HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 02-83 CUP 02-02 Verizon Wireless RESOLUTION 02-83
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal to a Planning Commission decision,
denying a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 57-
foot high wireless telecommunication tower on property located at
42-275 Washington Street.
III. APPELLANT: Verizon Wireless
CIO 02 Wireless, Minakshi V. Hemlani
4300 Latham Street, Suite 103
Riverside, CA 92501
IV. CASE NO: CUP 02-02
V. DATE: July 11, 2002
VI. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Background
C. Discussion
D. Conclusion
E. Planning Commission Staff Report
F. Planning Commission Draft Minutes
G. Planning Commission Denial Resolution
H. Applicant's Appeal Form
I. Plans and Exhibits
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council not affirm the Planning Commission's denial, and adopt
Resolution 02-83 approving CUP 02-02, subject to the attached conditions
B. BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located at 42-275 Washington Street, also known as the
Albertson's shopping center. The proposed wireless telecommunication facility will be
located behind the existing Jiffy Lube. The property is zoned Planned Commercial.
ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMISSION:
On May 14, 2002, Architecture Review Commission reviewed and granted preliminary
approval to the proposed monopalm, motion carried 5-1-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson
opposed and Commissioner Lingle absent. Commissioner Hanson expressed concerns
with the location of the project because of its proximity to a high-profile street and busy
shopping center.
RESOLUTION NO. 02-83
STAFF REPORT
CUP 02-02
JULY 11, 2002
On May 24, 2002 Councilman Crites filed an appeal. This appeal became moot when
the Planning Commission denied the conditional use permit. City Council action on the
appeal will also serve to include any action on the appeal to the Architectural Review
Commission action.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
On June 18, 2002, the Planning Commission denied the application, motion carried 3-1
with Commissioner Campbell in favor of the project and Commissioner Jonathan
absent.
Commission voiced concerns with the site location for the project. The location is within
a busy shopping center and adjacent to Washington Street, which is an arterial street
with high traffic volume. The Commission also expressed concern with the proposed
height of the tower. The proposed height of 57 feet is not compatible with the other
structures in the area.
June 25, 2002, the applicant filed this timely appeal to the Planning Commission action.
C. DISCUSSION:
Verizon's proposal requests the authorization for the construction, use, and
maintenance of a wireless telecommunication facility behind the existing Jiffy Lube
within the Albertson's shopping center. Verizon is proposing a 50-foot tall monopalm,
57 feet to the top of the palm fronds, and associated equipment shelter.
The monopalm will contain 3 sectors of panel antennae with 4 panel antennae per
sector, totaling 12 antennae. The base of the monopalm will be round and 24 inches in
diameter. Additional landscaping and palm trees will be planted at the site to screen the
facility. The equipment shelter will be located in the rear of the Jiffy Lube and will be
new construction to match the existing colors and textures of the building. Jiffy Lube will
lose 4 parking spaces in the rear of the building to add this new construction and
telecommunication tower. The shopping center has a code requirement of 670 parking
spaces. The center currently has 728 parking spaces, but will lose 4 as part of the
project. The center will remain in compliance and will exceed the required parking
spaces with 724 parking spaces.
D. CONCLUSION:
Staff continues to feel that this tower should be approved.
Unlike other land uses, which can be spatially determined through the City's General
Plan, the location of a wireless telecommunications facility is based on the technical
requirements, which include service area, geographical elevations, and customer
demand. Placement within the urban geography is dependent on these requirements.
2
RESOLUTION NO. 02-83
STAFF REPORT
CUP 02-02
JULY 11 , 2002
Accordingly, wireless telecommunication facilities have been located adjacent to and
within all major land use categories. The proposed facility will be unmanned; it will have
no impact on the circulation, noise, and has no impact on public health, safety and
general welfare. The proposed facility is providing infrastructure to commuters and
residents within the coverage area.
The communication tower site meets all Zoning Ordinance requirements. The
Architectural Review Commission reviewed and approved the artificial palm tree's
design with the addition of mature palms. The applicant is constructing a new addition
to the west side of the existing Jiffy Lube to store the equipment shelter. The new
construction will match the existing building. The new construction will result in a loss of
4 parking spaces at the west end of the Jiffy Lube. The parking lot has 728 parking
spaces, which is in excess of the required 670. The loss of 4 spaces will not be a
significant impact on the shopping center.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
(a) That existing towers and buildings do not technologically afford the applicant
the ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant or service provider;
Response:
Due to the applicant's height requirements there are no buildings of adequate
height to provide service to the service area.
(b) That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot
technologically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding tower/antenna
at the height proposed;
Response:
Site selection and antenna height are the result of a computer analysis of
service coverage requirements for the Southern California and the United States.
Topography (both natural and man made) and vegetation characteristics of the valley
make it difficult to cover even with multiple sites.
