Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z 11.05.15.pdfMINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 2015 – 7:00 PM – FORMAL EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Max Parsons, Jodie Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Karen Howard, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Digmann, Josh Entler, Jerry Eyman RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of an application submitted The Crossings Development, LC for a rezoning from Interim Development Research Park (ID- RP) zone to Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Cardinal Pointe West - Part 1, a 31-lot, 16.3 acre residential subdivision for property located south of Kennedy Parkway, west of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of the requested rezoning of 3.72 acres from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R) conditioned on the requirement for a shared driveway. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were none REZONING ITEM (REZ15-00020): Discussion of an application submitted by HD Capital Partners, LLC for a rezoning from Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Riverfront Crossings - Central Crossing Subdistrict (RFC-CX) zone for approximately 1.03 acres of property located at 602, 604, 608, 610, 614, 620, 628 South Dubuque Street. Howard began the staff report showing a location map of the area. The properties are currently zoned CC-2 and the request is to rezone the properties to Riverfront Crossings – Central Crossing Subdistrict RFC-CX. The current zoning is Iowa City’s general commercial zoning which calls for low scale commercial buildings with a maximum building height of 35 feet. There are no specific standards for buildings and parking other than a 10 foot front setback. Typically in most Community Commercial zones parking is located between the building and the street because they tend to be in more auto oriented locations. The current zone requires commercial buildings but is also a mixed-use zone in that residential apartments can be above the commercial by special exception. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 2 of 12 Howard said that the requested zoning in Riverfront Crossings allows a broad mix of residential and commercial uses and buildings. The maximum building height is four stories with a 10 foot façade step back above the third story. There can be additional stories if the developer qualifies for bonus heights up to four additional stories. Howard explained that the southern half of the South Dubuque Street block in question is a required retail frontage so it has to be built as a mixed-use building or a commercial building with store front frontage. There cannot be any residential units on the ground floor within a required retail frontage area, which is specified on the regulating plan in Riverfront Crossings. The reason that requirement is in this location is because there was an existing commercial building in that location which is close to what was the transit hub there and the Rock Island train depot. At the time of the Riverfront Crossings plan development there was still hope that there would be Amtrak service on that railway. Howard explained that there are quite a few building standards in the Riverfront Crossings Form-based Code that must be met, including façade articulation and composition, minimum window coverage and design for both residential and commercial buildings, entrance way and frontage standards, building material standards, awning and canopy standards, and location standards for mechanical equipment to ensure they are screened from the street. The Central Crossings Subdistrict is the center of the Riverfront Crossings Zone so the Comprehensive Plan that applies to the area highlights some of the defining features of this subdistrict, including the two rail lines, the historic Rock Island Rail Depot, and Ralston Creek. The master plan objectives encourage contextual buildings, meaning that it should maintain a rhythm of facade articulation and appropriate frontage and building types in context to its location. Additionally it should restore and enhance conditions along Ralston Creek and provide a mix of residential and retail uses and to promote new housing options for the area. The development character that is expressed in the Plan is to improve the quality of residential design and to maintain the moderate scale and intensity of use in this area. Howard showed the existing block plan and pattern and new development should respond to that design and character. In general the conceptual plans show the blocks with buildings that have mid-block open spaces. In the Code the terms mid-block breaks, such as forecourts or open air pedestrian passages and Howard showed photos of examples from other cities of such areas. She also noted that the mid-block pedestrian passageways are necessary for the retail spaces, if the parking is in the back of the building, there needs to be a way to get to the front of the building where the entrances to the retail spaces are. Howard said that Staff discussed with the applicant rather than doing a block long development there is an opportunity to do some of those urban spaces within this block face. The applicant was agreeable and Howard showed a preliminary site plan the applicant’s architect created. It would be a U shaped building with a private courtyard in the center for the residents. Due to the topography of the area, the space would allow for underground parking for the building. Staff recommends approval of REZ15-00020, a proposal to rezone approximately 1.03 acres of property located within the 600 block of South Dubuque Street from Community Commercial {CC- 2} to Riverfront Crossing-Central Crossings (RFC-CX), subject to a conditional zoning agreement requiring a