Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1977-09-20 6497 MINUTES OF THE 341st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 20, 1977, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 341st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mrs. Sue Wisler, Vice-Chairperson, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings to order at 8:02 p.m. , with approximately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members Present: Sue Wisler William DuBose Judith Scurto Lee Morrow Joseph Falk Esther Friedrichs Jerome Zimmer Members Absent: Daniel R. Andrew (vacation) Herman Kluver (company business) Messrs. John J. Nagy, City Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant City Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; and Robert M. Feinberg, Assistant City Attorney, were also present. Mrs. Wisler, Vice Chairperson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a question of vacating or rezoning any property, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council makes the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied; and if a petition for a waiver use request or site plan is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which. 1[40' to appeal that decision to the City Council. Mrs. Wisler also announced that two more items had been added to Agenda, possibly not being shown on those agendas distributed throughout the audience. Additional items include X-1 (Petition 77-9-8-19P by Frank Capaccia) and X-2 (Petition 77-9-8-18P by Amin Fadel) . Mrs. Friedrichs, Secretary announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 77-7-1-25 by Verssie Meisner to rezone property on the southeast corner of Six Mile and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF to P.S. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from the Department of Engineering indicating no problems connected with this proposal. We also have a letter from the Merri-Six Civic Association, dated 9/12/77, in opposition to this petition, signed by Stephen L. Brown, 31500 Vargo. As well as a letter from Robert & Mary Blair, 17360 Merriman Road, objecting to the rezoning of this property. Mr. Zimmer: Could someone please explain to me the geographical boundaries of this Merri-Six Civic Association? Mr. Nagy: I think it would encompass that area from Six Mile Road north to Seven, with Merriman on the east and Hubbard on the west. I, Mrs. Wisler: Is the petitioner present? 6498 • Verssie Meisner: Yes. 31345 Six Mile Mrs. Wisler: Would you please give us your reasons for wanting to have this property rezoned? Mrs. Meisner: I .want to do whatever is needed in order to sell this property. I bought this land as commercial,, and I would like to sell it as Commercial. Mr. Zimmer: Did you know that the zoning on this corner was changed in 1959? Mrs. Meisner: No, I did not know that until I decided to sell it. Mrs. Wisler: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or • against this petition? Janice Aiken: We are definitely opposed to this rezoning. I live directly across 17001 Merrimanthe street, and feel that there is already enough spot zoning in this area. We have a definite traffic problem at that corner as evidenced by the many accidents. I feel that this change in zoning would just increase the traffic problems. Also, I would like to know why I. didn't receive notice of this hearing through the mail. I found a flyer in my mailbox just this afternoon, but nothing through the mail like my neighbor next door. I live directly across the street. Mr. Nagy: There are a couple of explanations. We use the current tax rolls, which may be out of date if you have just recently purchased the property. You may be buying the property under a land contract and the tax rolls would reflect the land contract holder. • Mrs. Aiken: We have been there almost two years. Mrs. Wisler: Anyone else in the audience? Ada Huffman: I live 4 houses down from this corner, and for the last 19-1/2 31041 Six Mile years this property has been zoned RUF. It's all RUF along there, and I cannot see any reason to change it. That woman has been trying to sell that property for the last twenty years. And since they widened Six Mile, traffic has increased ten times. I cannot see adding to the problem by putting in any offices or professional buildings on that corner. Bernard Kudla: I live in the first house west of Merriman, and am against this 31501 Six Mile rezoning. I do not want to see any professional service or commercial buildings on that corner. Just like to keep it the .way it is now. Robert Blair: We just recently purchased a piece of property at 17360 Merriman, 17360 Merriman about 3 houses north of Six Mile' Road on the east side of the street. We bought because we really like the neighborhood. It is probably one of the few last places in Livonia still zoned rural. We. wouldn't have bought here if the zoning had been changed. Don't know why she can't sell it as it is. We are very much concerned about this change in zoning. 6499 tv, Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, there has been some discussion about the change in zoning in 1959 from C-1 to RUF. Can you explain that? Mr. Nagy: I really can't say for sure, but I think that at one time it was the practice to establish commercial zoning at all the mile crossroads. However, in the late "50's a re-evaluation was made of this 'practice and at certain corners the commercial zoning was removed and restored to a residential classification at this particular corner. This may have been the case. Mrs. Wisler: Was the owner notified? Mr. Nagy: I really can't say. I would have to research that question. Mrs. Wisler: Any further discussion? Mrs. Friedrichs: Could you tell me what the Future Land Use Plan calls. for at this corner? Mr. Nagy: It is recommended that we retain the residential uses of this area. Mrs. Scurto: With the exception of the church on the opposite corner, the next piece of property in either direction zoned commercial would be Vargo's. Is that correct? There is no other commercial property before Six Mile and Farmington, or the two miles north and south of this corner? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Falk: I just want to say that I am impressed by the efforts of the Civic Association in this particular area. They came on strong when the petition came up down the road to rezone that land to R-3. And I feel that we should positively substantiate the fact that we will maintain the Future Land Use Plan. I have nothing personally against the petitioner. But this change inzoning is not consistent with the Master Land Use Plan. To change this zoning might open the door to what we have on Middlebelt. I have to respect the wishes of those people who have investments. Mrs. Meisner: I think Mrs. Huffman mentioned that she didn't want any commercial buildings in this area. What about the noise we get from her dogs? She has a dog kennel. Vargo's is zoned commercial, and it is in my block, and I feel that Professional Office Building would be most respectful. Peter Herrmann: We have lived here since 1940, and since they widened Six Mile, it 31225 Six Mile is just like a free-way. I have trouble getting in and out of my driveway. The increased traffic on Six Mile is terrible, and I am not in favor of any change in the zoning at t'-gat corner. Mrs. Scurto: Mr. Nagy, is Mrs. Huffman's property zoned commercial or residential? Mrs. Huffman: It is zoned RUFC (rural urban farm) . Mr. Olson: We just purchansed two lots on the southwest corner of this intersection, so I suppose we are not on the tax rolis yet. But I just want to say that I like this area the way it is, and would like to see it stay that wa Mrs.Farnetti: We live in the first house just north of this property, right on Six Mile 31180 Six Mile Road, and we are opposed to this rezoning. The area is residential and should remain that way. 6500 There was no one else wishing to speak further on this petition and Mrs. Wisler, 1[0 Vice Chairman, .declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-7-1-25 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was . #9-186-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1977 on Petition 77-7-1-25 by Verssie Meisner to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Six Mile and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-7-1-25 be denied for the following reasons: . (1) The proposed change of zoning will provide for uses inconsistent . with and inappropriate to the surrounding and established residential uses of the area. (2) The surrounding area is all zoned RUFC (single family residential) and the proposed change of zoning introducing professional service uses can be referred to as spot zoning in that the area under petition is relatively small and provides for uses unrelated to and inconsistent with .the established uses of theabutting neighborhoods. (3) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the adopted Future Land Use Plan. (4) The proposed change of zoning would not be in the best interest of the long range stability of thereighboring residential area as it would tend to encourage the further conversion of residentially zoned lands to non-residential uses within the general area of Merriman and Six Mile Road. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 9/1/77, and that notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs, Secretary announced' the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-8-1-27 by Livonia Builders, Inc. , to rezone property located on the east side of Santa Anita, south of Five Mile. Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24, from RUF to R-2. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Department of Engineering indicating no objections to the proposal. Mrs. Wisler: Is the petitioner present? Lidia Veri: We feel that this is the only thing that we can do in this area. We 36714 Bennett want to build some houses and sell them. We tried to put apartments in there but nobody wanted thorn. This is the only thing left to do. . • Mrs. Wisler: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Mrs. Scurto: I understand you are talking about four, houses. Do you have any intentions of purchasing land to the east? 6501 Mrs. Veri: No. Mrs. Wisler: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against 1[; this petition? Mr. Falk: We have had this petitioner before us in the past, and I feel she has always been most cooperative when the Planning ,Department has suggested changes in her development plans. When she wanted to build apartments in that area, that was found to be objectionable because it is not consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. So she came back with another proposal which is far more favorable. Her newest proposal is consistent with, the adjoining residential area, and I feel that it would stop the intrusion of any possible future commercial development. Every piece of land in this City is important, and I feel that this petition is acting in good faith. This development would surely be-in keeping with what is there now. It will be quiet, peaceful and rural. I will • definitely support this petitioner. Mrs. Wisler: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this petition? Mr. Nagy, I would like one point be made clear to me. According to the Future Land Use Plan, what constitutes medium density? • • Mr. Nagy: Medium density would cover a range from 4 to 14 units per acre, and the R-2 zoning would fall within the lower end of that density range. There was no one else wishing to speak further on this petition, Mrs. Wisler declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-8-1-27 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously IL adopted, it was #9-187-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1977 on Petition 77-8-1-27 as submitted by Livonia Builders, Inc. , to rezone property located on the east side of Santa Anita, south of Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24, from RUF to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-8-1-27 be approved for the following reasons: • (1) The proposed change of zoning will provide for residential housing uses and lot sizes consistent with the adjoining residential development of the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. (3) The proposed change of zoning will promote the orderly and appropriate residential development of the neighboring area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 9/1/77, and that such notice of a hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6502 Mrs. Friedrichs, Secretary announced the next item on the Agenda is Petition 77-8-2-16 by Merritt, Cole &McCallum requesting. waiver use approval to erect a Church on the west side of Farmington Road between Ford Field and Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21. I Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter dated August 29, 1977 from the Division of Engineering indicating that the installation of a storm and sanitary • sewer, as well as a water main, will necessitate tunnelling under ,Farmington Road. Also, the Parks & Recreation Commission has indicated through the office of the Superintendent, that after