Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/27/19890 i PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1989 MINUTES The meeting began in Council Chambers at 6:32 p.m. Members present included, Laurie O'Dell, Frank Groznik, Sandy Kern, Dave Edwards, Jim Klataske, Lloyd Walker and Rex Burns. Staff was represented by Tom Peterson, Joe Frank, Sherry Albertson Clark, Ken Waido, Glenn Schleuter, Mike Herzig, Paul Eckman, and Kayla Ballard. Ms. Clark reviewed the Consent Agenda which consisted of: (1) Minutes of the January 23 and January 30, 1989 meetings; (2) #95-81H, Seven Lakes PUD, Phase II - Preliminary and Final; (3) #13-82AO, Oakridge Business Park, 12th Filing - Preliminary; (4) #53-84G Warren Farms, 3rd Filing - Preliminary Subdivision; (5) #53-85W Centre for Advanced Technology 13th Filing -Final; (6) #107-88 Revisions to the Subdivision Regulations - Minor Subdivisions; (7) #5-89, A New Note Partnership First Annexation and Zoning; (8) #6-89, A New Note Partnership Second Annexation and Zoning; (9) #7-89, A Koldeway Annexation and Zoning; (10) #9-89, A Nelson Annexation and Zoning; (11) #3-89, A Fort Collins Industrial and Technical Park Venture First Annexation and Zoning; (12) #4-89, A Fort Collins Industrial and Technical Park Venture Second Annexation and Zoning; (13) #10-89, A Skyview Ltd. Annexation and Zoning. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Discussion Agenda which consisted of: (14) #1-88B Gateway at Harmony Road PUD - Preliminary; (15) #52-80I Valley Forge PUD - Amended Final; (16) #94-88A Fossil Creek Design Center PUD - Final; and (17) #1-89, A Ridge Annexation and Zoning. He noted that Item #5 would be continued to the March 27 meeting. He asked that Items #11 and #12 be moved to the Discussion Agenda. Member Edwards perceived a conflict on Items #2 and #3. Member Kern asked that the minutes be corrected, as he did not state he thought the project should be a neighborhood convenience center. Member Groznik moved to approve Items #1, #4, #6, #10 and #13. Member Kern seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. Member Klataske moved to approve Items #2 and #3. Member Walker seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 6-0, Member Edwards did not participate. Member O'Dell stated that the Board would discuss Items #7, #8, and #9 at the March 6 meeting. FORT COLLINS INDUSTRIAL TECH CENTER FIRST AND SECOND ANNEXATION AND ZONING. Ken Waido gave a brief combined staff summary. He stated this was a voluntary annexation but that the applicants wished to zone the property I-G with no PUD condition. They also wanted the zoning to allow residential uses. He stated that staff was recommending the zoning but recommends the PUD condition so review of the impacts of development could be seen by the staff and Board. Pat Bremerman asked what could be built with the requested zoning Mr. Waido stated the applicant wished to put residential uses on the property. Staff desired a PUD condition placed on the zoning, so the uses could be reviewed. He did not know what will go on the property, as it will require approval of the zoning by the Board and then by Council. He noted the applicant had stated they would withdraw the petition if not given the requested zoning without a PUD condition. Member Walker asked for a definition of the requested zoning. Paul Eckman stated that the applicant would like residential IG zone and that the Code would need to be amended to accept this type of zoning. He noted that the Board could handle the annexation and zoning separately. Member Walker asked if the applicant was agreeable to a PUD condition. Mr. Waido stated the applicant was not agreeable to the PUD. Member Edwards asked what the County allowed. Mr. Waido believed it was similar to the City's IG zone and that it would require review by the County and reviewed by the UGA Board. Member Groznik moved to approve the annexation for the Fort Collins Industrial Technical Center First Annexation. Member Kern seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Groznik moved to approve the annexation for the Fort Collins Industrial Technical Center Second Annexation. Member Kern seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0. Member Kern believed the proposal should be left IG with no residential or IG with a PUD condition as recommended by staff. Mr. Eckman stated the Board could approve just the IG zoning. He stated the applicant still has an opportunity for PUD condition. He also stated that the Board could make the PUD a condition of approval. Member Kern moved to approve the IG zoning with a PUD condition. Member Edwards seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 7-0. -2- GATEWAY AT HARMONY PUD Joe Frank gave a brief summary of the project. Jim Gefroh, the applicant, gave a description of the uses for the property. He stated the Amoco will be served off of two access points from College. He said a future signal was proposed at Kensington and College and this will be possible when Kensington was built to the east but until that time would remain unsignalized. He said that MacDonald's would be served by Mason Street. The plan was in compliance with the South College Avenue Access Plan and a condition of approval was a result of City Council action on the Access Plan. He said the plan calls for generous buffering berms and mixed plantings along College Avenue and Harmony Road with green space area at the intersection of College