minimum 30-foot wide pedestrian passage or a mid-block forecourt frontage with minimum dimensions of 30' x 30' is established upon redevelopment. Freerks asked if there was any information on proposed building height for the conceptual Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 3 of 12 development at this area. Was there an idea of the number of units and mix bedrooms. Martin asked how the developer could get bonus heights on buildings. Howard replied the Code allows for bonus height for Leed buildings, affordable housing, elderly housing, protecting historical properties, and art donation to Riverfront Crossings. She noted this area would not qualify for historic building bonus nor student housing bonuses due to the location. Theobald asked about the 30 foot wide passage or a courtyard and if that was one or the other or could it be both. She said the staff recommendation includes one or the other but not both. Howard said Staff discussed the requirement in their recommendation prior to discussing with the applicant and their architect creating a conceptual plan. Howard stated if there is a courtyard, the Code does require minimum dimensions for the size of courtyards. Freerks said that is why she would like to see a little bit more information about what is planned. Eastham noted that in the Comprehensive Plan for this area, the block in question shows more green space than what is being shown in the conceptual plan for this development. Eastham asked about the amount of green space compared to the overall Riverfront Crossings Plan. Freerks agreed and is concerned the area will just be filled with large structures and that development will not be in character with what is shown in the Riverfront Crossings Plan. Eastham asked if this rezoning is approved is Staff developing a design concept the next step. Howard answered that no, Staff does not develop the design concept, they would respond to an application of a possible building concept for the property. Eastham asked if at the time Staff could negotiate more green space. Howard stated Staff can only enforce what is in the Code, if the Commission wanted more green space than what is shown or required by the code, it would have to be a condition of the rezoning. Currently in Riverf ront Crossings there is an open space requirement, it is 10 square feet per bedroom so the application must meet that requirement. She said the concept plan probably far exceeds what is required by code for open space. Freerks opened the public hearing. Kevin Digmann (HD Capital Partners) said that Karen did a good job of describing their plan. He explained their concept plan for the site. First he said the site will be developed in phases with building A first then building B will be later so there will naturally be a courtyard between them. He also noted the maximum the width of the buildings will be is 60 feet, and may very well be narrower which would provide more than the 30 foot required passage way. Additionally building B would have commercial frontage along Dubuque Street. Freeks noted that the Comprehensive Plan discusses current business placement. She said that we said we would address that as the area redevelops and feels that was lost in this plan on both the applicant’s and City’s part. Freerks is concerned about the existing businesses on this property and the Comprehensive Plan specifically states “as areas transition to more mixed- use pedestrian focus strategies should be developed to help businesses remain in the area or assist them to find new locations that better meet their business goals”. Freerks would like some thought in the community regarding these existing businesses. She said that it may not be the applicant’s job to address it, but is the City’s. She would like some thought given to this by staff. If we don’t we are ignoring what we said in the Plan. Digmann asked if what the existing businesses there that Freerks is speaking of. Freerks said yes that is something that was talked about when we draft the Riverfront Crossings Plan. She Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 4 of 12 said we have the small business there like the Broken Spoke bike shop and the shoe repair business. She said that it was not necessarily the developers problem, but one that the City said would be addressed in the plan. Digmann said they have had discussions with all the current businesses on the property. He said they have Kennedy Plaza nearby and offered to relocate them. Some they had already had found another place and some said they had not. Additionally he noted the businesses that are currently on the property take up less than a fourth of the total property being developed. Digmann also noted those businesses are in their locations for next to nothing rents and any development would change that factor. Dyer noted the businesses in that area have all been there for quite some time. Digmann said they are willing to extend the current leases for the businesses to May of 2017. Freerks replied that she is being upfront with her concerns. She would like to see a concept plan before voting on this rezoning application. She does not want to vote it down because of lack of information, but is not ready to vote on it at this time. Digmann noted he was encouraged by City Staff not to bring the concept plan at this time. Freerks noted that the staff is not voting on the application. Digmann understands but noted he watched the rezoning go through on the Nagle property. Freerks answered that the Nagle property did not deviate from what we had outlined in the Riverfront Crossings Plan for that area. She emphasized it matched the Plan closely and in this application it is deviating from the Plan with the removals of the cottages, removal of most of the green space as shown in the Plan and finally removal of the