Mr. LaBelle: We were very disappointed. Mr. Long: I understand the poles are designed not to fall and if they do fall, they are designed to crumple. How often are the poles inspected? Do you look at them every five years, every ten years? Mr. LaBelle: Every month. Mr. Long: Every month? September 18, 2018 28738 Mr. LaBelle: It is mentioned on the site plan that we gave you, the notes that describe our visits. We'll send our engineers out to the site one or two times a month for the purpose of checking on not only the tower, but also to check on the equipment to make sure the equipment is still functioning well. It's electronic sensitive equipment so it needs that kind of checking. While they're there, they also check on the tower. So it actually gets checked once a month in terms of looking for stress fractures, loose nuts, whatever. Mr. Long: Super. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: I'd like to hear from the American Legion and how they feel about it. Would you come up to the microphone please? Dan Newton, American Legion Post#32, 9318 Newburgh Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I happen to now be the club manager at the American Legion. One of the club managers. We have two. I have been the finance officer. Been there a long time. What questions do you have? How do we feel about it? Ms. Smiley: Yes. What's your take on this? Mr. Newton: We're happy to have. We have no problem with it whatsoever. Ms. Smiley: That's what I wanted to hear. Mr. Newton: Yeah. We have no problem. Our Executive Board has approved this. Back in 2015 it approved the building and it also now approves the whole thing. Ms. Smiley: Thank you very much and thanks for coming and thanks for your service. Mr. Newton: Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for Mr. Newton? It doesn't look like it. Mr. Newton: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. Any other questions from the Commission? Mr. Caramagno: I apologize. I missed the study session. I was out of town. I'm assuming that this a long-term lease of that property for this tower? How long of a term is that? September 18, 2018 28739 Mr. LaBelle: The total term is 25 years. It's five years initial term with four five- year options to expand. They're automatically exercised unless we decide to go away. It's extremely rare that we don't get to the end of a term. I've had lots more work trying to extend these 25- year terms than I do trying to replace them. Mr. Caramagno: I think I saw this provision. If the lease should end, to take the pole down. There's provisions in there to make sure the monies are there to make sure that comes down. Mr. LaBelle: In the actual lease itself, it compels us to take and restore the premises to its original condition. We leave the pylon in the ground. That was the thing that anchors. That's the reason why it doesn't fall. There's a very large pylon there. We will leave that in there, but other than that, we'll remove everything else and restore the premises to its original condition once we leave. I think your ordinance also has a requirement for us to do that as well. I think it's 180 days non-use. At that point, we have to take it down ourselves even if our lease didn't require it. Mr. Caramagno: Is there a generator in this fenced-in property as well that supplies power to this thing? Mr. LaBelle: Yes, there is. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. How much time is left on the lease with the school? Do you know from Crown? Mr. LaBelle: From Crown? Mr. Caramagno: Yes. How much time is left? Mr. LaBelle: Claudine, do you know? Claudine deals specifically with Crown Castle. That's why we have both of them here tonight. Do you know how long their lease runs? I don't think we ever got that far. Since we could never get to the physical structure and get that together, they actually never shared the lease data. Mr. Caramagno: I guess part of the reason for that question was, is there potential that the lease would be coming due and then T-Mobile could jump on your pole? Mr. LaBelle: I can't speak to what our competitors are going to do, but there's a strong possibility. Yes. I can't speak to the specifics because I don't have the lease, but more than likely, leasing from us will be less expensive than leasing from Crown Castle. That's typically true. One of the things that I mentioned at the study session that September 18, 2018 28740 you were not at, was that the Federal Telecommunications Act, the thing that created the FCC in the first place, has a bunch of provisions in it. Some are related to zoning. But the one relevant to tonight is the fact that it requires every single one of the parties who receive a license to broadcast transmissions on their towers. You cannot just say no. You have to allow them. So T-Mobile has to allow us on their towers and we have to allow them on ours. We're required to do that. So as a result, we all put together master leasing agreements with each other a long time ago that are already in place with a fixed price structure. Mr. Caramagno: That's provided that the height provides you with what you need? Mr. LaBelle: Right. I mean, there are ways to get around that obviously, as T- Mobile showed us this time, but basically, the bottom line is that we are required to do it in this case, and we built this structure capable of dealing with collocators. We can get a total of three on there for sure and we can probably get the fourth on there easily depending upon their equipment. It depends on the size of their equipment, what it's wind load is, etc. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: One comment, Mr. Caramagno, that we talked about at our study meeting was that, because this is a 120 foot tower, it's taller than the existing tower that T-Mobile is on, so it's likely that if they chose to move just a few hundred feet over to this tower, that they would find a height that would be acceptable to them give what they currently have. I think that was a comment made at the study meeting. Mr. LaBelle: Again, we don't know our competitor's actual propagation maps and what works for them and how they do that or their antennas. But as a general matter, we have had the experience that we get their first typically. We build the tower. They let us build the tower because we have to bill the capital cost as a result, and then they collocate on our towers after we're there. It's a good business decision actually if you think about it, but it does mean you've got to come second, which means you'll also be lower, but in this particular case, T-Mobile has the advantage of actually getting higher this time by going onto our site, and that makes a difference as far as the propagation of your coverage zone. Mr. Wilshaw: Do we have any other questions for our petitioner? Any others from the Commission? I don't see any. We'll go to the audience. Sir? September 18, 2018 28741 Mohammad Abd-Elsalam, 37264 Blake, Livonia, Michigan. I live in Kingston Village, which is adjacent to the north of the Legion. I have actually a few questions and also I want to indicate that the neighborhood, we are against building the tower in that area for many reasons. I'm going to state a few of those because I cannot remember every discussion we had with the neighborhood. One of the things that I'm hoping that Verizon will actually explain, one of these concerns that we have. One of them is the microwave generated from all these towers and area and the impact that these towers would have on our students and our children in the neighborhood. As you are well aware, adjacent to Churchill High School and there's another tower on Churchill High School, and all these children are underdeveloped, their brains are underdeveloped. More important, we have also an elementary school just two-tenths of a mile from the where the tower is going to be. All these elementary schools, I mean, they are young children. I read many studies from those microwaves to see the impact on people and on children. Plenty of these studies indicate that they will have an impact on them with headaches, sometimes maybe, I don't know other things they will have. Maybe Verizon can provide us. The other thing that we are concerned about, because many studies that I read, they are concerned about the decline in property values where all these towers are located if they are exposed and close to a residential area. Up to 20% of the property values. Now, the other concern that we have when you build the structure in that area and on the Legion's parking lot, the Legion have, during the summer months, they have a car show. That parking lot would take about 600 to 800 feet, the structure, from that parking lot. That would also make it difficult for people to park at the Legion during the summer months and with the encroachment on our properties that it would have because the first two or three years, when we first built in 1999, it used to be a cat and dog fight with the visitors to the Legion that we have to ask people to leave our property. They used to come and leave their cars on the street. Our street is too small. You are well aware of it. We cannot even pass. People just have no concern. They come and park in our driveways. They go party for three, four, five hours. We don't know where these people are. So we used to block our driveways, the entrance to the area, then we finally come to peaceful resolution with the Legion, but I am concerned and we are concerned in that area that when the parking lot becomes smaller, that these things will happen again. All these concerns I would like to state that we are opposed. Besides, the tower is going to 120 feet. I am a mechanical engineer. Talking about collapsing this way is very hard even though with all the engineering to collapse on itself. That is very hard. It would collapse to the street. It will block Newburgh at least September 18, 2018 28742 in that area. It might collapse on the property that's adjacent to the Legion also to the south. There are dangers with these high towers being in the neighborhood to people, to the street, to the property. More importantly, Livonia right now leasing that property on Churchill High School for the other tower, once that 120-foot tower goes up, the other company most likely will leave and Livonia Schools will lose also that revenue from leasing that tower. So there's a combination of many things that we are opposed to. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. I appreciate that. We have some questions that you had posed for Verizon. I will pass those along and we'll try to get some answers for you. Mr. LaBelle, we heard the resident speak about the radiation, which is an issue we've heard in past cellular tower issues. I think you have some engineers here that maybe will speak to that. Mr. LaBelle: A little bit. I've got five items that he mentioned, so I'll start with the health one. As I mentioned, there's a Telecommunication Act. That is an Act that does, in fact, limit local zoning and what it can consider with regard to a tower. One of the things that it does, in fact, as I'm about to quote, "no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC regulations concerning such emissions." We didn't provide it to you, but we can. We're literally thousands of times below the FCC's emission limits. Basically, the initial answer to the question is that it's just not a factor that this Commission can consider. Local governments are not allowed to consider that as part of the process. But the reason why is because of what just happened. We cited some unnamed source that said there is going to be horrible effects, and you folks don't have resources to review and consider competing studies and that kind of