Avenue and Harmony Road. He reviewed the ground signage, stating the sign for Amoco would be 121" from grade, the standard restaurant sign was undetermined at this time but would conform with the City Sign Code and MacDonald's would have 2 signs, one at the right in only turn and the other at the intersection of Harmony Road and Mason Street. The MacDonald's signs would be identical and would be 8'4". He stated the retail ground sign was located off Kensington and was not specific at this time. The architecture was governed by the corporate standards of MacDonald's and Amoco, but the tenants have agreed to conform to basic and charcoal grays, as well as brick coloring. Member Walker asked about length and location of Amoco striping on the canopy. Mr. Gefroh stated the stripes would be from the end of the word Amoco and would appear on 3 sides of the canopy. Member Walker asked about the roof lighting. Mr. Gefroh stated the roof beams were lighted with no signage. He said the standard for MacDonald's has been a 2 bulb system and this project has a I bulb system to lower intensity of the lighting. Member Groznik asked where the drainage would flow. Mr. Gefroh stated that they would detain the storm water on site and it then would be time released to a storm sewer trunkline under College Avenue into Mail Creek. Member Kern asked if the Amoco sign (12'3") would be on College Ave. Mr. Gefroh stated yes. He noted that 2' of the sign would be a brick base, 5' would contain price information. The remainder would be Amoco wording. Member Kern asked about MacDonald's signage and berm heights. -3- Mr. Gefroh described the signs, noting that the signage was less than what would be allowed by City Code and would not be built upon berms. Mr. Frank gave staff report and stated the plan was in conformance with the criteria of the LDGS and had appropriate land uses. He said the issues were the medians in College Ave. and the right turn in only being approved by the State Highway Department. The conditions are that the applicant needs to gain approval from the State Highway and provide needed improvements. He stated staff is recommending approval. Mr. Eckman explained that at the present time, there was no Council approved South College Access Plan with medians. The Board might condition their approval, if inclined, upon the condition that raised medians being installed if a City and State approved plan calls for that construction. He stated the wording of the conditions could be as follows: "If, prior to the request for the first building permit, a South College Avenue Access Plan is established by the City and the State that includes the installation of raised medians, then the Developer shall install all medians as shown on the PUD plans and shall obtain the State's approval of the median installation and the access as shown on the plans." "If, prior to the request for the first building, no South College Avenue Access Plan is agreed upon by the City and the State, or an Access Plan is agreed upon that does not include the installation of raised medians, then the PUD is approved on condition that the Developer obtain the approval of the State Highway Department of the proposed right turn in only access point and must meet the requirements of the State and City regarding street and traffic improvements which are required to offset the impacts of the development." Chairperson O'Dell asked if the State would grant that approval. Mr. Eckman replied yes. He stated the second condition was worded that the approval was conditioned upon the City and State reaching an agreement which the developer was not privy to and had no control over, which was one of the objections of the developer. Chairperson O'Dell noted that the developer had two opportunities to build the project, whether or not a South College Avenue Access Plan was approved. Mr. Eckman stated yes. He said if a plan was approved with medians, the developer would co-operate and install medians. He said that if a plan was not approved, then the developer would still need to obtain approval of the State for the right in access and the median before the project could proceed. Chairperson O'Dell asked if the developer wished a left in access, would he have to come back with an amended PUD plan. Mr. Frank replied that if the applicant wanted more than a right turn in only, it would have to be justified and reviewed. -4- Mr. Peterson pointed out that the State had the final authority on access to South College Avenue. This was the reason for the condition. Member Groznik asked if an access plan was approved, will the right turn also be part of that plan or does the developer need approval for that turn. Mr. Eckman stated that the State had to approve any access off College Avenue. Member Groznik asked if the developer needed an access permit from the State irregardless if there was a plan or not. Mr. Frank replied yes. Member Walker asked if the State had communicated that their concern was the median which would make left turns limited, making the right turn more favorable. Mr. Frank stated that the State has spent alot of time looking at for the right turn, the access points, and relieving traffic at the signal. He said the justification was conditioned on there being a raised median in College Avenue and a decel lane from the access point to the Target property and that the developer provide this right turn decel to Harmony Road. He said that with