Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-2014 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda D. Development Item Discussion of an application submitted by Southgate Development Services LLC for a preliminary plat of Sandhill Estates Parts 3 and 4, a 51-lot, 102.55 acre residential subdivision located on McCollister Boulevard, Covered Wagon Drive, and Langeberg Avenue. (SUB14-00014) E. Update on South District Plan Process F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 19, 2014 G. Planning &Zoning Information H. Adjournment Upcoming Planning &Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: August 7 / August 21 1 September 4 Informal: Scheduled as needed. STAFF REPORT To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Planning Intern Item: SUB14-00014 Sandhill Estates Parts 3 & 4 Date: July 17, 2014 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant: Southgate Development Services LLC 775 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City, Iowa 52246 139-337-4195 Property Owner: S G & M Properties LLC PO Box 1907 Iowa City, Iowa 52244-1907 319-337-4195 Contact Person: Jerry Waddilove 775 Mormon Trek Boulevard Iowa City, Iowa 52246 139-337-4195 Requested Action: Preliminary plat approval Purpose: Development of a 51 -lot, 5 outlot residential subdivision Location: East of Gilbert Street on McCollister Boulevard Size: 102.56 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped and Agriculture (OPD5) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential (RS-5) South: Agricultural (Unincorperated) East: Residential (OPD5 & RS-8) West: Residential and public (OPD5 & Pl) Comprehensive Plan: South District Plan: Low to moderate density residential, small lot single family and duplex Neighborhood Open Space District: S1 —Wetherby File Date: June 5, 2014 45 Day Limitation Period: August 9, 2014 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant, Southgate Development Services LLC, has requested preliminary plat approval of Sandhill Estates Parts 3 & 4, a 102.56-acre, 51-lot subdivision with 5 outlots located east of South Gilbert Street on McCollister Boulevard. Parts 1 & 2 of Sandhill Estates have already been developed as low density single-family residential. Part I is located to the west of the current proposal and Part 2 is located to the east, both on Langenberg Avenue. Development of Parts 3 & 4 will complete Langenberg Avenue. An OPD-5 rezoning and a preliminary plat for Sandhill Estates, which included the currently proposed Parts 3 & 4, were approved in 2004. At that time, the applicant requested rezoning the subject property from Interim Development Single Family (IDRS) and Interim Development Multifamily (IDRM) to Planned Development Housing -Single Family Residential (OPDH-5). A Planned Development rezoning was necessary to address the sensitive areas present on the property which included undisturbed sand prairie. This was granted with a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that required design review for certain lots that were smaller than the standard for the RS-5 zone and traffic improvements on Gilbert Street. To protect the sand prairie, Southgate Development dedicated 17.74 acres from the middle of the development to the City for prairie park land. To date, Parts 1 & 2 of Sanchill Estates have been developed. The remainder of the preliminary plat expired in 2006. The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy" and have not had discussions with neighborhood representatives. ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan future land use map indicates that the property is appropriate for single family residential uses. It also emphasizes that a well -designed neighborhood should have an interconnected street system in a modified -grid formation to reduce congestion and allow for pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods. The South District Plan indicates that detached, single family housing is appropriate for the center of residential neighborhoods. It also notes that open space should be easily assessable for residents. The proposed subdivision is generally consistent with the concept for this area as shown in the district and comprehensive plans. Current Zoning and Neighborhood Compatibility: The property is zoned Low Density Planned Development Overlay (OPD5). The purpose is to provide flexibility in preserving natural features while providing housing opportunities for individual households that will create, maintain, and promote livable neighborhoods. The underlying RS-5 zone requires a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and lot widths of 50 feet, The proposed lots range in size from 8,000 to 14,478 square feet. Lots widths range from 60 to 84 feet. The surrounding neighborhoods are single family zones with similar densities to the north, east, and west. Further east is denser single family development adjacent to the arterial Sycamore Street. Sandhill Estates also has access to significant open space with four parks in its immediate vicinity. Overall, the design of the subdivision is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Subdivision and Street Design: The proposed development meets all the specifications of our current subdivision regulations- Access to the north/south arterial Sycamore Street and east/west arterial McCollister Boulevard can be reached by the residential collector street Langenberg Avenue. In the future when additional faces of Sanhill Estates are plat, Covered Wagon Drive will also provide a connection through Brookwood Point to Sycamore Street. This will provide good street connections for the neighborhoods south of Wetherby Park. PC MGWff RepoM%sub!4�014 st�mpo�t d�docx The 2004-approved plat would not have passed current subdivision requirements with regards to block length, street width, and the use of cul-de-sacs. This is due to changes in the subdivision regulations. However, the Applicant has worked with City Staff to update the plat into a satisfactory design. All block lengths are under the 600 foot maximum to allow for good circulation of traffic, and pedestrian access is