Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1961-06-06 3195 MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE 131ST SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA I[: On Tuesday, June 6, 1961 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a public hearing and the 131st Special Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Charles W. Walker, Chairman called the public hearing to order at approximately 8:00 p.m. Members present: Leonard K. Kane, W. E. Okerstrom, Robert M. Peacock, James Watson, Jr., James Cameron and Charles W. Walker Members absent: *Robert L. Greene, **Dennis Anderson and Robert L. Angevine Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner, was present along with approximately twenty- five interested persons in the audience. Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition Z-509 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to rezone property located (1) approximately 300 ft. South of Lyndon and East of Henry Ruff; (2) located East of Henry Ruff Road and approximately 900 ft. North of Schoolcraft, both parcels in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 and (3)located on the West side of Henry Ruff between Lyndon and Schoolcraft in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23; from RUFB to RLA. Mr. Jacob Menuck.vas present and asked that this matter along with the next item, Petition Z-511 be postponed until later in the evening for the reason that his attorney, Mr. Goldman, had been delayed and had not arrived as yet. Mr. Walker advised those present that Petitions Z-509 and Z-511 would be brought back later in the evening. **Mr. Dennis Anderson arrived at 3:06 p.m. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-510 by Theodore Zukosky for the Felician Sisters, who is requesting that the zoning classification of property located on the South side of Five Mile Road and on the East side of Newburgh Road beginning approximately 800 ft. West of Levan Road and ending just north of Jamison Avenue in the North half of Section 20 be rezoned from R-2 to C-2. Mr. Theodore Zukosky was present. Mr. Zukosky: The Wayne Country Drain Commission wantsa right-of-way on the Felician Sisters property. They originally proposed a 60 foot wide ditch running parallel to Newburgh, running north to Five Mile Road and parallel to Five Mile Road past the hospital. The ditch would be 60 x 15. We came up with this alternate proposition to permit the drain to come in the back of the proposed commercial zoning which would then not necessitate this ditch due to the terrain dropping I[: at that point. As to when the commercial would be developed, I do not know, it may be a year or ten years from now. It would have to be determined by the governing body of the Felician Sisters. Peacock: Can we make a decision on this item when Item #10 has not 3196 been acted upon as yet? 110 Mr. Walker: We will have to dispose of this as an item by itself. Do we have a letter from the Wayne County Drain Commission on this? It was determined that no letter had been received but that the information given tonight was correct. Mr. McCullough: How wide and how deep is the ditch? Mr. Zukosky: About 6 ft. deep and approximately 10 to 12 ft. wide. Mr. Walker: What effect would the widening and deepening of the ditch have on the property in relation to the zoning? Mr. Zukosky: This drain will isolate the property from any practical use by the Felician Sisters. At the present time it runs adjacent to the hospital. Wayne County has stated it will tile the drain. Mr. Walker: As this time do you have any information as to when this ditch will be cleaned out and expanded in the area? Mr. Zukosky: If the Planning Commission and the City Council approve the rezoning, it should be underway in about 30 days. Mr. Walker: You feel that the approval of this is contingent to the granting of the easement? Mr. Zukosky: The granting of right-of-way is contingent to the zoning change. This will be a permanent easement which will be dedicated. The City Council instructed us to submit a petition for rezoning this property. They felt this was the best way to take care of this problem. Mr. Walker: We have never been petitioned for a rezoning whereby a granting of a rezoning is contingent to the easement being granted. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Peacock: I would like to have this taken under advisement until we can take care of Item #10. Perhaps later in the evening after Item #10 is taken care of. Mr. Okerstrom: Who has the power to designate where the drain will go? The City Council? W. Walker: I think they are merely following the natural contour of the existing drain and it has been approved by the Engineering Department of the City and also the County Engineering. Mr. Zukosky presented the proposed plan of the drain that had been approved and with- drawn in favor of the present plan, which the commissioners • 3197 examined. ILI Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement for further study. Some of the commissioners would like to discuss it more fully. We will be glad to notify the petitioner at the time of the next meeting. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-81 by John Migut who is requesting permission to remove sand, gravel and topsoil from a portion of Parcel Illb, located on the North side of Seven Mile Road approximately 650ft. East of Gill Road in the South- east 1/4 of Section 4. Recommendations have been received from the Police Department and the Engineering Department. Mr. Migut was present. Mr. Walker: We have a petition that was submitted to us tonight with a number of signatures of property owners who are protesting to this removal. Mr. Walker passed it around to the other members of the Commission to examine, and then asked Mr. Peacock to give his report on his investigation of this removal. Mr. Peacock: I am not prepared because I did not know which area was in- ": volved. I would like to have the opportunity to find out the differences between the property owners who signed the petition and the remover of the topsoil. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Phillip Barrett: According to the application this is for the removal of sand, 19630 Gill Road) gravel and topsoil. My property is adjacent to the property from which it is to be removed. We covered the neighborhood and obtained the signatures of those in our association. You have that petition. We definitely object to this. This property is zoned residential and we have seen the same type of use before and certainly it is objectionable and it creates a nuisance that does everything but beautify the community and we want to object to it now. Mr. Walker: You are protesting aginst the removal? Mr. Barrett: Yes, 'it has been going on for a year and the remover is going quite deep. It is anything but desirable. Mr. Walker: How many houses on Gill Road immediately abutting this property? How deep are your lots? Mr. Barrett: Two houses, each 650 ft. in depth. Mr. McCullough: How long will it take, Mr. Migut, to finish this operation? Mr. Migut: To do the removal probably about a year, perhaps less. Mr. McCullough: Why haven't you finished before this? Mr. Migut: There has been no market for the topsoil. 3198 Mr. Joseph G. Vargo: This operation is hazardous to the youngsters in our neighbor- ( 19800 Gill Road) hood. We have had this noise for a year. Mr. Richard Iltis: He is digging at the rear of my property now. It has been 33610 W. Seven Mile) going on for a year. Last winter there was a ditch 14 ft. deep. It runs back from my property right straight back as far as it can go before it hits the woods and I am strongly opposing such a thing as this. I understand that he wants to come up between Lloyd Gullen and myself. Mr. Peacock explained the topo to the gentlemen in the audience. Mr. Iltis: I have an objection to the whole thing. These trucks go in and out seven days a week. Another thing, nothing will grow, every bit of topsoil is being removed. And after it is removed, the sand will blow. Mr. Walker: Is there any sand blowing as yet? Mr. Iltis: No. Mr. Cameron: How far is the ditch from your property? M Iltis: It is at the rear of my property. Mrs. Iltis: I would like to object to the ditch. It is very deep and full I[: of water. It is very dangerous for the children. The sand blew very bad last year and the trucks go in and out all day long. Mr. Walker: We will have the Engineering Department and the Commission members go out and examine this before any action is taken. Mr. Okerstrom: Is there any water in the ditch now? Mrs. Iltis: It was full three or four days ago. It is deep, a child could drown in it. Mr. Barrett: Last week it was filled. Maybe in the summer it wouldn't be. Mr. Primo Pretrucci: I live across the strfiet. I agree with these people. It is 19066 Whitby) a nuisance. There is ditch there and I have seen plenty of water a month ago plus the fact that the trucks come in and out of the property and dump a lot of sand and mud on Seven Mile Road. I will agree that the removal does continue on Sunday. It doesn't add any beauty to the city. Mr. Walker: Mr. Migut, is there any topsoil on the land? Mr. Migut: There is one pile of topsoil which will be spread over the area after the removal process is finished. Irs An interested person in the audience representing the Helman Park Civic Association stated that last winter an area approximately 400 x 450 was seeded in rye. It came up during the summer but died during the winter. Mr. Iltis: I have the property adjoining it. There is no topsoil left. 3199 Mr. Walker explained to the audience the method of removing the topsoil. He stated a certain grade level must be maintained by the remover. If not-enough-is removed, then the developer of the subdivision has to have it removed before he can start to build. The City Engineering Department determines the grade level which is usually based upon the proper elevation of the two cross streets, in this case, Seven Mile and Farmington Roads. Mr. Barrett: They are going down about four feet. Mr. Migut: It is still above grade level. *Mr. Robert L. Greene arrived at approximately 3:50 p.m. Mr. Walker: The petitioner will have to blend in with the contour of your land to protect your property. Mr. Anderson: He cannot cut within thirty feet of your property line. Mr. Walker: We will take Application TA-81 under advisement, along with TA-32 which is for removal of topsoil from property adjacent to property in TA-81. Since Mr. Goldman, attorney for Mr. Menuck was present now, Mr. Walker informed those present that Item #1, Petition Z-509 would be taken up now. Mr. Goldman: We are here in opposition to the proposed rezoning. This plat represents a period of 5 years since it has been under development. It was zoned RUF which permitted 60 ft. lots in the area at that time. The overall plan indicated larger lots fronting on Henry Ruff and smaller ones west of Middlebelt. Over the years we have developed Subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 and there are a substantial