these conditions, the State was inclined to approved the right in only. Member Walker asked about the status regarding the median issue in the South College Avenue Access Plan. Mr. Frank stated there was a condition made by the City Council that no medians would be installed from Harmony Rd. to Horsetooth Rd. until certain street improvements in the areawide circulation system are provided. Member Walker asked if the State would accept the Plan with this condition. Mr. Frank replied no. Member Edwards believed the conditions made by Mr. Eckman are like those made for a final review, due to the mention of building permits. He asked if the condition could note the concern of the access plan and until it is resolved, could the condition be approved at final. Mr. Eckman wanted to make it clear that if an access was approved that this developer would be compelled to follow the raised median plan which they had submitted. Mr. Frank noted that the final plans for this project may be seen by the Board on March 27, but the South College Avenue Access Plan would not be resolved by Council at that time. Harold Swope, resident, did not believe this type of project was needed and had concerns about the drainage due to the run-off from the project. He would like to see the installation of medians to reduce safety hazards. -5- Paul Heffron, owner of property, stated the storm sewer was capable of handling the run-off with proper detention, which was designed in the project. He noted MacDonald's did not draw traffic, but was an impulse trip business, and would not add to traffic volume. Lynn Block, resident, believed that additional water into Mail Creek would cause further degradation to the property around the project. Larry Gray, resident, asked about pedestrian movement from Wal-Mart to Gateway, such as sidewalks on Mason Street. Mr. Gefroh believed the signalization at Mason St. and Harmony would include pedestrian light systems. A sidewalk system would encircle the entire site as well as within the site. Mr. Frank stated staff was working with the applicant to develop an internal sidewalk system connecting to public sidewalks and would be included in the final plans. Chairperson O'Dell asked staff to comment on past problems with Mail Creek and how they would be resolve with this project. Mr. Gefroh stated the project met City guidelines for on -site detention. He noted that whatever development occurs at that location, the drainage would go into the basin. He was not aware of what the City was doing off -site with regards to Mail Creek. Mike Herzig stated that there were master drainage plans for all drainage basins. He said the storm drainage staff were working with the drainage downstream and the neighborhood, but did not know the status of those improvements. He stated all development was governed by a master drainage plan which indicated how drainage is handled off the property. Mr. Peterson stated that there are two ponds in Fairway Estates and are under orders from the State Dam Engineer to repair existing structures. He stated the City had voluntarily stepped in, although the property was in the County, to assist the Homeowners Association in repairing the dams, as they have some benefit in storm water retention. He said that courtesy maintenance which had been done by the City, would continue and that they would continue to work on the two ponds. He said that there was sediment and soil control standards, which were only voluntary, but he believed formal standards would be proposed in 1990. Mr. Gefroh noted that there was 12-13% more on -site capacity for detention than was required. Member Groznik asked if the water was being released at a rate similar to the present rate. Mr. Gefroh replied yes. 0 0 Member Walker asked if the median was necessary to control the right turn on Kensington and access onto Kensington Ave. Mr. Frank answered that the median served few purposes, and was primarily for left turns off of College Avenue onto Kensington Drive and left turns from College to Harmony; and secondly, to control the right turn in only access. The State was concerned with access to both Kensington Drive and Harmony Road. Debra Moyer, resident, believed that because drainage into Mail Creek may affect Fairway Estates and Fossil Creek, the neighborhood should have been involved, noting there was no neighborhood meeting. She had concerns about water quality, especially as there would be underground storage tanks for gasoline and the point chart does not reflect that. She asked for information on shared parking and green area plantings. Mr. Frank did not believe a neighborhood meeting was necessary as there had not been any citizen input and no immediate neighbors. He stated the neighborhood had been notified in writing and a sign posted. He said the landscaping at final would be a mix of plantings along the whole site. He stated that the underground tanks would need to meet the City's fire code requirements. Member Groznik asked about criteria differentiating a neighborhood meeting and a public hearing. Mr. Frank outlined criteria used to determine whether a neighborhood meeting is required and the difference between the neighborhood meeting and public hearing. Bob Soar, resident, believed the Board should defer development until they deal with problems created with the past developments. Member Groznik asked how the waste from the restaurant was disposed. Jim Clark, representative of MacDonald's