businesses. Additionally the concept does not show the scale of the building, the heights, density, etc. All those are questions for which she is requesting more information. Martin asked why the zoning being requested is Riverfront Crossings status rather than CC-2 zoning. Digmann said the request is because the area is Riverfront Crossings and that is the best fit for the area. They could do something similar to what they did at the Depot lot which is PRM but knows that request would be denied by the City. He also feels that CC-2 would be denied and Freerks agreed and said that the applicant going for Riverfront Crossings zoning is the best for them as they will get more benefits in density. Martin said she asked the question because the work that went into creating the Riverfront Crossings made so many opportunities for the community and she wants to hear how this project fits into the community. What does that mean for this project. Digmann said their goal is to create a quality project and market it successfully. He said we are experienced developers who did Sycamore Mall and Old Capitol Mall. We have done lots of residential projects. We aren’t here to just put up cheap student housing. We want to do a quality project like the pictures that Karen has shown. We will be providing additional housing downtown, new business spaces, and provide what the community needs and wants. We have a lot invested in this community and want to do quality. Martin noted that the conceptual plan shown is not in the same quality as other project Digmann’s group has done around the City and that is her concern. She was surprised when she saw it. Digmann noted that it costs tens of thousands of dollars to create such plans so they are trying to stay within the Code and Comprehensive Plan (noting yes things have changed with the cottages gone). Freerks noted that for the applicant to say it’s going to be quality buildings and an upgrade for the site needs to be confirmed with the plans noting that the trust Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 5 of 12 level with regards to this property is low. Digmann said he can’t help with what the prior owner did. Digman asked what further information the Commission wanted to see. Freeks explained that the Commission is asking for more information about the concept for the property, a more detailed site plan with schematics of what the buildings would look like and how they will lay out on the property, how tall the buildings will be and the approximate density. Martin asked how the concept connects to downtown. Freerks noted the current concept plan shows no guarantee to even meet the Staff recommendation. Digmann said they would be willing to do a CZA (Conditional Zoning Agreement) stating their concept must comply with the particular code. Freerks noted it is not uncommon for the Commission to ask for more detailed information as they only want what will be positive for the community. Digmann understands but asked what assurances they would have if they invest in more detailed plans. Freerks said we refer to the examples in the photos, but there is no guarantee that anything like that will be built. W ith more substantial plans the Commission would be better equipped to understand the plans and be able to vote accordingly. Freerks said perhaps she was the only Commissioner who was concerned with this. Eastham agreed he shared these concerns. Dyer noted her concern is that block shown on the Comprehensive Plan shows more green space and the conceptual plan is big blocks of buildings and very little green space. Digmann pointed out with regards to the green space it is really a misnomer because the space elevation changes 20 feet, so it is not usable green space. Freerks acknowledged that but noted it is still green space and part of the property landscape. Hensch noted that the property topography is steep, it has a significant drop off and a part of it is hard packed gravel. He feels the proposal is already an improvement to what is there currently. He did agree though it would be useful to see building heights, open space is also important to him and more details would be helpful, but noted it is a tough space to develop with the gravel and elevation changes and feels the form-based design gives good directions but understands if people want to see more of a concept. Digmann explained his frustration is they meet with the City and follow the direction of Staff not to submit a concept plan. Freerks asked if Staff instructed the applicant to not present more of a concept plan. Digmann said John Yapp and Doug Boothroy did. Parsons stated he doesn’t necessarily want the applicant to have to spend a lot of money on this but agrees that the schematic may show the back portion and the cross through. He also noted that the staff recommendation and the current concept plan are not consistant. Dyer noted that other developers do present more detailed plans with elevations and more details. Howard noted that there is sensitivity to this block because of the cottages and Freerks said it is more than just the cottages that and there are a number of changes to this area from what was visualized in the Riverfront Crossings Plan so it’s not just about the cottages and she wanted to make that clear. Hektoen noted that the Commission’s job is to vote on if this application is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and asking for more information is just to clarify questions in that regard. Eastham noted the illustration in the Comprehensive Plan for this block is not in line with what is being shown in the applicant’s concept plan. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 6 of 12 Howard said what she is hearing is that the Commission would like to see how more opens space might be incorporated into this block. Freerks and other commissioners said yes and Freerks noted she would like to see a drawing or schematic of what a structure might look like. Martin asked if the proposed concept would be LEED certified or what type of quality would the building be as just stating “quality” can be subjective. She also stated that with Riverfront Crossings it is the perfect opportunity to do something creative and innovative. Digmann said it would not be LEED certified as that is typical for an office type building but all their buildings are of high quality and the Commission is welcome to tour their buildings. Martin said that she wanted more of an understanding of what quality means, it can be subjective. Martin noted she is interested in articulation of the structure and hopes to see examples and specifics they can see so they know it will be a positive project for the area. Freerks is interested in the height and scale. Digmann said he could say now that the height would be four stories with the fourth story setback. Freeks appreciated that but that was not specified in the Staff report and recommendation so that is not what they would be voting on tonight. She is also interested in more green space and how this building will sit on the property and the streetscape in terms of mass and scale. Freerks also asked what the mix of bedrooms would be, if they would be three-bedroom units, one-bedroom units. Digmann answered it would likely be a blend but noted that until they do definitive construction documents at scale they will not know the specific mix of units. Freerks understands that but asked for what is the applicant’s goal. Dyer agreed and noted that usually the applicants do come forward with more information. She also wanted to know if there would be some affordable housing, is it LEED certified, are sustainable building practices used, these are all questions the Commission reviews and in this application there is none of that information. Dyer noted this is a valuable piece of property to the community. Freerks said it is a major up-zoning. Digmann agreed and said he is not trying to be argumentative but looking at everything else in the Riverfront Crossings District that gets zoned, it is some type of up-zoning. Freerks agreed but reiterated that is why they need to see more details. Eastham reiterated that the illustration of this block in the Riverfront Crossings Plan and the illustration shows some type of commercial building along Dubuque Street, a couple of buildings on the north, the three cottages (which we know are now gone) and the concept in the application tonight is basically two large building with little open space. He said he did not expect development to match the Riverfront Plan exactly, but would like to see some notation as to why there is a deviation from that Plan. Additionally what that deviation means to the rest of the development to the Riverfront Crossings area in terms of streetscape and green space, not just the building appearance. Howard said the reason the illustration in the Comprehensive Plan was shown that way was to highlight the possibility of the preservation of the Cottages. That is why there was not a redevelopment plan for this block. Clearly that has not occurred so now it is important to figure out what would be appropriate for this site. Freerks agreed that the plan does not need to match the Riverfront Plan exactly, but feels it is from one extreme to the other. Knowing the Cottages are not there, perhaps now more green space can be achieved, or ways to address the existing businesses. Those are the deviations she is concerned about from the Comprehensive Plan to the applicant’s concept. Digmann asked if the buildings in the illustration were higher heights than what his concept shows. Digmann pointed out things change and that his concept is not the only deviation to the Comprehensive Plan. Freerks said they are saying this concept is deviating in a number of Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 7 of 12 ways and in the discussion of the Nagle property there were no deviations. Digmann stated he is willing to come back to the next meeting with answers and more details as requested this evening, but wanted to note that at this stage of the project that won’t have exact plans. Freerks said she understood that but the applicant now knows what the Commission is looking for. Freerks closed the public hearing. Eastham moved to defer this item until the November 5, 2015 meeting. Dyer seconded the motion. Freeks noted the discussion has been constructive and informative. She asked if there was anything else the Commission would like to add. Parsons said that this is too important of a block to take lightly. Martin added that opportunity for this property is very important for the Riverfront Crossings Plan. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. REZONING/DEVELOPMENT ITEM (REZ15-00018/SUB15-00023): Discussion of an application submitted The Crossings Development, LC for a rezoning from Interim Development Research Park (ID-RP) zone to Low Density Single Family (RS- 5) zone and a preliminary plat of Cardinal Pointe West - Part 1, a 31-lot, 16.3 acre residential subdivision for property located south of Kennedy Parkway, west of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Miklo began the staff report showing illustrations of the property. The area has been zone Interim Development - Research Park (ID-RP) to reflect possible development of an office park along Highway 218. When the Comprehensive Plan for the area was updated this area became a concept that envisioned a "conservation-type" development including residential and commercial uses in the area surrounding Camp Cardinal Boulevard. The application is for the northern portion of the area, however if approved this evening, Preston Lane will continue to