well -provided within the development with adequate sidewalks on both sides of streets. However, a sidewalk should be provided along McCollister Boulevard by OutlotF.' The subdivision also contains three large outlots reserved for future development: two to the west, and one to the north. Sensitive Areas: The outlots to the north and west of Parts 3 & 4 contain hydric soils. However, no sensitive areas are present in the proposed development, so addressing the requirements of building on hydric soil is not yet needed. In addition, the previous Sensitive Area Plan resulted in a large portion of the sand prairie being set aside as open space. Neighborhood Open Space: The requirements for neighborhood open space were satisfied when 17.74 acres of Sand Prairie Park were dedicated to the City. Stormwater Management: Stormwater management calculations have not yet been submitted to reflect the redesign. They must be submitted and reviewed by the City Engineer prior to the Commission's vote on the preliminary plat. Infrastructure fees: Required fees include a watermain extension fee of $415 per acre. There is no sanitary sewer tap -on fee for Parts 3 & 4. However, as the outlot to the north is developed, it will require a tap -on fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this application be deferred pending resolution of deficiencies noted below. Upon correction of these items, staff recommends that SUB14-00014, a request for preliminary plat approval of Sandhill Estates Subdivision Parts 3 & 4, a 51 -lot, 5-outlot, 102.56-acre residential subdivision located east of Gilbert Street on McCollister Boulevard, be approved. DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES: 1. Label stormwater detention basins and submit relevant calculations 2. Show a sidewalk adjacent to Outlot IF along McCollister Boulevard 3. Minor corrections identified by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat and Sensitive Areas Site Plan Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services PCMStaff Reports�subl,1�14 staff repW draft docx CITY OF ION CITY N tRMWOOO CIR= U165611 11 1! 1 f I, �� y OR ID-RM CHERRY Wetherby Pi pi Sand Proirie OPD/ Park 'RS1 2 PUBLIC FAA WORKS % COMPLEX Pi CC2 R F SITE LOCATION: Sandhill Estates SUB14-00014 PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLAN SANDHILL ESTATES t f f � � " - --- --- - --7-F I Z IOWA CITY, IOWA 1�71 Z� � % �� I I I -'�' LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 19 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Phoebe Martin, Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas MEMBERS ABSENT: Ann Freerks STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, John Yapp, Sara Greenwood Hektoen OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Synan, Bruce McDonald, Ann Synan, Dave Zahradnick RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: The Commission voted 4-2 (Thomas and Swyard opposed) to recommend approval of REZ14-00005, an application submitted by Allen Homes for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-5) zone and a preliminary sensitive areas development plan subject to general conformance with the plans submitted and subject to the final building design complying with the multi -family site design standards in the City Code Section 114-213. The Commission voted 5-1 (Martin opposed) to recommend approval of REZ14-00007, an application for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) and for the building's designation as a Historic Landmark subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement on the CB-2 height regulations at 203 N. Linn Street. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. Rezoning / Development Items: REZ14-00005: Discussion of an application submitted by Allen Homes for a rezoning of approximately 3.6-acres of property from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-5) zone to allow construction of an 11-unit multi- family building located at the NE corner of First Avenue and Hickory Trail. Yapp showed a map and aerial photo of the subject property and the surrounding neighborhoods. He directed the Commission's attention to a graphic submitted by the applicant showing the extent of the proposed development area and open space on the subject property, consisting of the creek along the east property line, the wetlands along the creek and a one - hundred foot wetland buffer. Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2014 Page 2 of 8 Yapp said that in response to the Commission's request at the last meeting, staff computed the average of single family and multi -family buildings in the Bluffwood neighborhood, which currently consists of approximately thirty-five percent multi -family dwellings and sixty-five percent single family dwellings. He said including the multi -family dwellings on the west side of First Avenue the numbers change to approximately forty-three percent multi -family and fifty- seven percent single family. He said the Bluffwood neighborhood's average is slightly less than the city-wide average and that of two comparable neighborhoods including the neighborhood along Court Street east of Scott Boulevard and the neighborhood along Mormon Trek Boulevard. Yapp said the Northeast District Plan states that townhouses and small apartment buildings are proposed at the edges of the neighborhood. He said that while this application is for is a multi- family dwelling it is not an increase in density in that eleven single family lots could be permitted on the subject property. Yapp said the applicant has clarified that the proposal is for nine three -bedroom units and two two -bedroom units. He said staff recommends approval subject to general conformance with the plans submitted and that the final building design complying with multi -family design standards. Eastham asked if the Comprehensive Plan is neutral about rental versus owner. Yapp said it is supportive of both types of housing. Eastham opened public discussion. Jesse Allen, the applicant, said the Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD) that he chose to zone this property is based on the