thing. The FCC and the federal government does. The FCC has on its website, and you can go to it, a link, to a ton of studies that would literally go up to here if we printed them all out, which go through the question of the effect of towers. And if you think the FCC has a bias in this thing or you think we do, then go to the American Cancer Society on their website. They also have a link to their own study with regard to the effects of cell phone towers, and their conclusion is, there's no effect. And the reason why they go into great detail about this, I won't, but I'll just take you to that thing, but the reason is because of some of the misconceptions. The first misconception is what radiation is. When we think of radiation, we think of the stuff— x-rays and things that are going September 18, 2018 28743 to hurt you. Radiation is simply a wave that propagates out from a point source. If I throw a pebble in a pond, that's radiation because it creates ripples and those are radiation. The question is whether it's harmful radiation, and that basically falls into two categories, something called ionizing radiation or non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is the stuff that hurts human tissue, and that's what you find in things like x-rays, gamma rays, and those types of things. They, in fact, do harm tissue. What we produce is radio waves. It's the same stuff that comes out of your radio, the thing that comes out of your wireless router, things that come out of your cell phone that you're holding in your hand. The only difference between what those things do and what the tower does is that these are producing it at thousands of time the strength that the tower itself is doing. The tower is 120 feet up in the air. By the time that signal reaches the ground, it's very minimal. It's not even a high voltage production that used for purposes of putting a tower up. Bottom line is that, this is similar to the kind of radio frequencies that we've all been dealing with since Marconi established the radio back 150 years ago. So bottom line out of this is that reputable sources, third parties who don't have any axe to grind like the American Cancer Society, concluded it doesn't have any effect, and that's borne out by the fact of this particular statute saying you really shouldn't be considering that. One thing I'll also note here is, the gentleman mentioned microwaves frequently. We don't emit microwaves. They're radio waves. There was a time when there were microwave dish antennas up there. Not anymore. The only thing we use microwaves now for, if we ever use them, is in order to be able to connect the towers by microwave emission. That's wholly at that higher level. In this case, it will be done by a fiber optic cable, buried fiber optic cables. We won't even have microwaves on this one at all. It creates radio waves only. The second item that was mentioned was property value. I'll read you another section of the Telecommunication Act. I know every one of you has heard this before but just to get it on record: "The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof, shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." The question here in terms of an effective prohibition means that if you can see it, then it can't go there. That's an effective prohibition. In terms of the process, your ordinance is set up with acknowledgment of this. It says collocate first if you can, and if you can't, then if you demonstrate to us that you can't, as we've done in this case, then we put up a tower instead at a different location. We do everything we can, as we have in this case, to keep it as far away from process as we can. The gentleman lives September 18, 2018 28744 to the north. We've put it on the far southern boundary. We're going to have to get a variance or waiver with regard to setback to the south because of the fact we took it so far to the south and slid it as far back as we can get it for that process. That's part of the reason why we do it. And from the standpoint of saying that it's going to reduce property values, in actuality, and I'll give you the study in a few moments, which is actually a compilation of studies. There actually is little or no effect at all on property values when a cell tower is built in the area. I know that does sound counterintuitive, but if you think about the example for a minute, you understand why. If you talk to a realtor, for example, a realtor will say that the first thing that the young couples do when they walk into the house that they're going to be buying for the first time is flip their phones open and find out if they work. The connectivity is one of the highest, if not the highest, measure of a party looking for property nowadays. I take it back to the days when telephones were first being established. And somebody who wanted telephone service had to have poles out there, a lot of them, with wires going across it and they filled up the landscape. And the same kind of concerns were created then about I don't want to look at poles, etc. But the advantage to being able to have a telephone in your home so outweighed the effect there, that people got used to it. It was part of a suburban/urban landscape. That's what happened here too. That's why these studies come to the conclusion, and I can provide you with a copy of the study, which is a compilation of 16 different studies that were done across the United States, all of which came to the same conclusion, little or no effect on the value of property. But the more important answer out of this is that if it were simply a matter of you can see it, it's going to reduce my property value, therefore you can't put it there, that's an effective prohibition. So we do our best to try to limit the effect of a tower. We try everything we can to make sure it both deals with this issue, but at the same time deals