having a meeting to determine whether or not this parcel of land should be kept, they have decided to retain this property according to the Master School and Park Plan. Mrs. Scurto: Mr. Nagy, do you mean that the City - in the near future - will try to purchase this land? Mr. Nagy: We cannot give any official statement on that, but the subject property was included in the Capital Improvement Program aS far back as 1966 as one of the major park sites to be acquired. Currently, it is just shown as part of the overall land acquisition .purchases as being proposed by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mrs. Wisler: Is the petitioner present? G.McCallum: Yes, I am one of the architects for the proposed Church, and we feel 33750 Freedom that this parcel - as a Church site - is an ideal transition_ between the Road Park property to the north and the RE area to the south. We feel that Farmington this would be quite appropraite for the entire neighborhood. Mrs. Wisler: Do you have any plans here with you tonight? Mr. McCallum: The Church is presently in the process of purchasing the property. We have been working on site plans but they are very preliminary plans. Ms. Wisler: Yes, Mr. McCallum, I know that these plans have not yet been seen by our Planning Department, and it is possible that they are not technically correct. I would just like a brief resume. Mr. Zimmer: Does the Church own the property? Mr. McCallum: They have an option to buy, which is contingent upon the waiver use • use request being approved. We are presently holding our services in HarryJ. Will Funeral Home. Mr. Zimmer: This is a newly formed congregation? Mr. McCallum: Some of our people are here in the audience tonight. I will let them explain. • Marvin Moser: It is a newly formed congregation as such. It is a split in the Lutheran Church of. two Missouri Synods. These are members from Faith Lutheran and Holy Trinity, with a total of about 200 members. But we do plan on a much larger congregation. And we would like to have a Church in central Livonia. I understand Knapp`s. wanted to use this property, but that was turned down. We feel that it would be good to have a church in between the public land and the RE' zoning. We are definitely part of the Michigan District of the Lutheran Church. 6503 • t Mrs. Scurto: Has your congregation and/or your building committee researched this thing on a Sunday morning. Do you feel you are far enough removed from the ball-playing fields and the playgrounds right there. Marvin Moser: I have lived in Livonia for 25 years, and have seen Ford Field develop into the sports field that it is now, and do not feel that there will be any problems with putting up a church in that area. Mr. Falk: Marv, have you given any thought to possibly relocating any where else? What will happen ten years from now with a larger congregation, more traffic? , Marvin Moser: The Missouri Synod is very much in support of locating here in this 16711 Bell City. There are almost five acres here on which to build a church. Creek And we are also thinking about a prochial school. Mr. Falk: In this same area? Resident: Definitely. Mrs. Wisler: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this petition? Norman Wollscheid: Yes, we are here representing the Kimberly Oaks Civic Association 33051 Perth and would very much like to see the site plan. Mrs. Wisler: You do understand that it is. strictly preliminary? Mr. Wollscheid: Yes, but if and when the waiver use request is granted, might there be a change in the building plans? Mrs. Wisler: Once the Site Plan is approved, they have to stick with that. Jerry French: I am President of the Castle Gardens Civic Association and I would like to point out that most people are just not aware of what is happening to the Lutheran Church. The Missouri Synod was formed from . three congregations: Faith Lutheran on Five Mile Road, Holy Trinity on Five Mile near the expressway, and All Saints at Joy Road and Newburgh. We are presently holding our meetings at the Harry Will Funeral Home, and do you have any idea what is like to meet regularly at a funeral home? Our congregation consists of people from the entire City of Livonia, as well as some from Plymouth, Northville and Canton. We are the only Missouri Synod church in this area. We would like to locate as near to the center of the City as possible, as well as being close to the freeway. We have found this property ideally located for us. And we feel that our development of this property will be an asset to the New Civic Center. . It will certainly complement Ford Field, as well as the entire Civic Center. Have you looked at Six Mile Road lately? It should be renamed Church Lane. Mr. Falk: Are you president of Castle Gardens now? 4 Mr. French: Yes. . R.Doumanian: I have talked with John Nagy about this, and understand that as yet 14015 Cranston there has been no specific site plan submitted. But as I understand this property will either remain as part of Parks & Recreation property, or there will be a church built on that property. We have no objections to a church there, but I question the feasibility of a school. What about children crossing Farmington Road? A traffic light would just add 6504 to the traffic congestion. As President of the Kimberly Oaks Civic Association, I feel we must reserve either an official yes or no vote on this until the matter of a school is settled. jMrs. Wisler: • This request for a waiver use is for a church only. Mr. Nagy, is there a separate waiver use required for a school also? Mr. Nagy: Yes, this application request approval for a church building only. .If they wish to erect a school also, that would require a separate petition. Edward Lowry: I live just north of the property involved. I have just a couple comments, 14226 Farming- my understanding originally was that the Parks & Recreation Department ton had plans to purchase that piece of property and put in a park. This is what we had been led to believe. Also, the traffic in this area should be of some conern. I have 'many traffic accidents here with people slowing down for the games at Ford Field. The church would certainly generate more traffic on a Sunday morning. Also, I suppose that if a church were erected her, they would be allowed to put in some sort of device into their steeple 'that would blurt 'out some kind of music or chimes over the entire community on a Sunday morning. I find that quite objectionable. At this time, Mr. McCallum explained site plan to the Commission as well as the audience, noting particularly building site, parking lot, playground, etc. . Mrs. Wisler: In view of the fact that the Parks & Recreation Commission had indicated that they wish to retain this property as a park site, as 1 . well as our Planning Department not yet having had a good look at these plans, perhaps a tabling motion would be in order to allow time to investigate these items more closely. Mr. Wollscheid: In the event there is a tabling motion, would we be notified of when I: the next public hearing will take place so that we may attend and hear the comments and study the site plan? Mrs. Wisler: Yes, I would suggest that only five people in the audience might attend the study session at which we will review this request. Mr. Wollscheid: How will we know when this study session will take place? Mrs. Wisler: We will set a date tonight convenient with our Planning Department. Mr. McCallum: Within the next few days, I would like to get together with the Planning Department to review our preliminary plas and get their comments. Rev. Ralph Schmidt: Would certainly like to encourage this Board to favorably consider Lutheran Church the location that we are requesting. So many of our people come Northville from Redford, Plymouth, Westland, Farmington, as well as all sections of Livonia. This particular area is very important to us because of its centrality. And we feel that this church will be an asset in the community not only to our members, but to the entire City of Livonia. • .IL Allan Drake: I have been a resident of Livonia since 1956, and Livonia has always been 35864 Parkdale good to me. As a memeber of this congregation, I just hope that you people think positively on the intended use of this property. There was no one else wishing to speak further on this petition, Mrs. Wisler declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-8-2-16 closed. 6505 On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #9-188-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1977 on Petition 77-8-2-16 as submitted by Merritt, Cole & McCallum requesting waiver use approval to erect a Church on the west side of Farmington Road between Ford Field and Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-8-2-16 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be conducted on October 11, 1977. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-8-2-17 by Baseline Drug, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to establish an SDD Liquor Licensed operation within an existing drug store located on the south side of Eight Mile Road, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? • Mr. Nagy: Just a letter from Engineering, indicating no objections from an Engineering standpoint. Mr. Zimmer: How does this request for a liquor license affect an application to . the State for a liquor license? Doesn't that have to come first? Mr. Nagy: An SDD License will be issued to the applicant, by the State, in the event there is no conflict with local ordinances. Since SDD licenses are not permitted within a C-2 district classification but subject to waiver of use approval Baseline Drugs is .in conflict with our local Zoning Ordinances. However, if this Commission were to determine that there would be no adverse effect as a result of the proposed use and the City Council concurs there would then be no conflict with local ordinances. An SDD License could be issued by the State Liquor Control Commission. Mrs. Wisler: Is the petitioner present? Kenneth. Soble: For the last seventeen years, have had the drug store at Seven Mile 20990 Potomac and Middlebelt. Opened this one - Baseline Drugs - about three years ago, Southfield at which time we received a SDM License from the State of Michigan, beer and wine. At that time, I also filed an application for an SDD license. I have finally passed approval by the State of Michigan. We applied for this in the summer of 1974,• and at that time I didn't know anything about a waiver use approval until I just recently received this letter. So, now, I am following all the processes necessary to obtain it. We already have a beer and wine section, and this new operation would be placed in the existing east side of the store, about 45' in length. Mrs. Wisler: Do you plan any, exterior alterations on this building? Mr. Soble: No, just a regulation liquor sign on the outside, next to the existing sign. Although we were thinking about a neon sign. Mr. Falk: John, according to these plans do you _think there is room for another sign there? Mr. Nagy: At the time this site plan was approved, there was sufficient identification for every tenant in the building. 6506 410 Mr. Soble: I have an extra 20' on the store, and there is no sign out there yet. 10 Mr. Falk: Well, I guess I have a fetish about signs that display liquor. I feel this petition may run into trouble with any more signs. The signage on those buildings is really terrible. Mr. Nagy: This petitioner should have no trouble with sign requirements. We have made specific reference to the requirement that, he comply with those plans that were approved at.the time the original strip center site plans were approved. The sign plans gave adequate attention to the individual tenent needs. Mr. Falk: Do you think Mr. Soble you will be able to live with that? • Mr. Soble: Yes, of course. Mrs. Scurto: That means no sandwich signs in the front of the building. Mr. Sobel: No, no sandwich signs. Personally, I don't even like them. Mr. Falk: - Just one more thing - you are going to be selling liquor if this is approved? Won't that generate more traffic? What about parking. Mr. Nagy: In our past experiences with drug stores that sell packaged liquor, we have had no problems with more traffic which would cause us to re- Iri; evaluate our off street parking requirements for drug stores. Mr. Zimmer: In the event this petition is approved, do you plan to change your operating hours? Mr. Soble: Our hours will be 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday thru Saturday, and 10 to 6 on Sundays. There was no one else wishing to speak further on this petition, Mrs. Wisler, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-8-2-17 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #9-189-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1977 on Petition 77-8-2-17 as submitted by Baseline Drug, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to establish an SDD Liquor Licensed operation within an existing drug store located on the south side of Eight Mile Road, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-8-2-17 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) Any proposedsigns intended to identify this use shall not be permitted unless same is consistent with the site plan, building elevation plan and sign plan previously approved by the Planning Commission in connection with Petition 73-4-8-15 by Resolution #7-124-76, adopted on July 13, 1976, and Council Resolution #653-76, adopted on August 11, 1976. for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use will not adversely affect the established uses of the Center. 