Comprehensive Plan of the Northeast District. He said they are not impacting one tree on the site with the proposed design and they are also protecting all of the green space and the wetland and the stream corridor on the subject site. He said the Plan encourages energy efficient development, and he said this project will offer LEED lighting and high efficiency equipment. He said as an infill development, they will be able to connect bicycle and pedestrian traffic. He cited all the ways this development complies with the Neighborhood Planning Principals from the Northeast District Plan of 1998. Dyer asked what percentage of the property will be developed. Allen replied that out of the 3.59 acres they are impacting ten percent. Dyer asked about his choice of evergreen trees along the east side of the property instead of using a mix of varieties. Allen said they will use three different types of evergreens and that they chose them because they don't drop their leaves, but they will use whatever the City Forester approves. Eastham asked where the retaining walls will be located on the proposed design. Allen pointed out the two planned on the property and said the maximum height will be seven feet. Eastham asked if it's possible to terrace the retaining walls. Allen said that would be possible. Eastham asked if they will be excavating to provide parking under the building. Allen said they are using the natural slope of the land so there will be very little digging. Eastham asked if it would be possible to lower the height of the building. Allen said they could lower the building by changing the floor elevations, the wall heights or the roof design. He said that would compromise the design of the building and the spaciousness of the apartments. Bill Synan of 833 Cypress Court said vehicle traffic on the subject property will impact the privacy of single family homes in the Bluffwood Neighborhood. He showed several examples of other multi -family structures in the neighborhood that, unlike the proposed building, do not have vehicle traffic crossing behind single family homes. He said the two neighborhoods chosen for Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2014 Page 3 of 8 comparison in the staff report have factors coming into play that the Bluffwood Neighborhood does not. He said according to the Comprehensive Plan the predominant land use in the Bluffwood Neighborhood will be detached, single family residential. He said there are actually 176 single family units in this neighborhood and 178 multi -family units. Bruce McDonald of 855 Cypress Court said he was in favor of building duplexes on this site. Ann Synan of 833 Cypress Court read excerpts from new correspondence from residents Doug and Judy LeBreck urging the Commission to abide by the current City Master Zoning Plan and decline this request for another zoning variance which would allow construction of another multi- unit dwelling. She said she thinks duplexes would be better for the subject property. Dave Zahradnick of Neumann Monson Architects said from the beginning the developer wanted to preserve the green space on the subject property. He said they had a neighborhood meeting and that is what the majority of neighbors asked for. He said the way this development is being proposed is the right way to go in order to fit into the neighborhood and lessen its impact. Eastham closed public discussion. Thomas moved to recommend approval of REZ14-00005, an application submitted by Allen Homes for a rezoning from Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone to Planned Development Overlay (OPD-5) zone and a preliminary sensitive areas development plan subject to general conformance with the plans submitted and subject to the final building design complying with the multi -family site design standards in the City Code Section 14- 2B. Martin seconded. Martin said she likes the orientation of this development in that the least amount of land is being disturbed. She said she's a fan of more condensed building and maintaining that wetland area. Theobald said she agrees with Martin, but she does take issue with the landscape choices. She said conifers are not necessarily good in wet areas. She said she agrees with Dyer's idea about using a mix and being very careful about tree selection and thinks the applicant could really impress the neighborhood with landscaping. She said she thinks the design is a good use of the space. Eastham asked staff for clarification about how the City, in approving the final plat, will decide what trees to require. Miklo said the plan that they see is what they get, but if the Commission is concerned they can amend their motion to indicate the need for a mixture of trees. Theobald said she would like to do that. Theobald said she would encourage the applicant to take advantage of counsel from the City Forester. Yapp said staff would be happy to talk to the applicant about the landscaping plan. Dyer said a mixture of trees would be more in keeping with the trees already on the subject property and would be more natural. Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2014 Page 4 of 8 Thomas said the Northeast District Plan does reference the Comprehensive Plan's design guidelines for neighborhood development, and he said in the section "New Neighborhoods Diverse Housing Types" it states that "small multi -family lots of approximately 12,000-16,000 square feet of low density multi -family zoning are appropriate at the intersection of collector and arterial streets", which would be similar to Hickory Trail and First Avenue. He continued, "lots of this size will assure that the resulting apartments buildings will be no more than 4-6 units per building. Buildings of this size can be designed to be of a similar height and appearance as single family housing". He said this reveals an issue about the multi -family development on First Avenue, which is that even at low densities if the site is three or 3.5 acres the result can be a very large building. He said he thinks there is a disconnect on First Avenue between the multi- family buildings and the single family character