Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 04-28-1999Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting April 28, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mike Stulberg, Commissioners Allen Ribbe, Bob Stein, John Stoebner, and Sarah Reinhardt MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Roger Berkowitz and Bob Sipkins STAFF PRESENT: Planning Supervisor Barb Senness, Planners John Rask, Shawn Drill, and Kendra Lindahl, City Engineer Dan Faulkner, and Clerical Supervisor Denise Hutt 4 Approval of Minutes MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Reinhardt to approve the April 14, 1999 Planning Commission Minutes. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. (Chairman Stulberg abstained.) 5 Consent Agenda A D. J. Kranz Co., Inc. (99022) MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Reinhardt recommending approval of a Variance for D. J. Kranz for property located at 6050 Nathan Lane North. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. 6 Public Hearing Al Jem Properties (99017) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Jem Properties for: 1) a Rezoning from RSF-1 (Single Family Detached 1) to RSF-2 (Single Family Detached 2); and 2) a Preliminary Plat to allow the creation of six residential lots for property located east of County Road 101 and north of 6th Avenue. Planner Drill gave an overview of the April 21, 1999 staff report. Commissioner Reinhardt asked how far the existing homes are from County Road 101, and if they conform to the regulations. Planner Drill replied that the existing homes would have setbacks of 31 and 33 feet (instead of 50 feet) and would become lawfully non -conforming due to the required roadway dedication for County Road 101. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1999 Page #52 Commissioner Reinhardt asked how the rear setbacks of the existing homes compare to the proposed new homes. Planner Drill replied that they would exceed the standards. Chairman Stulberg introduced Dave Nash from McCombs Frank Roos, representing the petitioner. Mr. Nash stated that they concur with the staff report and are available for questions. Mr. Nash stated that because the current zoning is RSF-1 to the north and RSF-2 to the south and east of the proposed project, it makes sense to extend the RSF-2 district to this site. He stated that the majority of lots would meet the RSF-1 standards for lot area and width. Commissioner Reinhardt asked what size homes are planned for the lots. Mr. Nash replied that he was not sure yet. Chairman Stulberg opened the public hearing. Chairman Stulberg introduced Mike Uttormark of 615 Jewel Lane. Mr. Uttormark stated he was concerned with the creation of the pond and the drainage from it. He said that the area is quite wet, and at no time during the year can you walk through without sinking to your ankles in mud. He stated that he was concerned that the new homes and surface coverage will exacerbate the situation. Chairman Stulberg introduced Grant Heino of 705 County Road 101 North. Mr. Heino stated that he represents Wayzata Free Church. Based on the information presented, he withdrew his request to speak. Chairman Stulberg introduced Joseph Kruchten of 730 County Road 101 North. Mr. Kruchten stated that he is a co -applicant in this proposal and owns the north property that is part of the proposed plat. He stated that he would keep the back lot to build a new house for himself. He said that he has been very impressed with Jem Properties and is looking forward to building a new house. Commissioner Reinhardt asked how County Road 101 is classified on the transportation plan with respect to the transitions required for LA -1 guiding. Planner Drill said that County Road 101 is a minor arterial street. He said that the issue is a question of how the property is zoned within the current LA -1 guiding, which would not change. MOTION by Commissioner Reinhardt, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe to close the public hearing. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. 111 Stephen Merten (99021) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Stephen Merten for a Conditional Use Permit for access onto unimproved street right-of-way and setback Variances for property at the northwest quadrant of Kingsview Lane and 10th Avenue North. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1999 Page #53 Planner Lindahl requested that the item be tabled to the May 12, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Reinhardt, seconded by Commissioner Stoebner to table the item to the May 12, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. B2 Blanski Peter Kronlage & Zoch, P.A. (99025) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Blanski Peter Kronlage & Zoch, P.A. for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow schools in the O -R Zoning District and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to eliminate the condition limiting the number of students at West Lutheran High School. Planner Lindahl gave an overview of the April 22, 1999 staff report. Chairman Stulberg introduced John Edson, the