the south to connect to Camp Cardinal Boulevard, and the potential for of single-family, townhouse and multi-family development to the south of the current proposal. Miklo pointed out the concept plan for future phases, showing Preston Lane extending to the south and the possibility of multifamily or townhouses being clustered to transfer development away from the wooded ravines. The application is to rezone the property to RS-5 which Staff has determined does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The plan is to do a residential subdivision with a loop street, Ava Circle and a north/south street, Preston Lane. Parsons asked why the street was named Preston Lane to the left of Kennedy Parkway and Vintage Boulevard to the right. Miklo replied that area to the north of Kennedy Parkway is in Coralville where the street is named Vintage Drive. The street south of Kennedy Parkway will intersect with Preston Drive farther to the south in Iowa City. So to keep it consistent, the Iowa City portion of the street between Kennedy Parkway and Camp Cardinal Boulevard will be named Preston Lane. Miklo noted there are some sensitive areas on the property but most of those are being set Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 8 of 12 aside in future development stages. In this stage there will be some grading and tree clearing in the back of the RS-5 lots and some grading and tree clearing to allow for the stormwater management basin. But even with the grading and tree clearings, it is below the threshold for the sensitive area rezonings with less than 50% of the woodlands and less than 35% of the critical slopes on the site. The City Engineer has reviewed and is satisfied with the stormwater management plan and it will drain into a detention basin. Staff recommends approval of REZ15- 00018/SUB 15-00023 a rezoning of 16.18 acres from Interim Development - Research Park (ID- RP) zone to Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) and a preliminary of Cardinal Point West - Part 1, 31-lot residential subdivision located south of Kennedy Parkway and west of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Hensch asked if there would be any connections to the existing Deer Creek Road. Miklo stated that Deer Creek Road runs parallel to Highway 218 and there will not be any connections to that road. There is a possibility Deer Creek Road may be vacated in the future. Miklo pointed out that the future alignment of Highway 965 is just to the west, but there are no plans to build it in the near-term. Parsons assumed that the quarry to the north will not be going away anytime soon. Miklo agreed and indicated that the quarry is not within Iowa City’s jurisdiction. Hensch asked if the water structure to the south was connected to this development. Miklo said that was designed when Camp Cardinal Boulevard was built and it may have some capacity for this subdivision but the City Engineer determinedd the current proposal must provide its own stormwater management. Eastham asked if consideration was made to go ahead with the rezoning for the entire area so that it would clearly state future development in the area would be townhomes and multi-family. He said that it is close the elementary school. Miklo said the applicant only requested this parcel, they are responding to the market at this time. He said the concept plan shows the intention for the remainder of the property include multifamily and townhouses. He noted that there will need to be some changes to the concept plan to meet code requirements. Miklo noted that with this development the sidewalk will be constructed (outside of this subdivision) along the south side of Kennedy Parkway to connect with Camp Cardinal Boulevard. Freerks opened the public hearing. Josh Entler (Southgate Companies) addressed the walkability to the elementary school and noted they will install an 8 foot wide trail along the north side of Kennedy Parkway and will install the 5 foot sidewalk along the south side of Kennedy Parkway from Preston Lane to provide access to the elementary school. To address the question of rezoning the whole area: they did not want commit to a master plan of the whole area and need to see how the market will drive future development. With regards to the stormwater management, the current pond to the south will be impacted but in a quality and quantity controlled manner. The developments stormwater basin will overflow and drain to the pond and other stream ways in the area, but will be controlled. He explained that the ownership of the pond is broken up into a pond association which means anyone whose water (either through piping or hard surface) drains into the pond is part of the ownership, so it is just not Southgate’s responsibility. Entler noted that they will be clearing as few trees as possible, they share a desire to preserve as much of the woodlands as possible. Freerks said that the woodlands does provide a good buffer that can’t be easily replaced. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 9 of 12 Hensch asked what the density of the development will be when fully developed. Entler was not able to say exactly what the final number would be a this time, the plans for the whole area have undergone several revisions. Hensch noted his concern is the number of vehicles and pedestrians all relying on just one entrance onto Camp Cardinal Boulevard, and when might Highway 965 be extended. Entler did not have information on that highway extension. Miklo did point out that when Preston Lane is extended to intersect with Camp Cardinal Boulevard, it will provide two ways in and out of the area. Hensch asked what the price point for the single family dwellings in this development will be. Enstler could only give a guess on what the price point would be and thought maybe in the range of $250,000 to $325,000. Freerks close the public hearing. Hensch moved to approve application submitted The Crossings Development, LC for a rezoning from Interim Development Research Park (ID-RP) zone to Low Density Single Family (RS-5) zone and a preliminary plat of Cardinal Pointe West - Part 1, a 31-lot, 16.3 acre residential subdivision for property located south of Kennedy Parkway, west of Camp Cardinal Boulevard. (REZ15-00018/SUB15-00023) Parsons seconded the motion. Freerks said it was good to see more development in this area. Hensch just noted his concern about water drainage as that is an ongoing concern with every application the Commission reviews. Theobald noted her concern about diversity of housing and that area is neighborhood after neighborhood of the same. She is concerned that there is not guarantee that there will be a mix of housing in the future phases. She would like to see some mix and sooner rather than later. Eastham agreed and feels future developments in that area will need to include more diverse housing types to meet the Comprehensive Plan and School District diversity goals throughout the community. Martin said there area east of Camp Cardinal Boulevard does have a good mix of houses and thinks they did a good job of providing a range. Miklo showed on the aerial photograph the area along Ryan Court which has a mix of office, single family, townhouses and duplexes. Parsons pointed out that when they first built Camp Cardinal Boulevard development was slow to start but with the construction of the new school there has been some good development in the area. Hensch said a more general concern is that this is on the far edge of the city and is only accessible by car. His hope is that not all developments are dependent on access by cars. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 10 of 12 COUNTY REZONING ITEM (CZ15-00003): Discussion of an application submitted by Jerry and Jan Eyman for a rezoning from County Agriculture (A) to County Single Family Residential (R) for approximately 3.72 acres of property and a subdivision of 5.73 acres of property located at 5092 American Legion Road in the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area. Miklo noted this property is within the two mile fringe area but beyond the growth area so do not anticipate it will be annexed into the city. The property is surrounded by residential development however a portion of this property is zoned agricultural and the application is to zone it all residential and then split it into two separate lots. The existing house would be on one lot and a new home would be constructed on the other lot. The fringe area agreement provides guidance with regards to this area and the County Planning Office is recommending approval of this application with a plan for a shared driveway. Miklo noted that if this was a larger area or not already surrounded by residential development, staff might not likely recommend approval of changing the zoning from Agricultural. In this case the property is fairly small and only suitable for limited agricultural uses. Staff recommends that approval of the requested rezoning of 3.72 acres from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R) conditioned on the requirement for a shared driveway. Freerks opened the public hearing. Jerry Eyman (5092 American Legion Road SE) stated that the property is currently just in hay or prairie and not being used as agricultural. The area is not conducive to getting farm equipment into and additionally they are being made to give up the two current entrances and replace with one shared entrance for both lots to minimize the number of entrances onto American Legion Road. Freerks closed the public hearing. Eastham moved to recommend the approval of the requested rezoning of 3.72 acres from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R) conditioned on the requirement for a shared driveway. Hensch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 1, 2015 Dyer moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 1, 2015. Theobald seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Martin asked if she were to go look at some of the Hodge Construction buildings to see the quality of building, what are the rules regarding such an endeavor. Freerks said that is not Planning and Zoning Commission October 15, 2015 – Formal Meeting Page 11 of 12 recommended because whatever building she was to tour is not the building that will be going into the location in question. It also creates an appearance for the public that there is conversation between the applicant and the individual commissioners behind the scenes. Hektoen noted that if such a visit or discussion occurs it should be disclosed as part of the public record. Eastham said that one could go and visit the property on their own without being accompanied by the applicant. ADJOURNMENT: Theobald moved to adjourn. Martin seconded. A vote was taken and motion carried 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 - 2015 FORMAL MEETING 11/6 11/20 12/18 1/15 2/5 2/19 3/19 4/2 4/16 5/7 5/21 6/4 7/2 7/16 8/6 8/20 9/3 9/17 10/1 10/15 DYER, CAROLYN X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X FREERKS, ANN O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X PARSONS, MAX -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA X X X X X X X X O -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X THOMAS, JOHN X X X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- INFORMAL MEETING NAME TERM EXPIRES 2/3 3/15 5/18 DYER, CAROLYN 05/16 X X X EASTHAM, CHARLIE 05/16 X X X FREERKS, ANN 05/18 X X X HENSCH, MIKE 05/19 -- -- X MARTIN, PHOEBE 05/17 X X X PARSONS, MAX 05/19 -- -- X SWYGARD, PAULA 05/15 X X -- THEOBALD, JODIE 05/18 X X X THOMAS, JOHN 05/15 X X -- KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member