Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1995-09-19 PC minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION DATE: September 19, 1995 AT: Plainfield Library COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Sobkoviak K. O'Connell L. Kachel T. Spika R. Schinderle W. Manning ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Development & Zoning Director Fire District representative J. Regis, Village Engineer J. Durbin, Planner S. Hart, Secretary Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and led the pledge to the flag. Roll call was taken, A. Anderson, the Park District, School District and Library District representatives were absent. The September 5, 1995 minutes were approved as presented. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT: Heron View Estates approved at Village Board Meeting. The Village Board is also in the process of approving the Comp and Trans Plan. CASE NUMBER 499- 080795.SU KOZUH SPECIAL USE PERMIT Ms. Kozuh operates 59 Hair Design as a Home Occupation per the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The 59 Hair Design facility appears to meet the standards and provisions of the home occupation requirements and currently operates as a permitted use classified as a beauty shop. Under the provisions of the Ordinance, Barber /Beauty Shops operating as home occupations are permitted uses if limited to one operator of whom shall be a resident of the dwelling unit in which the home occupation is located. The special use request is in accordance with Ms. Kozuh's desire to add one additional operator to the facility. The Planner discussed how the Zoning Ordinance regulates home occupations and noted that. Barber /Beauty shops are limited to one (1) operators of whom one shall be a resident of the dwelling unit are specifically listed as permitted uses. It is clear that the establishment of one additional operator at the Salon will not be detrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety, and general welfare. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 1995 Page 2 One operator currently functions at the Salon and no problems have resulted. The criteria applicable to home occupations, such as that the home occupation shall be conducted completely within the dwelling unit, that the outside display of goods and the outside storage of equipment or materials utilized in the home occupation shall be prohibited, and that the home occupation shall not generate noise, vibration, glare, fumes, odors or electrical interference beyond that which normally occurs in the zoning district prevent the home occupation from be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate area for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the adjacent property for uses permitted within the district. Indeed, this proposal is in line with recommendations of the 1988 Comprehensive Plan and discussions held at Village Board meetings in regard to the establishment of a Business Transition District in this area. The intent of this district would be to facilitate the conversion of residential structures in this area to commercial and office uses. The 1995 Draft Comprehensive Plan also references this opportunity. The Village Center discussion in the 1995 Plan discusses the potential conversion of residential structures to office and commercial uses. The Planning and Development Committee discussed this request with Ms. Kozuh in detail. The discussion highlighted several factors including the fact that the additional employee will be a relative of Ms. Kozuh. Ms. Kozuh also discussed parking considerations and noted that the majority of her patrons enter the facility from the rear and usually park in the Municipal lot. Ms. Kozuh offered to formalize this function by establishing a sidewalk from the municipal parking lot the rear entry of the facility. She also offered to dedicate a portion of her property to the Village to accomplish this. The Planning and Development Committee supported approval of the special use request provided that Ms. Kozuh pursue establishment of a sidewalk to the municipal lot and dedication of a portion of her property towards supplementing the municipal parking lot. While it may not always be in the best interests of the community to approve expansion of home occupations beyond the standards and criteria of the Zoning Ordinance, in this location (Route 59 at the core of the downtown) it is a logical step. As Route 59 continues to expand in capacity, it becomes less suitable for single family residential. This is also a step towards the Business Transition District which has been discussed positively in the recent past. Staff would recommend that any signage for the 59 Hair Salon be located towards the municipal parking lot. A directional sign under five square feet would be recommended because it would be more discrete and in character with the surrounding properties and would be permitted by the sign ordinance. As the site is in the Central Sign District, the sign must be designed to be an integrated feature of the site and compatible with the historic character of the district. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 1995 Page 3 FINDINGS: 1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety, and general welfare; and 2. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate area for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood; and 3. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the adjacent property for uses permitted within the district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning and Development Committee recommend approval of the special use request for an additional operator subject to the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the provisions of the Plainfield Fire Protection District. 2. Compliance with the home occupation provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended by this approval. 3. The applicant provide a sidewalk from the rear entry to the municipal parking lot. 4. The applicant pursue dedication of a portion of the subject property towards supplementing the municipal parking lot. Karen Reubuehr felts that Rt. 59 should be Commercially zoned. Concerns of the Plan Commission included, lighting, business hour regulations, 5. Newly constructed lighting should be screened or directed to avoid glare on adjoining residential properties. After discussion, R. Schinderle made a motion to recommend to the Village Board, the approval of the Special use Permit request for Case No. 499- 080795.SU, for 712 Division, including the four stipulations of the Planner and the stipulation added by Plan Commission. Seconded by W. Manning. Roll call vote. K. O'Connell, yes; L. Kachel, yes; T. Spika, yes; R. Schinderle, yes; W. Manning, yes. Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried . 6 yes 0 no. CASE NO. 500- 082295.FP The Planner summarized the staff report as follows, the Preliminary Plat for Vintage Harvest was approved by the Village Board of Trustees on August 30, 1993. This approval was made, subject to the following stipulations: 1. Re -name the west leg of Vintage Drive to avoid confusion with the north /south leg of Vintage Drive (completed). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 1995 Page 4 2. Lots 33 through 45 and 141 through 150 are acceptable at lot widths as presented. Lots 7 through 11 should be increased to 85 ft. minimum width (completed). 3. Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer (completed). 4. Compliance with the requirements of the Fire District (completed). 5. All lots shall be designed to achieve a 12,000 sq. ft. minimum area (completed). Re- evaluate the intersection of Vintage Drive and Fraser Road in an effort to address concerns by neighbors (completed). 7. Plan Commission had the desire that Fraser Road be constructed to urban profile, neighborhood collector street in accordance with the proposed Transportation Plan (completed). 8. Intersection alignments for Vintage Drive at Fraser Road should be moved to the west as shown in the Exhibit B of the Staff report (completed). The Final Plat for Vintage Harvest Unit Three includes 78 single family homesites on 24 acres. Also included is the extension of Merlot Lane, Brown Lane, Simo Drive, Cabernet Lane, and Burgundy Lane. Further, the Unit Three Final Plat will establish Vintage Drive. Approval of this unit will trigger the reconstruction of Fraser Road. The Preliminary Plat, Annexation Agreement, and Engineering Plans call for construction of this road at a collector street status. This will result in the improvement of Fraser Road from Route 59 to the east side of the Commonwealth Edison Right -Of -Way. The Final Plat for Unit Three increases the overall yield of the subdivision to 152 lots. The Preliminary Plat provides for 150 lots. However, several lots along Cabernet Lane do not meet the minimum frontage of 85' as required in the Annexation Agreement. Lot 105 at the corner of Cabernet and Vintage Drive is oddly shaped, and may be difficult to develop under current Village setback requirements. Lots 94 and 96 are also irregular in shape. Each of these lots (94,96 and 105) should be laid at this time for Village review to assure that setbacks can be met. Lots 80 through 86 must be revised to meet the 85' minimum standard. Revisions have been made to adjust the park site shown as Lot 153 to increase the dimensional area of the parcel to coincide with the area designated on the Preliminary Plat and Annexation Agreement. Staff recommended approval of the final Plat for Vintage Harvest Unit Three, subject to the following stipulations: Compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer. 2. Compliance with provisions of the Plainfield Fire District. 3. Compliance with the provisions of the Preliminary Plat. 4. Improve Fraser Road from Rt. 59 to the west end of Unit Three. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 1995 Page 5 5. Provide a Site Development Layout for Lots 94,96, and 105 to show that there is sufficient lot area to meet setback requirements. 6. Revise Lots 80 through 86 to meet the minimum frontage width of 85'. 