petitioner. Mr. Edson concurred with the staff report. Mr. Edson gave a brief history of the prior applications made to the city regarding the site. He stated that they had not experienced any problems with traffic or complaints from surrounding residents. Mr. Edson said that the school has fit in well as a transition use for the O -R District. He stated that the school has proven that the 112 parking spaces is substantially more than what they have used. Mr. Edson stated that transportation is not provided for the students, and the majority of the students are located outside Plymouth. Mr. Edson stated that this application is a first step for them, as they are at capacity and want to increase the enrollment. He added that they are also in the process of putting together a building project for expansion that will include classrooms, cafeteria and other facilities. Chairman Stulberg stated that the school would have to come back to the city to ensure that they meet all the standards for the next phase. Mr. Edson commented that if the proposed application is approved, they will come back with another conditional use permit application for the expansion. Chairman Stulberg asked why the number of cars driven to school is so low compared to the public school, and wondered if it is due to enrollment being mainly lower grades. Mr. Edson replied that the senior class is the smallest. Chairman Stulberg wondered if the situation could change as the years go on. Mr. Edson responded that it could change but it still should not be a problem. Chairman Stulberg asked what would happen if 112 parking stalls don't accommodate the changing population. Mr. Edson stated that they would have a plan in place if that were the case, and that the expansion plan would include additional parking. Commissioner Stein asked why the state requires 10 acres per 100 students for public schools. Mr. Edson replied that the school doesn't have the athletic facilities that the public schools have, and that the state rules don't apply to private schools. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1999 Page #54 Chairman Stulberg opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the issue. MOTION by Commissioner Stoebner, seconded by Commissioner Stein recommending approval of an Ordinance amending the Plymouth City Code, by amending Chapter 21, O -R (Office/Residential) Zoning District and Findings of Fact for amending Section 21450 (O -R, Office/Residential) of the Plymouth City Code. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. MOTION by Commissioner Stoebner, seconded by Commissioner Reinhardt recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment amending Resolution 96-11 for Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Variance for West Lutheran High School for property located at 3350 Harbor Lane to remove a condition limiting enrollment to 150 students. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. 6113 Elim Care Foundation (99027) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Elim Care Foundation for a Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment to amend the grading plan as it affects the depths of wetlands on the site for property located south of Highway 55, between County Roads 24 and 101. Planner Rask gave an overview of the April 21, 1999 staff report. Commissioner Reinhardt asked what kind of wildlife would be found in Type 2 and 3 wetlands versus Type 4 wetlands. Planner Rask commented that the applicant would be able to provide that information. Commissioner Reinhardt asked if the revised plan would improve the overall quality of the wetland or just make it different. Planner Rask replied that it will be different, not necessarily better, but it will be an improvement over what is there now. Chairman Stulberg introduced Dan Fair, the petitioner. Mr. Fair stated that they have come back to the city to touch up on some final details that they think are significant. He said that they had planned on doing this early on, but discovered the cost was too significant so it had to wait. He stated that they have worked with staff on the issues to come up with alternatives. Ron Peterson of Peterson Environmental Consulting, representing the petitioner, stated that Type 3 and 4 wetlands would receive the same type of wildlife. There would be less use by Canadian geese, but would see more ducks, mallards, herons, egrets, and song birds. He stated that the fringe areas would be used by various mammals such as white tail deer. He stated that the depth of the wetland has been reduced along with the open water area. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1999 Page #55 Chairman Stulberg asked if there would be more vegetation with the lessor wetland depth. Mr. Peterson replied affirmatively stating that there will be more green area than the original proposal. Commissioner Stein asked if Type 4 wetlands eventually become overgrown or remain open water. Mr. Peterson replied that over a period of approximately 20-30 years a Type 4 wetland may become a Type 3 wetland. Commissioner Reinhardt asked if the future residents have been advised of the proposed change to the wetland. Mr. Fair replied that the original marketing brochures show the open water wetland. He said that they are getting the information out to the people about the change. He commented that 50 units have been reserved so far. Chairman Stulberg opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the issue. MOTION by Commissioner Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe recommending approval of a PUD Amendment for Elim Care to allow a change in the grading plan for Cornerstone Commons; an Ordinance amending Chapter 21 of the City Code to amend Section 21655.22; and Findings of Fact for amending the Zoning Ordinance text for the Cornerstone Commons PUD, located south of Highway 55, north of Medina Road and east of County Road 101. Commissioner Reinhardt stated that she would support the motion with some reservations due to a personal preference that more open water is more attractive. She stated that the application meets the spirit and the intent of the PUD, and does understand the economics involved, but the residents that have put a deposit down did so based on the original plan. Chairman Stulberg noted that the wetland is not diminishing, just the amount of open water. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. 6114 Rottlund Homes (99030) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Rottlund Homes for a Preliminary Plat to replat four townhome lots at Cornerstone Commons located south of Highway 55, between County Roads 24 and 101. Planner Rask gave an overview of the April 21, 1999 staff report. Chairman Stulberg introduced Dustin Kern, the petitioner. Mr. Kern stated his appreciation for the cooperation of the staff, Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Kern stated that he concurs with the staff report. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1999 Page #56 Commissioner Reinhardt asked if the townhome residents will be able to use the community building. Mr. Kern replied affirmatively. Chairman Stulberg opened and closed the public hearing as there was no one present to speak on the issue. MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Reinhardt recommending approval of a Preliminary Plat for Rottlund Homes for "Cornerstone Commons 2nd Addition" for property located north of Medina Road, south of Highway 55, and east of County Road 101. Roll Call Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. Chairman Stulberg called a recess at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:13 p.m. 7 New Business A Darrell Nastrom (99005) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Darrell Nastrom for a Variance to have a one -foot setback for a driveway where three feet is required, and a Variance to have a 5.8 foot setback for a garage where six feet is required for property located at 18105 County Road 24. Planner Rask gave an overview of the April 21, 1999 staff report. Commissioner Ribbe asked if the garage will have to be removed if the garage variance is denied. Planner Rask stated that it will have to be moved two inches to comply with the six foot setback. Commissioner Reinhardt asked if iron markers move over time. Planner Rask stated that a surveyor goes by a benchmark, marks off the lot, and places iron monuments. He stated that the iron markers could have been set incorrectly or it's possible that an incorrect iron was used. Planner Rask stated that the survey done by the applicant is off slightly from what is shown on the actual plat. He said that the city doesn't have the authority to intervene in property line disputes. Commissioner Reinhardt commented that it sounds like surveying is not an exact science. Planner Rask stated that it is pretty accurate and properties are replatted. Commissioner Ribbe asked when the survey was done. Planner Rask stated that the survey was done in January or February of this year and the original plat was done in the 1950s. Chairman Stulberg introduced Darrel Nastrom, the applicant. Mr. Nastrom stated that he applied for a building permit, and talked to the neighbor west of his property as he knew where the property marker was and had a survey done. He said he marked his property Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1999 Page #57 line and starting digging and hit an iron. He said just to be sure, he proposed to locate the garage nine feet from the property line. Mr. Nastrom stated that his neighbor didn't think it was right, and had his own survey done. Mr. Nastrom said that the surveyor went back to Lots 9 and 10 and went from their irons. Mr. Nastrom stated that he had already poured the driveway before the neighbor's survey was done. He said that he didn't think he had to live up to the three foot setback since he had a contract for a shared driveway. Mr. Nastrom said that he has agreed to cut the driveway off to a one foot setback. Mr. Nastrom stated that he and the neighbor disagree with what the shared driveway means and what he is allowed to do. Commissioner Reinhardt asked if there was any division of the driveway along the common lot line prior to the pouring the concrete drive. Mr. Nastrom stated that