Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-11 MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, March 11, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSD 02-4.00: Large Scale Development Tabled at Applicant's request (Danaher, pp 681) ADM 02-10 Administrative Item Approved (Bizyas Cafe, pp 404) Page 2 RZN 02-6.00: Rezoning (Washington Regional Medical Service, pp 212) Page 6 CUP 02-9.00: Conditional Use (Tinsleyas Amusements, Inc., pp 134) Page 11 Forwarded Approved Nominating Committee Page 17 Appointed MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Loren Shackelford Lorel Hoffman Bob Estes Lee Ward Nancy Allen Donald Bunch Loren Shackelford Sharon Hoover Don Marr STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kit Williams Ron Petrie Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Hugh Earnest Renee Thomas Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 2 ADM 02-10 Administrative Item (Bizps Cafe, pp 404) was submitted by Kirby Walker for property located at the Crossroads Village Shopping Center at the southeast corner of Crossover and Mission. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is for approval of Commercial Design Standards. Estes: Good evening, welcome to the March 11, 2002 meeting of your Fayetteville City Planning Commission. The first item of business will be the roll call. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were eight Commissioners present with Commissioner Hoffman being absent. Estes: A quorum being present, the next item of business is approval of the minutes from the February 25, 2002 meeting. Are there any changes, additions, modifications or comments to the minutes of the February 25, 2002 meeting? Seeing none, they will be approved. Item number one on the agenda, LSD 02-4.00 has been pulled at the applicant's request will not be heard this evening. Item number two on the agenda is ADM 02-10, this administrative item is submitted by Mr. Kirby Walker for property located at the Crossroads Village shopping Center at the southeast corner of Crossover and Mission. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request of the applicant is for approval of Commercial Design Standards. Staff recommends denial of this request since this application of neon is not consistent with the overall development design theme. Is the applicant present and if so, do you have a presentation that you would like to make Mr. Walker? State your name for the recorded record please and your address. Walker: My home address is 1872 Seminole Court. I am coming as Noodles Italian Kitchen d/b/a Bizy's Express Cafe. What we would like to do is add some neon for accent lighting to the exterior of our building. We really didn't know that this process was going to catch us. We thought we were fine. We went through the signage permits and we talked to the sign administrator and did all of our stuff and got ready to go get our permit and then this kind of popped up on us. We are kind of far down the process so we need a call one way or the other, whether or not we can go forward. What we are wanting to do, we looked around the center that we are going in, I assume everybody is familiar with the Crossroads Center. I am very familiar with the sign ordinance because I've been in Fayetteville since 1983 so I have a copy of it and we called Mr. McKimmey and talked to him and we really felt like we were staying right in line with everything and as we looked around the center, there is quite a bit of existing neon used for accent lighting around the property. We didn't really know that there was a hitch. We are kind of here to work that out. What I did, after going to the Subdivision Committee meeting, was to go around town and really look at the strip centers and see how they have maintained integrity Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 3 of the design and yet been able to standout. What I found is there are a lot of different techniques that are used. Some people use different color or materials, some paint large portions, some use different structures in their signage so essentially, they get the effect of the sign and standout, yet their signage is smaller. I would say that is the case with Best Buy or even Old Navy or you can go with even Home Depot, which changed quite a bit of the exterior of their building, yet they maintained the integrity of that center. We don't want to lose the design integrity. I have got some pictures here from around town that you can look at and you can look at the existing neon that is in that center. Some of you may have been by at nighttime or not, but it is pretty dramatic, what is already there. What we are really wanting to do is we're not really wanting to completely change the center but we certainly want to standout while maintaining the integrity of design. I don't know what the best way to do this is other than just bring it up to you and you can kind of look and see what it looks like. If you pass those around you will see the first one that is coming through is showing the existing neon in the center. There is Cafe Santa Fe, Taco Bell, they have both used accent neon on their building. I stepped those buildings off, that is why it is an approximate on the square footage there but you will see that Taco Bell and Cafe Santa Fe both have in excess of 400 sq.ft. of neon. Some use two rows, some use three rows, some accent the doors. Where our proposed neon is about 270 sq.ft. As you go around the town, you can look at the second one coming by, it shows the existing shopping centers and how different the units are yet they still maintain the integrity of design. That is really all we are wanting to do. You can see an existing picture of our building in the daylight and it looks exactly like the other centers. I would say some of the other strip centers don't really even go that far. We are looking for your blessing. Estes: Thank you Kirby, does that conclude your presentation? Walker: That is it. Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested ADM 02-10? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full Commission for discussion, comments, motions or questions for the applicant. Ward: At Subdivision Committee, the three Commissioners on the committee looked at it and discussed it and basically had these same photos that Kirby Walker presented to us, and although it is nontraditional, in our case we thought it was not so out of character to go ahead and say "Hey, it is a little bit different but something that we could live with." That was the response that Subdivision had, if Sharon or Don would have anything else to add to that, that was kind of our take on it. It is kind of unique but they are wanting to get it where people could see it. I didn't think it was so out Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 4 Allen: of character. From driving out there in that area I feel like as long as the building is complying so well with the commercial design standards that it really almost needs a little pizazz to pop out in some way. This seems fairly minimal to me. Hoover: I just wanted to add that rereading the design theme for Glennwood Shopping Center, they built the buildings according to these design guidelines and there is nothing in here particular about neon. I am just appreciative that there is going to be less neon on this building than there is on the other ones. I don't think that just because it is done in a different manner that that could come into play with the situation since the basic building does meet the design standards I think that is an important call when we are setting up these architectural guidelines when we have large groups of buildings together. It is not that everything has to be totally identical but using the same materials in different ways. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Hoover. Kirby, I have a question. Is any portion of the signing or lighting or the trade dress going to be animated? By that I mean flashing, moving, blinking, etc. Walker: No Sir. Estes: Ok, thank you. Are there any other questions? Motion: Ward: Since I started this, I will go ahead and make the motion to approve ADM 02-10. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to approve ADM 02-10, is there a second? Marr: I'll second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Marr, is there any other discussion or any comments? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Marr to approve ADM 02-10. Marr: Mr. Chair, I think it is important anytime that we have a recommended denial from the City staff that we at least get on public record what their rational and reason on it was because I certainly take the recommendation seriously. I think most of our comments have been expressed, at least in my opinion, but I would like to hear if there is something that might persuade us differently. Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 5 Conklin- Sure. The reason that the Planning Division staff would not approve this administratively is that it was not shown with regard to what was on their building permit. When we reviewed their building permit we did make sure that it complied with the commercial design standards within the development. They did a great job of making it match with the overall development. When we did look at the neon on the building I had concerns with regard to being consistent with other development that is in the shopping center and we had somewhat of a long debate with regard to the McDonald's that went into that development with regard to their lighted roof beams on their roof and they were not allowed to light those roof beams up so I just wanted to make sure that we were consistent and therefore, staff made that recommendation for denial. Thank you. Estes: Is there any other discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and second by Commissioner Marr to approve ADM 02-10, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 02-10 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote of eight to zero. Thank you Kirby. Walker: Thank you. Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 6 RZN 02-6.00: Rezoning (Washington Regional Medical Service, pp 212) was submitted by Terry Carpenter of US Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Service for property located at 415 Longview Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 38.6 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Estes: The next item on the agenda is RZN 02-6.00 submitted by Terry Carpenter of US Infrastructure, Inc. on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Service for property located at 415 Longview Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 38.6 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of your packet. Is the applicant present or is the applicant's representative present? If so, if you have a presentation to make would you please come forward and state your name and your address and your capacity please? Nierengarten: My name is Peter Nierengarten, I am an Engineer with U.S. Infrastructure, 4710 S. Thompson, Springdale, AR Suite 102. We have no formal presentation to make. Based on the report that Dawn Warrick gave me I was under the impression that the Planning Commission would be in favor of our proposal and leave it up to the Commission to decide. Public Comment: Estes: Thank you. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested rezoning proposal? If so would you please come forward and state your name and your address and provide us with the benefit of your comments? Gill: I am Thomas Gill. I currently reside at 3195 Butternut Drive, which is a residential district adjacent to this property. My concern is what roads will feed this. Estes: Tim, do you have a response to Tom's question? Conklin: Yes, if you refer to page 3.10 in your agenda, Washington Regional Medical Center, along with the City of Fayetteville cost shared in extending Longview Street, which is out there already and that is the street that extends from Wimberley Road back to the east, that is the street that serves this development. Gill: That is all? Conklin: That is the street. We are working with property owners to the east to look at acquisition of right-of-way and extension of Longview Street to Plainview Ave. Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 7 Gill: That's it? Conklin: That would be it at this time. Gill: I have no further questions. Conklin- I am not sure if you are asking the question due to the fact that there is a street stub out that was planned as a part of that subdivision off of Village Drive and Washington County Health Department did build a building and parking lot in that location which kind of precludes that street from going north unless the parking lot was redesigned. At this point it is Longview Street that they have built along with the city. Allen: Mr. Gill, I am not finding your street on our map, I wondered if you could point it out to us. Estes: 1 will show you. Gill: Bob can tell you, he knows where I live. Allen: Ok. Gill: Correct me Ma'am, it is at the corner of Butternut and Village. Estes: Tom's house is right there. Tim, Village, as it ends to the south of the applicant's property was stubbed out when this subdivision was originally approved as a LSD, is that correct? Conklin: It was stubbed out, that is correct. Estes: If my memory is correct on perhaps some of the old Master Street Plans, Village was extended north but that is no longer possible because of the County Health Department, is that correct? Conklin: There was a Master Street Plan street, I am not sure if it was going north, I thought it was east and west and it was back off of Monte Painter Road, that went through where the County Health Department built their building. That Master Street Plan was amended and Longview was added to the Master Street Plan. Estes: Thanks. Does that answer your question Tom? Gill: Yes Sir. Estes: Tim, Monte Painter extended east and then the stub out there at Village Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 8 turned more to the northeast, is my memory correct? Conklin: I am sorry. Estes: Monte Painter extended east and at the intersection with Village Monte Painter took a turn to the northeast? Conklin- That is correct. Estes: That is no longer on the Master Street Plan? Conklin: That is no longer on the Master Street Plan. Estes: It is in fact no longer possible because of the county health building? Conklin: That is correct. Estes: Does any other member of the audience wish to provide public comment? Yes Sir, if you would please come forward and state your name and your address and provide us with the benefit of your comments. Caviness: I am Charles Caviness at 2136 Austin Drive. I would like to just ask one question concerning how large of an easement would there be between the residential property, say Melinda, and this new project and would there be an easement and if so, how wide. Estes: Tim, do you have a response to that question? Conklin: Let me check the R -O zoning. Estes: The applicant's representative indicates he can answer that. Yes, come forward please. Nierengarten: There is no formal easement for that area that he is talking about right now. The back of their houses is a real wooded area and it drops off steeply into a ravine and there is a creek down there and up the other side is where the Brookstone Development currently resides. Conklin: With regard to setbacks, it is a 25' setback from the rear property line. Nierengarten: Beyond that, there is nothing else planned but there is every indication that we've got from Washington Regional Medical Systems is that they don't plan on building anywhere on the other side of that creek. They plan to keep their development to the north of the creek between the creek and Longview Drive and leave that wooded area sort of a buffer between that neighborhood and the commercial development that would occur along Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 9 Longview. Estes: Charles, does that answer your question? Caviness: How wide is that creek? Nierengarten: The distance from your fence line to the creek is probably I would guess at least 80 to 120 feet. It is a pretty good distance. Caviness: So it will be that. Nierengarten: Yes, and the creek is maybe 8' wide or so. Estes: Does that answer your question? Is there any other member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this rezoning request, 02-6.00? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the full Commission for discussions, motions or comments. Commissioners? Ward: I think that the R -O zoning, especially against R-1 is very appropriate. This is where all of our medical facilities are going. I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be R -O and I will go ahead and make a recommendation that we approve RZN 02-6 for Washington Regional Medical Service. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to recommend to the City Council approval of RZN 02-6, is there a second? Shackelford: I will second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford, is there any discussion? Marr: Mr. Chair, I guess it is more of a comment than a question. That is, one of the findings that we have in our bylaws, if I understand this correctly from agenda session, is the finding or determination whether the proposed zoning is justified or needed at this time and how we use that in terms of economic regulation of zoning. It appears to me that we don't really look at it that way because I can't remember a zoning that has ever not been justified or needed from an applicant's perspective. It certainly would be mine if I wanted to develop that land but when I think about this area of Milsap and Futrall, the space of R -O available in this area seems to be pretty significant to me. There are two large rental commercial office space with I think Lindsey. There is the Stevens Building that went in next to the pharmacy there that has available space. The question I would ask is whether we really look at this as an actual finding item and if not, I think we need to evaluate whether it stays as something that we use and if we do use it, how we explain that it is justified and needed because I Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 10 would have some concern over this particular rezoning based on the availability in that area. Estes: Thank you Commissioner Marr. Is there any other discussion? Ward: Marr: Estes: In response to Don's questions, it has always been my take on something like this that the market itself kind of dictates what happens. I think this particular piece of property is very appropriate to be rezoned from A-1, which is for cows and hog houses, to R -O. I don't feel like if there was a tremendous supply of lets say office buildings vacant right now, then you would probably not see much more happen out there in that area as far as a bunch of office complexes built until those fill up. As far as medical, you might see some specific needed type of medical buildings built because those other office buildings don't really fulfill the needs. They are not sitting next to the hospital, they don't meet certain surgeons requirements, those types of things that those vacant office buildings that we have out there right now, we would all like to see them full, and we don't need more office buildings built right now in that area out there. Specific needs could come along that there would be a use for that space out there. I think people have the right to rezone their property from Agricultural in the city to some kind of use. I want to make sure that my comments are clear, I agree with you Lee. I am not opposed to the rezoning for what we are looking at. My question is more to the findings of staff facts and how we use that finding. Do we just pull it out when we don't want something to be done, do we look at it when economically we have too much zoning? I think it warrants some discussion at our planning retreats on whether to bylaw that item. It certainly makes sense in a lot of cases but if somebody asked me today "Why did you vote for a Residential Office rezoning?" I would have to say very similar things to what Commissioner Ward just said about economics tend to take care of it. I do think there is a lot of R -O zoning in this area that is currently unoccupied. I think we need to ask ourselves about the number two finding that we look at every time we have a rezoning. Thank you Commissioner Marr. Is there any other discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Shackelford to approve RZN 02-6 and to recommend the rezoning to the Fayetteville City Council, is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-6.00 to the Fayetteville City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. RZN 02-6.00 will be Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 11 forwarded to the full Fayetteville City Council with a recommendation to approve. Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 12 CUP 02-9.00: Conditional Use (Tinsley.% Amusements, Inc., pp 134) was submitted by Richard Tinsley for property owned by The Macerich Company (Northwest Arkansas Mall) which is located east of Mall Ave., north of Georgetown Place (a private drive). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.10 acres. The request is for a temporary use of this location for a carnival. Estes: The next item on the agenda is CUP 02-9.00 submitted by Richard Tinsley for property owned by The Macerich Company (Northwest Arkansas Mall) which is located east of Mall Ave., north of Georgetown Place (a private drive). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.10 acres. The request is for a temporary use of this location for a carnival. Is the applicant present and if so, if you have a presentation that you would like to make would you please state your name. Rimsdale: William Rimsdale, I am from High Hill, Missouri. We would appreciate the consideration of the City of Fayetteville to hold a carnival on the Northwest Arkansas Mall property March 22 through the 31s`. The show would consist of 15 rides, one novelty food trailer and eight to ten game concessions. Hours will be 4p.m. to 10 p.m. weekdays, 12 p.m. to 11 p.m., Saturday and 12 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Sunday. If the City approves it, all rides will be inspected by the Department of Labor, the concession stand will be inspected by the Health Department, and the Fire Department will inspect all rides. We also have two powerplants and they have mufflers on them to keep the noise down. We played this mall in 1992 or 1993 I believe. The last time we played the mall was in the 1990's. I also understand that you only give a seven day application. We would like to know if you can extend it to ten days so instead of opening up Friday, Saturday and Sunday and closing Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and then reopen Thursday, Friday, Saturday, instead of going back to Missouri for those three days, we can just stay down here. We all rent rooms, we will all be eating food and buying things in the mall and things like that. If you could make that exception we would appreciate it. Estes: Does that conclude your presentation? Rimsdale: Yes. Church: Mr. Chair, I need to recuse myself from this issue. Estes: Thank you Commissioner. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use subject to certain conditions of approval. Tim, do we have signed conditions of approval? Conklin: Yes we do. Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 13 Estes: Alright. Those conditions of approval are Planning Commission consideration of the length of operation of the proposed facility. The applicant proposes to operate for 10 days (March 22nd thru March 31st) while §163.14 allows only 7 days for this type of facility to operate. 2) A Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be obtained from the City Planning Division for this facility prior to operation. 3)A Temporary Certificate of Occupancy shall be obtained from the City Inspection Division for this facility prior to operation. 4)Any structure over thirty inches (30") in height shall be setback from property lines as required by C-2 zoning regulations (§161.14) 5) Compliance with the City's noise ordinance. 6) Fire Marshal and Building Inspection approval prior to operation of this facility. 7) Provide City of Fayetteville with documentation of approval from Arkansas Department of Labor regarding inspection of carnival rides prior to opening the facility. 8) Trash shall be contained on-site in a sanitary condition with dumpster service secured with a local provider for periodic removal. 9)Utility service shall be contained on-site and provided by the applicant. Generators used for this purpose shall be equipped with mufflers to mitigate noise. 10) No banners or free standing signage shall be permitted. 11) Vehicular access to the site shall be from Mall Ave. only by way of an existing curb cut. Is there any member of the audience who would like to provide public comment on this requested conditional use? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, motions and comments. Commissioners, let me say this. It was in 1996 that I represented a patron of Tinsley Amusement who was injured in a ride at the carnival. That ride was a Tilt -a -Whirl, which I see from the documentation that we have will also be offered should this conditional use permit be requested. It took an unacceptable amount of time and quite an investigation to determine the business organization structure of this operator, who the responsible party was, who the appropriate agent for service was, and who the insurance company was. The matter was eventually resolved, but only after I had to hire a private investigator to obtain this information. What I am going to suggest is that we add two additional conditions of approval. That an additional condition of approval be that this applicant be required to file with the City Planner and with the City Clerk a Certificate of Business Organization Structure including fictitious names together with name and address of agent for service of process. Number two, that there be a Certificate of Insurance provided to the City Clerk and to the City Planner including the named insured, limits of liability and policy period. I do not feel it is appropriate for any citizen of this community who is injured to have to go and hire a lawyer and hire a private investigator to find out who is responsible for the injuries. Is there any other discussion? Marr: If I recall correctly, there has been a carnival of some type at the mall pretty much every year since I've lived here. It seems like it has been forever. Tim, I don't remember one in the prior three or four years Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 14 coming to us. Could you just let us know why we are seeing this