Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 09/20/2018Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Michael Hobbs Fort Collins, Colorado Christine Pardee Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing September 20, 2018 Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Hobbs, Pardee, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Kleer, Frickey, Holland, Wray, Yatabe, Tatman-Burruss, Sullivan, Betley, Scheidenhelm, Olson, Lambrecht, Blochowiak, Van Zee and Gerber Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review Development Review Manager Everette reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 2 of 11 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Barbara Denny, 420 Sunset St., representing the 200 + members of the Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network. They are in support of the LNM zoning and want to make sure that the development conforms to the Northwest Suburbia Plan and that it preserves the character of the existing neighborhood. Chair Schneider asked Mrs. Denny if she was wanting to pull the item from consent. Mrs. Denny responded no. Consent Agenda: 1. Draft Minutes from August 16, 2018, P&Z Hearing 2. Boardwalk Crossing, Final Development Plan Extension of Vested Rights, FDP130003 3. Sanctuary on the Green Annexation and Zoning, ANX180004 – Pulled from consent 4. The Updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual 5. Hughes Stadium Annexation & Zoning, ANX180003 – Pulled from consent Public Input on Consent Agenda: Item pulled – 3. Sanctuary on the Green Annexation and Zoning, ANX180004 Item pulled – 5. Hughes Stadium Annexation & Zoning, ANX180003 Chair Schneider did a final review of the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda consisting of the draft minutes from the August 16, 2018 Planning and Zoning hearing, the Boardwalk Crossing, Final Development Plan Extension of Vested Rights, FDP 130003, and The Updated Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual. Member Pardee seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0. Discussion Agenda: 6. 200 East Swallow Road Request for Professional Office as an Addition of Permitted Use, #APU180001 Project Description: This is a request to allow a Professional Office as a legal land use within the existing house at 200 East Swallow Road. The request is to use 100% of the house for a Professional Office versus the 50% which is allowed under the Home Occupation License. Professional Office is defined as: “an office for professionals such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, engineers, artists, musicians, designers, teachers, accountants or others who through training are qualified to perform services of a professional nature and where no storage or sale of merchandise exists.” The house is 2,782 square feet and located on a lot that is 9,821 square feet and part of Thunderbird Estates. The request for a Professional Office at 200 E. Swallow Road will be considered as an Addition of Permitted Use in conjunction with a Minor Amendment. This is not a request to rezone the property to a higher classification of zone district where Professional Office is a use by right. Instead, as an Addition of Permitted Use, the underlying zoning would remain Low Density Residential (R-L) but only Professional Office would be added as an allowable land use, and no other uses, over and above the permitted uses in the R-L. Currently, 50% of the house is being used as a Home Occupation. The applicant has held the two required neighborhood information meetings. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received for this item. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 3 of 11 Planner Frickey gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Susan Brabson, owner of 200 East Swallow Rd. provided a verbal presentation to the board regarding the details of the addition of permitted use request. Mrs. Brabson gave a detailed description of the surrounding area and stated her beliefs as to why this APU should be approved. Member Hansen enquired if the examples that were shown during presentation were at the 50% maximum for home occupations or if some of them were fully used as businesses. Planner Frickey replied that he believed it was mixed. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted Staff Response None noted Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen feels it is appropriate to have a business located here. Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins planning and zoning board approve the 200 East Swallow Road Request for Professional office, APU180001 with the six conditions as listed in the staff report. This recommendation and conditions are based on the agenda materials, information and materials presented in the work session, and this hearing and the board discussion on this item with the following findings: That this APU complies with all the typical land use requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. The information analysis, findings of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this hearing are adopted by this board. Chair Schneider requested an amendment be made to reflect that this is a motion for recommendation that Council approve this APU. Member Hansen accepted the amendment. Member Hobbs seconded. Member Whitley asked for clarification on the APU number. Member Chair confirmed the number. Chair Schneider feels this is a good use of the property. Vote: 7:0. 