7. All Stipulations must be in compliance before the case goes to the Village Board. Planner Waldock stated that the Park site was an amenity to the subdivision. Cindy Mc Fadden, Fraser Road, make sure Vintage Drive does not abut up to any driveways, and Fraser Road is to be centered. She was also concerned that construction has been underway on many Sundays, and she has had to have the police, to ask the builders to stop. She also ask that a stop sign go up when Vintage Road is finished. J. Regis, existing road is 20 ft wide, the proposed reconstructed road is to be the same elevation. the road is to be 37 ft. wide. After discussion, W. Manning made a motion to recommend to the Village Board, the approval of the Final Plat for Vintage Harvest Unit Three, subject to the seven stipulations of the Planner, for Case No. 500- 082295.FP. Seconded by R. Schinderle. Roll call vote. K. O'Connell, yes; L. Kachel, yes; T. Spika, yes; R. Schinderle, yes; W. Manning, yes. Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried . 6 yes 0 no. CASE NO. 504- 080395.TA ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS REQUEST: Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for the following: 1. Bed and Breakfast facilities as Special Use in residential districts. 2. Yard requirements for accessory structures in the R 1 Overlay District. 3. Front yard requirements in the R 1 Overlay District. 4. Rear yard requirements in the R 1 Overlay District. 5. Setback requirements in residential districts related to uncovered patio's and decks. 6. Parking regulation amendments. 7. Special Use permit requirements for Farmstands and Open Air Businesses. 8. Establishment of Adult Entertainment regulations as a Special Use in the B -4 District. The Text Amendments associated with this report are the results of Staff's findings during the new Zoning Ordinance start up period (initial six months of use). Several adjustments have been suggested by residents, applicants, and the Development Committee. BED AND BREAKFAST INNS: The proposed Text Amendments include the incorporation of Bed and Breakfast Inns as Special Uses in all residential district. This provision was established last year in the previous zoning code, and was omitted in error in the new text. These 1994 regulations are proposed for incorporation in the new Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 1995 Page 6 The R-| Overlay District is receiving amendments 0o several of the yard requirement provisions. These provisions include a reduction in setback requirements from aide and rear property lines for accessory structures to three (3)feet. Previously, all accessory structures, Village wide, were required to maintain afive (5) foot rnininouno setback provision. Residents of the R-1 Overlay District have indicated that this provision makes a substantial difference in trying to adequately site detached garages and other accessory buildings on the historically narrow and sometimes shallow rear yard areas found in the Overlay District. Likewise, the new text of the Zoning Ordinance inadvertently eliminated a previous provision that allowed principal structures within the Overlay District to match existing setbacks within sixty (60) feet on adjoining properties. The Text Amendment proposed with this report suggests that this type of regulation be reestablished, but with allowance for matching setbacks within one hundred (100) feet of the subject principal structure. We have also added u clarification of side setback requirements for the Overlay District. The Ordinance currently allows for rnininnurn of seven (7) foot setback with twenty (20) foot building separations and at twenty (20) foot combined, sum total side setback area on an individual lot. The amendment included with this report would simply allow for seven (7) foot building setbacks in the Overlay District. This may allow structures at less than twenty (20) foot building separation. However, Staff believes that this is only practical within the p-1 Overlay District. The naer yard setbacks within the Overlay District are also being amended by the proposed adjustments to allow aten (10) foot rnininnunn rear yard setback aopreviously provided in the earlier Zoning Ordinance. Staff has identified concerns with regard setbacks with regard to uncovered decks within all Residential Districts. We found that as a result of the increase in setback requirements for the new Zoning Ordinance many newly constructed homes are not able to construct attached uncovered decks and meet the thirty (30) foot or twenty-five percent (25%) of lot depth setback ReqUi[8rnpnt As such, Staff is recommending a fifteen (15) foot setback requirement for uncovered patio decks not greater than six (6) feet above grade. The standard setback requirements of a principal structure would be maintained for covered patios, screened porches, and covered decks. The proposed Text Amendments also include provisions for farm stands and open air markets. This issue was identified as a result of requests for such uses this past summer. The Zoning Ordinance currently provides for farm stands as a Special Use within the 8-2 General Business District. However, no specific requirements have been established within the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Text Amendment issuggesting specific criteria in which farm stands and open air markets should operate. It also expands the districts in which farm stands can be eligible for Special Use approval. It is now suggested with this Text Amendment that farm stands be permitted within all Business Districts with criteria that regulate the type of structure that may be used, the length of operation or season in which the farm stand may conduct business activities, and allow for businesses that do not have permanent structures on a very limited and temporary basis. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 1995 Page 6 ADULT ENTERTAINMENT REGULATIONS: Also provided with this series of Text Amendments is a provision for Adult Entertainment regulations. These regulations will limit the location of businesses that conduct adult entertainment activities, or sell adult books, magazines and other sexually explicit materials. Currently, the Village has no adult entertainment or adult bookstore regulations. As such, these types of uses can locate within any Business District that general bookstores would be allowed to operate within. Staff does not believe that this is acceptable to the residents of the community. It is important to note that this regulation does not regulate protected communication as provided by the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, rather it addresses the secondary impacts that adult entertainment facilities have on adjacent facilities as demonstrated by the supporting studies. The following is a bibliography of supporting research and studies which provide evidence in support of the regulatory approach and local health, safety and welfare issues. These studies indicate the adverse socio- economic and blighting impact that adult entertainment uses have on surrounding development. "Adult Entertainment Businesses in Indianapolis, an Analysis." Department of Metropolitan Development, Division of Planning, Indianapolis, Indiana. February 1984. "Adult Entertainment Business Study for Manatee County." Manatee County Planning and Development Department. June 1987. "Commercial Revitalization Plan for the Charlton - Pollard Neighborhood." City of Beaumont, Texas, Planning Department. 1981. "Effects on Surrounding Area of Adult Entertainment Businesses in Saint Paul." Division of Planning, Department of Planning and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota. June 1978. The Law of Municipal Corporations. Third Edition, Volume 6A. McQuillin MunCorp. "Regulating Sex Businesses" Planning Advisory Service, American Society of Planning Officials. 1977. "Report of the Attorney General's Working Group on the Regulation of Sexually Oriented Businesses." Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, State of Minnesota. June 6, 1989. This report also provides summaries of the Minneapolis, MN study (1980), the St. Paul, MN study (1978), the Indianapolis, IN study (1983), the Phoenix, AZ study (1979), and the Los Angeles, CA study (1984). "A Report on Zoning and Other Methods of Regulating Adult Entertainment Uses in Amarillo." City of Amarillo, Texas, Planning Department. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 1995 Page 7 The above studies and research support the proposed regulatory approach. Staff recommended and the Planning Commission concurred with the following findings, as documented by extensive studies and research, in support of the proposed regulatory approach. Thaf extensive research has shown that adult entertainment facilities are a serious problem in this country contributing to neighborhood blight, crime, and deteriorating property values. Adult entertainment facilities have been shown to adversely affect neighboring businesses, lower property values, promote crime, and lead residents and businesses to move to other locations. There is a direct relationship between the operation of adult entertainment facilities and an increase in criminal activities, moral degradation, and disturbances of the peace and good order of the community, and the concurrancy of these activities is hazardous to the health and safety of those persons in attendance and tends to depreciate the value of adjoining property and harm the economic welfare of the community as a whole. The location of adult entertainment facilities near residential, institutional, and other areas where juveniles often congregate lowers property values in such areas and exposes juveniles to such activities. The secondary impacts of adult entertainment facilities adversely affect communities by decreasing tax revenues, reducing the fiscal capacityto provide needed infrastructure, increasing the cost of criminal investigation and enforcement, exposing the residents and visitors to increased criminal activity and property crimes, and reducing the personal safety of residents and visitors. Adult entertainment facilities have been shown to have a negative effect on property values, particularly residential. This negative influence decreases the further adult entertainment facilities are located away from residential areas. The Villageof Plainfield Planning Department hasdocumented numerous studies relatingtothe secondary impact of adult entertainment facilities supporting the above findings. Adult entertainment facilities constitute protected expression under the United States Constitution. While we cannot outlaw adult bookstores constitutionally, courts have provided for reasonable regulation of such land use activities. Therefore, Staff is recommending establishment of adult entertainment regulations not previously found within the Village. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as provided with this report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 1995 Page 8 The questions, comments or concerns of the Plan Commission follow: Bed & Breakfast, question item 13, Each operator shall keep a list of the names of all persons staying at the bed and breakfast operations. Such lists should be available for inspection by Village inspectors at any time. Should be changed to enforcement official. R 1 Overlay District. question what is the R 1 Overlay District. The Core area of the Village, houses that have been there for years. No comments. Front and rear yard requirements in R 1 Overlay, the requirement was for the proposed homeowner to match the neighbors set back. No comments. Setback requirements in residential districts related to uncovered patio's and decks. No comments. Parking regulation amendments. No comments. Special Use for farm stands and open air businesses. Page 13, criteria number four there were concerns this criteria would create a monopoly. T. Spika made a motion to delete, number 4. Seconded by L. Kachel. Roll call vote. K. O'Connell, yes; L. Kachel, yes; T. Spika, yes; R. Schinderle, yes; W. Manning, yes. Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried to remove number four. 6 yes 0 no. Page 13, Seasonal Facility, number 1, extendable for three month extension, but only a total of 6 months in a twelve month period. Add this sentence to all both Facility criteria in B, & C. "In the event of non compliance the permit would be rescinded." No other comments. Adult entertainment. There was some discussion regarding a facility where over 25% of the net floor area and /or business activity consists of any of the following. After discussion, W. Manning made a motion to recommend to the Village Board, the approval of the Text Amendment for Case No.504- 080395.TA. Seconded by R. Schinderle Roll call vote. K. O'Connell, yes; L. Kachel, yes; T. Spika, yes; R. Schinderle, yes; W. Manning, yes. Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried. 6 yes 0 no. Comprehensive Plan & Transportation Plan The summary that was requested by the Plan Commission was inadvertently omitted from the packet. It will be sent to the Plan Commission. The Plan Commission decided to hear public comments, but not to vote until they have had the opportunity to review the summary. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 1995 Page 9 Claudia Kramer, north of the Village 119th & Rt. 59. (500 acres) The Fry Farm and Reibel Farm. Did not want 119th Street to be a major arterial. Said Naperville wanted 111th St and the County felt that 135th St should be a major arterial. She felt that Naperville, and Will County should have been consulted. She felt the only thing that is good for this area is subdivisions, because of the lay of the land. Asked. that the property remain Single Family residential, not 60% open space. There was a letter handed to the secretary, and will be attached to the minutes. Staff briefly addressed her concerns. Clara Latz, questioned exactly what is the 60% open space was to include. Alice French, Copper Drive, Plainfield. questioned will there be advertised Public Hearing to review the revised plan. Planner Waldock explained that, that the last public hearing was held in July. The Public Hearing results are the Revised Plan. George French, Copper Drive. feltthe Comprehensive Plan, discriminates against the senior citizens, by not providing senior housing. This case was continued until October 3, 1995, to give the Plan Commission time to review the summary prepared by Planner Durbin. Sharon Hart, Secretary PLAINFIELD Wilt . COUNTrO . OLDECT . UxxUx�Tr Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting on September 19, 1995. Please sign this sheet for our official records. Name Address Claudia D. Kramer Barbara J. Smiles Of Counsel obert L. Kramer KRAMER, KRAMER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 10308 South Route 59 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Naperville, Illinois 60564 September 19, 1995 Honorable Mayor John Peterson Trustee Jeffery Dement Trustee Richard Rock Trustee Kurt Stalzer Trustee Michael Lambert Trustee Jack Heimerdinger Trustee Raymond Smolich Village of Plainfield 1400 North Division Plainfield, IL 60544 RE: 1995 Comprehensive Plan Telephone (708)904 -0999 FAX (708)904 -0922 Plan Commissioners: Jim Sobkoviok, Chairman Walter Mvnniaq Robert Schinderle Kathy O'Connell Larry Kachel Alan Anderson Thomas Spika Dear Sirs: You will soon be asked to vote on a new Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Village of Plainfield