Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 02-12-2014 CITY Of CAPE GIRARDEAU PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 12, 2014 City Hall — Council Chambers Present: Trae Bertrat�d, Larry Dowdy, Jeff Glenn, William Hinckley, Randy Kluge, Ralph Maxton, Scott McClanahan, Doug Spooler, Thomas J. Welch Absent: None Staff Present: Carol Peters, Ryan Shrimplin Call to Order: Chairman Bertrand called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the January 8, 2014 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. McClanahan. HEARINGS, DISCUSSION &VOTING � 1. A public hearing was held on the request of Kevin Heberlie for a Special Use Permit to construct and operate self storage units in the C-1 (General Commercial) District at 1354 North Mount Auburn Road. Mr. Chris Koehler, Koehler Engineering & Land Surveying, appeared before the Commission to represent the applicant. Mr. Koehler informed the Commissioners that several discussions with City staff were held to address staff concerns. The applicant is aware of, and willing to work within, the eight conditions of approval listed in the staff report. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. The staff report recommended approval of the Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1) Except for the variances granted as part of this permit, the special use shall meet all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Development Code. 2) The design of the 6 foot tall privacy fence shall be subject to approval by the City staff. 3) The dumpster shall be fully screened on all sides by a solid fence or wall with solid gates. The design of the dumpster screening shall be subject to approval by the City staff. 4) The plantings in the 30 foot general maintenance and drainage easement shall be subject to approval by the City staff. 5) The grass pavers shall be separated from non-emergency traffic by means of a curb, chain or other barrier, subject to approval by the City staff. 8'� �his permit shall automatically expire twelve (12) months from the date of issuance if the use for which it was granted has not commenced. 7) Major modifications to the special use shall require the approval of the City Council. 8) This permit is not transferable without the consent of the City Council. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Maxton to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit at 1354 North Mount Auburn Road with the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. � 2. A public hearing was held on the request of Coast to Coast Signs for a variance from Development Code Section 25-506(b), freestanding signs, at 65 Doctors Park Drive. Mr. Marty Platz, Coast to Coast Signs, presented the request to the Commission. Mr. Platz Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2014 Page 2 � explained that the facility at 65 Doctors Park Drive is a long building occupied by two separate medical facilities sharing one parking lot with two entrances along Doctors Park Drive. The property owner would like to install a second freestanding sign at the south entrance to the parking lot so each facility has its own sign. Ms. Deborah Seeger, 1533 Helmsdale Drive, also spoke in favor of the request. She is the property manager for 65 Doctors Park Drive and stated that the length of the building created the need for an additional sign for the appropriate doctors. No one spoke in opposition to the request, however, the City did receive two letters of opposition. A letter from Sarah J. Holt, Administrator of Cape Girardeau Doctors' Park, expressed concerns with setting a bad precedent in Doctors' Park and too many signs hampering the line of sight vision on the roadways within Doctors' Park. A second letter was signed by representatives of thirteen medical facilities in Doctors' Park expressing their opposition to more than one freestanding sign per building. Mr. Platz used CVS Pharmacy as an example of other buildings in the city which have more than one freestanding sign. Mr. Shrimplin explained that CVS Pharmacy has three street frontages and thus is afforded three freestanding signs. The code allows one freestanding sign per street frontage. Since Doctors Park Drive is a private street, Mr. Platz asked the Commission to consider granting the variance. If the variance is granted, then they will approach the Doctors Park Covenant Board to discuss the sign. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: The requested variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner, the applicant or predecessors in title. � Findin : The property contains one building that is occupied by two separate medical facilities, each with several doctor "tenants". Due to the number of tenants and the need to keep each group separate, the applicant wishes to construct a second freestanding sign rather than enlarge the existing one. The existing sign is located at the north entrance from Doctor's Park Circle. The proposed, second sign is to be located at the south entrance from the same street. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect adjacent property owners or tenants if a condition is imposed that limits the aggregate sign area of both freestanding signs to the maximum permitted sign area per the Development Code. The applicant would not be granted additional sign area; rather, they would receive permission to divide the maximum sign area they are afforded by the Code into two signs. Criterion #3: The strict application of the provisions of the Development Code from which the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property. Findinq: Denial of the variance will constitute an unnecessary hardship because the property will be limited to a single freestanding sign containing information for both facilities and groups of tenants. Such a sign will not provide the necessary �I�,,,;� separation to properly direct traffic onto the property. Furthermore, new patients will Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2E314 � Page 3 have to scan a large amount of information on the sign while driving, which could be a safety issue. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findinq: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public as long as the condition is imposed. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. FindinQ: If the variance is granted with the condition, it will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code because the applicant is not gaining additional sign area. Instead, they are staying within the maximum permitted sign area and dividing it befinreen two signs. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the variance request, subject to the following condition: '(. The aggregate sign area of both freestanding signs shall not exceed the maximum permitted sign area per the Development Code. � A motion was made by Mr. Glenn to table the request until such time as the applicant receives approval from the Doctors Park Covenant Board. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Chairman Bertrand expressed his concern with granting a variance with so much opposition. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Kluge to approve the variance request. The motion failed with a vote of 3 in favor, 6 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 3. A public hearing was held on the request of KFVS-12 for a variance from Development Code Section 25-805, bufferyards, at 229 North Lorimier Street. Mr. Tim Ingram, KFVS-12 General Manager, explained that the station is planning on constructing a new parking area for its employees and/or guests. The subject property is adjacent to a residential use on the north side. Per the code, a twenty (20) foot wide bufferyard is required. Due to the narrow width of the property, there is not space to accommodate the full bufferyard and the parking area. The station is proposing a four and one-half (4.5) foot wide bufferyard instead, with a six (6) foot tall privacy fence running along the north property line to screen the parking area from the residence. Mr. Ingram stated that he is aware of, and willing to work within, the three conditions of approval listed in the staff report. Brad and Kelison Hines, 233 North Lorimier Street, spoke in favor of the reduced bufferyard as long as a nice fence is installed. No one spoke in opposition to the request. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: The requested variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found, and is not created by an action or actions of � the property owner, the applicant or predecessors in title. Findin : KFVS 12 is proposing to develop the property in question for additional parking. The variance is being requested due to existing topography which Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2014 Page 4 � necessitates a retaining wall, thereby limiting the area available for the new parking spaces. The property, which is relatively narrow, is further constrained by the bufferyard requirement. These conditions are unique to the property in question, and are not self-imposed. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: To compensate for the reduced bufferyard and plantings, the applicant is proposing a six (6) foot tall privacy fence to screen the parking area from the adjacent residential property. The fence will serve as a more effective screen because it vuEll keep headlights from shining onto the residential property. Thus, the granting of the variance will not adversely affect adjacent property owners and residents. Criterion #3: The strict application of the provisions of the Development Code from which the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property. Findinq: Denial of the variance will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property because the number of parking spaces will be substantially reduced and therefore render the project infeasible. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, � morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findin : The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public; in fact, the public will benefit because it will allow the project to move forward, resulting in more off-street parking and less demand for on-street parking. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. FindinQ: The granting of the variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code because the applicant is proposing an alternate manner of screening that, in this particular case, will be more effective than what is required by the Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the variance request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The design of the privacy fence shall be subject to approval by the City staff. The style, colors and materials of the fence shall be compatible with the character of the Central Business District. 2. The privacy fence shall comply with the applicable fence regulations, including the requirement to obtain a fence permit prior to installation. � 3. Landscaping in the bufferyard shall include shrubs, ornamental grasses and/or ground cover and shall be subject to approval by the City staff. Planning 8� Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2014 � Page 5 A motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Maxton to approve the variance at 229 North Lorimier Street with the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 4. A public hearing was held on the request of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for a variance from Development Code Section 25-506(a), wall signs, at 2021 Independence Street. Mr. Rick Rohlfing, BFA Engineers,103 Elm Street, Washington, MO, represented the applicant. Mr. Rohlfing stated that due to the existing buildings blocking the visibility of the proposed Wal- Mart Neighborhood Market, a request is being made to place wall signs on the east and west sides of the building to gain visibility from Plaza Way and Kingshighway, which do not have direct street frontage. Mr. Rohlfing added that only about 65% of the allowable square footage for wall signage would be utilized. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: The requested variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner, the applicant or predecessors in title. Findin : The property in question is approximately 7.156 acres and is to be developed for a Walmart Neighborhood Market. The property has a single street � frontage (Independence Street). Per the Development Code, Walmart is only afforded wall signage on the elevation facing the street frontage (i.e. the north building elevation). The property is flanked on both sides by buildings that are located near the street. Because the buildings are much closer to the street than the Walmart building, they will screen the wall sign from view in both directions on Independence Street. This is a unique condition that is not self-imposed. To alleviate this issue, Walmart is requesting a variance to allow wall signage on the west building elevation, which is visible from Kingshighway. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect adjacent property owners and tenants if a condition is imposed that requires the aggregate sign area of all wall signs on the building to not exceed the maximum permitted wall sign area per the Development Code. Criterion #3: The strict application of the provisions of the Development Code from which the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property. Findin : Denial of the variance will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property because Walmart's wall signage will be limited to the north building elevation which is not visible in advance to drivers in both directions on � Independence Street. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Planning 8� Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2014 Page 6 � Findin : The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public if the condition is imposed. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findin : The property in question does have a unique condition that serves to justify the granting of the variance. If the condition is imposed, the granting of the variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the variance request, subject to the following condition: 1. The aggregate sign area of all wall signs on the building shall not exceed the maximum permitted wall sign area per the Development Code. The Commission discussed the differences between this request and the request which was just denied for 65 Doctors Park Drive. Mr. Hinckley stated he could see the need for the sign to draw customers from Kingshighway. Mr. Spooler noted there wasn't any opposition to this request and it wasn't for an additional freestanding sign, which could cause sight safety issues. Mr. Kluge also mentioned that it is for a different type of business, one that relies on drive-by traffic. Mr. Shrimplin commented that the buildings on both sides block the view and the proposed signage is within the maximum permitted wall sign area for the building. A � motion was made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the wall sign variance at 2021 Independence Street with the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 5. A public hearing was held on the request of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for a variance from Development Code Section 25-303(b)(2)(b), exterior lighting, at 2021 Independence Street. Mr. Rick Rohlfing, BFA Engineers,103 Elm Street, Washington, MO, represented the applicant. Mr. Rohlfing stated the property is unique in that the buildings immediately adjacent to the parking lot are on their own lots, but will share parking with the Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market. Therefore, increased lighting is needed for safety of customers and employees walking on the sidewalks. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: The requested variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner, the applicant or predecessors in title. Findinq: With the exception of the street frontage, the property in question is surrounded on all sides by commercial buildings that are located at or near its boundary line. This is a unique condition that is not self-imposed. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. � Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2014 � Page 7 Findin : The areas where the proposed lighting levels exceed the one (1) footcandle maximum limit are located at the street access points, along two adjacent buildings near the property boundary, and along the rear property line. The proposed footcandle levels in these areas are only slightly above the maximum (generally less than two (2) footcandles). Given the slight deviations and the commercial uses surrounding the property in question, the granting of the variance will not adversely affect adjacent property owners and tenants. Criterion #3:The strict application of the provisions of the Development Code from which the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property. Findinq: The application states that the proposed lighting levels are for the safety of pedestrians, customers, and vehicular traffic along the perimeter of the property in question. Given the inter-connectedness between the property in question and the adjacent properties, the applicant's claim is valid. As such, denial of the variance will constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. FindinQ: Granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public; in fact, it will � increase public safety as stated in the application. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findin : The unique condition of the property in question, the slight deviations from the maximum lighting levels, and the increase in public safety form the basis for the granting of the variance in keeping with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the variance request. A motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Maxton to approve the exterior lighting variance at 2021 Independence Street. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 6. A public hearing was held on the request of Daniel J. and Marcia Schlueter for a variance from Development Code Section 25-504(e), on-premise signs, at 1401/1403 North Kingshighway. Mr. Daniel Schlueter, 1527 Bunker Hill Drive, stated that his businesses, Endless Summer Tan and Healing Rays, are located behind Budget Auto Repair, and the building they are in is not visible from Kingshighway. The property has a narrow street frontage, and the existing utilities in the grass area next to the driveway make it difficult to locate a sign there. An agreement has been executed with the property owner of 1401 North Kingshighway to utilize an existing sign base to place a sign for Endless Summer Tan and Healing Rays. Mr. Marty Platz, Coast to Coast Sings, also spoke in favor of the request. � No one spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Dowdy recused himself from the discussion and vote for personal reasons. Chairman Bertrand noted that there was no opposition to this variance request. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2014 Page 8 � Criterion #1: The requested variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner, the applicant or predecessors in title. Findin : Per the Development Code, permitted freestanding sign area is based on street frontage. The property at 1403 North Kingshighway is a flag lot with very narrow street frontage (approximately 20 feet). As a result, the building at 1403 is only afforded 30 square feet of freestanding sign area. This is well below the typical freestanding signage afforded to other C-2 properties with frontage on Kingshighway. Additionally, the narrow portion of the property contains an access drive that is shared with the adjacent property to the north. There is a grass area on the property next to the access drive that slopes down from the drive. These conditions are unique to the property in question, and are not self-imposed. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to install a freestanding sign on the adjacent property to the south, utilizing an existing sign base that is at a higher grade than the grass area. The area of the proposed sign is not indicated, but based on the rendering provided with the application it appears to be much larger than the 30 square feet permitted by the Code. It should be noted that the owners of the two properties have executed an agreement to allow the sign on 1401. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: The rights of adjacent property owners and tenants will not be adversely � affected by the granting of the variance if the permitted freestanding sign area for 1403 is combined with that of 1401. This will result in two freestanding signs on 1401 and none on 1403. The two signs will share the aggregate permitted sign area. Criterion #3: The strict application of the provisions of the Development Code from which the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property. Findin : Denial of the variance will constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property because the limited street frontage puts the property owner and the businesses at a unique disadvantage in advertising goods and services to the public. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findinq: If the granting of the variance is conditioned upon the combination of sign area as described above, it will not adversely affect the public. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findin4: The unique conditions of the property in question, which severely limit the � applicant's ability to adequately advertise goods and services on the property, form Planning 8�Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2014 � Page 9 the basis for granting the variance in keeping with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the variance request, subject to the following condition: 1. The permitted freestanding sign area for 1403 North Kingshighway shall be combined with that of 1401 North Kingshighway. No freestanding signage shall be permitted on 1403 North Kingshighway except for directional signage as provided for in the Development Code. Furthermore, 1401 North Kingshighway shalt be permitted up to two freestanding signs. The aggregate sign area of both signs shall not exceed the maximum permitted freestanding sign area based on the total combined street frontage of the two properties. A motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the variance request with the conditions listed in the staff report and that the sign meets all other applicable sign regulations. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 1 abstaining. 7. A public hearing was held on the request of Pizza Hut for a variance from Development Code Section 25-506(fl, roof signs, at 1015 North Kingshighway. Mr. Joe Ewers, 1402 Parkmor Drive, stated that Pizza Hut is requesting the variance in order to display roof signs � on both sides of the tower at the front entry of the building at 1015 North Kingshighway. Mr. Ewers stated that if the variance is approved, the existing freestanding sign in the front of the property will be removed, and therefore there will be no freestanding sign on the property. Mr. Marty Platz, Coast to Coast Signs, also spoke in favor of the request and asked that Pizza Hut be allowed to keep the existing enter and exit signs on the property. No one spoke in opposition to the request. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: The requested variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner, the applicant or predecessors in title. Findinq: The property in question is located on a five-lane state highway (Kingshighway). The property contains a small building with limited frontage. Due to its architectural design, the front of the building has relatively little wall space to display a sign. The limited space for wall signage puts the applicant at a disadvantage due to the higher traveling speeds on Kingshighway. These conditions are unique to the property in question, and are not self-imposed. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to display roof signs on both sides of the tower at the front entry (in addition to a wall sign on the front of the tower, which is permitted by the Development Code). Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. � Findin : The granting of the variance as proposed will adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners and tenants because the tower roof signs will project above the roofline of the building, which is prohibited by the Development Code. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 12, 2014 Page 10 � Staff has consistently maintained that there is no justification for such signs. As an alternative, staff supports granting a variance to allow the roof signs on the mansard roof portion of the north and south building elevations. In this manner, they will not project above the roofline of the building and therefore will not adversely affect adjacent property owners and tenants. Criterion #3: The strict application of the provisions of the Development Code from which the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property. Findinq: Denial of the variance will constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property due to the architectural design which limits the applicant's ability to utilize its maximum permitted wall sign area. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findinq: As stated previously, the granting of the variance as proposed will adversely affect the public due to the tower roof signs projecting above the roofline of the building. Conversely, the granting of the variance with the below conditions will not adversely affect the public. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. �'r Findinq: There are conditions unique to the property in question which will create a hardship if the variance is denied. The variance as proposed, however, will adversely affect the adjacent property owners and tenants as well as the public. If the variance is granted with the betow conditions, the adverse impact will be alleviated and therefore will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the variance request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed roof signs are approved to be installed on the mansard roof portion of the north and south building elevations only. They are not approved to be installed on the tower. 2. The aggregate sign area of all roof signs and wall signs on the building shall not exceed the maximum permitted wall sign area per the Development Code. Mr. Ewers expressed disagreement with the first staff condition, and reiterated the need to have the signs on the tower roof because they need to be visible from the highway. Mr. Shrimplin stated that staff is recommending the signs be located on the mansard roof portion of the north and south building elevations rather than on the tower roof. Otherwise, the variance does not meet the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Chairman Bertrand stated variance requests are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and in � this case, the proposed signage on the tower roof would look much better and be safer than the existing freestanding sign. A motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Planning &Zoning Commission . Meeting Minutes February 12, 2014 � Page 11 Glenn to approve the variance request with the following conditions: 1) The aggregate sign area of all roof signs and wall signs on the building shall not exceed the maximum permitted wall sign area per the Development Code, and 2) No freestanding signage shall be permitted on the property except for directional signage as provided for in the Development Code. The existing freestanding sign shall be removed. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. Mr. Hinckley explained that he voted for the variance because the tower is existing, and the applicant is simply looking to take advantage of the additional height for visibility. He added that he would have voted against the variance if th�fiower was not already there. SUBDIVISION PLATS 8. A record plat for Resubdivision of Lots 13, 14 & 16 of Walden Park Phase I - Amended was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Chris Koehler, Koehler Engineering and Land Surveying, explained that the plat is reconfiguring the lots to allow for the construction of a multi-family dwelling on one of the lots. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Kluge to recommend approval of Resubdivision of Lots 13, 14 8� 16 of Walden Park Phase I - Amended record plat. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. Other Items and Communication /�1� The Commission held its annual election of officers. A motion was made by Mr. Maxton and �� � seconded by Mr. Hinckley to elect Mr. McClanahan as Chairman, Mr. Glenn as Vice Chairman and Mr. Kluge as Secretary. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Staff Communication 9. Mr. Shrimplin asked the Commission for more input regarding the possibility of delegating to staff the ability to grant variances from the Development Code. Several Commission members expressed concern over the fact that such a delegation would allow variances to be granted without a public hearing. The Commission noted that the current process allows them to evaluate each variance request by taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the property, along with analysis and a recommendation by staff. For these reasons, the Commission would prefer to not delegate this power. Mr. Shrimplin stated that he will share their comments with the committee that is reviewing the code. Adiournment Upon motion made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Kluge, the Commission voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully sub � ed, J � R luge Secretary