number of homes in these three units. We have not as yet finished the development of #4 because of the sewer situation. If you ask to rezone.lthis property into the so-called RL district, in our judgment would be completely contrary to our initial plan and our initial layout. There are lots in this area that would conform with the requirements but on the other hand there are some that would not. Insofar as the platted lots are concerned in relation to #3, which are included in this rezoning, building permits have been obtained for these lots. We feel this is unfair to the developer to rezone at this time. It was ascertained that building permits had been obtained for approximately 8 lots; two had 90 ft. frontage; north of Perth they were ::0 ft. frontage; three were 75 ft. and two more were 70 ft. The overallarea of each lot was close to the RL requirement. Mr. Menuck: We have the sanitary sewer in for #4. If you are going to rezone this area to RLa, most of the lots on Oakview cannot conform. They are 80 x 115. It would be impossible to increase their depth to 120 ft. to come up to the minimum in the RL zone. It was determined there were thirteen lots on Oakview with a dimension of 30 x 115. Mr. McCullough: Those lots face Oakview and they are slightly under the required 3200 9600 sq. ft. , but the lots on Henry Ruff are platted for Ir: 80 x 120 or more. You might, ask our attorney what effect this rezoning would have on those lots on Henry Ruff whete the developer has already obtained building permits. Mr. Walker: Do we have the legal right to go ahead with this, M . Forrest. Mr. Forrest: He would have had to put in some footings or at least disturb the land, regardless of whether he has the building permit or not. Mr. Walker: Mr. Menuck has stated that he will have the shovel out tomorrow if we took action on this tonight. Mr. Menuck: If I could dig a hole before the Council officially changes the zoning, I would have a vested right. Mr. Okerstrom: I think the purpose of this rezoning was one of the ways to get the builder to assure the home owners in the area that these lots will remain the way it was submitted and given preliminary approval upon, but not to disturb the plat which has been given final approval. Mr. Menuck: I am willing to give a letter to the Planning Commission that IIE they will be left as shown on the preliminary plat. I verbally promise that there will not be any 60 foot lots. There are a few 75 foot lots. Mr. Max Skura: I would like to make a point clear. There is no sewer that will 14000 Hilcrest) take care of the east side of Henry Ruff Road. Mr. Okerstrom: Is it legal if Mr. Menuck submits a letter stating that the lots will be as shown on the preliminary approved plat? Mr. Forrest: This would constitute a deed restriction and I don't think that it can be done by this commission. Mr. Richard Holloway: I am accompanied by three other members of our civic associa- 30258 Bentley) tion. I think the Planning Commission appreciates the concern we have in this matter. We have no question with the plat as it stands but from experience what the plat size is has no bearing on the final size of the lots. We feel that the Planning Commission could recommend to the City Council that the zoning be approved and that the plat will be developed as it is submitted to the commission. We recommend that they be rezoned to RLA for Subdivisions #3 and #4. Mr. Walker:Ire Some lots would not conform with RLA due to the fact that some lots on Oakview are not large enough for this zone. Mr. Holloway: According to the plat given approval, the majority of the lots on the south side of Oakview are smaller. Maybe some arrangement could be made whereas the developer could reduce the widthcf some of the lots and add it to those which do not have the sufficient amount of property. 3201 Mr. Okerstrom: I feel the best solution is to have the builder submit a letter I[: to the civic association because he is the owner of the land. If this is done and he stuck to it, it would be the answer to the whole problem. Mr. Walker: It may be wise to have the Plat Committee prepare a recommenda- tion together with the City Planner and submit it to the commission at the next meeting. Mr. Anderson: By the time the Planning Commission did take action upon this, the developer would have his footings in. I think the best thing to do is to accept him on his honor and have him submit a letter to the commission to this effect. Mr. Goldman: It is true that in order to work something out to make certain lots on Henry Ruff Road receptive to the purchaser there was a shuffling of those lots. The smallest is 70 x 130. There is no intention on the part of the builder to depreciate the value of the remaining portion of the subdivision by putting in 60 foot lots. It is a nice development and we intend to keep it as such. Mr. Walker: What was the purpose of revising the original plat? Mr. Goldman: Because it was difficult to sell the large lots on Henry Ruff. Mr. Menuck: The lots on Oakview (in Lyndon #4) back into lots fronting on Bentley (in Lyndon #3) with 65 and 70 ft. frontage. Mr. Holloway: We feel we are justified that some steps be taken that would guarantee us that the lots behind us are not split down to 65, or even 60 ft. frontage. Mr. Greene: Why couldn't we establish a deed restriction in order to prevent reducing the lots? Can we do this? Mr. Walker: Yes, it was stated that it could be done if the developer agrees to it. Mr. Menuck: Put a deed restriction on the final plat for recording and it will be adhered to. Mi . Goldman: In relation to Lyndon #4, Mr. Menuck has proposed that at the time of final approval of the plat he will make it part of the deed restriction that the plat as recorded will be adhered to. This has nothing to do with Lyndon #3, however. Mr. Holloway: This is agreeable if the plat final recorded is the one that was given preliminary approval in April. Mr. Goldman: I do not feel that Subdivisions #1, 2 and 3 have anything to do with #4. Mr. Walker: It has been suggested that this condition be made part of the plat. Then it will be enforced by the Building Department. Mr. Greene: I suggest that it be on both the final plat and also as part of the deed restrictions for #4. 