6507 (2) The site has the capacity to support the proposed use. (3) The proposed use will not alter the existing building or site layout as the use will be accommodated within the overall Baseline Drug Store operation. 46, (4) The use complies with Section 11.03(r) , of Zoning Ordinance #543. FURTHER RESOLVED that nctice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Rehearing pursuant to Council Resolution #738-77 of Petition 76-10-1-40 by R. Ajluni, M.D. , to rezone property located -on the south side of Curtis Road, east of Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, from RUFC to P. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: No new correspondence submitted in connection with the rehearing. Mrs. Wisler: Is the petitioner present? Mr. Nagy: The only comment I can make is that perhaps the petitioner felt that because this was referred back to the Commission after a Council Resolution, it would not be necessary that he be present. • Mrs. Wisler: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against IL this petition? 46, J. Andrews: I live about 100' to the east of this parcel, and I have no real 18131 Mayfield objection to a parking lot here. But I would like to say that the traffic here on Curtis is just becoming unbearable. Why don't they pave Curtis. It would. certainly cutdown on maintenance expenses. It is just unbelievable what is happening here. Would certainly like to see them paveCurtisand Mayfield. They are putting in new homes here, large subdivision. Mrs. Wisler: You are not opposed to the rezoning, but you wouldlike something done to Curtis? Is that right? Mr. Andrews: Right. Mrs. Wisler: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Mr. Falk: As I understand it, this is a rehearing of a petition pursuant to Council Resolution #738-77 which this Commission clearly denied some time ago. As I remember it, we had quite a few people in here, and I don't think there was one person who lived in that neighborhood who was for this petition. Looks to me like it is just a continuous intrusion of Professional Services zoning into a residential area. The traffic would become even more unbearable as Farmington Road continues to develcp. I certainly would substantiate the fact that Curtis Road could not handle any increase in traffic. I feel that •this petition should be denied for the previous reasons stated and sent back to Council. There is no other 46, alternative. 6508 Mr. Zimmer: Is there no one here from across Farmington? [4110 Mrs. Wisler: Have they been notified with regard to the parking. petition? Possibily there was no one to notify when the original petition called for rezoning from RUF to P.S. Mr. Nagy: The same property owners that were notified of the proposed change 4 of zoning to the P.S. classification were also notified of this rehearing for its parking classification. There was no one else wishing to speak further on this petition, Mrs. Wisler declared the Public Hearing. on Rehearing of Petition 76-10-1-40 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Dubose, and unanimously adopted, it was #9-190-77 RESOLVED that, a Public Rehearing having been held on September 20, 1977 pursuant to Council Resolution #738-77 on Petition 76-10-1-40 as submitted by R. Ajluni, M.D. , to rezone property located on the south side of Curtis Road, east of Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, from RUFC to P. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-10-1-40 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed expansion of parking uses into the adjoining residential area would be detrimental to the abutting residential uses of the area. (2) The proposed expansion of parking uses and its further encroachment into the interior of the neighboring area would detract from the orderly and appropriate development of the surrounding residential neighborhood. (3) The proposed expansion of parking uses which would facilitate the 46, expansion of office uses would, in turn, generate an increase in traffic flow utilizing Curtis Road which traffic would be detrimental to the adjoining residential neighborhoods and residents of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Rehearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, -under date of 9/1/77, and that notice of such rehearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan'Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-7-3-8 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of Parkdale Avenue located south of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Edward Hines Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? 6509 • Mr. Nagy: We have a letter .from Engineering indicating that they recommend that this vacated portion of Parkdale Avenue be made subject to an easement in order to accommodate existing water main and sewer • facilities. Also, Detroit Edison voices no objections, advising that a full width easement be retained for their existing facilities. Mrs. Wisler: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission to vacate an ease- ment on Parkdale hoping to eliminate any traffic problems that may exist in that area. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against . this petition? Leo LeMay: Yes, we own lots #25 and 26, and we realize the City wants to do this 21845 Cumber- in order to use it as a turn-around behind our parking lot here for the land Dr. roller rink. Our original petition for the Parking rezoning has not Northville come up before the City Council. If we don't get this rezoned for parking, I guess this turnaround wouldn't be needed. Mr. Zimmer: Well, the way I understand it was that the other half of the requirement had to do with the front of your building relative to .the need for additional right-of-way for Plymouth Road. Mr. LeMay: We had agreed to vacate the back portion of Lot #13, with a wall between Lots #25 and 26, some kind of greenbelt at the end of Parkdale. They are also requested by Father to give up part of the front property. He is not willing to do that. They wanted 27' in the front. My father is not in favor of that. We have to establish some kind of traffic pattern to the rear of the lot. But we are also concerned 14; ' about people pulling in the front and dropping their children off. If people are not able to do this, we feel it would be a handicap tows. Mr. Falk: I guess I missed some of the development of this particular petition. 