stated that the oil would be saved and re -processed. Member Edwards asked what the difference was between sanitary and stormwater run-offs and how they are treated. Mr. Clark stated the sewage would be treated at the sewer system and water drainage would be detained on site and time released. He said there was a grease trap to prevent it from entering sanitary waste. Mr. Herzig stated that the City had two separate systems, one for sanitary waste, which goes to the treatment plant and storm water which was held on site and released at a controlled rate into streams. Chairperson O'Dell asked where the soap suds and wax from the carwash would go. 7- Mr. Herzig stated it was caught in grease traps and released into the sanitary sewer at a regulated rate set by the City's rules of discharge. Mr. Peterson stated that in the treatment of sanitary waste, the City had a number of industries which add different elements to the sanitary sewer waste. He said that under Federal regulations, if the elements could not be treated well, a pretreatment program would be necessary. The City has a treatment program which removes many elements, but the developer must provide on site pre-treatment before it came to the City treatment plant. He noted that commercial users such as MacDonald's discharge into the sanitary sewer system and would not be a problem. Mr. Eckman stated that there was no specific provisions for water quality as it relates to storm drainage at this time, but Section 12-38 of the Code stated that no toxic or flammable liquids or any crude liquid containing crude petroleum could be disposed into any gutter or stream, detention pond, lake or other water course or ground. Mr. Peterson noted that the Federal government will require cities over 100,000 by 1990, to provide for pretreatment of storm water. He said the City was proceeding to work on these issues in regards to the Poudre River in order to be in compliance by 1992. Member Kern asked about site lighting. Mr. Gefroh stated it would be down directed lighting. Member Groznik stated an additional condition could be that additional information on drainage and signage similar to signage at Drake and Shields projects. Member Walker stated that signage was a concern and access was a problem as the impasse between the City and the State, which leaves projects like this in an awkward position. Member Groznik moved to approve the project with the following conditions: 1) Signage be more in compliance with the level of signage approved on the projects in the vicinity of Drake Road and Shields Street; 2) Provide more information on the water quality and volume of water that would be released into Mail Creek; 3) Access language by legal staff regarding medians and right in turn only. Mr. Eckman stated that two proposals were given: 1) that if the plan was approved with medians, that the developer would comply with that, and; 2) if no plan was approved, then the developer would deal with right in turn. He said the median issue could be dealt with at final, as an additional detail, depending on the South College Avenue Access Plan outcome. He believed either would work at this preliminary stage. -8- Member Groznik asked to have the condition of the right turn approval by the State. He added an additional condition to deal with the Intensity of the lighting; 4) Directional downward lighting in the gas station as well as lighting in the lighting beams at MacDonald's. He requested more information and justification on the lighting on the roof of MacDonald's. Member Kern seconded. He would like to make signage a consistent policy and requested more information on water quality and quantity. He had concerns about a lighted roof and would like to see lighting like that eliminated. He was comfortable about the developer handling access on College Avenue. He did not want this to be an impediment to the way the project develops. He did not like the developer playing a pawn in the median issue. Mr. Eckman agreed with the condition that the developer obtain a permit from State for the right turn. He stated the project could be approved on the condition that prior to request for the first building permit, a South College Access Plan was established by City and State that includes the installation of raised medians. Then the Developer shall install all medians as shown on PUD plans and shall obtain the State's approval of the median installation and accesses as shown on the plans. If prior to the request for the first building permit, no South College Access Plan was agreed upon by City and State, or an access plan was agreed upon that does not include the installation of raised medians, then the PUD would be approved on condition that the developer obtain the approval of the State Highway Department of the proposed right turn in only access point and meet the requirements of the State and City regarding street and traffic improvements which are required to off set the impacts of the development. Mr. Gefroh asked if he did not get approval, could he get access off Kensington Ave. Mr. Frank answered yes, as the site could be facilitated by a right in on Kens gton. He said the State Highway believed that a right in only would improve the intersection at Harmony Road. Member Edwards believed the Board made a proper recommendation to Council regarding the South College Access Plan and if this project triggers the adoption of a safe plan for College Avenue, then