of the Bluffwoocl Neighborhood that affects the overall integrity of BlufKA/ood. He said whatever the building type, it should contribute to a sense of wholeness within the neighborhood, and right now First Avenue feels separate and distinct from the neighborhood areas. He said the proposed project has a lot of positives but he can't accept the size of the building in that location as it's proposed. He said he thinks there is a compelling reason to argue for a smaller building or buildings. Thomas named a number of housing types allowed under RS-5 — duplexes, attached single family, attached zero lot line, and single family. Miklo clarified that the attached single family and attached zero lot line in the RS-5 zone is only on the corner lots. Thomas said there are good examples of multi -family along First Avenue. He said the subject site is a beautiful one and if the density is kept at five units per acre it's possible to develop it with only minor encroachment into the stream corridor. He said early development along First Avenue was done thoughtfully and then over time the desire to preserve open space and sensitive features has begun to override the compatibility of the building type with the neighborhood. He said right now the size of the proposed building is too big. Thomas explained that the Comprehensive Plan was saying that with multi -family development, if you want to limit the building size you limit the lot size. Miklo clarified that that referred to zoning something multi -family. He said this case is a little different in that you aren't zoning something multi -family but rather clustering something that's in the RS-5 zone. Thomas argued that you are ending up with a building that is a multi -family zone type building that he would place in a more highly developed area because of its size and the bulk. He said the key issue for him is if that if they don't regulate along the lines of building height and width on large lots, even if the density is low you can end up with a very large building that may no longer be compatible with the low density residential development around it. Eastham asked if eleven 1500 square foot buildings would be more desirable to Thomas for this space than a building of the proposed square footage. Thomas said to him it is a building scale and type issue. He said the types allowed under RS-5 all typically emphasize the individual household, with individual entries and more of a sense of individual identity to the housing unit. He said the key issue here is the transitional quality, an infill development fairly late in the development of the neighborhood on the edge of an existing residential neighborhood where you want to moderately increase the intensity of use. He said that suggests to him the types of building types you find provisionally allowed in an RS-5 neighborhood. He said multi -family might even work, depending on how you do it and based on the existence of successful multi -family in that neighborhood. He said there has been an emphasis on the overall density of the parcel without consideration of how that density is distributed over the property. He said when you concentrate that density in a small portion of the Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2014 Page 5 of 8 site, especially at a high elevation relative to the surrounding neighborhood, it's no longer going to feel like a transition but rather a distinctly different element within the area. Theobald said she understands Thomas's concern about the design and transition, and if you go along First Avenue, there are buildings that have been done much better than others. She said thirty-five feet isn't all that high though. She said she thinks this proposed project has the potential to use the site very well, and she is in favor of keeping more of the green space and loves that the trees will be preserved. Thomas said the building height could actually go as high as forty-two feet, but it's not all about the height. He said he does believe it's possible to develop the subject project in an interesting way and preserve all the qualities they want to. Martin said she likes the design before the Commission. She said for her this works as transition because of all the large buildings on the other side of First Avenue. Dyer said this is a good solution to infill development. She said First Avenue is an arterial and the Comprehensive Plan talks about multi -family dwellings on arterials. She said she likes the fact that there's only one driveway compared to the ten or twelve if there were single family dwellings planned. She said this proposed building is comparable in many respects to the building across Hickory Trail, which also preserves a lot of green space. She said it's not as if this proposed building is on the smallest dimension of the property or closer to the neighboring houses. She said it's a good solution in contrast to the building across the street. Swygard said she's gone out to the subject property, as have the other Commissioners, and she keeps going back to the Comprehensive Plan for this particular neighborhood. She said the Plan does say that it's largely single family with opportunities for duplexes or zero lot line integrated throughout and small-scale apartments located along arterial streets. She said the project does abut an existing single family neighborhood unlike some of the other developments along First Avenue. She said she thinks this proposed project affects that neighborhood more than some of the other projects along First Avenue. She said she can't support this particular plan because there has to be a little more balance in this area. She said it's very concentrated along First Avenue and she doesn't know how much more can be developed, and it reminds her of the top of Benton Street where it is lined with apartments to the point where it's uninteresting and not diverse and doesn't provide different housing types. Eastham said he thinks the Comprehensive Plan is an attempt by the community to decide how they are going to share their space, and the sharing is the key thing. He said he was already familiar