3202 Mr. Holloway: My question is, could I, as owner in Subdivision #1 bring a suit upon Subdivision #4? 1[40 Mr. Forrest: No, you could not. Only those in #4 could do that. Mr. Bernard Smith: At the time Lyndon Meadows #4 was given approval, it had a condition on it designating Lot 293 as an outlot. Lot 292 abuts my property (Lot 47 in Belle Mar Subdivision) at the rear and I object to it becoming a corner lot. Mr. McCullough: The chances are very remote that this road would be put through. Mr. Begin has sold off this property to someone else. The City would have to pave it if they wanted it to go through now. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement until our attorney can work out a provision to record a deed restriction upon a final plat. When we have this ianformation this item will be acted upon. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-511 by Goldman and Grabow for Jacob Menuck, Paris Home Builders who are requesting that the zoning classification of property located on the Northwest corner of Newburgh and Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section ld be changed from RLA and R-3 to R-1A. Mr. Goldman and Mr. Menuck were present. ' 1[40 Mr. McCullough: The petitioner is prepared to amend his petition to request a RM zoning instead of R-1A. It was suggested that the petitioner submit a letter requesting such an amendment for the records. Mr. Goldman stated he would do so. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #6-94-61 RESOLVED that, The City Planning Commission does hereby allow petitioner for Z-511, Goldman and Grabow, to amend said petition to request a rezoning from RLA and R-3 to RM (R-1A-70) rather than from RLA and R-3 to R-1A (60 ft. lots) as originally re- quested, subject, however, to petitioner forwarding a letter verifying said request to the Planning Commission A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Greene, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None I: Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Goldman gave a brief history on this area in relation to the different zonings it has been under since it was purchased by his client. He stated it was felt that the RM zone would be more in line with the zones abutting this property than the RLA. They were also hoping to expand the present R-3 area by 1.11 acres. It was determined that this would require another public hearing and could not be included 3203 in this petition. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Kane: When we adopted the present zoning for this area, we designated a buffer of 70 ft. lots along Newburgh and also a buffer of 60 foot lots along the north side of Five Mile Road to tie in the whole area. I feel that we should maintain these buffers. Mr. Anderson: Suggest we take it under advisement until we have studied it further and determine if it should be rezoned to RM. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement for further study. MI . McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-223 by Christian Heckh requesting permission to fill in and bring to grade level property located on the west side of Inkster Road approximately 90 feet North of Margaret in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12. Mr. & Mrs. Chrisian Heckh were present. Mr. McCullough explained the item to the commission. The Engineering Department has made several conditions in their recommendation of approval. Mr. & Mrs. Heckh felt that if they could fill this area in on their property, they could get more of an investment out of it. They could possibly sell it. At the present time no one will purchase it because of the low area. M . Walker: Any time we are petitioned for this type of fill in, we are subject to any requirements made by the Engineering Department. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Don Munro, 18512 Pershing stated his reasons why he felt this should be per- mitted. He had no objections to the petition. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #6-95-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, June 6, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-223 by Christen Heckh requesting permission to fill-in and bring to grade level property located on the West side of Inkster Road approximately 90 feet north of Margaret in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, subject, however, to any ccnditicns which the Engineering Department may beel are necessary. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Greene, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None 3204 Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, it was #6-96-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the public hearing held on Tuesday, June 6, 1961 at approximately 10:15 p.m. Mr. Walker called a recess at approximately 10:16 p.m. * * * * * * Mr. Walker called the 131st Special Meeting to order at approximately 10:25 p.m. with all those present now who were present at the time recess was called. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-503 by Earl Dahlin and others who are asking that the zoning classification of property located on the West side of Henry Ruff Road between Schoolcraft Road and Lyndon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23 be rezoned from RUF to RLA. Public Hearing 4/1/61, taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough explained to those present how this petition was started. There were 11[: approximately nine home owners who had lots in this subdivision other than those who signed the petition. The majority of these nine objected to the proposed re- zoning. They did not want the lots to be reduced in frontage. They felt that if this were rezoned to RLA it would allow someone to buy several lots and they would reduce them to 80 ft. frontage which would be the minimum in the RLA zone. Mr. McCullough asked those present if the Council were asked to retain the 100 ft. frontage along Henry Ruff, would they be more agreeable to the rezoning? After a brief discussion it was suggested that those who objected to the rezoning have a meeting with everyone in that block and ask them if there were deed re- strictions to maintain the 100 ft. frontage, would they be willing to have this property rezoned to RLA? The question was asked how could the lots already split be allowed if the RUF zoning required one-half acre lots? Mr. McCullough explained that the owner would be allowed to split but no building permit would be issued unless his lot could conform with the existing zoning. It would have to be rezoned first before a building permit could be issued. Mr. Walker: This will be taken under advisement until the meeting suggested by Mr. McCullough has been held. **Mr. Anderson and Mr. Greene were excused at 10:55 p.m. for the balance of the meeting. 1[40 Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-506 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Sections 10.17 and 11.19 of Article 10.00 and 11.00 respectively. This is in relation to commercial set-back. Dublic hearing 5/23/61, taken under advisement. It was suggested that this be taken under advisement until the next meeting. 3205 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Watson, it was #6-97-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request from Henry Koloff for a one- year extension on the Koloff's Sunnyside Estates Subdivision located in the SE of Section 20 and the SW of Section 21, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant said request, with all conditions on the preliminary approval prevailing. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. It was suggested at this time to take Item #10 with reference to a request from City Council to have the City Planning Commission review the existing commercial zoning adjacent to Five Mile Road from Farmington Road west and to submit thereafter its new recommendations for locating such commercial property in the most uniform, orderly and desirable manner. This is in reference to Petition Z-461 which was acted upon by the Planning Commission previously. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend Part I of the Master Plan, the "Master Thoroughfare Plan" by increasing the width of Lyndon Avenue from Stark to Farmington from 60 ft. to 86 ft. (This is a request from the Traffic 1[1: Commission) After a brief discussion the Planning Commission felt that it was not necessary to increase the width of Lyndon Avenue from Stark to Farmington Road from the present width of 60 ft. to the proposed new width of 36 ft. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, it was #6-96-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter from the Traffic Commission requesting the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to increase the width of Lyndon Avenue betieen Stark and Farmington Road in the east half of Section 21, the City Planning Commission does hereby withdraw said request from the agenda because it was felt that it was not necessary to increase the width of Lyndon Avenue at this time. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously adopted, it was #6-99-61RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter from Marvin Kaye for a one- year extension on the preliminary approval of the Curtis Acres I: Subdivision located in the West half of Section 10, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant said request, subject to all conditions prevailing on the preliminary plat. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 3206 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, it was #6-100-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter from John Uzniz for a one- year extension on the preliminary approval of the Idyl Wyld Subdivision #4 located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant said request, subject to all conditions prevailing on the preliminary plat. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously adopted, it was #6-101-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for meeting held on Tuesday, May 16, 1961 except for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 131st Special Meeting held on Tuesday, June 6, 1961 at approximately 11:00 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IL: /()) W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary ATTESTED: /G4, liU Char s W. Walker, Chairman 3