(c) That the applicant shows compelling technological or economic reason(s) for
requiring a new freestanding facility;
Response:
Existing coverage in this area by Verizon Wireless is inadequate for existing
customers. The proposed communication tower will allow for better service and
create a larger network leading to increased clientele. The applicant has enclosed a
copy of their existing coverage map and a new coverage map based on the new
wireless site, along with a letter of site justification.
3
RESOLUTION NO. 02-83
STAFF REPORT
CUP 02-02
JULY 11, 2002
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed project is considered a Class 3, Categorical Exemption for purposes of
CEQA and no further documentation is necessary.
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved:
TONY BAGATO PHIL� IP DRELL
PLANNING TECHNICIAN DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
•
Revi and C ur: Revie and Concur:
�,.. HAR FOLKERS OS L. ORTEGA
ASSIST CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER
DEVELO MENT SERVICES
CITY COUNCIL TION:
APPROVED DENIED
RECEIVED OTHER
MEETIN DATE
AYES: (J)1 I 'ec, P
NOES: / p►�' /
ABSENT: F Lcr
ABSTAIN:
VERIFIED BY: RK h�.. 1n
Original on File w hreity Clerk's Office
4
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.02-83 •
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT HIGH WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER LOCATED IN AT 42-275
WASHINGTON STREET, ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE
ALBERTSON'S SHOPPING CENTER.
CASE NO. CUP 02-02
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1 1 th
day of July, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by VERIZON
WIRELESS; C/O 02 WIRELESS for the above noted conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 00-24, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further
documentation is necessary; and
•
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did
find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said conditional
use permit:
1 . That the existing towers and buildings do not technologically afford the
applicant the ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant or
service provider; and
2. That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot
technologically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding
tower/antenna at the height proposed; and
3. That the applicant shows compelling technological or economic reason(s)
for requiring a new freestanding facility.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 02-02 is hereby granted for reasons
subject to the attached conditions.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 02-83
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on the 1 1 th day of July, 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: BENSON, CRITES, SPIEGEL, KELLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: FERGUSON
ABSTAIN: NONE
RICHARD KELLY, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
Palm Desert City Council
•
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 02-83
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. CUP 02-02
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
to the department of community development/planning, as modified by the
following conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be
in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit
for the use contemplated herewith.
5. That where co-location may effectively be accomplished without violation of the
provisions of proposed Municipal Code Chapter 25.104 and without reasonable
interference with applicant's existing use, applicant shall allow third party co-
location onto the tower erected under this permit. Applicant may charge a
reasonable rental fee for such co-located use to the extent allowed by law.
6. That the communication tower shall comply with all provision of the City's Zoning
Ordinance including but not limited to Section 25.104.040, Commercial
Communication Tower Ordinance.
7. Applicant agrees to maintain the artificial palm tree. Applicant will enter into an
agreement to maintain said monopalm for the life of the project, which agreement
shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of
the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors
and assigns. The site shall comply with the Property Maintenance Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 801).
3
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 02-83
8. The applicant shall comply with abandonment requirements set forth in Section
25.104.040 (o) of the City's Commercial Communication Tower/Antenna
Ordinance.
9. The applicant shall install live Date Palms at heights of 18' to 40' adjacent to the
artificial palm tree.
10. The new construction for the storage of the proposed equipment shelter shall
match the existing Jiffy Lube building: color, texture and architecture.
Department of Public Works:
1 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for
checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this
project.
2. Proposed building and equipment pad elevations are subject to •review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
3. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
4. Applicant comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12
Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and
Discharge Control.
•
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: June 18, 2002
CASE NO: CUP 02-02
REQUEST: Approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 57-foot
high wireless telecommunication tower on property located at 42-275
Washington Street.
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
C/O 02 Wireless, Minakshi V. Hemlani
4300 Latham Street, Suite 103
Riverside, CA 92501
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located at 42-275 Washington Street, also known as the
Albertson's shopping center. The proposed wireless telecommunication facility will be
located behind the existing Jiffy Lube. The property is zoned Planned Commercial.
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: P.R. 4/Woodhaven Country Club
South: P.C. 2 / Chevron Service Station
East: Commercial / County of Riverside (Commercial)
West: R-1 / Residential
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Verizon's proposal requests the authorization for the construction, use, and
maintenance of a wireless telecommunication facility behind the existing Jiffy Lube
within the Albertson's shopping center. Verizon is proposing a 50-foot tall monopalm,
57 feet to the top of the palm fronds, and associated equipment shelter.