7. The Retreat at Fort Collins, PDP180002 Project Description: This is a request to develop the parcel that is east of Redwood Street, north of Suniga Road (as it would be extended east of Redwood Street to Lemay Avenue) and south of Conifer Street. The Lake Canal forms the southeastern boundary. The request is for a combination of housing types that would be managed as a unified, student-oriented development. The predominant housing type is multi-family. There would be 190 dwelling units divided among 46 buildings plus a clubhouse and parking garage. Leasing would be rent-by-the-bedroom and there would be 739 bedrooms. A 1,500-square foot area within the clubhouse would be leased to a commercial tenant(s). The plan includes a total 747 parking spaces, 262 of which would be located within the three-story parking garage. This proposal is located in the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. The site is 30.17 acres. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were two emails/letters received from citizens as well as documentation updates on additional items. • Scott Metz supports the alternative compliance plan submitted by Ripley Design, and feels that the language surrounding the future vehicular connection at Lupine Drive is intentionally vague. Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 4 of 11 • Kelly Evans with Neighbor to Neighbor provided a letter of support explaining their agency’s partnership with the developer. • Updated Staff report (replaced in online packet) • Revised Pages 2 & 3 of applicant site plan (replaced in online packet) • Additional Applicant documents: o Approved jurisdictional determination o White Paper o Letter of Intent for Easement o LNM Memo from Lucia Liley (added to supplemental docs online) • Letter from Lucia Liley Disclosures by Board Member Member Carpenter disclosed that her husband and herself are under contract for a townhouse that is in Old Town North which is to the South and West of the item being discussed. She does not feel that there is bias present and can continue. Staff and Applicant Presentations Development Review Manager Everette (covering for Planner Shepard) gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Linda Ripley of Ripley Design, Inc. along with Andrew Costas of Landmark Properties, provided a verbal/visual presentation giving full details of the project and business model to the Board. She believes this project complies with all codes and will incorporate all stated conditions. Mrs. Ripley feels that condition C is unfair to the neighborhood and leaves them vulnerable to have this happen to them over again. Member Rollins asked if anyone from transportation was going to be present. Development Review Manager Everette responded yes, Joe Olson Member Hobbs asked if Landmark Properties owned and operated Landmark Apartments or any other apartment complexes in Ft. Collins. Mr. Costas responded that they do not currently own or operate any apartment projects in Ft. Collins, however, they are currently under construction here. The Standard of Ft. Collins. Member Hansen received clarification regarding off-street parking and if the parking calculation included public street parking. Development Review Manager Everette explained how parking calculations were run when a subdivision is new as opposed to infill. When new, on-street parking is used for the parking count. Member Pardee received clarification from the applicant as to there being one parking space per bedroom. Member Hansen inquired about condition B, landscaping enhancements on the western edge and what the enhancements entailed. Development Review Manager Everette explained the denser screening; increasing the plant material. Member Carpenter questioned how this condition would be enforced. Development Review Manager Everette responded that this condition was left open ended so that discussion could take place between staff and the applicant, but that the intent was to increase the quantity of plant material. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Scott Metz, 1013 Mullein Dr., read his previously submitted statement. Charles Clark, 1401 Lindenwood Dr., concerned with increased traffic and extra occupancy parking concerns. Amber Franzel, 625 Yarrow Circle, concerned with increased traffic and is concerned with loosing the culture and feel of the community. The HOA fully support the alternative plan as Landmark Properties and Ripley Designs have submitted, however they do not support the language and condition C which is vague and leaving the current community vulnerable to having this be a continuous fight. Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Trinity Oberndorf, 3416 Killarney Ct., Thanked Landmark Properties and Ripley Design for working with the neighborhood. She is in support of this project if the connections at Mullein and Lupine are pedestrian, bike and emergency access only. Dennis Harmon, 642 Spurge Circle, feels that the developer has gone a long way to make this project work as neighbors and it is appreciated. He is concerned with the Lupine connection and would like the project approved without the condition. Tony Wagner, 631 Lupine Dr., concerned with traffic and parking overflow. He would not like to see Lupine go through. Staff Response Mrs. Ripley addressed the 50’ buffer along the drainage ditch on the North of the property. There will not be a 50’ buffer along the entirety of the North edge. Development Review Manager Everette responded to the Lupine connection. Staff has found the criteria for the alternative compliance request have been met and without a connection to Lupine the project does meet the standards of the code. The condition of approval suggested highlights the portion of the street that runs up against Lupine would be designed for emergency access and designed as a street without a connection being made, it would be blocked off. There could be a time in the future when both neighborhoods agree to open the connection. Chair Schneider questioned who gets to make the final determination if the street gets opened as there is no definition in the condition for the future. Development Review Manager Everette agreed that the language is open- ended. It states interested parties which would be taken to mean residents in both neighborhoods, property owners, the City, etc. It would be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Board for a decision to be made. Attorney Yatabe commented that a note on the site plan should be added for notice purpose so that individuals understand that it is a possibility that it could occur. As a legal matter it is not more than a notification of the possibility and normally the decision rests with the City as to where connections are going to go through. Development Review Manager Everette addressed the extra occupancy units concern. The inclusion of the extra occupancy units does not put the project out of compliance. Development Review Manager Everette deferred to Traffic Engineer Joe Olson regarding the S curve along Conifer St. and potential additional hazard. Mr. Olson stated that the review comes at the final development review to ensure that there is adequate site distance and easements as required. Member Hobbs questioned if Poudre Fire Authority or another authority were requiring that there is the emergency access or if the other points of egress were enough; Development Review Manager Everette responded that Poudre Fire Authority has been extensively involved in the review of the application at every stage. Chair Schneider asked to see any conceptual review notes from Poudre Fire Authority. Member Hobbs enquired about the street being completed and a gate added to close it off, if this was the vision. Mrs. Ripley responded yes, that is exactly the condition, the street is there to allow emergency access to the street with key or code. Member Hansen feels that typically emergency access’ do not have the appearance of a street, just a gate in the middle. Development Review Manager Everette offered clarification; it can go both directions and be designed as a completed street. Member Rollins spoke of trip generation rates asking Mr. Olsen where the studies were done. Mr. Olsen responded that they were done around the City. What was found was it was random, the closer to the campus the units were, did not mean the less vehicular trip generation there would be. Member Hobbs wanted to know from the application if there would be 24/7 on-site management. Mr. Costas stated that there would be management on-site during business hours and after hours there would be available the use of a hotline. Member Rollins asked how many shuttles would be available and what their capacities would be. Mr. Costas replied, one bus would be available, possibly a 20-person bus with limited hours. Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 6 of 11 Member Carpenter wanted more information on the paid parking. Mr. Costas responded that in the covered parking they are reserving the option to charge for the spaces. The number of spaces would be less than 25% of the parking. If this was taken out, they still exceed the code minimum for parking. Member Whitley asked if they would consider more electric charging stations. Mr. Costas responded that they could add more and wanted to know how many, and that they could commit to two (2) stations. Member Rollins asked how many visitor parking spaces were available. Mr. Costas responded that visitor parking was accounted for in the variance of those students that do not have a car to park. No visitor parking added. Residents will be issued parking stickers, no assigned parking. Member Hobbs asked how many parking spaces were available on the street. Mrs. Ripley shared that there were 205 spaces. Chair Schneider commented that public parking was for up to 48 hours, private drives and streets can be regulated by the site. Member Pardee enquired about bike spaces and if there were covered spaces, how they could be locked or secured. Mrs. Ripley commented that part of the 60% covered bike parking were in the parking garage where they can be locked. All spaces provide adequate locking ability, but they are not in structures that can be locked. Laura with Ripley Design stated there will be 306 bike parking spaces in the parking garage and 3 bike shelters that hold 48 bikes distributed throughout the site. Chair Schneider circled back to if an answer was discovered regarding Poudre Fire Authority conceptual review comments. Development Review Manager Everette responded that there were comments regarding perimeter access around all buildings and concerns that in the original proposal that there were buildings that had more than 150’ required to provide the perimeter access. It is unknown if this specifically relates to Lupine, however, the roadway/parking lot South of building 7A provided the necessary perimeter access to those buildings. Member Hansen wanted to know if the connection of Lupine is not continuous how it affects the overall street network in the area. Development Review Manager Everette does not have status of nearby parcels and whether Lupine could connect West to College and that Lupine to Lemay do not show a connection. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs would like to see the street stubbed into a hammerhead or turnaround so that the neighborhood will not have to continue to fight the street turning into a thoroughfare, and to clean up the open-endedness. Member Whitley will support if the bicycle and pedestrian traffic are addressed separately. Member Hansen gave thoughts on what the intent might be if there were just a gate. Member Carpenter agrees and would like to see something more attractive and not street like. Chair Schneider recommended changing the verbiage of condition C within the motion. Attorney Yatabe agreed. The applicant team also agrees. Member Rollins pointed out that the connection at Lupine is a parking lot. The current design is not such that it is a roadway in the future. The design almost eliminates this. Member Carpenter does not see the need for condition C, that it can be done in the future. Chair Schneider is concerned with removing condition C as it will also remove the multi-model access between the two. Development Review Manager Everette confirmed the plans and that condition C would not need to be kept. Member Rollins does not feel the trip generation that was used for the project is applicable with the number of units that are 4-5 bedroom. She does not feel or is convinced it supports high occupancy units, or if the S curve works. Another concern is with 700+ students and only one shuttle. Matt, City of Fort Collins commented that the sight distance on both side of the S curve is fantastic. Mr. Olson stated that the trip generation was based on beds, not units. Chair Schneider wanted confirmation that City Staff approved or agreed to the traffic study that was provided and that staff looked at the S curve. Mr. Olson confirmed. Member Carpenter asked if the applicant would be open to adding more busses. Mr. Costas replied they will not be adding any more busses. Chair Schneider added this is an amenity, not a required service. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve The Retreat at Fort Collins, PDP180002 including conditions A, B, and D as specified in the staff report pg. 28 and to add condition E that states that the access between the Retreat and the existing streets of Lupine and Moline be restricted to fire lane, bike and pedestrian access only instead of a street-like connectivity. This approval is based upon the agenda materials and information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the board discussion on this item with the following findings; that the PDP Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 7 of 11 complies with the applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. Member Rollins seconded. Member Carpenter appreciates the cooperation between the neighborhood and development team. Member Rollins agreed. Member Schneider also appreciated the collaboration and additional parking. Vote: 7:0. 8. Willow Street Residences, Project Development Plan, PDP180006 Project Description: This is a request to construct a 5-story multi-family residential building on 2 acres located southwest of the intersection of Willow Street and Pine Street (223 Willow Street). A total of 197 dwelling units are proposed. A total of 59 parking spaces are provided. The project is located within the (R-D-R) River Downtown Redevelopment Zone District and the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) overlay zone. A modification request is included with the PDP to LUC Section 3.2.2(L) to reduce the parking lot drive aisle width for two parking stalls. Alternative compliance is requested to satisfy the parking lot interior landscape standards described in Section 3.2.1(E)(5) and building foundation landscape standards in Section 3.2.1(E)(2)(d). Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received and that the staff report was updated and replaced in the online packet. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Holland gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project. Matt Puma of CA Ventures and Eduardo Illanes of OZ Architecture provided a verbal/visual presentation to the Board. Member Pardee questioned the single parking space. Chair Schneider responded that one space was all that was needed unless they completed a modification. They could pull that parking space out and still meet parking requirements without a modification request. Member Hobbs asked for a description regarding the administration of parking and if parking permits will be available. Mr. Puma reiterated that they are meeting the minimum code. Based on experience from a previous project, they are comfortable with the parking on this project. Parking is decoupled, no car, no parking fee. There will be reserved, a portion unreserved and guest parking. There should not be more cars than parking available. Future parking term limits on Willow Street will be 2-hour parking. Member Carpenter questioned if they might consider cargo cars. Mr. Puma responded sure, if there is a demand. Member Hansen mentioned bike parking is at code minimum and would like to know if they would add more if needed. Mr. Puma yielded to the design team, however; he believes they could if needed. Member Carpenter opened conversation regarding alternative compliance on the landscaping and if the planters meet the requirement. Planner Holland stated the code, 5 feet deep at least 50% of the building wall face, and that effectively the planter pots are along 100% of the building face. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted Staff Response None noted Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 8 of 11 Board Questions / Deliberation Member Carpenter asked Attorney Yatabe about alternative compliance and modifications being standard to equal to or better than. Attorney Yatabe responded that typically it is equal to or better than to a plan that complies with the standard. Member Hansen commented that the standard for foundation plantings did not have a downtown urban environment in mind when it was written and there are no exceptions in the code to allow for that reality of building in a downtown setting. He feels that what they are proposing is a great solution for an urban setting. Member Carpenter would like to have this discussed at a work session and if this needs to be changed in the downtown setting. Member Hobbs is concerned about tenants not having places to park. Street side parking is tough, and this project could make it worse. Member Hansen likes the interaction of the setback mass with the ground plane, the only concern is that with this feature, it will be confusing as it looks like this is where the front of the building is. He is not recommending any changes, just a comment to bring awareness. Member Carpenter likes the architecture but is still having issues with the small planters. This is not an issue that would make her vote against the project, but she would like to see a rework to soften the look. She also has parking concerns. Member Whitley feels they have done a great job. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve the modification of standard to land use code section 3.2.2(l) in regard to parking stall dimensions in relation to one parking stall on this project and that this approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing, and the board discussion on this item with the following findings; that the modification complies with all applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. Member Whitley seconded. Vote: 6:0. Member Hansen made a motion that the Fort Collins planning and Zoning Board approve the PDP 180006 and this approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work session and this hearing, and the board discussion on this item with the following findings; this PDP complies with all applicable land use code requirements as stated in the staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials. Member Pardee seconded. Chair Schneider feels this is a well-designed project. Vote 6:0 3. Sanctuary on the Green Annexation and Zoning, ANX180004 – Pulled from Consent Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 16.98 acres located generally at the northwest corner of N. Taft Hill Road and LaPorte Avenue and addressed as 325 N. Taft Hill Road. This is a 100% voluntary annexation. The parcel is now vacant with the house recently demolished. In accordance with the City Plan’s Structure Plan Map and the Northwest Subarea Plan, the requested zoning for this annexation is L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The New Mercer Canal forms the western boundary. Recommendation: Approval to Council Member Hansen recused himself from this item Staff and Applicant Presentations Board decided they did not need a presentation on this item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 9 of 11 E. Frank, 242 N. Sunset St., requested time to have documents pulled up and presented to the board. He does not feel that this annexation is not in full compliance with State law. Mr. Frank is not for or against this annexation, he wants to get it out there that there is potential for public health hazards due to asbestos. He would like to have lab results publicized. Chair Schneider asked Mr. Frank what asbestos had to do with the annexation. Mr. Frank responded that if there was willingness to annex land contaminated by asbestos and 30 years from now someone comes down with asbestoses, they have no recourse. Staff Response Planner Kleer responded to potential asbestos and other site contaminations. The annexation would not be affected by contamination on the site. Stephanie Hansen of Ripley Design explained that they could provide documentation of asbestos abatement to Mr. Frank. Mrs. Hansen also confirmed that environmental studies will take place as this project moves forward. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hobbs asked Mrs. Hansen if prior to any development or permit that there is an environmental assessment completed. Mrs. Hansen responded absolutely, and that they have already contracted with an outside consultant to do the environmental characterization study and they will be doing those environmental studies as the project moves forward. Chair Schneider commented that PFA also does their own testing before burning; this part of protocol. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board send a recommendation of approval to City Council for the Sanctuary on the Green Annexation and Zoning, ANX180004. This recommendation is based upon the agenda materials, the information and materials presented during the work session and the board discussion and citizen participation on this item that we have heard tonight, along with the residential neighborhood code sign district requirement. Member Carpenter seconded. Vote 5:0 5. Hughes Stadium Annexation & Zoning, ANX 180003 – Pulled from Consent Project Description: This is a request to annex and zone 164.55 acres of land generally located at the northwest corner of Dixon Canyon Road and Overland Trail. The annexation area is owned by Colorado State University and is the former location of Hughes Stadium. The requested zoning for the property is Transition (T), which is intended for properties for which there are no specific and immediate plans for development. The surrounding properties are a mixture of recreational, residential and commercial land uses. Recommendation: Approval to Council Staff and Applicant Presentations Board did not require a presentation on this item. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Rex Miller, owner of 40-acres directly North of the site, addressed the board with comments he would like to have forwarded to Council. If the site is brought in as a T transition, the City makes the commitment, however, the State does not. If the State retains its ownership they are not required to adhere to the zoning, they do not have to submit plans for review, there are no City inspections conducted and they do not pay property tax. He would like to see an intergovernmental agreement with the State ensuring they will not do “what they want” and that they will pay property taxes. He feels that it would be a mistake if there were not a commitment made. Planning & Zoning Board September 20, 2018 Page 10 of 11 James Miller, 3000 Ross Dr., questioned the notification process and would like to be more involved. He was not notified of any previous meetings. He would like to know what is planned for the site and is concerned about what he just learned from the previous speaker. Staff Response Planner Kleer deferred to Attorney Yatabe regarding the potential annexation, zoning T District and this project potentially being leased by the property owner and going under a site plan advisory review, which would not be subject to our City regulations or permitting. Chair Schneider explained that if CSU owns the property they would go through a SPAR process with any future development. The transition is a generic transition zoning, if a change was wanted, they would have to come back to the Board for another discussion and more public comment to change the zoning. A couple questions raised were, would CSU be willing to enter an IGA like the on-campus stadium? And, if it is owned by CSU do they just have to do a SPAR? Response to both questions; If CSU did sell the property off to an individual company or developer, then that developer would go through all the same regulations as any other development project. Attorney Yatabe responded that was correct and that there has been no development proposal submitted at this time. There is some fact specific analysis to be done once a proposal comes in as to how the review would be done. Generally, public facilities under State statute are generally come under a much more curtailed review, this is something that we have adopted in Land Use Code under the site plan advisory review. Chair Schneider followed up that this is outside of our growth management area and not in the City limits at this time. This is the beginning of the process for an intergovernmental agreement with Larimer County to potentially annex or bring this portion of land into the City limits. Fred Haberecht, CSU Planner of Facilities, spoke to the current completion of the demolition contracts. Soil and seeding will take place by October 15, 2018, the remaining crushed aggregate will be removed by December 2018. Regarding a SPAR, this is not the central intent. We need to better understand from the City what that means. Member Hansen commented that they can do what they wish within their own current guidelines and State guidelines. Chair Schneider commented that this is why this is a voluntary annexation, that this is to start the communication for this to go. Rick Calhan, CSURF Real Estate, the County has already stated that they do not have any objections to this being annexed into the GMA after the fact, once they go through a bigger process. We believe we are beyond the County’s approval. The University wants to divest themselves from this land. Developers understand that if they want to develop on this site, it will be under the direction of the City and will need to follow through with the T transitional zoning and take it through the review process. The intent of CSU is to sell the property and then the concern about SPARS and anything else in the future goes away and it becomes a normal development. Board Questions / Deliberation Member Hansen feels as though is a good annexation for the City. Member Schneider agrees. Deliberation Member Hansen feels that the move to annex this site gives the City and the residents in the area more input on what happens to the property in the future. He feels this is in the best interest of the City. Chair Schneider agrees. Member Whitley made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board send a recommendation of approval to City Council for the Hughes Stadium Annexation & Zoning, ANX180003 this recommendation is based on the agenda material, information and materials presented during the work session and this hearing and the board discussion on this item. Member Carpenter seconded. Planner Kleer offered clarifying response regarding the IGA between the County and The City. The procedure under 8F of the IGA it is at the City’s discretion that we can annex outside of the GMA with notification to the County 35 days prior to first hearing. This annexation creates two (2) enclaves; to the North and to the East. Vote: 6:0.