Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1992-06-02 12068 MINUTES OF THE 643rd REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 2, 1992, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 643rd Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Jack Engebretson Raymond W. Tent H. H. Kluver William LaPine Conrad Gniewek James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek R. Lee Morrow Members absent: Brenda Lee Fandrei Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mayor Bennet was also present at tonight's meeting. Ray Tent acted as Secretary in the absence of Brenda Lee Fandrei. Mr. Engebretson: The Mayor has asked before we get into our regular agenda for tonight that he be recognized. Mayor Bennett: I would like to take this opportunity to present to the City Planner, Mr. John Nagy, a recognition pin for his 25 years of service to the City of Livonia as the City Planner. That 25 years measures a span of the most formative period of the great City of Livonia and John has been a very integral part of that and he has `r. been in on the ground floor of a whole lot of things that have happened in our community. John, we wish you another 25 years. Mr. Nagy: Mayor, I am very pleased that you would take the time to come out and present me with this pin. I am really honored. I want to thank the Planning Commission for their support over the years. It has made my job easier knowing I have the strength of a strong Commission behind me. Certainly my staff has been very dedicated and loyal. Ralph Bakewell has been with the City for 27 years and H. Shane, my assistant, is fast approaching his 25 years. So the department has been with this growth and development all these years. Of course, I can't forget our City Council, which has taken the growth and development to heart and it is reflected in this community and the community values we all share. Thank you for this honor. Mayor Bennett: Not at all to diminish or take away from that presentation and those nice remarks by John but I think the Chairman would like to recognize one of your own body who is serving for his last Commission meeting tonight. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mayor Bennett. I would like to read a formal 12069 Resolution which has been signed by all but one member of the Commission and that is only because she is not here tonight. We will get that taken care of Don and present it to you in the proper frame. I would like to read the Resolution. RESOLUTION June 1, 1992 WHEREAS, DONALD VYHNALEK has diligently served on the City Planning Commission for twelve years and has unselfishly given of his time and talents to help Livonia formulate development policies and guide its growth and development in an orderly manner; and WHEREAS, in the course of such service he has served as Vice Chairman and Chairman and in that capacity exerted leadership and set an example by his extreme dedication to the formulation of a sound planning program; and WHEREAS, he has withstood public pressure to make unbiased judgments for the betterment of the entire city; and WHEREAS, his willingness to participate and give freely of his time for all worthwhile causes relating to the improvement of our City is an example for all public officials and public servants, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Livonia Planning Commission and Planning Director take this means to express their sincere appreciation and heartfelt thanks to DONALD VYHNALEK for a job well Now done. Mr. Vyhnalek: I just want to thank the ex Mayor McNamara and, of course, Mayor Bob Bennett for appointing me over these last 12 years and I want to thank the Commission, the present board now and the people that have served over the past 12 years, which I have dealt with and become good friends with. Of course, there is John Nagy and his staff, which do an excellent job, and without them our job would be a little tougher. It is time to move on and to get some fresh blood on the board and some new ideas. The Mayor has already appointed another Livonia citizen who will take my place next Tuesday. I wish him well along with you distinguished gentlemen, and of course Brenda who is not here. I just want to say one thing. I think the citizens of Livonia are doing a great service to themselves by coming down to these meetings and voicing their opinions. I urge that you continue doing that. If it is in your neighborhood come down here and voice your opinion because it really matters and sometimes carries a lot of weight. I just want to say thank you very much. Mr. Engebretson: We will now get on with our prepared agenda. 12070 Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 92-3-2-13 by Steve Kaplantzes requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant within an existing shopping center located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Blue Skies Avenue and Newburgh Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 19. Mr. Engebretson: We had this item on our agenda at our last regular meeting and `ow. the petitioner apparently had some kind of an emergency that prevented his presence that night so we had a very limited discussion. Mr. Nagy could you just give us a brief recap and then we will ask the petitioner to step forward and tell us what he has in mind. Mr. Nagy: This is a waiver use proposal to locate within a C-1 zoned shopping center at Five Mile and Newburgh Road a restaurant. Restaurants are not automatically permitted by right within a C-1 zone. They are what we call waiver uses and upon the petitioner being in compliance with certain standards of the ordinance the prohibition can be waived and the use allowed. What we have tonight is a hearing to hear from the applicant reasons why he feels there is compliance and thereafter the Planning Commission will debate the issue and come to some kind of a resolution. Mr. Gniewek: For a point of clarification, John is this the area that was formerly being petitioned as a McDonald's Restaurant? Mr. Nagy: It is not within the area that was proposed for the McDonald's Restaurant but it is in the adjoining shopping center. Mr. Gniewek: This would be an addition to the shopping center that presently exists? Stow Mr. Engebretson: It is the last suite in the existing center. The petitioner was not in attendance so the petition was left on the table. The next item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the 642nd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on May 5, 1992. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #6-377-92 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 642nd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on May 5, 1992 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 12071 Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Robert A. Nawrocki for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 14142 Blue Skies in Section 19. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was 'fifty #6-378-92 RESOLVED that, Permit Application by Robert A. Nawrocki for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 14142 Blue Skies in Section 19 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: We have before us an application to install a satellite disc, more specifically on the roof of the garage at this address. Is there anything new on this issue Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: Nothing new other than the applicant did call our office and asked for an opportunity to meet with me personally on the property to present some material he had relative to FCC regulations, which we have made available to the Planning Commission. We also looked at the property more specifically as to the proposed installation of the unit on the garage to try and determine whether or not it had clear visibility to receive the signal given the surrounding trees and the development in the surrounding area. The applicant is in the audience. I am satisfied, after viewing the property, that the trees to the south of the property do play an important role in the proper placement of the dish to receive the signal. Mr. Engebretson: You are referring to the tree from the standpoint of it not interfering with the reception of the signal or screening the disc `'fir• from view or both? Mr. Nagy: Not so much as a screen but the neighboring property to the south has a large silver maple tree in the center of their backyard so if this unit were to be placed in this applicant's backyard, the tree would be in the way of the signal. That is why it ended up being proposed for the garage location as opposed to a more typical yard location. Mr. Engebretson: When you were there Mr. Nagy, what was your opinion as to how visible this device would be to neighbors? Mr. Nagy: There was no question that a portion of the disc will be above the roof line of the garage. It is not going to be on the ridge of the garage. The ridge parallels the street. Rather than having the gable parallel the street, the garage is designed to have the ridge parallel the street so the mounting bracket for the disc will be on the sloping of the roof away from the street. The diameter of the disc will clear the ridge so it will be visible. Not in its entirety but it certainly will be visible above the ridge. 12072 Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, I have a problem with it being on the garage because it is going to be seen by other neighbors. Upon my inspection of the property it seems to me there are locations in his backyard where that could go at ground level and still get the signals. I understand about the tree but I still maintain there is room for him to put that in there. I don't agree that one tree will interfere with it that much. Mr. Morrow: I wonder if Mr. Nagy could give us the approximate dimensions. Mr. Nagy: I would say the maximum height might clear the ridge and that would be from the ridge to the top although when you would look at it from street level your angle would be different. I think it would clear the top of the ridge by approximately 2 1/2 to 3 feet. Mr. Morrow: As far as when he originally filed his petition we normally ask that they contact the neighbors. Could I be brought up to speed on the neighbors that were contacted and what their comments were? Mr. Nagy: My recollection is the property owner to the north and the property owner to the south were contacted and submitted letters indicating their approval. Mr. Morrow: How about the ones on the east and west? Mr. Nagy: It is my understanding the applicant did contact the neighbor immediately across the street on the west side of Blue Skies and had at the meeting a letter but did not present it to us at that meeting but that property owner was contacted. I do not remember the status of the property owner to the east. Mr. Tent: To follow up on Mr. Morrow's question Mr. Nagy, there was a property owner in the back. He was having difficulty with that lady. Did she finally condescend to approving? Mr. Nagy: I do not know the status of that Mr. Tent? You will have to rely on the applicant to bring you up to date on that. Robert Nawrocki: Like Mr. Nagy said, at the last meeting I did bring a letter from the person to the west of me and I did bring it with me again tonight saying he has no objections to it. The person that you say has an objection to it, I don't know which person you are talking about. We were talking before about a person who is across the street from the person behind me and I don't know any of these people truthfully and I am not going to ask them to come down here. The last time I was here, I was here until 11:30 at night so obviously I am not going to ask any of my neighbors to show up because who knows how long we will be. Mr. Tent: There was something about your dog and the lady behind the fence. You mentioned that at the study session, so I was just curious whether she finally said it was okay? 12073 Mr. Nawrocki: I truthfully have not talked to the lady behind me. I have met the person who lives behind me but I have never really talked to him about this proposal because his children are playing with my dogs through the fence now and everything seems to be okay. Mr. Tent: That is the family I was talking about. *tiny Mr. Nawrocki: Yes everything is okay there. Again, I haven't brought this proposal up to him because I haven't talked to him in quite a while. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anything you want to add sir? Mr. Nawrocki: Basically, we have talked to Mr. Nagy in detail. He has been very patient in coming out to my house. In response to Mr. LaPine, we had a measuring device that could actually trace where the satellites were and as we demonstrated to Mr. Nagy, when we went to an alternate location we went right into this tree and yes, we cannot receive the satellite transmission in the back yard. It has to be either on the roof or we don't receive it at all. You all have documentation of the FCC guidelines and rules and regulations saying there can be no restrictions basically between a regular receive only TV antenna and a satellite antenna. There should be no difference between the two. Consequently, we are stuck. That is the only spot I can put it. Has anyone got any questions about any of the pamphlets that were passed out. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I don't have the documentation that he is referring to. Mr. Nagy: We have copies here in the file that we can distribute to you. Mr. Nawrocki: If you would like I could quickly read you a brief synopsis. I presented a couple of legal precedent setting cases to Mr. Nagy. fir. Basically what it comes down to is the FCC regulations, which is basically a federal law, states that state or local zoning regulations which differentiate between satellite receive-only antennas and other type of antenna facilities are preempted unless they have a reasonable and clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic objective and do not operate to impose unreasonable limitations on, or prevent, the reception of satellite delivered signals by receive-only antennas or to impose costs on the users of such antennas that are excessive in light of the purchase and installation cost of the equipment. Basically the government says we cannot differentiate between satellite antennas and regular TV antennas. In our neighborhood we do have people that have 30 foot antennas on top of their house. According to federal law, we can't differentiate between the two. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Permit Application by Robert A. Nawrocki for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 14142 Blue Skies in Section 19 for the following reason: 12074 1) That the Site Plan and Specifications submitted by Robert A. Nawrocki for a Satellite Disc Antenna at 14142 Blue Skies are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engebretson: I want to make a comment. There was a key word in the FCC material the petitioner mentioned, that being aesthetics. I just want to state for the record that the Planning Commission and City ',our Council have been very consistent in recent years relative to the treatment of these satellite discs whether they are in commercial areas or residential areas. When they are in commercial areas the petitioners are required to screen these discs from view and when they are in residential areas, because of the aesthetic impact on the neighborhood, these discs have also been required to be screened. When they are in heavily wooded areas or where screening can be arranged to eliminate them as aesthetic objections from neighbors, the Commission and the Council have been consistent in their tendency to approve those kinds of applications. I would like to say I don't have any desire to give this petitioner a difficult time, I am simply staying consistent with what our policies have been and I want to make sure he understands it is the aesthetic consideration that concerns me. Mr. Morrow: We are certainly familiar with the federal regulations and the FCC. As the Chairman indicated aesthetics. One of the reasons that we wrote this ordinance to try to control them is because what we have seen around the City is a disregard and lack of repect for the community and the neighbors as people began to put up these discs. It is not our intent to limit reception of satellite television. It is our intent to try to get the petitioners to work with their neighbors and work with the City to come up with something that will blend in and not be an eyesore to the City. We could have rolled over and said well the FCC says they can have it so we will ` or just write it off. That is not our intent. Our intent is to try and work within the two frameworks and that is where we are coming from. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Gniewek, Morrow, Vyhnalek NAYS: Tent, McCann, Kluver, LaPine, Engebretson ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was /#6-379-92 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby deny the Permit Application by Robert A. Nawrocki for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 14142 Blue Skies in Section 19 for the following reasons: 1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that this proposal is in compliance with the general standards set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. r.. 12075 2) That the proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible with the general aesthetic character of the surrounding area. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Kluver, LaPine, Engebretson NAYS: Gniewek, Morrow, Vyhnalek `�.. ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 92-3-8-6 by Granata Construction Co. Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct commercial stores on the west side of Newburgh just south of Five Mile Road in Section 19. Mr. Bakewell presented the site plans to the commission. Mr. Bakewell: This is a proposal to add some commercial space to a site that is located on the eastern edge of what used to be known as Chatham Village. It is a separate parcel. The proposed building will abut the existing shopping center. It is about 15,000 square feet and the architecture will match in every detail the architecture of the existing center. At the study meeting the Commission asked for some designation of barrier free parking spaces and some possible landscape areas up near the building. There are four barrier free spaces. (Mr. Bakewell showed the landscaping. ) Mr. Tent: To the petitioner. At the study session we had, we discussed the types of businesses that would be allowed in C-2 and C-1 zoning Niair districts. Did you get a copy of that from the Planning Director? Chester Bartosik, 36028 Avondale, Westland: I am here representing Granata Construction and Mr. Kirezian, the owner. I did not personally. I think we are aware of what is allowed and what is not allowed. Mr. Tent: The reason I bring that up now, it is a matter of public record that we have a lot of C-1 zoning throughout the City and when a petitioner finally gets his change in zoning to a C-1 category, after a while they come back and say they can't make it with the C-1 zoning and now they want to have C-2. Then we go through a hassle with them. I just want you to be aware that C-1 zoning has limitations as to what you can put in there and what the restrictions are so you won't be coming back in a year or six months saying I can't make it there because I need a higher type of zoning. Mr. Bartosik: Yes sir, we are aware of it. Again, you did bring it up at the workshop and we are aware of it. Mr. Morrow: With all due respect to my fellow commissioner, Mr. Tent, we certainly cannot disfranchise the petitioner from coming back and asking for more intense zoning. As one Commissioner I know where 12076 you are coming from Mr. Tent, but I want to make my point clear that we are not trying to condition what we do here tonight. You are perfectly free to petition for whatever you like. Mr. LaPine: Sir, as you know the existing shopping center has a number of vacancies. Do you have any tenants lined up for this new site? `'orm. Mr. Bartosik: Yes sir, as of right now 30 percent of that is spoken for. Mr. LaPine: I was just curious because I know the existing owner of the property has been having a tough time there because he hasn't been able to get 100 percent occupancy, even a 90 percent occupancy. At the time this proposal came before us I was a little curious as to why would someone want to add on to a shopping center that hasn't been able to keep its stores completely occupied. If you have 30 percent occupancy, I would assume that you would have other lessees that you are hoping for. Mr. Vyhnalek: On the same subject sir, you have 15,200 square feet. So you have approximately 5,000 leased out. Out of the approximately 10,000 square feet remaining, how many stores are you going to have? Mr. Bartosik: We were basing them on 2,000 square feet each. The five stores can come to three stores or five stores. Mr. Vyhnalek: They will not be a duplicate of what is there now? Mr. Bartosik: No. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #6-380-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 92-3-8-6 by Granata Construction Co. Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct commercial stores on the west side of Newburgh just south of Five Mile Road in Section 19 subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan as shown on Sheet 1 dated 5/25/92 prepared by Architectural Services is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Plan as shown on Sheet 4 dated 4/28/92 prepared by Architectural Services is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 3) That the building architectural style and materials shall in all respects match that of the existing and adjoining shopping center. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 81-4-8-14 by Royal Management 12077 Co. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a drive approach to Six Mile Road in Section 18. Mr. Bakewell presented the revised site plan showing the proposal to construct a drive approach to Six Mile Road. Mr. Bakewell: This drive will provide an additional in and out for the businesses and offices located in this area. The petitioner does have Wayne County Road Commission approval for the engineering and access to Six Mile at this point. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Bakewell when I was out there looking at this property, number one out along Six Mile there is a telephone pole real close to where this cut is going to occur. Is that telephone pole going to be moved? Mr. Nagy: It is not being relocated. Mr. LaPine: So how close is that curb cut to that pole? Mr. Bakewell: It appears to be about five feet off the eastern curb before it starts into its radius. Mr. LaPine: Would you consider that being awfully close to a driveway? Mr. Bakewell: No. Mr. LaPine: The other thing is inside the actual parking lots there is also a light pole there. Is that light pole being removed? Mr. Bakewell: Yes. `\r► Mr. LaPine: Along the western side of the property where the driveway is going through, is that parking that abuts the restaurant? Is any of that parking going to be eliminated? Mr. Bakewell: Three spaces will be eliminated. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, when we discussed this at the study meeting there was some concern, not so much about the concept of putting this drive in to permit easy access to these buildings, but there was some concern about the possibility that the berming combined with other factors there potentially created a problem to make a blind entrance and you were going to contact the Police, Traffic Safety Division, and the Fire Marshal to see if they had any problems with that. Mr. Nagy: We do have reports from both of those agencies and the Traffic Bureau of the Police Department indicates they have reviewed the petition and has no objections to the plan as submitted. The Fire Marshal has indicated their office has reviewed the proposal and they have no objections to the plan as submitted. 12078 Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner care to add anything? Andre Noroyan: I am the Property Manager for Royal Management. I have no questions if it is approved by the City. You people have been very nice to me and to Royal Management. I would like to compliment Mr. John Nagy for his help because I came to the City as a layman and you people have been very, very nice to me. Mr. Vyhnalek: Why do you want this drive? Mr. Noroyan: Ground Round came and asked Royal Management if we would cooperate to make an entry drive for the Ground Round and also Royal Management. Apparently they had been working with Mr. Nagy for three or four years and at last Ground Round and Royal Management got together and we said if they wanted it, we would not object. We said if it will help your business, it might help our business. That is what we agreed upon. We have a lot of elderly. It is about 50 percent medical in that space and for the elderly people I think it is going to be very convenient. There will be three handicap spaces right off the road so the people won't have too far to walk. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #6-381-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 81-4-8-14 by Royal Management Co. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a drive approach to Six Mile Road in Section 18 be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Revised Site Plan by Royal Management for a new drive approach to Six Mile prepared by Stenrose-Tobin Associates dated 5/21/92 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Engebretson NAYS: Gniewek ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 91-5-2-14 for Bayberry Park residential cluster housing development located on the west side of Harrison just north of Five Mile Road. Mr. Bakewell presented the revised plans. Mr. Bakewell: This revised site plan depicts the site that was originally proposed. It was cluster housing and it had the three-unit clusters. This revised plan, which only has 73 units, is more of a 12079 single unit condominium type. The road pattern is very similar to the original concept except now these units are separated. (Mr. Bakewell presented the four elevations) Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, what is the difference between the condominium and a residential development? ``. Mr. Nagy: This is not a typical subdivision in a sense that you have a platted lot or a subdivision plan where various property owners would not only buy their unit but would take title to a piece of property or lot of record within a subdivision. This is not a subdivision in the conventional sense. It still is a residential community. This property is zoned single family residential. It happens to be zoned in an R-2 residential zoning classification but unlike a conventional subdivision, in this case all the ground areas, the roads, the walks, the drives, the green areas around the houses, all those areas are owned in common by all the property owners. Hence it becomes a condominium. They will not get a deed of record. What they will get is a limited area ownership of their building unit and they will get an interest in common of the areas I previously mentioned so they will not actually be buying the lot per se. In all other intents and purposes, it will look like a subdivision, it will read like a subdivision, it will feel like a subdivision. People will reside there very much like they do in a subdivision. The only thing here there will be private management. There will be private upkeep of the roads. There will be private upkeep of the ground areas, the lawn areas. All of that will be done by a management company through the comdominium homeowners association. They will maintain the properties so there will be a changed lifestyle for those owners. They will be giving up the normal yard duties and homeowner duties that one would normally have when he takes title to property. The property will be managed through contractual arrangement through the condominium homeowners association. The roads will meet all City specifications. The outdoor lighting and the refuse collection, mail delivery, etc. will still be provided as in a typical residential setting. Mr. Tent: Is there an advantage here for them going condominium versus R-2? What we are looking at is single family detached homes. That is a subdivision. You are talking about management control. These people still are going to have to take care of their homes. They are going to have to take care of all the maintenance and repair of the exterior of the individual homes whereas in a condominium the condominium association they have takes care of that. It is carefree living. Why can't this developer forget about the condominium deal and let everybody take care of their own and they would have to have different requirements and then it will be a regular subdivision. Mr. Nagy: Mr. Tent I can't speak as to why this petitioner wishes to take the course that he did. Those kinds of questions are more appropriately directed to this applicant as to why they chose to pursue this course of development. I am not in a position to answer that. 12080 Mr. Tent: Just so I can understand it better I want to know the difference. Are there more regulations in a residential neighborhood as opposed to a condominium neighborhood? Mr. Nagy: True, as I indicated it is a different lifestyle. These folks that want to buy here want to be relieved of the ground maintenance. Nolow Mr. Tent: I am not talking about the people. I am talking about the developer. They had a cluster development at first. Mr. Nagy: Condominium ownership and the condominium arrangements take many forms just like subdivisions take many forms. It is a contractural arrangement. That is why you have a Planning Commission review of this. Those are the kind of elements that a Commission should get into to try to find out what is being proposed here. Are you satisfied with those arrangements? Will it assure that community who will ultimately reside there after this developer departs from the scene they will have proper protections? Are those condominium association rules and regulations sufficient to guarantee those property owners? Those are the kinds of issues this Planning Commission should look at. I am not prepared to say whether they are or not. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask the petitioner to come forward. We discussed a number of issues at our last meeting. There were a number of points of concern and while I am aware that you have addressed these concerns in writing, I think it would be something worthwhile to review these particular points. Mr. Helmkamp, when we met last time you will recall there were a number of points of discussion. Would you mind reviewing how each of those items was resolved from the petitioner's point of view? Nu" Alan Helmkamp: We felt that the sense of the collective body here was such that you wanted to see this development proceed with a stronger, more pro-active association. Within our marketing concept and the kinds of money the developer had intended to spend and the kind of market they thought they could sell to, we made movement in those areas that we felt we could, which I think is most of them; sodding up to the buildings, cutting the grass for the people, taking on more responsibility in the common areas, lighting the common walkway, which you had a concern about for security. Nonetheless, there were a couple of areas where we felt we wanted to stand firm on, in terms of the building maintenance on the exterior and keeping some of the land as your own if you want to tend a garden or have a patio or a porch. We feel, in our market studies, that there is this high-bred customer out there who wants to have the advantages of the common area but not have the responsibility for that but yet have some of the incidents of their own home ownership and maybe want to paint the outsides themselves. That was our thinking. We tried to move in many of the areas to address your concerns but yet hold true to what our marketing objective was. Mr. Engebretson: If I may, I would like to say that I think that you have made a very substantial compromise here and I think that it represents the kind of cooperative spirit that we try to accomplish. I will 12081 say I am still moderately concerned about the fact that each individual unit owner would be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the exterior of their buildings. However, I don't feel that the objection is strong enough to oppose this development. I will feel a lot better about it if you will tell me that the exterior maintenance will be governed by some rules or regulations ,`w relative to colors and such. I just can't imagine allowing someone to paint their house chartreuse, for example. Mr. Helmkamp: The master deed will, of course, have restrictions and the condominium association by-laws and regulations will also address that. It will be a strong association such that if there is any departure from full compliance with the standards that the developer set when still on site, subsequently the association will step in and make sure there is compliance. Mr. Engebretson: So if they repair a roof or siding, etc. , it will have to be done with like materials? Mr. Helmkamp: Absolutely. Mr. LaPine: Alan, number one let me say that I think what your client has done here, in my opinion, is a lot better than the original plan. I think we have cut down on the density. They are now going to look like single family homes. After going out and looking at his Blue Heron development, I was extremely impressed. If he builds this as well as that development, I don't think we have anything to worry about. The only question I would have, if someone comes in to purchase one of these units, at that time will they be told what they have to maintain? Most people buying a condo just assume, and some of the things Mr. Tent brought up are valid, but they just Jnr assume everything is taken care of. I wouldn't want them to think after they bought it and they have their money in it and then they find out after they are in, now you have to take care of the outside, etc. That all will be explained to the individuals when they buy the property? Mr. Helmkamp: It is an important concern. I would answer it this way. We think it is a plus. We are marketing the hybrid form of single family versus condos so we are going to be up front in our advertising that you are going to have certain responsibilities and with that certain rights. Yes, as a matter of truth and knowledge, truth in advertising, we will have full disclosure. Mr. LaPine: That puts my mind at ease and looking at the project out in Northville, it is beautiful and if he does the same job here, I think this is a lot better and I think the neighbors will like it. Mr. Vyhnalek: On item 3, the building exterior. You said at least half up to 50%, they could use vinyl? Mr. Helmkamp: No the front would consist of brick, stone and wood only. It is only on the other three sides they could use something low maintenance durable like vinyl. 12082 Mr. McCann: Mr. Helmkamp, I think I need a little convincing yet. I am going to ask you to clarify a number of items that I have gone over. Starting out with the objection to what this type of complex was going to be. It is going towards the single family market. That is the way it has been paraphrased. I think the key word in there is family and I kind of agree that you are talking about individual *411mr, homes, two bedrooms, moderate price range in Livonia for new home construction. I think it is definitely going to draw to the family area. You have young children? Mr. Helmkamp: Yes, two. Mr. McCann: How old are they? Mr. Helmkamp: My one son is three years old today and I have a six year old. Mr. McCann: I have a two and a half year old and a five year old. When I see a young family starting out, to me what has been tradition in condos are for people with children that are grown and people that are young that don't have any children yet. Many of the reasons they buy these type of condominiums is because they don't have to worry about their lawns, the gardens, roof leaks or broken shutters. It is because people are working or they have other activities so they don't want to spend their time working in their yards and they didn't need the lawnmowers, the sprinkler systems, the ladders, etc. associated with home maintenance. In this case, we are going to families that are going to require all these things. One of the things that I see here is you are not providing sidewalks. Correct? Mr. Helmkamp: True. Mr. McCann: If we are selling this to families, what are we telling them to do with their children when they want to play? Mr. Helmkamp: There are two points I want to raise and we all share your concern over the safety of our children. The distinct advantage of this configuration is it incorporates the cul-de-sac. The old plan we had this linear row-upon-row three stacked units on main drags. Now you have cul-de-sacs where if children are playing in their front yards, they are going to be off the main drags. Secondly, you have the open common areas in the middle and we would expect children playing there as well. Mr. McCann: The three-wheelers, the bicycles, the electric vehicles, the things our children are playing with today, are going to end up in the street. That is one of the things that bothers me. Mr. Helmkamp: Can I respond to that. I live on a cul-de-sac myself and as responsible parents we do our best to keep our children in our driveway. There are occasions when the children, we have kids in every house in our cul-de-sac, do go into the street. I don't personally approve of that. I don't allow my children to do that. My neighbors can do what they want. We don't get any traffic in 12083 our cul-de-sac with the exception of the cars to our own homes and it hasn't, as a homeowner parent living there since August, I haven't seen a problem. I know you only need one accident but again, I think it comes down to responsible parenting. Mr. McCann: You have sidewalks though, don't you? Mr. Helmkamp: I sure do. Mr. McCann: So the kids can ride their bikes to the neighbor's home on the sidewalks. I mentioned that concern last time and it is something that is still getting to me. In your letter, I tried to review it very closely. You have gone ahead, per one of my requests, and decided common lawn maintenance would not be a problem. Does that include sprinkling and fertilizing? Mr. Helmkamp: Fertilizing, yes. Sprinkling would be offered as an option to the homeowner. We are going to encourage that greatly. We have not chosen, at this point, as a developer, to put that in as a base cost. Of course, we are sprinkling the common areas and the islands and the entrance. Mr. McCann: We are back to the issue of going back to the home. One point that hasn't been brought up before is that each individual homeowner will be paying for additional costs if he wants more stone, if he wants to surround his home with brick, and that makes a difference as to what you can do as an association. I understand now where it is a problem for the developer but it also creates a problem that there is no real enforcement by the association. One of the things that I discussed last time, trying to get someone into court is a very difficult task and very expensive, as you are aware. Not to 'tar say these people won't retain their homes. One of the things I do know is when you have children around, it is a lot harder to maintain homes and they are a little more rough. One of the things that was brought up last week was the size of the garages. Are these two car garages, two and a half car garages? What are the size? Do you know? Mr. Helmkamp: I don't have the square footage. They are standard two car garage. Mr. McCann: One of the things I consider when you go into a family home like this is some of the drives are fairly short and some are fairly decent. During the summer with my two little boys I can't park one of my cars in the garage between my boys' electric vehicles, etc. You are laughing because you have the same problem. You have ladders, hoses, children's toys, etc. to store there. In this situation it will limit some of the street space that they have with regard to this. People have talked about the other development, I have seen it. To me that was a little bit different scale than what this development is that you are proposing here. Is it possible, did you look at putting sidewalks in this situation? Mr. Helmkamp: I don't believe that has been been under active consideration. 12084 Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, about a year or a year and a half ago, when we went to Council we asked for sidewalks on the old plan. What did the Council do with the sidewalks? Mr. Nagy: It was the recommendation of the Planning Commission to have a conventional sidewalk system paralleling the road rights-of-way and the Council chose to delete that requirement in consideration for having an established walkway through the commons area. Mr. Vhynalek: That is what I thought. So Council did say no sidewalks but in the common area. I just wanted to bring that up. Mr. Engebretson: Which benefited some of the people. Mr. Tent: Just to respond to that one question about the sidewalks, wasn't that because it was a cluster development? That was completely different than what we have here so maybe in this case the sidewalk issue might bear more credence to the Council if this were to pass with this recommendation. They might say now sidewalks should be required whereas the other, they were cluster units and it wasn't necessary. I share the same thoughts that Mr. McCann stated here about the single family market and about the children, etc. That is a concern of mine with the sidewalks. Could you expound a little more on your condominium association because we discussed it in depth at the study meeting. It has to have some teeth in it or the people will be fighting among themselves. How much different is this condominium association than a neighborhood association where everything is detached and the people elect their President? Mr. Helmkamp: Mr. Tent, I had toyed with the idea of going a little overboard tonight. What I have with me is the purchaser information booklet, `, which includes the master deed and the association by-laws and rights from Blue Heron and it is about an inch thick and I had toyed with the idea of trying to actually draft one of these and it just proved to be impractical in the time frame. I also share Mr. McCann's concern, although as brother counsel I am a little bit distressed to hear him talk about the impotence of a system we both serve. At any rate I have drafted a pre-civic association by-laws. I know that there is a big difference in the quality of the drafting job and the enforcibility. You can place liens on the property if money is expended to bring things to compliance. Frankly, as an attorney for civic associations, the threat of litigation and a show cause order, you can file a petition and get a show cause order and I have never had to go through one hearing. I have had three for three just by serving a show cause order. As I stand here I really don't have any lack of confidence that with strong by-laws and a strong form of an association, there should not problems. Mr. Tent: So you see no problem with neighbor "A" getting mad at neighbor "B" and going to the association and saying we have a problem, your shutters are hanging down and your roof is leaking, and it makes my place look terrible. Now what would the association do? 12085 Mr. Helmkamp: The by-laws and the regulations would provide for the association to come in and to do that external maintenance and place that as a lien on the property against the homeowner and enforce it through some type of action. Mr. Tent: Where would they get the money? They only have small dues. lor Mr. Helmkamp: The power of the pocketbook is such that I think that will be a very powerful dynamic. The neighborhood will band together and if it is going to cost them the pocketbook, I think that will be a tremendous amount of pressure exerted on a neighbor to make sure they do it in the first place. If it calls for a small assessment spread over 73 units, that is a possibility. Mr. Tent: Why couldn't we circumvent all of that by just going into a regular condominium upkeep area where they do have the maintenance, etc. taken care of by the condominium board and the individual will have nothing to worry about. He will be paying his dues for the maintenance and it is carefree. He can go on living like a condominium owner would. Mr. Helmkamp: I understand your concern. All I can tell you Mr. Tent is in our judgment we are trying to make a hybrid form of project. We have a slice of the market that we think we are going to play to. There are condominiums like this in the western metropolitan area that have enjoyed success. I don't forsee a problem. Mr. Tent: What I am concerned with here. This could be the beginning of a housing development that could go sour. What you have done here is certainly an improvement over the cluster development. I want to compliment you on that. I am not satisfied. You are throwing the firr houses to the wolves and saying take care of them yourselves. Mr. Helmkamp: Again, the materials would be hopefully durable low maintenance materials so by definition, right from the beginning, we are going to try to prevent something like that. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Helmkamp, what is the size of the property that these homes fit on? What is the area that a homeowner would be responsible for? Mr. Helmkamp: Only their shrub beds and a small porch. Mr. Gniewek: What is the size of the piece of property they sit on that they would be responsible for? Mr. Helmkamp: Twenty to twenty-five feet in the rear. In the front only the shrub beds. Mr. Gniewek: This particular development sits on a piece of property about what size? Mr. Helmkamp: I was careful to term what I called a limited common area with a defined legal perimeter. There won't be stakes out there where someone can walk out there and say "This is basically my grass, my backyard". I think we have a rendering that will give you an idea. 12086 Mr. Gniewek: I guess what I am looking for Alan is we are comparing this to an regular R-2 development, a single family residence where we are talking 60' by 120' . One of the benefits of having a cluster development in a condominium situation is that you can get these particular things with less side yards or more side yards or whatever it happens to be and gain more use of the property and that is really what this is all about. Is that correct? Mr. Helmkamp: My client just indicated that we will have the same side yards as single family. Mr. Nagy: The minimum in an R-1 is a five foot side yard. Mr. Gniewek: This is what I am looking for. How far apart? Are we within normal residential limits? We don't have the front yards we would have in a normal R-1 situation. We only have 25 feet in the back where we require a minimum of about 60 feet in an R-1. We are looking at a much smaller lot than they would normally have to maintain. Mr. Helmkamp: Remember too that if they choose not to have a garden or a porch and it is just lawn, then the association is cutting that so they would have no upkeep in the back. Mr. Gniewek: I just wanted to make it clear that we are not talking a regular size lots here. We are talking substantially smaller areas for people to be responsible for. I wanted to know what they were responsible for as far as area is concerned. Mr. Kluver: Just a general question to the petitioner. Mr. Helmkamp, will the streets be lighted? `r.. Mr. Helmkamp: Yes, the original plan which we have maintained has lampposts at the entrance and through the roadway system and as we have indicated we have now added for the common walkway through the central area. Mr. McCann: I have gotten some changes in some of my opinions here tonight Mr. Helmkamp but I think what it is coming down to in my own mind, it really has become a single family use as you say but we are not putting in R-1. Did you try and develop this as R-1? Did you look at the differential between the 73 you are at now. Could you put 73 without the common area in there? Mr. Helmkamp: Again, just a brief history. The major driving force for this development came in with a three-unit cluster under the cluster ordinance. The new investors felt to market successfully, we had to go to the detached condos and so we went that route. There has never been consideration of an R-1 to my knowledge. Mr. McCann: Can you tell me what the difference is between your project and an R-1 besides lot size and lawn cutting? Mr. Helmkamp: Obviously the common area of the grounds, which is to be maintained by the association. 12087 Mr. McCann: Nottingham West, Nottingham II, certain ones have common areas built into the subs, which the subdivision is responsible for maintaining. Mr. Helmkamp: But we are talking in terms of the whole project. There is the lot size differences, which has been addressed. We have talked about the sidewalk issue, which obviously is a cost issue in part from our point of view. Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to address a couple of points of concern that have been raised. First of all, regarding your brother attorney expressing concern over impotence of the system you both serve, I interpret it as a non-attorney, his concern being more the cost associated with that. I think that a $120,000 or $138,000 investment is going to pretty much assure that the individuals that are buying these units are going to give them proper maintenance and so I think I can back off some of my concerns regarding the exterior maintenance being controlled by the association. However, I was glad to hear that is going to be tightly controlled as to what you can do. No one has mentioned it tonight, but there was considerable discussion last week regarding the parking. The excess parking over and above what is provided in the garages and the driveways. It is my recollection that Mr. Nagy gave us assurances that this proposal exceeds our new parking ordinance for this zoning district and I would just like to verify this. Mr. Nagy: Yes it does. Mr. Engebretson: I will mention that when we visited the Blue Heron development as a point of reference because you did make numerous references to that, even though it is a different scale and a different type of development, the parking that you provide there appears to have some common ground with what is being proposed here and there were a number of observations that we could make where the parking did appear to be somewhat cluttered but I think that is something that happens in my neighborhood too. I think the people can somehow find a way for accomodation. I would like to say the point Mr. McCann raised concerning sidewalks is something that troubles me deeply. Having lived in a development similar to this a number of years ago back when I had no children, I can't imagine having restrictions on playgrounds being driveways and what will certainly be streets here. The common area, the walks there, really aren't accessible to a great many of the units here. In the predecessor proposal for this property the developer came in without sidewalks and the Planning Commission dug in hard on that issue and the developer eventually agreed to put sidewalks in and mysteriously and without a lot of discussion the Council chose to eliminate those sidewalks, which was very baffling. I hope when this project moves forward to the Council now that there are a couple of younger members there that have young children, I hope that this issue comes alive again before this whole thing is settled. I would really be concerned, as the developer, as a unit owner here, if I had grandchildren coming to visit and the only place to play on a Big Wheel would be in the driveway or the street. In view of that 12088 initially there was a marketing problem on the part of the developer, but in the long term I think that is going to be something that will come back and haunt us. I hope it is something you will at least be prepared to deal with when this issue may arise. \o. Mr. Helmkamp: We certainly will Mr. Chairman and I can't really comment. Both my clients here tonight and myself are rather new and I really don't know the gyrations that went into the addition and then the deletion of the sidewalk. We certainly will be prepared to discuss that at Council. Let me just say in closing we really appreciate the time this body took, even the critical inquiries and analysis of Mr. Tent and Mr. McCann because I think this is what speaks well of this type of form of government. You have legitimate concerns and we have done our best to address as many of those as we could and hopefully the community is better off for it. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was ##6-382-92 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 91-5-2-14 for Bayberry Park residential cluster housing development located on the west side of Harrison just north of Five Mile Road be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Revised Site Plan for Bayberry Park Condominiums dated 5/11/92 prepared by JCK and Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Plans submitted by Brentwood Construction are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; L 3) That the Landscape Plan prepared by JCK and Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Vyhnalek: I am going to support this but I am totally disappointed about the sidewalks and I feel that the Council should really take it into consideration. I am going to support this because it is 13% less than the Court said and it is a good concept but I really feel you are missing the boat by not having the sidewalks. Mr. McCann: Mr. Chairman, I would want to vote against this maybe it is because I have two little boys. This has been framed as a single family residential setting. That is what I am hearing. In my opinion when you have single family residential, that is what we made R-1,2,3,4 for was basically so we would provide the proper things that single family residential needs. I am not convinced of it. I might be able to but as the other members have stated, sidewalks are an important issue. As Mr. Helmkamp stated, they haven't addressed it. If they haven't addressed it, I don't know how we can pass this on to the Council and tell the Council here you take a look at it, you address them and we hope you do the right thing. I think we would not be doing our job in that situation if we firmly believe that those are important things that 12089 need to be looked at on this plan. I feel we should look at them before we send them on to Council. Therefore, I am going to move that we table this until the next regular meeting. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to consider a substitute motion in connection with Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 91-5-2-14 for Bayberry Park residential cluster housing development located on the west side of Harrison just north of Five Mile Road. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann NAYS: Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Engebretson ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. McCann, I feel obligated to explain that vote to you. I must say that I think I am as dedicated to the issue of sidewalks as you are for different reasons. Grandchildren versus children. I have been there. I know what it is like. I was just dismayed when the Council removed those sidewalks last time. It causes me to feel impotent to go through the motions, to go through the effort, to take the time required to get that in only to see it bypassed. What I intend to do is to lobby several of those individuals in the meantime to hope they can raise that issue. With Mr. Helmkamp and his petitioner being aware of these concerns, possibly this is something we can deal with in a different manner. I share your feelings. I support your approach and why those sidewalks disappeared before, I have no idea. I hope we can get them back in. Mr. Tent: I support Mr. McCann 100% in his efforts to table this. There were two things that I objected to at the beginning and I am going to vote no on this proposal. I think it is a fine project. It is going in the right direction. There were two things that concern me. That was the association, the maintenance of the exterior of the buildings because I wasn't quite prepared to accept the fact that they would be taken care of, etc. They now have me convinced of the strong association rules. The other thing that concerned me was the lack of sidewalks and I think we are derelict if we go ahead and say Council do your job, you put the sidewalks in. I think we fought very hard for that project prior to this one for the sidewalk. It was tabled many times and we fought with them and we discussed and they finally said we are going to put the sidewalks in and they did and when it got to the Council level because of the cluster deal, they went ahead and removed them. Why shouldn't we go ahead? We strongly believe that this is required. Why can't we send it on its way again with the sidewalk recommendation? 12090 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tent please call the roll on the approving recommendation. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Engebretson NAYS: Tent, McCann 'Now ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Richard Gerber, M.D. for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 19963 Myron Drive in Section 4. Mr. Bakewell: What we have is a satellite disc proposal. (Mr. Bakewell pointed out on a map of the petitioner's property where the satellite disc would be located) Mr. Engebretson: We were there Saturday and it appeared, without coming onto the property, that this disc is really not going to be visible to any of your neighbors with a possible exception of the neighbor on the one side. Is that basically correct? Dr. Gerber: That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: Did you discuss this matter with the neighbor that would be on that side of your home to see if they would have any objection to this? Dr. Gerber: Yes we have discussed this with the neighbors on both the north and the south side and they have no objection at all to our installation of the disc. Mr. Engebretson: Did you get any evidence of that from them or was it just a verbal? Dr. Gerber: No, we have a signed form that they have no objection and it was submitted to Mr. Bakewell. Mr. McCann: Can we find out which neighbor signed the form? Mr. Shane: The addresses are 19941 Myron and 19985 Myron. Mr. McCann: There is nothing to the rear but as the street turns off, it appears to me that some of the neighbors down the street would be looking at your backyard from their backyards, don't they? Dr. Gerber: We have some trees around that area so it is very difficult to see into our backyard. It would be fairly well hidden adjacent to the house and shielded by some of the trees on the north side and totally shielded by the deck on the other side. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is there any shrubbery at all around the antenna itself? Dr. Gerber: Yes, there is like a semi-circle of evergreen trees and other bushes that tends to shield it. 12091 Mr. Vyhnalek: How far are they from the antenna? Dr. Gerber: Probably 15 to 20 feet away. Mr. Vyhnalek: So that blocks the neighbors from the north and you would have the deck to the south? Dr. Gerber: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: I am just curious. Are you putting this in to get more satellite stations? Dr. Gerber: Primarily. Also to get better reception. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #6-383-92 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application by Richard Gerber, M.D. for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 19963 Myron Drive in Section 4 subject to the following condition: 1) That the Site Plan and Specifications submitted by Richard Gerber, M.D. for a Satellite Disc Antenna at 19963 Myron Drive are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Engebretson NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: Fandrei Nr. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 643rd Regular Meeting held on June 2, 1992 was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Ray12 mm W. Tent, Acting ecretary I ATTEST: 1 AA A A Jack Engebret-on, Charman jg