at this time. Conklin: Apparently, last year there was a circus or a carnival, I am not sure which one, but there were complaints that the City Attorney's office received with regard to people feeling like they were mislead or ripped off with regard to what was promised to them when they bought the tickets. Our City Attorney's office researched our ordinances and did find where we need to have a conditional use for a circus. Typically, I am not aware of us bringing these things to you. Typically, the first time I would realize there would be a circus or carnival is the day I went to the Northwest Arkansas Mall to go shopping during the weekend and there it is. It is already set up. In this instance I wouldn't have realized that there was a circus or this carnival coming to town if our business office didn't call me last Thursday and ask me how to collect a $300 privilege tax. I then got the information to contact this carnival operator and get them in this process for a conditional use. The reason why I added it to this agenda is because of the dates. The next Planning Commission meeting is the 25`h and they want to start on the 22nd. Knowing that we have an ordinance and I am charged to enforce the ordinances, I required them to get a conditional use permit and will require other carnivals and circuses in Fayetteville to go through this process. I am sure I will be surprised on some weekends when I am out with my family and there are carnivals and circuses going on that are not aware of our ordinances and by the time Monday rolls around they will probably be out of town but it will be through education. Hopefully, we can get most of these operators with our city law. Marr: Thank you. Williams: Mr. Chairman, although you can not allow or authorize a ten day permit, you can authorize more than one permit in a 90 day period, up to three permits. You could authorize both a 7 day and a 3 day permit, if you wish to in fact have 10 days authorized for this carnival. Estes: Thank you Mr. Williams. Is there any other discussion or any motions? Allen: I don't think that we asked for any public comment did we? Estes: I think I did, but I will do it again. Does any member of the audience wish to provide public comment on this conditional use request? Thank you Commissioner Allen. Is there any other discussion or any motions? Commissioner Bunch? Bunch: Concerning our Attorney's comments, would we need to have an altered request from the applicant for a 7 day permit and a 3 day to be Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 15 procedurally correct rather than on our behalf just going ahead and saying here is a seven and a three? Estes: I think that the applicant made that request for the additional three days during his presentation. Is my memory correct in that regard? Rimsdale: Yes. Bunch: Ok, the two proposed conditions that were offered by the Chairman, this is a question for the applicant. Do you have any problem with those additional conditions? Rimsdale: No, they are fine. Estes: Is there any other discussion? Motion: Marr: Since everyone is sitting here, I will be the carnival guy tonight and make a motion to approve CUP 02-9.00 with the recommendation of our City Attorney that it be a 7 day permit and an additional 3 day permit, or a second permit within that 90 day period, and in addition to the two requirements that you so eloquently described as number 12 and 13, without trying to recite those as additional conditions. Estes: Condition number twelve would be that the applicant provide a Certificate of Business Organization Structure including fictitious names together with name and address of agent for service of process to be filed with the City Planner and City Clerk. Condition number thirteen would be that the applicant provide a Certificate of Insurance including named insured, limits of liability and policy period to be filed with the City Planner and the City Clerk. Marr: That is exactly my intent. Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Marr to approve CUP 02-9.00 subject to the conditions of approval. Is there a second? Allen: I will second. Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Allen, is there any discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Marr and a second by Commissioner Allen to approve CUP 02-9.00 subject to the thirteen stated conditions of approval. Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please? Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 16 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve CUP 02-9.00 was approved by a vote of 7-1-0. Estes: The motion passes by a vote of seven with one recusal to zero. Thank you Sir. Planning Commission March 11, 2002 Page 17 Nominating Committee: Appointment of nominating committee for 2002 Planning Commission officers. Estes: The remaining item of business on your agenda is the appointment of a Nominating Committee for the 2002 Planning Commission officers. I have asked Commissioners Hoffman, Marr and Ward to serve on this nominating committee and they have graciously agreed to do so and are so appointed. Is there any other business to come before the Planning Commission? Conklin- No there is not. Estes: Are there any announcements? Conklin: I have no announcements. Estes: We will stand adjourned until the next regularly called meeting, thank you for attending. Meeting adjourned: 6:12 p.m.