The monopalm will contain 3 sectors of panel antennae with 4 panel antennae per
sector, totaling 12 antennae. The base of the monopalm will be round and 24 inches in
diameter. Additional landscaping and palm trees will be planted at the site to screen the
facility. The equipment shelter will be located in the rear of the Jiffy Lube and will be
new construction to match the existing colors and textures of the building. Jiffy Lube will
lose 4 parking spaces in the rear of the building to add this new construction and
telecommunication tower. The shopping center has a total of 143,250 square feet of
building area, including all existing buildings, and an approved precise plan for a 6,547
STAFF REPORT
JUNE 18, 2002
CUP 02-02
building area, including all existing buildings, and an approved precise plan for a 6,547
square foot retail building on the vacant pad to the south. With a 15 percent reduction
for non-usable space the center has a total of 121,763 square feet of usable space.
The City's parking requirement for shopping centers is 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000
square feet of building area. With 121,453 square feet of use, the shopping center
requires 670 parking spaces. The center currently has 728 parking spaces, but will
lose 4 as part of the approved project. The center will remain in compliance and will
exceed the required parking spaces with 724 parking spaces.
Architectural Review Commission:
On May 14, 2002, A.R.C. reviewed and granted preliminary approval to the proposed
monopalm motion carried 5-1-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson opposed and
Commissioner Lingle absent.
On May 24, 2002 Councilman Crites filled an appeal. The project will be presented to
the City Council following Planning Commission's decision.
A. ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS (Sec. 25.104):
Commercial communication towers are permitted in the P.C. zone, provided they
meet the City's Zoning Ordinance performance standards found in Section
25.104.040 and they receive approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning
Commission.
Zoning Ordinance development and performance standards include the following:
1. Separation Requirements:
Off-site Use: Req. Distance: Project:
Monopole less than 50' 500' None in area
Monopole over 50' 1,000' 1,100'
Guyed Tower any height 1'000' None in area
Residential 300' 700'
2. Fencing: Minimum 8' fence or wall surrounding the equipment shelter.
Project: The equipment shelter will be new construction on the rear of
the existing Jiffy Lube. The new addition will match the existing color
and texture of the building.
2
STAFF REPORT
JUNE 18, 2002
CUP 02-02
3. Landscaping: Minimum perimeter landscaping screening to minimize
visual impacts to nearby viewers to the satisfaction of the Architectural
Review Commission.
Project: The equipment shelter will not be visible from public view. The
applicant will plant live mature palms around the tower.
4. Height: Maximum height of 85 feet from ground level.
Project: 50 feet tall to the antennae, 57 feet tall to top of palm fronds.
III. ANALYSIS:
The communication tower site meets all Zoning Ordinance requirements. The
artificial palm tree's design and addition of mature palms will adequately
camouflage the monopalm. The applicant is constructing a new addition to the
west side of the existing Jiffy Lube to store the equipment shelter. The new
construction will match the existing building. The new construction will require a
loss of 4 parking spaces at the west end of the Jiffy Lube. The parking lot has
728 parking spaces and is over the required 670. The loss of 4 spaces will not
be a significant impact on the shopping center.
(a) That existing towers and buildings do not technologically afford the
applicant the ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant
or service provider.
Response:
Due to the applicant's height requirements there are no buildings of
adequate height to provide service to the service area.
(b) That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot
technologically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding
tower/antenna at the height proposed;
Response:
Site selection and antenna height is the result of a computer analysis of
service coverage requirements for the Southern California and the
United States. Topography (both natural and man made) and vegetation
characteristics of the valley make it difficult to cover even with multiple
sites.
3
STAFF REPORT
JUNE 18, 2002
CUP 02-02
(c) That the applicant shows compelling technological or economic
reason(s) for requiring a new freestanding facility;
Response:
Existing coverage in this area by Verizon Wireless is inadequate for
existing customers. The proposed communication tower will allow for
better service and create a larger network leading to increased clientele.
The applicant has enclosed a copy of their existing coverage map and a
new coverage map based on the new wireless site, along with a letter of
site justification.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed project is considered a Class 3, Categorical Exemption for purposes of
CEQA and no further documentation is necessary.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution approving CUP 02-02,
subject to the attached conditions.
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution
B. Legal notice
C. Comments from city departments and other agencies
D. A.R.C. minutes
E. Appeal form
F. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by -
Tony B gato,
Planning Technician
Reviewed and Approved bye l �- E
Philip Drell,
Director of Community Development
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT HIGH
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER LOCATED IN AT
42-275 WASHINGTON STREET, ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE
ALBERTSON'S SHOPPING CENTER.