with your ordinance, and at the same time tries to keep it as unobtrusive as it can be.With all of those factors in mind, we have to deal with it. And by the way, you're only one of 24 agencies that we have to get approval from to put up one tower, and we have to deal with all their issues too to go along with it. The fact that we're right near a set of trees is going to create an issue for us from the Endangered Species Act because the Indiana bat probably could roost there, and therefore we can't build at certain times of the year. There's things like that that come about for us and that we have to deal with, and it all affects where we site these towers. We do our best to make it as unobtrusive as we possibly can. It's part of the reason why we use a monopole. It's a limited profile. It has no guide wires. It' not a trestle. It's not painted an absurd color. It's gun metal gray and September 18, 2018 28745 it stays that way. It's a noncorrosive material, and sorry, we live in Michigan. Gun metal gray actually does blend into the air better than painted blue sky, which we tried at first. It didn't work. The next item that was mentioned was about parking, that we were going to eliminate a huge amount of parking. I think that was from a misconception of how big our site is. Our site is only 20 by 38 feet. It's taking two parking spaces. The facility still meets the parking requirement of the City of Livonia, even with the loss of those two spaces. So it's still within the requirements for that purpose. The question of collapse data. All I can tell you is that we've done studies. We've even blown one of them up to see whether or not it would collapse the way we wanted it to, and it did. The process here is one that has been engineer-tested and you've got the certification from our structural engineer. Finally, we talked about when T-Mobile leaves the other site and comes to our site that Livonia Public Schools is going to lose the revenue. Well, they possibly can, but they didn't have to. They're the ones that told us no. We wanted to put it on their property. So if they're losing revenue, sorry, but they frankly have no one else to blame but themselves. We tried to give them money. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. LaBelle, for a very comprehensive answer to each of the issues raised by the resident. Do we have any other questions for our petitioner?There is no one else in the audience. We'll close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by McCue, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-62-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 18, 2018, on Petition 2018-07-02-17 submitted by TeleSite Wireless, on behalf of Verizon Wireless, requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 18.42A of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to erect a wireless communication support structure (120-foot-high monopole) and construct a supporting equipment shelter in the southeast corner of the American Legion property at 9318 Newburgh Road, located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Southwest ' of Section 32, which property is zoned C-2, P and RUF, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-07-02-17 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That a wireless communication support structure at this location shall be permitted only under the circumstances that the Zoning Ordinance standard set forth in Section 18.42A(d)1.b. requiring new wireless communication { September 18, 2018 28746 support structures to be located at least one-half (%) mile from any existing wireless communication support structures is waived by the City Council; 2. That the Site Plan Detail, Pole & Cabinet Elevation and General Notes Plan marked Sheet 1 of Job No. 94044- 1247B prepared by Midwestern Consulting, dated July 9, 2018, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the Equipment Elevation Views Plan marked Sheet 2 of Job No. 94044-1247B prepared by Midwestern Consulting, dated July 9, 2018, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the total overall height of the monopole, measured to the topmost point of the antennas and other apparatus, shall not exceed 122 feet; 5. That the monopole support structure and ground compound area be designed and constructed to accommodate no less than three (3) sets of antenna arrays; 6. That no signs or advertising shall be placed on or upon any part of the structure or facility that is visible from Newburgh Road; 7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and. 8. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. 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 September 18, 2018 28747 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2018-08-02-18 COMFORT CARE Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 08-02-18 submitted by Comfort Care Senior Living requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.03(g) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct and operate a senior assisted living facility at 34020 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct and operate a senior assisted living facility on property that is on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads. This property is a T- shaped parcel that has 142 feet of frontage along Plymouth Road and an average depth of 650 feet. The site is 3.8 acres in size and is currently vacant. Adjacent land uses and zoning include immediately to the east, the Social Security Administration Office which is zoned C-2, General Business. Further to the east of that site is OHM's headquarters. Immediately to the west is the Black Label Tavern, zoned C-2, General Commercial, and there is similar zoning as you move further west including Zerbo's Health Foods and Procam. Immediately to the north of this site are single family homes that are under the R-5 single family zoning. The