with the area before he went out there and was invited into the backyard of a resident on Cypress Court for a view of the proposed site. He said he personally would like to see diverse housing types throughout a neighborhood. He said the Comprehensive Plan doesn't have a preference about housing type or ownership versus rental. He said the proposed project fits into the OPD zoning scheme for RS-5. He said that preserving the existing natural habitat on this side of First Avenue is of value. He said he is trying to determine how the design would balance out the preservation of green space. He said he doesn't think this is an unacceptable use of this space. Thomas said he didn't want to convey that he thinks this is a bad proposal, but he just can't accept it in its current form. He said how it might be more acceptable to the neighborhood is an extremely important part of this conversation as the residents are a measure of what's working and what isn't. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-2 with Thomas and Swygard opposed. Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2014 Page 6 of 8 REZ14-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Michael Hodge for a rezoning of approximately 4000 square feet of property from Central Business Service (CB-2) zone to Central Business support (CB-5) zone and Local Landmark Designation at 203 N. Linn Street. Miklo showed the subject property on the zoning map and from an aerial view. He said what is motivating this application is that the property is nonconforming in both zones in terms of parking requirements. He said the property has grandfathered rights for thirteen off-street parking spaces which would allow retail or office type uses but would not allow restaurant type uses. He said the applicant has requested the new zoning because the CB-5 zone does not require parking for commercial spaces, but does require parking for residential spaces on the upper floors. Miklo said the applicant has also requested Local Landmark Designation, meaning that the building would be protected unless the Historic Preservation Commission approved its removal. Miklo said because of concerns raised by the community about a larger building being developed on this site should the current building be destroyed by natural disaster, the applicant has agreed to a Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) that would limit the scale of the building to the current zoning in terms of CB-2. He said if the subject property is zoned CB-5 with the Landmark status and the CZA the building could only be rebuilt to the CB-2 standards. Miklo said the applicant has also agreed to place a condition on the rezoning that would go with the property should it be sold that would limit redevelopment to the CB-2 standards in terms of height. Miklo said the Comprehensive Plan clearly calls for preservation of historic buildings in this area. Dyer said preserving this building is a wonderful idea. Eastham opened public discussion. Mike Hodge, the owner of the building, gave a history of its uses and said he shares the sentiment of the neighborhood to be a historic neighborhood with a vibrant commercial area. Sarah Clark from the Northside Neighborhood Association said due to complications in communications, the neighborhood became aware of this application only at the last minute. She asked if the CZA will go with this property in perpetuity. Miklo said it will unless the City Council removes it. Eastham closed public discussion. Dyer moved to recommend approval of REZ14-00007, an application for a rezoning from Central Business Service (CB-2) zone to Central Business Support (CB-5) and for the building's designation as a Historic Landmark subject to a Conditional Zoning Agreement on the CB-2 height regulations at 203 N. Linn Street. Swygard seconded. Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 2014 Page 7 of 8 Martin said she would like to see this application deferred in order to hear what the neighborhood has to say about it. She cited a previous application for the Billon Auto site where the property had a CZA that wasn't upheld until the new owners wanted to improve something. Miklo explained that the application Martin referred to was sensitive areas issue not a Conditional Zoning Agreement. He said approval of this application may provide more flexibility in how the upper floors are remodeled because there are different parking requirements for residential densities in the CB-5 zone than there are for CB-2. Eastham observed that there is a City parking lot within a block of the subject building and questioned if there is adequate parking infrastructure to support this application. Yapp explained that there is on -street metered parking and there is also metered and permit parking in the City lot near this property. Swygard said she is fully in favor of the historic designation but is wondering about the residential parking requirements for CB-5 versus CB-2. A vote was taken the motion carried 5-1 with Martin opposed. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 5, 2014 Dyer moved to approve with minor corrections. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. Planning & Zoning Information There was none. Admournment Martin moved to adjourn. A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2013-2014 FORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 10/17 11/7 11/21 12/5 12/19 1/2 1/16 2/6 2/20 3/20 4/3 4/17 5/1 6/5 6/19 DYER,CAROLYN 05/16 O/E X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X FREERKS,ANN 05/13 X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 O/E X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X THEOBALD JODIE 05/18 X X X X X X X X X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 9/19* 1/2 1/13 2/3 2/20 DYER,CAROLYN 05/16 X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X X X FREERKS,ANN 05/13 X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X O/E X X SWYGARD, PAULA_�_ 0515 X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X X X X KEY: X = Present 0 = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused = Not a Member =Work Session