CASE NO. CUP 02-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 1 8th day of June, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by
VERIZON WIRELESS; C/O 02 WIRELESS for the above noted conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 00-24, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further
documentation is necessary; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of
said conditional use permit:
1 . That the existing towers and buildings do not technologically afford the
applicant the ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant or
service provider; and
2. That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot
technologically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding
tower/antenna at the height proposed; and
3. That the applicant shows compelling technological or economic reason(s)
for requiring a new freestanding facility.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 02-02 is hereby granted for reasons
subject to the attached conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on thel 8th day of June, 2002, by the following vote,•to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CYNTHIA D. FINERTY, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. CUP 02-02
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
to the department of community development/planning, as modified by the
following conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said
approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the
restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal
ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be
in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by
this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the
following agencies:
Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit
for the use contemplated herewith.
5. That where co-location may effectively be accomplished without violation of the
provisions of proposed Municipal Code Chapter 25.104 and without reasonable
interference with applicant's existing use, applicant shall allow third party co-
location onto the tower erected under this permit. Applicant may charge a
reasonable rental fee for such co-located use to the extent allowed by law.
6. That the communication tower shall comply with all provision of the City's Zoning
Ordinance including but not limited to Section 25.104.040, Commercial
Communication Tower Ordinance.
7. Applicant agrees to maintain the artificial palm tree. Applicant will enter into an
agreement to maintain said monopalm for the life of the project, which agreement
shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of
the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors
and assigns. The site shall comply with the Property Maintenance Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 801 ).
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
8. The applicant shall comply with abandonment requirements set forth in Section
25.104.040 (o) of the City's Commercial Communication Tower/Antenna
Ordinance.
9. The applicant shall install live Date Palms at heights of 35' to 45' adjacent to the
artificial palm tree.
10. The new construction for the storage of the proposed equipment shelter shall
match the existing Jiffy Lube building: color, texture and architecture.
Department of Public Works:
1 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for
checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this
project.
2. Proposed building and equipment pad elevations are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
3. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
4. Applicant comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12
Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and
Discharge Control.
4
CITY Of Pr ,11 DES RI
�; • I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
N'� PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9 2 260-2 5 7 8
d;9�'� FAX: 760 341-7098
.aaa .
info P palm•deserr.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO.CUP 02-02
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by Verizon Wireless for approval of a conditional use permit
to allow the installation of a 50' high wireless communication tower on property located at 42-
275 Washington Street. The tower is designed as a palm tree and will be surrounded by
additional palms to the west of the Jiffy Lube within the Albertson's shopping center.
i w.I
_,
J
rni q"(
HOVLEY
D 'f , te,:E g ( T-. • t I
la+ a .11 .1 ( ~} ft + f
,.,,,, 4111i ---''(
a E,c5
,. i a Sire
tiv. ATES
of ,.�flvIIIIil!RIMPINI
I i — o
./..:',1\
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 18, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California,
at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written
comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to
the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative
declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above
address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00, p.m. Monday through Friday. If you
challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Planning Commission (or city council)at, or prior to,the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
June 7, 2002 Palm Desert Planning Commission
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Tony Bagato
FROM: Joseph S. Gaugush, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: CUP 02-02, Verizon Wireless Site at 42275 Washington Street
DATE: May 23, 2002
The following shall be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project.
(1) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for
checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this
project.
(2) Proposed building and equipment pad elevations are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
(3) Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
(4) Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management
and Discharge Control.
JOSEPH S. GAUGUSH, P.E.
cc: file CUP 02-02
G WubWorks\Conditions of Approva!\CUP\CUP 02-02 Ceti Tower at 42275 Washington Streetwpd
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
APRIL 23, 2002
MINUTES
3. CASE NO.: CUP 02-02
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VERIZON WIRELESS, MINAKSHI V.
HEMLANI, 4300 Latham Avenue, Suite 103, Riverside, CA 92501
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of cellular
site with installation of a 57-foot monopalm.
LOCATION: 42-275 Washington Street (Jiffy Lube)
ZONE: CPS
Mr. Bagato stated that the site is located off Washington in the
Albertson's Shopping Center near Jiffy Lube. He presented photos of
the site to the commission. He commented that Jiffy Lube will lose
some of their parking spaces and will add an equipment shelter, which
will match the Jiffy Lube building. Mr. Bagato stated that there are
some existing tall palms in front of the property along Washington.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked why they are choosing high-profile sites.
Mr. Bagato stated that the sites are selected based on coverage and the
applicant did submit a coverage map. Commissioner O'Donnell wanted
to know how many more towers Verizon will need in the near term. Ms.
Hemlani, applicant, didn't know how many more they will need.
Commissioner Lopez stated that he lives in the area near the proposed
site and he stated that he has terrible reception there. He commented
that they put one near the park at Palm Desert Country Club.
Commissioner Hanson asked if there is an opportunity for different
companies to band together to share these towers. Mr. Drell stated that
this is not possible. He stated that originally they were going to try to
have a few very tall poles and try to get multiple users on a pole. They
ended up being 80' tall and every time another user came in another ten
feet would have to be added to the pole. There has to be a ten foot
separation between users. Mr. Drell stated that they decided that it was
better to have more poles that were shorter and look like palms than
huge towers with multiple arrays of antennae on them that were
undisguised. He commented that this was a conscious decision that
was made after seeing the tall, undisguised, multiple array antennae.