460 But I think I remember something about -some exchange being made. I really don't like to do business on the spur of the moment. And I feel we have some responsibility to those people who live off of Plymouth Road in that area. Possibily a tabling motion would be in order on this so that we can look into this a little better. There was no one else wishing to speak further on this petition, Mrs. Wisler declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-7-3-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #9-191-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1977 on Petition 77-7-3-8 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of Parkdale Avenue located south of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Edward Hines Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of.Setion 32, the City -Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-7-3-8 until the study session scheduled to be conducted on November 15, 1977 in order to study the acquisition of the documents for this land exchange. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-7-3-9 by the City Planning Commission to vacate an easement located across Lot #128 of Greenbriar Estates Subdivision #2 on the south side of Six Mile Road, east of Mayfield Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15. 6510 Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? • Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated September 12, 1977 from Detroit Edison advising no objection to proposed vacating of property, as well as a letter from Engineering also advising no objections. Mrs. Wisler: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? ,john Nemecek: We live here on Lot #127, and we are opposed to the vacating of this land. The map does not show :the entire drain. (He then pointed to the map, showing in detail his assessment of just how the water flowed across his lot, the lot next door, and the lots behind him.) I certainly am not in favor of closing this drain system for the entire area. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, isn't all the drainage in this area carried underground? Mr. Nagy: Drainage that flows south along Mayfield Avenue, as .well as a portion of the drain that would lie from Six Mile Road to the north, is picked up as part of a sewer system. That drain that cuts across the northeast corner of Lot #128 is the only part that falls on the lots itself. Larger flows are caught in the interceptor along the Six Mile Road right-of-way. Mr. Nemechek: We have lived here for the past four years, and it seems that since they widened Six Mile .Road more drainage goes through that ditch than I before. Mr. Nagy: Engineering advises that the ditch is no longer needed. With the proper grading done on that lot, there should be no problems with water. 460 Mr. Nemecek: What about all those lots below this one? They are already terraced. Mr. Nagy: I feel I am not technically qualified to answer that. Perhaps this should be tabled so that we can get some more definte answers from Engineering. They are the experts. • Mr. Nemecek: If you permit this to be vacated, you must understand that you will be shutting this drain off. The water has to go somewhere. Where? Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nemecek, you may or may not be correct. We really should discuss this with our Engineer. Mr. Falk: Who owns Lot #128: Leo A. Link: I do. Mr. Falk: Well I know for a fact that people should be concerned about how the water drains. i have highest lot on Fairway Drive, and whenever it rains, there is a flood back there, and I have been here for fourteen years. I was told grading would take care of it.. Dorit you believe it. I would entertain a motion to table this in order to get Engineering out there and investigate. Sharon Grahan: We live on Lot #126 and have been there for ten years. This drain 16930 Mayfield cuts through here, right. over our lot through crocks. After that it 460 goes into Bell Creek. Every ,spring there is a pool of water back there, the whole area is filled with water. You can look at any point in our yard and you will see water. • . ' 6511 Mr. Zimmer: Mrs. Graham, if that lot is graded properly, as Mr. Nagy suggests, this water will not go through that drain. That may be a natural course now, t . but we are trying to eliminate it before it reaches your property. Mrs. Graham: ' So where will the water go? What about the lake we have in the spring? 16 Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Link, would you like to say something at this time? Leo Link: I bought this property so I can build a house on it. But I can't until the easement is removed. I didn't know about any water problems when I bought it. Mr. Zimmer: Do you plan on living in the building? Mr. Link: Yes. Mr. Zimmer: Will there be a basement? Mr. Link: Yes. Mr. Falk: Were you aware of the easement when you bought the property? Mr. Link: No, nothing was said to me at the ,tie I bought it. There was no one else wishing to speak further on this matter, Mrs. Wisler declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-7-3-9 closed. 11 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was 4 #9-192-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on 410 September 20, 1977 on Petition 77-7-3-9 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to vacate an easement located across Lot 128 of Green Brier Estates Subdivision #2 on the south side of Six Mile Road, east of Mayfield Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77,7-3-9 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be conducted on September 27, 1977. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-2-6-3 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 17.04, Yard and Setback Requirements, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, so as to revise the setback requirement ,in the M-2 Zoning District. Mrs. Wisler: This is a petition initiated by the Planning Commission to amend certain language of the Zoning Ordinance. Are there any comments or questions from the Commission or the audience? There was no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Mrs. Willer declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-2-6-3 closed. 