that would be fine. He thought more information was necessary on the storm drainage, but doesn't warrant rejecting or delaying this project and felt this could be done in the confines of the system as it exists. Mr. Eckman stated that the applicant wished to know who would pay for the installation of the median. He did not wish to imply that the developer would or would not pay for the installation. He said it may be shared but did not know who would pay the cost. Chairperson O'Dell stated the plans show the medians. She asked if something was worked out as to who pay the cost. Mr. Frank stated that before the South College Access Plan was proposed, the medians were to be a City -funded project and he imagined it would remain so. W Mr. Herzig stated medians were standards in arterials and were paid for by street oversizing fees. He said that since there were no medians now, the developer would be reimbursed. Motion to approve with conditions passed 7-0. VALLEY FORGE PUD Ted Shepard, project planner, gave a brief description of project. Mark Kirsting, Young Electric Sign Co., stated the reasons for the signage request. He said the additional lighting would add safety and creation of a more friendly atmosphere for the children. He noted the lights in the awning would not be on after the end of the business day, approximately 6:30 p.m. or 7:30 p.m. Ray Gray, also with Young Electric Sign Co., representing Children's World, stated the lighting would be diffused and focused on the walkway. He said the sign would be illuminated from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m, and then from dusk to 7 p.m., being off during the day. He said the sign sets out from the building 24", and would not interfere with the architectural design of the building. Mr. Shepard presented the staff report in which staff was recommending denial as it was an intrusion into the Brown Farm residential area. Member Walker asked if the issue was illumination. Mr. Shepard replied that the old sign was unlit and that the issue was illumination. Mike Moog, resident, believed signage was similar to something found on College Avenue. He did not think it was compatible, as several yards face the center and would be affected by the light. Marie Munn, resident, agreed the sign should be denied and noted that there was a high intensity light there now. Pat Marsh, resident, asked that the project be denied. Member Walker moved to deny the project due to the illumination. Member Groznik seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. FOSSIL CREEK DESIGN CENTER Sherry Albertson Clark, project planner, gave a brief description of the project. She stated that staff recommended continuation to the March 27 Board meeting and the applicants requested continuance to the March 6 meeting. -10. Ken Goff, representing the owner, asked if it was appropriate to do the whole presentation at this time. Chairperson O'Dell believed it was appropriate to discuss the potential for continuance and dates. She noted that the continued items would be heard on March 6 and the next regular meeting would be on March 27. Mr. Goff stated he would like to be heard on the 6th. He stated that the Board had reviewed the preliminary plan. It was approved contingent upon drainage issues being addressed. They met with the neighborhood. He noted the Board had additional concerns regarding building height. He said that there was an additional neighborhood meeting. Several residents had concerns regarding the height of the building and entrance detail and the phasing of the project. He noted that they have made several modifications, primarily to lower the building. They have also reduced the height in the entrance detail and screened the loading area in Phase 1. He said that the screen would be temporary, as Phase Two would screen the area permanently. He said a problem arose in regard to an eastern access point on an approved plat for property south of this site. In their preliminary plan, they showed the road being brought diagonally across their property. It adjoined Snead Drive at that point. Staff had concerns about the connection of Snead Drive and Fossil Creek Drive and safety factors in regard to this connection. He said another concern was the catch basin which would contain their drainage water in a culvert that was designed as a linear catch basin. In reviewing this, it was decided that it needed to be redesigned to function better. He noted that the Development Agreement needed to be signed as does an agreement with the neighbor to the south to create easements required to do construction of the drainage area and connection to Snead Drive. He believed the items could be resolved in a matter of days, hence the request to be heard on March 6. Chairperson O'Dell asked if the catch basin originally needed to be redesigned. Mr. Goff replied yes. He said they designed an inlet to contain water from their property and Snead Drive. He said it then would be contained in a concrete culvert and carried under Fossil Creek Parkway when it was built. He said the concrete catch basin at the south property line, as originally designed, would not be adequate, necessitating redesign. He said the Board was given plans with Snead Drive as proposed, but because they had no chance to develop this. The neighborhood was not aware of this, they did not wish to include it as part of their proposal. It was taken off and added to another set of documents with the request that they be approved without the road were submitted. He said they would then go back to the neighborhood and come to an agreement as to where the road would be. Chairperson O'Dell asked if that portion would be an amendment to the final. Mr. Peterson stated yes, it would be an amendment. Mr. Goff stated it was a landscaped 12' area that was about 2' in the middle. He noted on the site plan where it would be located. -11- Member Walker asked how the drainage from the roofs and pavement would be handled. Mr. Goff stated the drainage would be to the back of the building and contained in curb and gutter in Snead Drive to the outlet and to catch basin. He said an additional catch basin would be designed to catch overflow. The drainage from the parking lot would go to the detention area, contained in the concrete structure, then to the swale and continue north to Fossil Creek Parkway. Member Groznik asked if one week was enough time to get the information required to the staff for review and on to the Board. Mr. Peterson believed the concerns were with storm drainage and thought the plans could be submitted and reviewed in time for the Board. He said the Board would have the staff recommendation by Friday. Michael Griffith, the attorney for Fossil Creek H.O.A., stated that they had lined up speakers for tonight's meeting and that they would have conflicts on the following Monday. Lynn Block, resident, stated the Planning Department told her at 3 p.m., that this item was still on the agenda. Chairperson O'Dell stated the Board had received a letter dated the 27th, but there was no indication of the time it was received. Member Groznik did not wish to come to the meeting and find the applicant was not prepared or the plans had not been reviewed, nor would he want the neighborhood group to bring up issues which were not brought up at the neighborhood meeting. He would favor a continuance to the next regular meeting. Chairperson O'Dell was concerned about the way Snead Drive was depicted and wanted the question of Snead Drive resolved. She would also like to see this project at the next regular meeting. Member Burns asked if there are easements and right-of-way agreements that needed to be drawn up. Mr. Goff replied yes. Member Burns believed that there were a large number of things to work out. At the December meeting the applicant had not resolved these things and now, two months later, they were still unresolved. He believed that the project should be continued until March 27. Member Groznik moved to continue this project to the March 27 meeting. Member Walker seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0. -12- 0 • THE RIDGE ANNEXATION AND ZONING Ken Waido gave a brief summary of the proposal. The annexation included The Ridge PUD, a residential project approved in the county, and several other properties. He noted the property in question was an enclave annexation and cited the policies in the UGA Agreement. He stated the zoning for the property was proposed as R-L-P, Low Density Planned Residential. He stated that the property owners were notified of the annexation in January and in addition to the letter, information which dealt with the annexation, taxes, land use, zoning, utilities, electrical service information, and street maintenance was included. Staff recommended the approval of the annexation and zoning. Member Burns asked if the property was in the Fort Collins/Loveland Water District. Mr. Waido replied yes. He explained the annexation policies in the UGA Agreement and believed the City had annexed over 20 county enclaves in the past three years, the largest being Skyline Acres on Horsetooth Rd. and Shields St. He stated the Ridge property was the largest county subdivision to be an enclave annexation. Member Edwards asked about the economical ramifications to the residents. Mr. Waido stated the property tax would increase for the property owners. At the conclusion of the annexation procedure, the County Assessor's Office would apply the City's 8.797 mill levy and subtract the 8.777 mill levy of the Poudre Fire Authority. The net increase was .02 of a mill. He stated the sales tax would be an impact, as property owners would be required to pay sales tax on large ticket items, such as an automobile or large appliances. He stated the utilities could remain with one exception, that being electrical. A septic system must be connected to a public system if and when it failed. He said all other mill levys, school districts, and hospital districts would not change. He believed that most questions from property owners dealt with whether, upon annexation, streets would need to be upgraded to City standards. The answer was no. The streets could remain as long as the residents were satisfied with that level of service. The City would do maintenance service, such as potholes but the City will not absorb the burden if, in the future, the street needed to be reconstructed. He believed the Ridge Homeowners Association recently overlayed their streets. Member Burns asked if the residents would pay monthly storm drainage fees. Mr. Waido replied yes, upon annexation. Larry Gray, Vice President of the Ridge Homeowners Association, stated the Homeowners Board was resigned to annexation by the City. He urged the Planning and Zoning Board to proceed with the annexation, making it effective prior to April 22, when a surcharge of 25% would be applied to the residents current power rates. -13- Bert Petrie, resident, asked what would become of the 30 acres of green belt which was owned by the Homeowners Association. Mr. Eckman stated the ownership status would not change. Mr. Petrie asked if they could limit access to the open space to the residents of the Ridge. Mr. Eckman answered yes. Member Edwards noted that the same rights applied to the green belt area as applied to individual lots. Al Kilminster, resident, would rather not be annexed as he believed he would pay more in taxes and fees in the City. He stated he raised bees and believed this was against the code of the City and believed he would have to get rid of them. He stated the RLP zoning would leave the area open to PUDs. He envisioned condos, and 7-11 stores. Mr. Eckman stated that the keeping of bees within the City limits was declared a menace to residents and declared a nuisance and prohibited. He noted that under a Non -Conforming Use provision, that legally existing uses prior to annexation were allowed to continue unless abandoned. He was not prepared to state that a nuisance in the Non -Conforming Use provision would be allowed to continue. Mr. Kilminster pointed out that he had 8 hives and the surrounding area was pasture. Chairperson O'Dell asked who would make the decision as to whether the hives could remain. Mr. Peterson stated it would be up to the Zoning Administrator to decide, after consultation with the City Attorney's Office and Planning Staff. Lloyd Bjorlo, resident, asked when the effective date for this annexation would be. Mr. Waido stated City Council would consider the second reading on April 4. He said the effective date would be April 14, if approved. Sanford Thayer, a trustee of 20% of the land proposed for annexation, asked what the impact of storm drainage fees would be on 35 acres, which contained one house and a mobilehome. Mr. Waido did not believe it would be a major impact as it was a predominantly vacant piece of land. Member Burns stated it would be $243 a month for a storm drainage maintenance fee. He said that if the property were to be developed, drainage fees would apply at approximately $3,500 per acre. -14- N Mr. Waido stated he would meet with the storm drainage department and address Mr. Thayer's concerns. Mr. Thayer requested that his 35 acres be withdrawn from the annexation petition. The acreage was farmland and will continue to be used as farmland. The requested zoning was not compatible with the existing uses. He noted that the type of land uses changed, as different types of livestock were pastured there. Mr. Waido noted that the RE zone allowed livestock and that Mr. Thayer's property could be zoned differently than the rest of the site. Mr. Thayer stated he would prefer the RLP zoning, with a record which would reflect the variety of land uses which existed at the time of annexation. Mr. Eckman stated the prior uses were non -conforming and would be allowed to continue to exist. Mr. Thayer asked if past land uses, such as 60 head of cattle, would constitute prior use. Mr. Eckman stated the definitions of Non -Conforming Uses and believed that the typical amount of cattle, rather than a counting of heads on April 14 would be used. Mr. Thayer requested that the record show that in the past, the property had seen up to 60 head of cattle and 35 head of horses. Mr. Eckman noted that residents may contest the statement, and would hesitate to state that the City would be bound to that statement. Mr. Thayer asked that his property be exempted from the planned annexation. Mike Myshatya, resident, appreciated the information sent to the residents but wished to received more information on storm drainage fees. Mr. Peterson stated the amount would be $2-3 and that larger fees were assessed as the property developed. He stated that staff would send them the information. Mr. Myshatya asked that the information be sent to Mr. Gray and the Homeowners Association. Mr. Eckman believed that staff should visit Mr. Thayer's property to note the uses. In respect to the bee issue, he had concerns about using the Code provisions for a Non -Conforming Use to allow a possible nuisance. Member Edwards asked if the problem could be resolved with a variance. Mr. Eckman stated that the code did not provide for a use variance in city limits and a variance would not change its prohibition. -15- Member Edwards had concerns that Mr. Kilminster's bee -keeping had been done with no apparent complaints and now he had no alternative to continue that activity. Mr. Peterson stated that further investigation would be needed to resolve Mr. Kilminster's concerns. Member Kern moved to recommend approval to City Council the Ridge Annexation and Zoning. Member Edwards seconded the motion. Member Edwards asked if a separate motion was needed for Mr. Thayer's objection to the annexation of his property. Mr. Waido replied no. Chairperson O'Dell noted that Mr. Thayer may make his objections known to City Council, who have the final authority. The motion to approve passed 7-0. Other Business Mr. Peterson stated there would be worksession on the Downtown Plan on Thursday from 5-7 p.m. in the CIC Room for those would like to attend, and was not mandatory. Chairperson noted the APA Conference in Atlanta and that two Boardmembers will be sent by the Planning Department. Chairperson O'Dell stated that the meeting was continued to March 6, at 6:30 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. -16-