The shorter, somewhat disguised palms were the lesser of two evils to
achieve the coverage which we're required to provide by the
Telecommunications Act. We have to provide them with the ability to
serve their customers.
G.Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020409.MIN 5
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
APRIL 23, 2002
MINUTES
Commissioner Hanson wanted to know how other cities are getting away
with not providing coverage. Mr. Drell stated that we are the biggest city
in the center of the valley. He stated that the companies have to show
us the coverage of all of their existing poles and why they need them.
Commissioner Lopez stated that he is a member of the ARC in
Cathedral City and they're coming in there too. Commissioner Hanson
stated that there are two cities where they are not. She stated that they
are continuing to come in and now they're picking sites that are very
close to high-profile streets, in front of shopping centers and she feels
that this is a problem.
Commissioner Lingle asked if there is any other commission in which
these go for approval other than the ARC. Mr. Drell stated that there will
be a hearing with the Planning Commission right after the ARC sees it.
Commissioner Lingle asked if the Planning Commission is sensitive to
the issues raised by members of the ARC. He asked if someone else
reviews this matter in terms of volume, placement and need based on
the petition of the customer and that the ARC is primarily concerned with
aesthetics. He suggested that the ARC send their recommendation to
the Planning Commission that they have a sensitivity to this and want to
make sure that the issues are appropriately addressed and that our
decisions are based on each individual application before us. He
expressed his concern about the number of proposed cell sites. Mr.
Drell suggested that the cellular companies submit a master plan for the
City so that we can review it. He stated that every mono-palm that's
gone in, people are pretty happy with. Commissioner Gregory.stated
that the first ones were horrendous. Mr. Drell stated that the first one
had a square trunk.
Commissioner Gregory asked if the commission feels comfortable that
this particular location could be made to work if the mono-palm with real
palms clustered around it could be made to work on this site.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was okay with it as it was set in
behind the building and will have four other palms nestled around it.
Commissioner Gregory stated that after looking at the photograph that it
could be made to work in this location, but would like them to use the
narrower pole.
Action: Commissioner Gregory moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez to approve this design subject to using a mono-palm with a
smaller diameter within a cluster of four live palms. Motion failed 3-4.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020409.MIN 6
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
APRIL 23, 2002
MINUTES
Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he does not think that they have
enough information to know why these sites were selected, as opposed
to lower profile sites, nor do we have information about the near-term
saturation by the multiple satellite companies that are requesting poles
here in the City of Palm Desert. He stated that he will continue to
oppose any approval until he gets that information. Commissioner
Gregory commented that technology is advancing and the towers will
not be a long-term permanent thing. Mr. Drell indicated that the towers
would be removed when they were no longer needed.
Ms. Hemlani stated that she receives a search ring from Verizon and
she looks in that particular area because that's where they're lacking
coverage and where they have a dead zone. She then goes out and
looks for at least three sites to offer to Verizon. She stated that this is
number three on her list because the other sites wouldn't work since
there isn't enough space, or the landlord isn't interested, etc... She
stated that the currently proposed site is so close to Washington
because she was trying to maintain the 300' separation distance from
the residential zone. Ms. Hemlani commented that there are a lot of
residential zones in that area, limiting their choices. Mr. Drell stated that
with the stealth design she can ask for a waiver of the 300' separation.
Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it would be much more appropriate
for a proposal like this to be in the back of the shopping center. He
stated that the closer these towers get to the public right of way the
more difficult they become to look aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Hemlani
stated that there is a residential zone behind the shopping center as well
as to the right and left. She commented that she felt it would be better
to have the tower closer to a commercial area than a residential area.
She stated that they tried to disguise the shelter pad and the equipment
so it fits in with the architecture of the shopping center. Commissioner
Hanson asked if there might be ten sites to choose from rather than
three within the target area. She asked if there are more sites available
that she didn't even consider. Ms. Hemlani stated that it's been very
difficult to find three sites within the search ring as potential sites.
Commissioner Hanson stated that she feels that the proposed.site is in
too prominent of a location and is "in the face" of everybody who walks
in and out of that shopping center. She stated that generally they have
tried to put them in places that are mostly near the rear of buildings,
towards the sides of buildings or in the back of parking lots and this one
is right in front and she has an issue with that.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020409.MIN
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
APRIL 23, 2002
MINUTES
Commissioner Lopez stated that a mono-palm was installed in the Palm
Desert Country Club park and was wondering if they could put another
one in there.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that the mono-palm on Highway 74 is very hard to
see and he had a lot of trouble finding it. He commented that we are
dealing with the same kind of thing in the back of Jiffy Lube and they can
put in that type of landscaping and they have plenty of room to do it.
