Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-10 - Minutes - Final Planning Commission October 10, 2016 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan. Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Kyle Cook In Attendance: Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Tom Brown, Ryan Noble, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan. Absent: Leslie Belden Staff: Andrew Garner, Jonathan Curth, Quin Thompson, Harry Davis, and Corey Granderson City Attorney: Kit Williams Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of the minutes from the September 26, 2016 meeting. 2. ADM 16-5616: Administrative Item (SOUTH OF 3203 N. WARWICK DR./HUNTINGDON APTS., 216): Submitted by COMMUNITY BY DESIGN for property located SOUTH OF 3203 N. WARWICK DR. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 1.13 acres. The request is for an extension to the original approval of LSD 15-5074. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 2 Old Business: 3. CUP 16-5558: Conditional Use (3250 N. FUTRALL DR./FUTRALL DR. CELL TOWER, 211): Submitted by SMITH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. for property located at 3250 N. FUTRALL DR. The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 5.56 acres. The request is for a wireless communication facility. Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report. David Reynolds, Applicant: Thanks the Planning Commission for tabling the item at the last meeting. Since the last meeting, Smith Two-way has contacted WRMC and asked them to provide more information about the need for a cell tower on their campus. Reynolds has also been in contact with an engineer associated with Verizon and how a tower lower than 145 feet would not be suitable for this location and will cause Verizon to walk away from the development. Reynolds then shows maps that indicate the penetration levels of cellular service at various heights. He then explains the difference between coverage and capacity and how it has changed over time. Today’s coverage has voice and data over the same transmission. With current technology, cell service must be located in the areas where people are. Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Asks applicant if the areas that are not covered by the proposed tower are covered by other existing towers. Reynolds: Answers yes, but explains how the towers would work together to manage groups of people at various places within the city. Some of the existing towers have capacity and coverage problems and this tower would help solve them. Hoffman: Explains that a redundant system would not be a good argument for this cell tower and how there are more places where the proposed tower overlaps with other towers than spaces that are not overlapped. Reynolds: Re-explains how this would help with capacity coverage issues. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Begins by explaining his past professional work with wireless communications. Autry understands how data and voice have now been combined into one transmission from cell towers. He goes into a few different examples from across the United States about the difference between coverage versus capacity and how most examples have gone against the argument of capacity and coverage are the same and how more cell towers are needed to provide more coverage. He discusses how this proposed tower would not increase the area coverage for the area versus existing towers. Autry also discusses his knowledge about how cell coverage works in relation to trees and buildings. He asks Reynolds if this cell tower would penetrate 100% of the building. Reynolds: Answers yes, except the areas that are not fully covered are under another internal wireless system to be done as a separate project within the building. Autry: Provides further information about cell service in the hospital. He also goes into different stories about using smaller towers and services that would be better with a smaller impact on the landscape but have the same effect. 3 Reynolds: Explains how the Razorback stadium is setup up with many smaller antennas that provide the same service. The proposed site and area for the proposed cell tower does not have the same characteristics that a stadium has and therefore needs a cell tower rather than the smaller and more numerous systems. Autry: Rejects the argument that a smaller system could not be used and how these systems are getting more and more attainable as time goes by. Hoskins: Asks if cell service is line-of-sight. Reynolds: Answers not exactly, as you will get better service if you can see a tower, but you can get signal in this room. The higher the frequency, the better the service. Hoskins: Asks if the smaller the tower, the more there would need to be. Reynolds: Answers yes and explains further. Hoskins: Asks if the gap between the circles on the map is a dead zone. Reynolds: Explains how it isn’t an exact diagram of coverage, but is a basic geographical distance between towers. Hoskins: Asks if the main issue here is coverage. Reynolds: Explains further coverage and capacity and how they are intertwined. Hoskins: States that he was interested in the story about the stadium and will support one large tower rather than several smaller towers. Autry: States that he does not have any connectivity issues in this area under Verizon service. He explains how this system is incredibly complex and how this proposed tower affects the area. Autry then goes into paging and how that works within the hospital. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asks if the pink area is what will get coverage on the map. Reynolds: Answers yes. Brown: Asks more about this location and if the power can be boosted in the existing towers. Reynolds: Explains the location and how the power cannot be increased. He also goes into the other locations considered for this tower. Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: Reiterates the pink area purpose and to compare the maps, ending by explaining her position. Hoffman: Concurs with Quinlan. Hoskins: Asks about a 120 foot tall tower now and if another would be built later. Reynolds: States the project before you would die and that a cell tower would be proposed at a different location. Hoskins: Asks if a cell tower at 150 feet would be approved now, would Reynolds come back to ask for another tower in the area. Reynolds: Answers no. 4 Janet Selby, Commissioner: Surmises that a bigger tower would be better than two smaller ones. Quinlan: States that the areas that are said to be helped by this tower are not within the most improved area. Hoffman: Argues that the pink area would be serviced by the smaller tower. Autry: Argues that he cannot see an end to more proposals for cell towers regardless of height in the area. Hoskins: Argues that the larger tower would off-load data pull from other towers. Reynolds: Agrees and says that co-location would also be a huge benefit for this area in conjunction with a cell tower. Hoskins: States that the larger cell tower would be better rather than several smaller ones. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Explains that a new statute would allow for a Certificate of Need to be provided by cell providers that would allow said providers to develop without Planning Commission approval to be built in City right-of-way. The cell tower is considered a utility and therefore protected more by the state and Federal governments. He argues this proposal may protect us from more towers in the future in this area due to increased coverage, but it is not certain. Due to an absent Commissioner, votes against the cell tower would need to be well- made. Williams agrees with Hoskins’ interpretation of this proposal. Williams then briefs the Commission briefly about some changes to cell towers that may happen in the future. Kyle Cook, Commission Chair: States that he does not have a problem with a few smaller towers. Autry: States that more cell towers will be made in Fayetteville in places like Rupple Road. Motion #1: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve CUP 16-5558. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Hoffman: Due to preserving skyline and landscape of Fayetteville and this being a gateway, votes against the proposal. Quinlan: Due to existing coverage, votes against the proposal. Noble: Votes in favor of the proposal. Selby: Votes in favor of the proposal. Autry: Due to technology, Fayetteville gateway, and preserving the skyline, votes against the proposal. Hoskins: Votes in favor of the proposal. Brown: Votes in favor of the proposal. Cook: Due to a smaller tower being more preferable, votes against the proposal. 5 Upon roll call the motion for a 150’ tower failed with a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, Autry, and Cook voted ‘no’. Williams: Asks the applicant if they would want to be tabled and be heard when all Commissioners are present. Motion #2: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve CUP 16-5558 with a 135’ tower. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Hoffman: Asks if Hoskins would change to 120 feet. Hoskins: Answers no. Upon roll call the motion for a 135’ tower failed with a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, Autry, and Cook voted ‘no’. Motion #3: Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to approve CUP 16-5558 with all conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion for a 120’ tower passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Cook voted ‘no’. 4. RZN 16-5589: Rezone (714 W. MLK BLVD. & 511 HILL AVENUE/UARK CREDIT UNION, 522): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at 714 W. MLK BLVD. and 511 HILL AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE, AND RMF-40, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 40 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.37 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: Gave the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, Jorgensen and Associates, applicant representative: Was present to answer questions. Public Comment: Zara Neiderman, Developer in south Fayetteville: Discussed opposition to the request and opportunity for a form-based code. No more public comment was presented. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Discussed opposition to the request. Jorgensen: Discussed the reason for the C-1 zoning request. Hoffman: Can this be developed under a form-based zoning? Jorgensen: Yes the building will be on the corner and it could be a form-based zoning. 6 Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: I am in favor of form-based zoning, more to the core of the town. He discuss background of the rezoning for the Walmart Neighborhood Market and the Kum and Go Gas Station where City Council overturned the Planning Commission's recommendation for form-based zoning. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Discussed that the commission can look at what the City Council actually did in the last few years. The recent rezoning in the area is that the policy makers have agreed that form-based zonings are not required at this corner. They have agreed with the applicants in recent years for standard commercial zoning. Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: Discussed that the Planning Commission have a very different role than the City Council. We should make Planning Commission decisions based on how we feel this should be rezoned. If we make our decisions based on how we think City Council will vote, we are circumventing the purpose of this board. She discussed support for a form-based zoning district. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 16-5589. Commissioner Noble seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 3-4-1. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, Selby, and Brown voted ‘no’. Commissioner Cook recused. New Business: 5. VAR 16 -5611: Variance (603 N. VINSON AVE./SKOCH-BURCH, 447): Submitted by PARKCO ARCHITECTS, INC. for properties located at 603 N. VINSON AVE. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 0.33 acres. The request is a variance for reduced driveway length. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report. Tim Peterson, Applicant’s Representative: Said that the primary design concerns were topography and preserving mature trees. Public Comment: Amber Henley, Neighbor: Said that she was very concerned that the tree ordinance should be enforced on this site, where trees had been removed by the previous owner. She asked whether a fine had been assessed for this project. She asked that a condition of approval be added that would require a formal response from the Urban Forester. No more public comment was presented. Kyle Cook, Chair: Asked the City Attorney for a comment. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Said that this is a protected area that allows a limited amount of disturbance. He added that it would not be proper to add a condition as sought by Ms. Henley, saying that such reviews are conducted at the time of development. 7 Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Said that Development Services is aware of the issue, and since this property is in the HHOD so a grading plan will be required at the time of development. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asked if it was possible to remove the garage farther from the right- of-way. Peterson: Said that it was possible, but that the garage would cause greater impact to a mature 40” pine tree that is the best tree on the site, and that the home has been designed around in order to save. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve VAR 16-5611 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 6. ADM 16 -5614: Administrative Item (612 S. WILLOW AVE./NIEDERMAN, 445): Submitted by ZARA NIEDERMAN for property located at 612 S. WILLOW AVE. The property is zoned DG, DOWNTOWN GENERAL and contains approximately 0.14 acres. The request is an appeal of the City Engineer’s refusal to grant a waiver for construction of public sidewalk for a new home pursuant to UDC Ch. 171.13. Corey Granderson, Staff Engineer: Gave the staff report.’ Zara Niederman, Applicant: Read goals of the 2020 vision to the Planning Commission and discussed how infill development is achieved. He explained the Engineering Division requirement of 90’ of new sidewalk on private property. He said he understood that the construction of a new home does not require dedication of new right-of-way. He said that it should not be the responsibility of the landowner to construct infrastructure, but rather that is the responsibility of the City. He added that building sidewalk parcel by parcel is not the most efficient use of resources. Public Comment: No Public Comment was presented. Kit William, City Attorney: Said that Mr. Niederman is correct, but for a different reason than stated. He said that the US Constitution says that we cannot require an exaction beyond a rough proportion to new impact on the site, and that since a house had already been on this site, there is no increase in intensity of development, so no new sidewalk can be required. He said that the construction of this new house represents zero impact to the site, and there is absolutely no way to require new sidewalk regardless of how much we all like sidewalks, and regardless of any municipal ordinance requiring new sidewalk. We cannot require Mr. Niederman to build or donate toward new sidewalk on this site. If we want sidewalk there, then we will have to build that with taxpayer money. On the other hand, an increase in scale of a new [larger] home may well increase impact and therefore new sidewalk would be appropriate. Kyle Cook, Chair: Said As much as I would love to see sidewalk everywhere, I do agree with Mr. Williams based on my experience with sewer impact fees at the University of Arkansas. 8 Ron Autry, Commissioner: I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Williams. This is a nice new home with existing sidewalk that may not meet our current standards, but is functional. New sidewalk [on Willow St] should not be required. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Said that he agreed with the opinions expressed by the City Attorney and other commissioners. He added that he has concerns about the design of the City’s approved street sections, and that it may be in the best interest to revisit those in the future during the Transportation Plan review process. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asked the City Attorney if it would be appropriate to ask the applicant to donate the right-of-way for future sidewalk. Williams: Said that the chair should decide if the applicant could be addressed with a question. Brown: Asked Niederman if he would consider donating the land for future sidewalk. Niederman: Said that the request seemed very reasonable. Williams: Said that donation of right-of-way to the City has tax implications, and that perhaps Mr. Niederman should consider donating that right-of-way at a time when it would be useful to have a deduction. He said that he is free to donate, but that he would not want Mr. Niederman to feel pressure to donate. Brown: Thanked the City Attorney for his comments and withdrew his comments to Mr. Niederman. Niederman: Thanked everyone for their input, and said that he would like to see the neighborhood redeveloped in a way that is pedestrian friendly and has lots of amenities. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Said he had no problem with the variance, and added that the City has ordinances that require infrastructure improvements when a property is improved past a certain percentage, including parking lot improvements, access, and what have you. He said that this project represents a one hundred percent improvement. How is this project different? Andrew Garner, Planning director: Said that the types of improvements described by Mr. Hoskins are required by the landscaping code for parking lot landscaping when commercial properties are expanded or improved beyond a certain threshold. Alison Thurmond-Quinlan, Commissioner: Said that right-of-way requirements for some streets do not reflect the conditions that help to recreate the neighborhoods and streets that as a City we seek to build. Cook: Said that street design standards are an incremental process, and that they are much better than the previous standards. Thurmond-Quinlan: Said that she understands that, and that our street designs are superior to those of many other Cities, but that there is always room for improvement. Motion: 9 Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve ADM 16-5614. Commissioner Hoffman seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 7. VAR 16-5593: Variance (NW OF MLK BLVD & HILL AVENUE/UARK CREDIT UNION, 522): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties NW OF MLK BLVD. & HILL AVE. The properties are zoned RMF-24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE, RMF-40, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 40 UNITS PER ACRE and C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and contain approximately 0.82 acres. The request is for a variance of the access management code for a new driveway. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: Gave the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, Jorgensen and Associates, Inc., applicant: Was present for questions. Public Comment: No Public Comment was presented. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Discussed the section of code that a variance shall be granted for the property owner abutting the street. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Discussed that he was in favor of the first site plan that was in the packet, not the second one presented on the screen. The first one eliminates cut through traffic and is a preferred urban design. He discussed concern with safety issues of people cutting through the parking lot. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Discussed a preference with the site plan with more greenspace in front of the building and longer throat length so cars can get in the site faster. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve VAR 16-5593 with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Noble seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 4-3-1. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, and Brown voted ‘no’. Commissioner Cook recused. 8. RZN 16-5588: Rezone (407 N. MTN. RANCH BLVD./STRIKER DEVELOPMENT, 479): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at 407 N. MTN. RANCH BLVD. The properties are zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 3.65 acres. The request is to rezone the properties to NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION. Quin Thompson, Planner: Gave the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, Applicant’s representative: Said he was present to answer questions if needed. Public Comment: No Public Comment was presented. 10 Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Said he supported the rezone to NC. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to forward RZN 16-5588 with recommended approval. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. 9. RZN 16-5590: Rezone (NE OF MCGUIRE ST. & VAN ASCHE DR./WG LAND COMPANY, 171): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. for properties at NE OF MCGUIRE ST. & VAN ASCHE DR. The properties are zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL & C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contain approximately 23 acres. The request is to rezone the property to C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL. Andrew Garner, City Planning Director: gave the staff report. Blake Jorgensen, Jorgensen and Associates, Inc., applicant: Was present for questions. Public Comment: No Public Comment was presented. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Discussed he would be in favor of UT. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Advised the commission that the rezoning request is only for 23 acres, not the entire site. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Discussed that this is an opportunity to create an urban street through this site. When we looked at this last year staff was not in favor of any of the C zonings. Most were in favor of form-based zonings. Quinlan made a great point earlier tonight that there is a reason why we have two different bodies. I would suggest UT or something else. Tracy Hoskins, Commissioner: Gave background on City Plan 2020 and how traditional town form was initially presented as another option. He discussed that this board is now dictating form- based zoning districts on every parcel. He is in favor of the proposed rezoning. Hoffman: Discussed that UT zoning would open them up to many more uses. It is pretty heavily compromised in terms of urban form with only 50% build able street frontage. Hoskins: said he can't imagine big box stores pulled up to the streets. I think we are getting a little bit crazy with it. Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: Imagined a place with big boxes at the street and it is Pinnacle. I can imagine this type of development pattern. We are setting the development pattern for an area where we just spent a large amount of public funds. We know what we will get for C-1 and C-2 zonings. I don't think the outskirts of our town need to be relegated to large parking lots. I can't support a C zoning for this area. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asked about the City Plan 2030 designation. He discussed that this body recommended form-based zoning districts on this in the past and we should be consistent. 