property itself presently contains three zoning classifications. The southerly part is zoned C-2, General Business. Immediately to the north of that is an area zoned C-1, Local Business, and then the northwest corner of the property is zoned RUF, Rural Urban Farm. There is a pending petition that would rezone the entire site to OS, Office Services. It is the OS Office Services district that would allow convalescent and nursing homes and homes for the elderly permitted as a waiver use subject to the conditions set forth in Section 9.03(g) of the Zoning Ordinance. That pending zoning petition was given First Reading by City Council on June 18, and Second Reading and Roll Call on the zoning change, September 18, 2018 28748 which is the final step in this rezoning process, are on hold pending a review of this site plan. The land area requirement to develop a senior assisted living facility on OS zoned property is a minimum of one acre plus 500 square feet per bed. The facility that is proposed on this site would contain a total of 64 beds requiring a minimum land area of 1.73 acres. This site is 3.8 acres so the subject site contains sufficient land area for the density that is proposed. The building would be one story in height and 53,600 square feet in size. It would be located on the northerly portion of the site set back roughly 370 feet from Plymouth Road. The complex would contain 64 beds overall. This includes a mix of 23 studio units, 27 one-bedroom units, 4 two-bedroom units and 10 memory care units. There are additional amenities that are shown on the floor plan for the building, including an ice cream shop, some communal living and dining areas as well as a theater, beauty shop, staff laundry, break rooms and then there are three outdoor courtyards that are shown within the confines of the building. The building abuts residential along the north side. The minimum setback is 15 feet and the plans show that the building would be at the minimum setback of 15 feet. Another requirement is that the percentage of useable floor area as a percentage of lot area cannot exceed 45 percent. In this case, the floor area within the building occupies a total of 31.7 percent of the site, so it is below the maximum threshold of 45 percent. Also, in terms of parking, the ordinance requires one space for every three beds, plus one space for each employee. In this case, the facility would require a total of 39 parking spaces. The plan presented this evening shows a total of 51 parking spaces that would be available to both residents and employees and visitors and thus would meet the zoning ordinance requirements. Submitted plans also provide details on the construction of the building. These are the rendered elevation views of the building. Again, you'll notice that this is a single-story structure. The materials on the outside of the building primarily consist of brick, Hardie siding as well as E.I.F.S. and some stone. The roof would be a peak design, asphalt shingled and the maximum height as illustrated would be 24.5 feet. Going back to the site plan, there is a single dumpster location that is shown in the southeast corner of the main parking lot. This enclosure would contain seven-foot high screen walls. Those are shown as wood presently and that is something that the ordinance does not allow. They would have to be constructed out of a masonry material to surround the trash with proper gates. Light poles shown on the site plan would be slightly taller than what the ordinance allows. Our policy is that the lighting be limited to a height of 20 feet as measured from the ground surface. In this case, they are 22.5 feet so there would have to be a slight adjustment to the height of the lighting. Landscaping overall as a September 18, 2018 28749 percentage of green space on the site would equal 30 percent. However, the landscape materials as illustrated on the plan appear to be deficient. This is an issue that will be addressed in a letter provided by the PRDA, but it is one of the concerns that was expressed at not only the PRDA board meeting involving this project, but also at the Planning Commission study session. There is a rather large storm water detention basin that would be constructed as part of this development. The basin would not only be equipped to handle the stormwater from this site, but it would include the adjacent site of the Social Security Administration building. The reason for this is the site overall at one time included not only this property but also the Social Security Administration building. When the Social Security Administration building was constructed, the stormwater detention basin for that site was actually located on this property. That would be removed as part of the redevelopment. So in doing that, they would have to provide sufficient capacity or replace the stormwater capacity for that building as well as provide it for this building. That basin is shown along the eastern side of the driveway leading to the building. The driveway is on the west side of the site's frontage along Plymouth Road and the stormwater detention basin is shown immediately to the east of that between the proposed driveway and the Social Security Administration building. Another major component to the review is how this site relates to the residential properties. There is a requirement that a minimum five-foot high masonry screen wall be provided along the property lines separating the non-residential zoning district from the residential zoning district. There is presently a wall that extends along a portion of the north property line where it abuts residential. The plans show the extension of the wall all the way to the northwest corner of the property; however, extending about 300 feet further to south where this site abuts a residential zoned property, there is no wall shown. So that's something that would have to be addressed as well. There are no details with respect to signs. They would be allowed one free-standing monument sign that could be 30 square feet in area, six feet in height and setback at least 10 feet from Plymouth Road. This too was an item that was addressed by the PRDA. Its recommendation to the Planning Commission is to consider the plan as it relates to landscaping and other features along Plymouth Road. I'll read that letter from the PRDA in a minute if you'll allow me to read out the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. There are a number of items I believe. Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated August 24, 2018, which reads as September 18, 2018 28750 follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed waiver use at this time. The existing parcel is assigned the address of#34020 Plymouth Road. The legal description provided with the petition appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with the proposed rezoning. The submitted drawings do indicate proposed connections for sanitary, storm and water services to the building. Along with the required City of Livonia permits, MDOT permits will be needed for any work within the Plymouth Road right-of-way, and Wayne County permits will be required for the proposed Storm Sewer connection. The submitted drawings indicate storm water detention will be provided along the southeasterly portion of the property. In addition, the proposed construction will relocate the existing storm detention pond for the abutting Social Security Administration building to create one combined pond. Calculations are not provided, but the new detention pond will need to have enough capacity to detain storm flows from not only the proposed construction, but the existing abutting Social Security Administration development. Permits for the detention will need to be approved by Wayne County, since the outlet for the pond is owned by the County. Also, with the existing pond being relocated, the owner will need to have the existing easements (parking, storm detention) covering that corner of the property vacated." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 6, 2018, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct and operate an assisted living facility on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, and on-site hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department Connection (FDC). (2) Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles such that any portion of the facility first floor is not located more than 150 feet from a fire department access road. (3) Hydrant spacing shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. One hydrant will be dedicated to the FDC within 50- 100 ft. (4) Nursing homes shall be protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance to NFPA 1 and 101. (5) A fire access road shall be provided with not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance under an overhang or canopy. (6) Fire lanes shall be marked with wall or pole mounted signs that have the words: FIRE LANE — NO PARKING painted on both sides (for pole mount) or single sided September 18, 2018 28751 (for wall mount) in contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction. (7) Knox Box installation is required for Fire Department access. (8) CO2 detection required for beverage distribution systems and coolers if tank/tanks are 100 lbs. or greater. (9) FDC shall be on the address side of the building with no obstructions. (10) These issues and other code requirements will be addressed during the plan review process. (11) The turning radius of a fire department access road shall be approved by the AHJ (authority having jurisdiction) including under the canopy."The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated August 28, 2018, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated August 20, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated August 22, 2018, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated September 7, 2018, which reads as follows: "At the 251st Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on September 6, 2018, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: #2018-08 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby support the proposed plans as presented by Comfort Care Senior Living requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.03(g) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a senior assisted living facility at 34020 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 4 of Section 28, subject to compliance with all City codes and ordinances and the Plymouth Road Development streetscape goals and objectives, as such may be modified by the action of the Planning Commission and City Council, with further consideration to be given to the following items: (1) Entrance landscaping; (2) Enhancement of the storm water detention pond with vegetation; (3) Signage; (4) Parking; and (5) Easements to be consistent with adjacent properties." September 18, 2018 28752 The letter is signed by Mark Taormina, Planning and Economic Development Director. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none, our petitioner is here. We will need your name and address for the record please. Doug Boehm, Comfort Care Senior Living, 4180 Tittabawassee, Saginaw, Michigan 48604. Would you like background on the company or just go straight into Mark's comments? How would you like me to proceed? Mr. Wilshaw: It's certainly your presentation, but I think we have a pretty good idea of the background of the company at this point. Mr. Boehm: Okay. Perfect. At the study meeting exactly one week ago today, I received a letter that the Fire Marshal had a couple comments regarding fire access roads, sprinkler systems, and so forth. We took those into account and gave a call to Mr. Bo at the Fire Department. The very next day he was at a conference for the next two days but we were able to reach him on Friday and then Monday. We couldn't resolve the issue regarding the access road around the building because currently there is only a 15 foot setback between the property line and the building, and the Fire Marshal is requesting a 20 foot road which would go over the property line. So we're trying to find ways to resolve issues with regard to fire or safety of the residents. We'll be meeting with them hopefully next week as well as the building inspector. So that kind of put a halt on some things regarding the landscaping of the detention pond because we're not really sure if that's going to be the exact location or not after we make the submitted changes of the site plan due to the Fire Marshal's request. Sprinkler system, I mean, that's very ordinary for us, and we're just kind of working on the Fire Marshal's request right now. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Boehm. Is there any questions for our petitioner? Ms. Smiley: My question is, this is not skilled care. This is assisted living? Mr. Boehm: Correct. Ms. Smiley: So everybody's pretty much ambulatory? Mr. Boehm: Yep. At that point, they're not driving anymore. They may be stricken with illness that causes a disability in their life that they need assistance, whether it's grooming, changing, feeding. September 18, 2018 28753 There's actually a need for 790 assisted living beds in the City of Livonia. We're only requesting a small portion of those. We were actually told 72 beds would make it very sufficient enough for the City, but with the layout of the land, we were only able to put 64 in there. With the changes, we could be even lower than that. So we're working with the Fire Marshal to address those issues. Ms. Smiley: That brings me back to if they are ambulatory. Most of them are. Couldn't you make it a two-story building? That would give you a lot more property to deal with. Secondly, the landscaping. I don't have an updated landscaping plan. Have you had a chance to meet with the landscaper? Mr. Boehm: Correct. We addressed it with our engineer, but we're going to wait until we've reconfigured the building. In regard to a two-story, the State of Michigan does allow a two-story facility, but we don't touch it with a ten-foot pole. The risk versus reward is just not beneficial for us especially with elevators, fires, generators. Anything could happen and getting bed-ridden residents downstairs is not an easy task. Ms. Smiley: Well, then, most of them are bed-ridden. Is that what you're telling me? Mr. Boehm: Yes. Ms. Smiley: So they're not ambulatory. Mr. Boehm: Correct. Yes. Ms. Smiley: But they don't require any kind of skilled nursing? Mr. Boehm: Correct. Ms. Smiley: I misunderstood you. I thought they were ambulatory. Thank you. Ms. McCue: We haven't gone anywhere with the signage, right? Mr. Boehm: Correct. There's a company out of Brighton that I've reached out to. They do our signs down in the Metro Detroit area and they're coming up with a sign that I should have readily available in the upcoming days. Ms. Smiley: It doesn't feel like we're ready to do anything tonight. We have no landscaping. They don't know where they're going with the pond or the Fire Department issues. Should we give them some time and table this? September 18, 2018 28754 Mr. Wilshaw: A tabling motion is always in order, realizing that if we do that, it will end discussion. I don't know if you want to give an opportunity for everybody to speak first. Ms. Smiley: I won't do it right now. Let everybody else ask their questions. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Caramagno: I'm good. It seems like there's a lot of loose ends for a lot of questions. Mr. Wilshaw: Of course, this is a public hearing. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one in the audience, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. Mr. Boehm: I'm sorry for all the loose ends that aren't in the site plan, but we were made aware of these issues just five business days ago. That's the reason for the loose ends. We turned in the site plan about a month and two weeks ago. We were just now made aware of these issues so that's the cause and we'll be able to fix them hopefully by the October 2 or 16 meeting. Mr. Wilshaw: We do have a number of deficiencies in the current plan. There is no other discussion. A motion is in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-63-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 18, 2018, on Petition 2018-08-02-18 submitted by Comfort Care Senior Living requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.03(g) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct and operate a senior assisted living facility at 34020 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, which property is zoned RUF, C-1 and C-2 and is in the process of being rezoned to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby table this item October 16, 2018. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. September 18, 2018 28755 ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,128TH Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,128th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August 21, 2018. On a motion by McCue, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-64-2018 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,128th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on August 21, 2018, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCue, Smiley, Long, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Ventura ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,129th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 18, 2018, was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION am Caramagno, Sec ry rtit- 4,111, ATTEST: ' Ian Wilshaw, Chairman