Commissioner Hanson stated that the tower on Highway 74 has about
fifteen palm trees in front of it.
Action: Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lingle to continue the request to allow the applicant to locate a more
appropriate site. Motion carried 7-0-0-0.
4. CASE NO.: CUP 02-04
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DELTA GROUPS ENGINEERING;
TODD SMITH for AT&T WIRELESS, 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400, Irvine,
CA 92614
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of 65'
wireless telecommunication antenna tower designed as a mono-palm
with associated equipment shelter.
LOCATION: 72-876 42rd Avenue (Stor America Self Storage)
ZONE: S I
Mr. Bagato stated that the proposed tower is 65' high and located on the
property of Stor America Self Storage. Todd Smith, applicant, stated
that there is a 10'-12' drop in elevation at the corner of the site that he
had originally proposed the tower. He stated that he would like to use
that location if he could compensate for the elevation loss. He
commented that with the 65' height limit that is imposed on the tower it
would give them an effective height of approximately 52'-55'. He stated
that he's not opposed to the location if there's some way to utilize a 75'
tower to compensate for the loss in elevation.
Commissioner O'Donnell suggested using the west side near the
existing Pac Bell site approximately 150'-200' to the south, which is a
G:Planning\Donna ouaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020409.MIN 8
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MAY 14, 2002
MINUTES
4` 7. CASE NO.: CUP 02-02
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: VERIZON WIRELESS, MINAKSHI V.
HEMLANI, 4300 Latham Avenue, Suite 103, Riverside, CA 92501
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of cellular
site with installation of a 57-foot mono-palm.
LOCATION: 42-275 Washington Street (Jiffy Lube)
ZONE: CPS
Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant submitted new plans with the
addition of live palms. Hugh Jorgenson, Architect, stated that the
equipment building is the same and is in the same location as
previously submitted. He stated that they added live palms with varying
height and additional landscape to soften the area. He commented that
the exterior equipment building colors are the same as the rest of the
shopping center.
Mr. Jorgenson stated that the mono-palm will be designed to resemble
a robusta and will be 24" in diameter at the base. He stated that initially
his client had given him a diameter measurement of 48", which was an
error.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez for approval. Motion carried 5-1-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson
opposed and Commissioner Lingle absent.
8. CASE NO.: SA 02-77
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): IMPERIAL SIGN CO., INC., 46-120
Calhoun Street, Indio, CA 92201
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of business
signage including attached sign and monument sign.
LOCATION: 74-853 Hovley Lane, Stor N Lock
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR020514 MIN
10
III
_ �,� ��► CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA o
PI* Al =Ma, r
�� .ea ' ,'�; APPLICATION TO APPEAL AI 0 m C)
rrl
'_��- c
• DECISION OF THE C, • i '_m_,"'.m
oc,
(Name of Committee/Commission) o 07,1
>:;
o m
Case No. CO-) (; 2 —pJ . Meeting Date: s/y/ Z
of 02 — 0-2-
Name of Appellant /rz 00 r/ (`-,• ' c
Address Phone: ( )
Description of Application: Cc-L L �;Ze
Reason for Appeal: /'c /%Y c o--.-,,,r- .4/ .--.,'� �'r-�. ?--
Signature of Appellant .- ,_ Date 1
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
---- --+ 64
Date Appeal Filed: CD Fee Received: 6"l/i �
Treasurer's Receipt #: Received by:
Cl
Public Hearing Set For:
,
Action taken by the City Council:
0
I--
w
o
U C]
Date:
Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
-773 SUBJECT TC
REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002
B. Case No. CUP 02-02 - VERIZON WIRELESS, Applicant
Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the
installation of a 57-foot high wireless telecommunication tower
on property located at 42-275 Washington Street.
Mr. Tony Bagato explained that the subject property is located at 42-275
Washington Street within the Albertson's shopping center. He stated that the
Jiffy Lube service station fronts on Washington Street and the proposed
project tower and facility would be located behind Jiffy Lube.
Mr. Bagato indicated that the applicant prepared some renderings which he
distributed. He explained that they were photo images with some renderings
showing perspective. He noted that the base of the pole would be 24-inches
and round. The tower would be 50-feet high to the top of the antennae and
57-feet total to the top the palm fronds. There would be additional landscaping
planted along with five additional palm trees. Mr. Bagato showed the
commission the elevations. He explained that the equipment shelter would be
placed in the rear along with the tower. The shelter would match the existing
shopping center's or Jiffy Lube's textures and colors. He passed around a
color board for the commission's review.