11 Williams: Discussed that at times the Planning Commission loses their way and forgets who the policy makers are. If a rezoning was recently denied by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council, the commission should respect council decisions. When the commission continually votes in opposition to previous council decisions it is concerning. He advised the commission to be a little more respectful to council's previous decisions. Kyle Cook, Commissioner: Disagreed with Mr. Williams that the commission is disrespecting the council. We are just making a recommendation to the council. Hoffman: Indicated that he listened very closely to what the council previously stated on this property. It is not our place to guess what move the council will make. I see my role as an advisor based on my expertise. Quinlan: Said that if we [Planning Commission] are supposed to guess which way City Council will vote, it is giving up the entire reason they asked us to be here. Motion: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to forward RZN 16-5590 with approval as requested. Commissioner Noble seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 3- 5-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, Autry, Brown, and Cook voted ‘no’. 10. RZN 16-5594: Rezone (15 S. WEST AVE./KOLBERG, 523): Submitted by MARK KOLBERG for property at 15 S. WEST AVE. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and contains approximately 0.37 acres. The request is to rezone the property to MSC, MAIN/STREET CENTER. Jonathan Curth, Senior Planner: Gave the staff report. Mark. Kolberg, Applicant: Thinks that staff has done an adequate job describing the request and would like the opportunity to respond to the letter submitted from a resident. Notes that he disagrees with the assertion that the existing structure adds to the character of the neighborhood as it is quite dilapidated. The amount of work required to repair the home is financially unfeasible. Public Comment: No public comment was presented. Commissioner Tom Brown: Would generally not have a problem with this request, but knows that the Downtown Master Plan went through a rigorous public input process. Although he does not recall this area in particular, he remembers that the NC zoning district was intended as a preservation and buffering tool. As he looks more at this are and this request he realizes more what the intent was behind zoning this particular portion of downtown to NC. Solicits the thoughts of other Commissioners. Commissioner Ron Autry: Concurs with the applicant that there is little to no charm to the existing structure, and is not opposed to this rezoning. Also does not foresee the proposed creating future rezoning efforts to the south. 12 Motion: Commissioner Selby made a motion to forward RZN 16-5594 with recommended approval. Commissioner Autry seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Brown voted ‘no’. 11. Planning Commission Discussion Item on City-initiated Rezonings. Andrew Garner, Planning Director: Begins by noting that Commissioners expressed interest in City-initiated rezonings that would be in-line with City Plan 2030. Although not certain what may come of this discussion, makes suggestions for Commissioners if they want to move forward, possibly in the form of a resolution to the City Council or some such item. Commissioner Tom Brown: Is not certain where the other Commissioners stand on the idea of City-initiated rezonings, but based on conversations about recent public improvements to College Avenue it appears that something ought to be done to bring existing buildings in to compliance or initiate rezonings that would encourage development patterns that reflect City Plan 2030 goals. Suggests a motion to create a subcommittee to review these items. Commissioner Matthew Hoffman: Clarifies that this discussion is largely about the stretch of College Avenue between North and Maple. Notes that at least one rezoning has come in for UT at College and North and contends that the development community is ready for this. Also, many of the buildings along College Avenue are already in conformance with the City's form- based zoning districts. Would like to see involvement of businesses and residents to ensure buy-in and community support. Brown: Thinks it may be appropriate to break up portions of the College Avenue corridor between Maple and North to see if it is effective or well-received. It may also be valuable to perform this parallel to the creation of neighborhood plans that border or cross College Avenue. Commissioner Kyle Cook: Notes that it would be valuable to have Washington County involved due to their ownership of large properties in the area. Agrees that there are significant opportunities along several of the properties along the College Avenue corridor, but is uncertain what kind of staff resources this may require. Garner: States that staff has discussed the potential of this and similar projects at length, with there even having been a goal at one point to create a neighborhood plan every two years. Informs the Commissioners that Planning staff currently handles all long-range and current planning, and that no long-range planners are in the Planning Division any more. This makes these projects time-consuming, but no less important. Notes that breaking it up in to smaller portions makes it more viable. Hoffman: Reiterates that involving stakeholders is critical, and that he would value being involved, particularly in a less-formal environment. Garner: Acknowledges the idea and says it is very feasible. Staff has looked at College Avenue and other corridors, and would like to involve the administration in assessing the urgency of such a project in assessing the resources dedicated to it. 13 Commissioner Ron Autry: Agrees with Commissioner Hoffman that College Avenue represents a perfect test to consider this proposal. It may be valuable to expand the Subdivision Committee to be involved. Cook: Is uncertain whether the administration feels there are adequate resources. Commissioner Allison Quinlan: States that a motion is probably the appropriate measure for this, and it may help assess whether this is viable moving forward. Cook: Notes that there is enough consensus to move forward and inquiries from staff about the next step. Garner: Notes that at this point it may be most appropriate to inquire from administration as to what is best, and staff will inform the Commission at the next meeting. 1. Reports: None 2. Announcements: None 3. Adjournment Time: 9:03 PM 4. Submitted by: City Planning Division