the driveway was all gravel and didn't have any division, and that it crossed over the common lot line. Commissioner Stein asked if the survey Mr. Nastrom had done went all the way back to the county marks. Mr. Nastrom said that his surveyor went one house farther west than the neighbor's survey and he came up with the same thing. Commissioner Reinhardt asked if the driveway agreement means that Mr. Nastrom and his neighbor use the same driveway. Mr. Nastrom stated that the driveway agreement reads that the person of Lot 12 can use the easterly side of Lot 11. Commissioner Reinhardt asked if there is space available to the left of the house to park a vehicle and still get access to the garage. Mr. Nastrom stated that the space would be only to come and go. Chairman Stulberg commented that the Commission is only looking at the variance issue, and that they have to go by the survey that was submitted with the application. He said that no matter where the lot line is established, the Commission needs to consider the variances as submitted by the applicant. Chairman Stulberg introduced Richard Tonn of 18025 County Road 24. Mr. Tonn stated that one of the things that caused this problem is that Mr. Nastrom didn't provide the building department with a recent survey. Mr. Tonn said that the person that used to live at the Nastrom's property told him where the lot line was. He stated that Mr. Nastrom mentioned to him what he wanted to do, and he told him where the property line marker may be, but advised him that a survey should be done. Mr. Tonn said that his survey cost 315, which is not a lot of money to find out where the lot lines are. He stated that the people that resided at the Nastrom property passed away and the granddaughter, Kim Prodaul, bought the home but couldn't get a mortgage without a driveway agreement. He said that the asphalt driveway was installed in the late 1950s. Mr. Tonn said that he agreed to the agreement but on the condition that it contained specific criteria. Mr. Tonn stated that the shared driveway only pertained to the existing asphalt driveway, nothing beyond that point. Mr. Tonn requested that both variances be denied and that the Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1999 Page #58 applicant be required to move the garage so it has a nine -foot setback and correct the driveway to a three-foot setback. Mr. Tonn presented pictures of the site depicting what would need to be removed on the driveway. Mr. Tonn stated that if there is a disagreement over important facts then the city should require an additional survey to clear the matter up before the item moves forward. Mr. Tonn stated that he disagrees with the staff report in that the garage variance should be changed to from 5.8 feet to 5.5 feet. Mr. Tonn stated that he measured the setback and found that the garage is 5.5 feet from the lot line, not 5.8 feet. In looking at the staff's review of the standards for the garage variance, Mr. Tonn stated that he agrees with Items 1 and #2. He stated that #3 should read six inches, not two inches, based on his measurement of the setback. Mr. Tonn stated that this location is used for a construction business run by Mr. Nastrom. Mr. Tonn stated that he agreed with item #4. Mr. Tonn stated that he disagreed with item #5 as the elevation of the top of the foundation is too high, and that it would be difficult to get anything but weeds to grow on the back hill slope. He said that surface water from the north end of the Nastrom property drains south and spread out across the back of Nastrom's lot, but with the concrete driveway, it is pitched to his property, and erosion is already evident. Mr. Tonn said that if a nine foot setback is required the water runoff wouldn't affect his property. Mr. Tonn stated that he disagreed with item #6 as the area to the east of applicant's building, bordering on Lot 13, is shaded by trees in the morning, and now will be shaded by the garage in the afternoon. Mr. Tonn stated that he agreed with item #7, but would add that there are no circumstances that would prevent a nine -foot setback. Chairman Stulberg interjected that the Commission can't impose a nine foot setback as the ordinance standard is six feet. In staff s review of the standards pertaining to the driveway variance, Mr. Tonn stated that he disagrees with item #1, as the asphalt driveway and gravel have been used for 30 years, and it is more than a mere inconvenience to make the transition. Mr. Tonn said that he agrees with item #2. He stated that he disagrees with item #3, as the request is based exclusively to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. He stated that Mr. Nastrom is an owner of Carlson Victor and Sons, Inc. and is operating this business out of his home. He said that he may be allowed to do so, but there are restrictions on storing machinery on the property, and restrictions on off street parking and home occupations contained in the ordinance. He stated that Mr. Nastrom uses a 30 - foot trailer to haul equipment with a'/z ton truck and needs the area for turning and maneuvering. He stated that he disagreed with item #4 as the difficulty is caused by the applicant wanting to pull heavy equipment on a long driveway and to provide turning room to get to the garage. Mr. Tonn said that the applicant was informed that the driveway must comply with a three foot setback. Mr. Tonn disagreed with item #6 stating that if the variance is approved it will do great harm by the heavy equipment that is hauled in and out of the site. Mr. Tonn disagreed with item #7 stating that if the applicant saws the driveway off so it is legal that the applicant may not like the looks of the driveway. Mr. Tonn said that he has offered to rescind the driveway agreement. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1999 Page #59 Chairman Stulberg stated that the driveway agreement is a private matter that the city can't get involved in. Commissioner Stoebner asked Mr. Tonn if a surveyor made the determination of the distance of the encroachment into the setback area. Mr. Tonn said that he himself made the determination from the corner stakes placed by the surveyor that he hired. He then stretched a line across the center line. Mr. Tonn said that he didn't know where the measurements contained in the staff report came from. Planner Rask stated that a building inspector and a staff member from the engineering department did the measurements based on the survey supplied by Mr. Nastrom. Mr. Nastrom commented that he had a truck parked on the property all winter that was being used for a dumpster during the construction of the garage. He said that he had construction equipment on the property because of the building permit that he applied for. He said that once the work is done, there won't be any equipment on the property. Chairman Stulberg asked the applicant if he is aware of the home occupation ordinance. Mr. Nastrom stated that he only has an office out of the home, but he would check with staff to ensure that he is in compliance. Commissioner Stoebner asked Mr. Nastrom if he is a shareholder in the company mentioned by Mr. Tonn. Mr. Nastrom replied that he is the owner, but the actual business is located in Shakopee, which has plenty of storage space. Commissioner Reinhardt asked where the driveway would come out if the amount of concrete is cut out for a three foot setback. Mr. Nastrom replied it would be about the middle of the asphalt driveway. Commissioner Stoebner asked if the applicant still intends on removing concrete if the variance is granted. Mr. Nastrom stated that he will agree with the survey and will cut off what is needed for a three-foot setback. Commissioner Stein asked if staff measured from where the surveyor did. Planner Rask replied that staff took the survey that was submitted from the applicant, located the markers and measured from there. Commissioner Reinhardt asked when a new survey is required. Planner Rask replied that a certified survey is required for construction of a new home. He said that for other type of building permit applications, such as decks, garages, sheds and other improvements, the applicant can indicate their intentions on a plat survey. Planner Rask further explained that the property owner must identify the property corners. Mr. Tonn asked if the Planning Commission can take a look at prohibiting the hip roof barns (garage) in the zoning ordinance. He said that there is a paragraph in the Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1999 Page #60 comprehensive plan that mandates that the Planning Commission to ensure that new development is consistent with what is already there. Chairman Stulberg said that the city is relatively restrictive in what is allowed to be done and it has to be done within the ordinance standards. MOTION by Commissioner Reinhardt, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe recommending approval of a 5.8 foot garage variance for Darrel Nastrom for property located at 18105 County Road 24. Commissioner Reinhardt stated that the applicant made an effort by applying for a building permit and staff performed a footing inspection and found it to meet setbacks. Substitute MOTION by Commissioner Stoebner, seconded by Commissioner Reinhardt recommending approval of a 5.5 foot garage variance as opposed to a 5.8 -foot setback to account for the lot line discrepancy. Commissioner Stein said that he would support the motion. Chairman Stulberg asked why the staff uses decimals versus feet and inches. Planner Rask stated that is how measurements typically appear on surveys. Chairman Stulberg said he would support the motion, as he thinks the variance is appropriate and meets the standards. Commissioner Ribbe stated that he doesn't believe that the garage violates the spirit of the ordinances and it would be unreasonable to impose a requirement that the applicant move the building 6 to 12 inches. Commissioner Stoebner said he would support the motion but doesn't condone the use of this structure to be used for commercial or business use. He stated that the city has ordinances and the power to monitor that type of use, and that the applicant should take this issue to heart. Roll Call Vote on Substitute MOTION. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. MOTION by Commissioner Stoebner, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe recommending approval of a variance for a one foot driveway for Darrell Nastrom for property located at 18105 County Road 24. Commissioner Stein asked if it is possible to provide a reasonable transition for a three foot setback. Planner Rask stated that the driveway would have to be tapered for the transition and add more concrete to the west side of the property. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1999 Page #61 Commissioner Reinhardt stated that she is not sure that a three foot setback is a hardship as a lot of concrete will have to come out regardless, therefore; she would support a three foot setback. Commissioner Stoebner said he would support the motion as it is a unique circumstances because of the shared driveway and he is not in favor of having more concrete poured on the west side of the property. Chairman Stulberg said he wouldn't support the motion. He stated that the driveway can work without the concrete. He stated that the transition will be tough and something may have to be done on the west side to offset the transition. Roll Call Vote. 2 ayes. MOTION failed on a 2-3 Vote. (Commissioners Reinhardt, Stein and Chairman Stulberg voted Nay.) MOTION by Chairman Stulberg, seconded by Commissioner Reinhardt recommending denial of a one foot driveway variance for Darrell Nastrom for property located 18105 County Road 24. Roll Call Vote. 3 Ayes. (Commissioners Ribbe and Stoebner voted Nay.) B Griffiths Corporation (99020) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Griffiths Corporation for a Site Plan Amendment for an approximately 38,000 square foot building addition and parking lot expansion and a Variance for 39 percent building coverage where 35 percent is the maximum permitted for property located at 2727 Niagara Lane North. Planner Lindahl gave an overview of the April 21, 1999 staff report. Commissioner Reinhardt asked what the reason is for the lower building coverage for the I-1 Zoning District. Planning Supervisor Senness replied the lower building coverage promotes more openness to the area. Chairman Stulberg introduced John Karwacki, the petitioner. Mr. Karwacki stated that he concurred with the staff report. MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Stoebner recommending approval of a Site Plan Amendment and Variance for a building addition and parking lot expansion at the Wrico building located at 2727 Niagara Lane North. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved unanimously. C Comprehensive Plan Work Session and Draft Comprehensive Plan Goals Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 1999 Page #62 Planning Supervisor Senness stated the consultant is basically looking for a global reaction to the vision goal statements. Chairman Stulberg asked when the City Council would be giving their feedback. Planning Supervisor Senness replied they will discuss the issue at their May 4th meeting. She stated that any comments made by the Commissioners will be forwarded to the City Council. Ms. Zimmer stated that she is asking the Commission to receive and accept the summary and goal statements. She stated that the entire Comprehensive Plan will be coming back for formal approval, but they need some assurance that the direction and goals are in order. Ms. Zimmer gave an overview of the goal statements. Chairman Stulberg stated that the summary report from the March 31st meeting did a good job of capturing what happened that evening. He said that the vision statements likewise captured what the participants voiced at the meeting. Commissioner Reinhardt concurred. He emphasized the importance of following the vision statements with proposed actions/implementation. Commissioner Ribbe noted concern about the vision statement supporting quality education and what role the city might be committing to in carrying out that vision. Commissioner Stein agreed with the goal statements. He asked if there was a lot of public input at the meeting. Chairman Stulberg replied that there were about four people from the public in attendance. Chairman Stulberg stated that it will be important to continue to communicate better with all members of the community. Ms. Zimmer said that there will be opportunities later in the process when the comprehensive plan will be taken out to public meetings. Ms. Zimmer stated that a shorter summary of the March 31st meeting has been placed in the Northwest Notes and an article will be in next Plymouth News. Chairman Stulberg stated that it would be nice if the Sun -Sailor would publish the same article. Commissioner Reinhardt asked if it would be possible to get a name tag or business card for identification purposes when she is doing site checks. Planning Supervisor Senness said that she would look into that. Commissioner Reinhardt requested larger graphics for the Jem Properties application for the next meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Stoebner, seconded by Commissioner Reinhardt to adjourn. Vote. 5 Ayes. The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m.