Mr. Bagato stated that the project would be constructed over four existing
parking spaces that are located to the rear of Jiffy Lube, so there would be a
loss of four spaces. The shopping center currently has 728 parking spaces and
the required parking spaces based on the square footage of the existing center
and the approved parcel precise plan located to the south was required to have
670 spaces, so the loss of four spaces wouldn't be a problem since there
would still be an overflow of 54 spaces.
On May 14, 2002, the Architectural Review Commission looked at the project
and it was approved 5-1 with Commissioner Hanson opposed and
Commissioner Lingle absent. On May 24, 2002, Councilman Crites filed an
appeal, so ultimately this case would be presented before the City Council.
Mr. Bagato stated that the tower met all the zoning requirements for the
tower. The artificial palm tree's design with the addition of the five palm trees
and low shrub landscaping around the building should adequately camouflage
the pole.
4
:; _ SUBJECT IC
MINUTES REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002
Mr. Bagato indicated that under CEQA, this project was classified as a Class
3 Categorical Exemption and no further documentation was needed for CEQA
purposes.
Staff recommended that Planning Commission adopt the draft Planning
Commission Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 02-02, subject to the
conditions attached to the resolution. He asked for any questions.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if staff had any idea how many phone
companies are out there and how many might approach us in the future to
have their own pole. Mr. Bagato said no and explained that staff receives
them on a case by case basis. There are several phone companies and we
don't have any idea who might come in next. He stated that Mr. Drell
mentioned at the Architectural Review meeting the possibly that staff could
contact some of these companies and ask for a master plan of the area to see
where they would be placed and the need. Mr. Bagato also' stated that
currently there are two other pending applications from AT&T and they
weren't near these locations.
Commissioner Tschopp thought that would be an excellent idea. He didn't
know how many phone companies were offering this and there would be more
in the future. At this point in time staff was uncertain how many we could end
up with in the city. Mr. Bagato said that was correct.
Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MS. MINAKSHI HEMLANI from 02 Wireless Solutions at 4300 Latham
Street, Suite 103 in Riverside, stated that she was representing Verizon
Wireless.
Commissioner Tschopp noted that in the applicant's letter (see attached
Exhibit A) she mentioned looking at a strip mall, but the lease negotiations
were not favorable. He asked if that was a strip mall in this area.
Ms. Hemlani said yes.
Commissioner Tschopp asked if the property she looked at was in the back or
in the front.
5
a. SUBJECT TC
MINUTES ‘ A
FT- REVtSION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002
Ms. Hemlani said there were two malls in that area. Their general
coverage area where they have a dead zone and need coverage is
between 42nd Avenue and Washington. She believed that there were
two malls across from this current proposed location. One of them
where the lease negotiations fell through was at the side of the parcel,
but only because they didn't have anything in the back or the front.
Commissioner Lopez asked if Ms. Hemlani would be in a position to comment
on the feasibility of doing a master plan for the Coachella Valley to say where
they think they are going to need additional monopalms for the future.
Ms. Hemlani said that the Verizon Wireless Performance or Radio
Frequency Engineers were the ones who set up the program on how
their program works together. They would have something. As they go
along, depending on how the system works they change and taper it
but they had a general idea of where they need coverage. She didn't
have that information with her.
Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was
closed. Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
approving the findings as presented by staff to approve the project.
Chairperson Finerty asked for any discussion. Commissioner Tschopp stated
that he didn't like this site, but he wasn't sure what the alternatives were or
the legal steps they could take. He was concerned since the commission didn't
know how many there could be and where they might end up.
Chairperson Finerty stated that she was opposed to the project. She thought
that Architectural Review Commissioners Hanson and O'Donnell had it correct
about not placing these in high profile sites. When they put the ordinance
together they were looking at putting them in the corner and in the dark. This
request was front and center and Commissioner Hanson commented that it
was in the face of everyone. Chairperson Finerty didn't believe that this was
an appropriate location. She understood that alternate sites were considered,
but that didn't mean because other sites were considered and they didn't work
out that we need to have it in this site. She didn't believe it was in the best
interest of the city. Having a tower 57 feet tall at Jiffy Lube would be 25 feet
6
r‘
P SUBJECT It
5 1 REVISION
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002
higher than most trees in the area and she thought it would stand out like a
sore thumb. So she was opposed to the proposal.
With the motion and the second on the floor, she called for the vote.
The motion failed on a 2-2 vote with Chairperson Finerty and Commissioner
Tschopp voting no.
Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a resolution of denial.
Mr. Hargreaves advised that the commission would need to vote as to whether
or not the commission would want to do the resolution of denial. What they
would like to try to do was get the majority of the commission to agree on
which way to act on this issue. Ultimately if two want to approve it and two
want to deny it, what they might end up doing is continuing it until they got
a fifth vote.