and the areas in its planning jurisdiction. After reviewing the proposed plan, I took the same to the Will County Land Use Planners and the City of Naperville. No one had seen the plan, the maps or had any first hand knowledge of the proposed land uses or the designation of the roadways which would be arterials. With this in mind, I ask that you reconsider the area located north of the Village bounded on the east by Route 59, the north by 119th (Fergeson Road), south to 127th and including the farm south of 127th and bounded on the west by Van Dyke Road. When one looks at the current land use plans for the Village and the County, you see that the area west and south of 119th and Route 59 is shown as residential though it is currently zoned as agricultural. Wolf Creek Industrial Park, east of Route 59, was in existence at the time the current plan was adopted. The character of the surrounding area has not changed except that more residential growth has occurred. At this time, it makes no sense to change the area south and west of 119th and Route 59 to industrial, commercial and very low density residential with 600 open space. It appears that the industrial area is neither necessary at this time nor will it be in the near future. Commercial growth in the area is already planned further north and south on Route 59. This commercial growth will accommodate the residential growth which has come and continues to come to the area. Both Bolingbrook and Joliet still have large, empty industrial areas. The proposed addition of almost 3,000 acres of industrial park at the Joliet Army Ammunition Plant will make Village of Plainfield Page 2 of 3 industrial growth in the northern Plainfield area even less likely. The third airport as proposed for the Peotone area and will not impact industrial growth in Wheatland Township in any positive manner. In addition, to put large areas of open space in a single area may be good planning; however, not in this case. if Plainfield expects this to be open area, then Plainfield is going to have to purchase this land. To do otherwise, is a taking on the part of Plainfield. The Village is saying that the owner cannot use 600 of this land for any beneficial purpose. In other words, Plainfield is saying that the property is not suited for and can not be used for agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial or any use but open space. That open space must be paid for by someone. That would have to be a municipal authority. Plainfield's failure to offer to buy that land at this time amounts to nothing more than a constructive taking of that land by the municipal authority. The other item that needs to be looked at are the natural characteristics of the land in questions. For the most part, except for a creek running through the northeast corner of the property, this property is farmland. The topography is flat with no areas of trees or wetlands. In other words, it is perfect subdivision area. It is the kind of area where drainage problems can easily be addressed and houses can easily be built without impacting surrounding areas. One need only to look at the current Plainfield plan, the County plan and the current developmental trends in the area to determine what the future planning for the area should be. ' Both the current Plainfield plan and the County plan shows the area adjacent to and to the south and west of the intersection of 119th and Route 59 as single family residential. The current trends in that area indicate that this is in fact the development pattern. The dotted landscape in Wheatland Township shows the fast development of housing. New residential subdivisions are in demand and appear to sell lots and cause homes to be built as soon as the subdivisions are established. There is one housing development south of Wheatland along Route 59 that recently stated in a news release that they were selling homes even before any models were constructed. Within one mile north of this property, High Meadow and Saddlecreek are rapidly being developed. The housing demand continues to grow and will continue to grow. In conclusion, a look at the current Plainfield Plan seems to reflect a lack of understanding of the current developmental trends in the area and the development trends expected in the foreseeable future. The Village's planner stated that you are planning for 40 years from now. With this kind of planning, Plainfield is going to find that the people Village of Plainfield Page 3 of 3 in this area will not annex to Plainfield. Should Plainfield forcibly annex this property, the zoning forced upon the land owners, the owners may very well end up in suits with the municipality over the issue of taking. With the current status on the law of taking, it is most likely that the Village would be the loser in the matter. But then again, does anyone win with a case like this. I urge you not to approve this proposed Comprehensive Land Use*Plan as it is now written. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. SincFrel i yl 6-145aia D. Kramer # behalf of tree following land owners: Mrs. Leona Fry Rev. and Mrs. Robert Kramer Mr. Francis Reibel