4 6512 On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was • #9-193-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1977 on Petition 77-2-6-3 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 17.04, Yard and Setback Requirements, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, so as to revise the setback' requirements in the M-2 Zoning District, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-2-6-3 be approved for the following reasons: (1) Existing Zoning Ordinance regulations relating to M-2'District yard requirements are too restrictive and unrealistic. (2) This amendment is recommended by the Industrial Development Coordinator. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 9/1/77, and that notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell- Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-8-6-8 by the. City Planning Commission to amend Section 18.24, Accessory Buildings, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, so as to provide controls on heights of detached garages and accessory buildings. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: No correspondence. Mrs. Wisler: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this petition? Are there any comments from anyone on the Commission? There was no one present wishing to speak on this petition, Mrs. Wisler declared the public hearing on Petition 77-8-5-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #9-194-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1977 on Petition 77-8-6-8 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 18.24, Accessory Buildings, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, so as to provide controls on 11(-2; H ' , F detached garages and accessory buildings, the City Planni:uy L,sion does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-8-6-8 be approved for the following reasons: (1) Additional regulation isneeded to control the- height of accessory buildings in residential districts. (2) This petition is supported by the Bureau of Inspection. ' 6513 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 9/1/77, > and that notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat Approval • for Windridge Village Subdivision #2 proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, west of Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the' file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering dated September 14th regarding sanitary. sewer systemof this subdivision connecting to that of the Deerfield Apartments on the eastern edge., Also, may be necessary to adjust lot widths of Lots #100 through #110, signed Gary Clark. Also, a letter from Ted Kovnrik, ` Fire Marshall, advising no objections. Also, a letter from the Bureau of Inspection advising no deficiences in the lot sizes of the area. Noted a 14' variance in different elevation sites - may have an effect on soil borings, signed Frank A. Kerby, as well as a letter from the Police Safety Division noting no unusual problems with site as proposed, all streets in accordance with ordinance - 31' in width, signed Richard Widmaier. IL Mr. Falk: Actual pavement is 31' wide? Mrs. Wisler: Any discrepancies in specifications were forwarded on to Engineering.460 A revised plan will be necessary. Mr. Nagy: They have resolved all differences. • Mrs. Wisler: Is the petitioner present? Gilbert Franklin: Yes, I hopel can answer any and all questions.• Attorney for Biltmore Properties, Troy Mrs. Scurto: What will be done about Gill Road's condition from Seven Mile Road north to Bretton after this subdivision is completed? Will it remain as is? How can we let them get away with not improving that road? • Mr. Nagy: Road pavements are requested from the Engineering Department. However, in this case, there is only one point of ingress or egress to Gill Road from the subdivision, and the amount of frontage is relatively small in relation to the total length of Gill Road. Mrs. Scurto: Are you saying that the majority of the traffic will pass through the whole subdivision from Seven Mile Road? . 'i Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mrs. Scurto: I feel this plat might be revised. Mr. Franklin: We may need additional lot width between lots 100 and 101 as requested by Engineering. 6514 Mrs. Wisler: What is the stipulation of 31'? 11 Mr. Franklin: There will be 60' wide road dedications. They just •want to be • assured that paving will be a standard width. Definitely will meet standards of City of Livonia. • Mr. Falk: Getting back to this road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads. I suppose it would be pretty hard for the developer to pave Gill Road all the way through, but why is it you are not compelled to do a little work on Gill Road? Mr. Franklin: This matter is being referred to the City Council. But, we are not currently compelled to pave beyond the limits of our plat. Mr.. Falk: Perhaps, we should table this in order to get more input. I feel confident that Mr. Kluver and Mr. Andrew have some questions regarding this plat, and I feel a tabling motion would be ,in order so they can get a revised site plan in. Mr. Zimmer: What about the landscape plan behind those houses that back up to Seven Mile Road and the K-Mart center? Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Franklin, would it cause you any problems if this Commission were to table this? Mr. Franklin: The only problem would be the delay in getting started. Mrs. Wisler: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this plat approval? Philip Barrett: I just want it known that I have no objectionsto them building I: 19630- Gill Rd. this subdivision as they are planning it now. Mary Owen: You spoke of a water main? what about a sanitary sewer.? 33599 7 Mi. Mr. Franklin: Our plan shows a sewer running westerly along Seven Mile Road, carrying it north into the subdivision. It will run right in front of your property. James Spencer: If you put a sewer in _this area where would it go? 19800 Gill Rd. Mr. Franklin: It would probably go through and adjoin the north end of your parcel. Mr. Spencer: Would I be required to tap into that? • Mr. Eagy: No, not unless it is brought within 15 feet cf your property. Mr. Spencer: Then I am against the subdivision. There was no one wishing to speak further on this matter, Mrs. Wisler declared the Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat Approval for Windridge Village Subdivision #2 li: closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was . 6515 #9-195-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September.20, 1977 on a Preliminary Plat Approval for Windridge Village Subdivision #2 proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, west of Farmington Road in the southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine i to table this Preliminary Plat Approval for Windridge Village Sub- division #2.until the study session scheduled to be conducted on November 15, 1977. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted., On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #9-196-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 16, 1977 on Petition 77-7-2-14 as submitted by Comm-Auto Brake Center, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to use existing building located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and Merriman Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, for automobile repair service, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to- the City Council that Petition 77-7-2-14 be approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site and Landscape Plan prepared by the petitioner dated 9/15/77, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that the Building Elevation Plan showing proposed exterior alterations and treatment, dated 9/17/77, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to including the two wall signs as shown; .however, that any other free standing signs or signs affixed to the building shall first be approved by the Planning Commission; and (3) that all landscape materials as shown on the approved site and 46, landscape plan shall be. installed prior to issuance of a'Certificate of Occupancy; for the following reasons: (1) This type of use is a logical alternate re-use of a vacant service station facility. (2) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the orderly growth and development of the area and the site has the capacity to accommodate • the intended use. (3) The proposed use complies with the requirements of Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 11.03(m) . At this time, Mr. Raymond Staley questioned that part of the approval which requires that all landscape materials be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This was' explained to him in detail as far as Building Department possibly issuing a temporary occupancy permit" until weather permits the installation of landscapin Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6516 On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, 1 it was #9-197-77 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 339th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 16, 1977 be approved. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Dubose, and unanimously adopted, it was • #9-198-77 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 340th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on August 30, 1977 be approved. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #9-199-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated September 12, 1977 from Arther M. Sills requesting an extension of approval of Petition 76-9-8-18 by Leon Siegel requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47, as amended by Ordinance #990, submitted in connection with a proposal • to construct retail stores on property located on the east side of Farmington Road, south of Eight Mile Road in Section 3, the City Planning IL t' Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that an extension be granted until July 1, 1978 subjecto the same conditions as were set forth in the original approving Resolution #9-175-76 adopted by the City Planning Commission on September 14, 1976 as well as the additional . 4111, condition imposed by the'City Council in Resolution #851-76, adopted on October 13, 1976. Mrs. Wisler declared the.above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #9-200-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58,of Ordinance #543, the Zoning . Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988,, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 77-9-8-17P by Allen Electric Supply Company requesting approval of all plans required by - Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a storage building on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Meriman and Mayfield in Section 27, subject to the following conditions: (1) That the site plan as shown on Job #7730, Sheet 1, dated 8/30/77, prepared by Ferruccio P. DeConei, Architect, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That building elevations as shown on Job #7730, Sheet 3, dated 8/30/77, IL . prepared by FerruccioP. Deconei, Architect, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. (3) That the petitioner shall submit a landscape plan incorporating thereon landscaping as shown on the plan prepared by Harold Thomas Nursery and approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals and such additional land- scaping so as to fully landscape the site and the public right-of-way adjacent thereto. 6517 (4) That all landscape materials shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 1 ' On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #9-120-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning ' Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-9-8-19P, as submitted by Frank Capoccia requesting approval of all plans required by Section' 18.58 in connection with a proposal to construct a retail sales building on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in Section 28, until the Study Meeting scheduled to be conducted September 27, 1977. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was #9-202-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 77-9-8-18P by Amin Fadel requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a doughnut shop in the southwest corner of Grand River and Inkster Road in Section 1, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #77-762, Sheet 1, dated 9/14/77, prepared by Coughlin, Schaff Associates, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; • (2) that Building Elevation #77-762, Sheets 3 & 4, dated 9/14/77, prepared by Coughlin, Schaff Associates, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (3) that a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval within 30 days of this approval : and • (4) that a plan showing all signage proposed to be erected on the site shalt be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval within thirty (3)g days of this approval. Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. . On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted t':: 341st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on September 20, 1977 was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION //0-264-- Esther.Friedrichs, Secretary ATTEST: Weno ..4=Zig-I-CA) Suzath Wisler, Vice-Chairman