Commissioner Campbell noted that Councilman Crites already filed an appeal
and asked if it would automatically go to Council. Mr. Hargreaves said it
would. Commissioner Campbell asked if the vote was 3-2 for approval or
denial, it would still go to Council. Mr. Hargreaves explained that it is a CUP
and the Planning Commission has the jurisdiction to make the original decision,
so the Planning Commission needed to make a decision if it can make a
decision. Whatever the decision the Planning Commission made may or may
not influence the City Council, but he would still like them to make one if
possible.
Commissioner Lopez suggested continuing with the denial with a
recommendation to the applicant that they should take into consideration the
alternative locations available to them that would not bring up the concern of
it being in the front and center of everything. That might be the
recommendation at this point.
With that, Chairperson Finerty asked if Commissioner Lopez would be willing
to go forward with a resolution of denial. Commissioner Lopez said yes.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp
to deny Case No. CUP 02-02. Chairperson Finerty asked for any discussion.
7
s SUBJECT Ti
MINUTES REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2002
There was none. Chairperson Finerty called for the vote. Motion carried 3-1
with Commissioner Campbell voting no.
Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a resolution of denial. Mr. Smith said
yes and distributed copies. Mr. Smith explained that the suggested findings for
the denial were outlined in the middle of the resolution. They were: 1 ) The
proposed location of the tower would be highly visible from a major street and
a very busy shopping center; 2) The height of the structure in the proposed
location is not compatible with the surrounding properties. He stated that staff
was open to any other reasons if the commission wished to outline them.
Chairperson Finerty asked if there were any other items that the commission
wanted to add.
Commissioner Tschopp stated that he wasn't sure it was appropriate in this
case, but he would like to have additional information on the number of towers
that we could end up with. Chairperson Finerty suggested after taking care of
the resolution, directing staff to prepare a master plan and contacting all of the
companies and putting the information together so that they could have some
idea. Commissioner Tschopp agreed.
Chairperson Finerty asked if there was a motion of denial. Mr. Hargreaves
explained that the motion should be to adopt the findings as presented by
staff.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp,
adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner
Campbell voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2132, denying CUP 02-02.
Motion carried 3-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no).
C. Case No. CUP 02-03 - VERIZON WIRELESS, Applicant
Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the
installation of a 59-foot high wireless communication tower on
property located at 74-000 Country Club Drive.
8
................
CITY DE PIIL DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
3
»i .t, j TEL: 760 346-061 1
FAX: 760 341-7098
...........
., anfo@palm-dcsert org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: June 21 , 2002
Verizon Wireless
c/o 02 Wireless
Minakshi V. Hemlani
4300 Latham Street, Suite 103
Riverside, California 92501
Re: CUP 02-02
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken
the following action at its meeting of June 18, 2002:
PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED CASE NO. CUP 02-02 BY ADOPTION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2132. MOTION CARRIED 3-1
(COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL VOTED NO AND COMMISSIONER JONATHAN
WAS ABSENT.)
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
Steve Smith, Acting Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2132
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 50-FOOT HIGH
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER LOCATED IN AT
42-275 WASHINGTON STREET, ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE
ALBERTSON'S SHOPPING CENTER.
CASE NO. CUP 02-02
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 18th day of June, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by
VERIZON WIRELESS; C/O 02 WIRELESS for the above noted conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 00-24, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project is a Class 3 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further
documentation is necessary; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the denial of said
conditional use permit:
1 . The proposed location of the tower will be highly visible from a major street
and a very busy shopping center.
2. The height of the structure in the proposed location is not compatible with
the surrounding properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That Conditional Use Permit 02-02 is hereby denied.
Jun-19-2002 04:15pm From-PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 7603417098 T-396 P.002/002 F-424
T
ei _ CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA .no
I i L
'. _=' o- APPLICATION TO APPEAL � ;PI c
4�E'pt ri
r3A-V..••• ►n
DECISION OF THE P(044/2k Gd M act s57 E o
(Name oommittee/Commission) cn9 m
cn
m
Case No. ati2 w-al • Meeting Date: Jw lc?, 2002
Name of Appellant Vg4'1 'ovl t'U I ss o020 474 S5 So t d ,r
Address 41300 ZgAlatt4 S-f-, Sau e /03 Phone: (90 ) zito
A'VOrrs 1 p6 . GA- 9 2S0"7 x Zos-
Description of Application:
V i7' 1 k� �' r.J1_0' s1 — )i ,J'trn 4 S*o /
Orr 1 57 2tt J
-/n al,G, . .sh sl�c
Reason for Appeal:
•
Signature of Appellant Date.0 02--
; -5 Ivt' H.0(41a,tet,�,
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Date Appeal Filed: Fee Received:
Treasurer's Receipt #: `�$?O Received by:
Public Hearing Set For:
Action taken by the City Council:
Date:
Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk