HomeMy WebLinkAboutFORT COLLINS INTEGRATED RECYCLE CENTER - PDP - PDP130020 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board
August 8, 2013
Page 19
said if you see numbers like 57% that includes all of the aggregate recycling, composting, and other all
the industrial type diversion that happens.
Board Discussion
Member Kirkpatrick made a motion the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Integrated
Recycling Facility Project Development Plan, # PDP130020, based on the findings of fact included
on page 8 of the staff report with the condition:
The proper completion of a stormwater outfall and alignment for the Integrated Recycling
Facility outfall must be submitted to the City Stormwater Utility with final utility plan
documents, in accordance with Section 3.4.3 of the Land Use Code.
Member Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6:0.
Project:
Recommendation:
Land Use Code (LUC) Amendments related to Transit Overlay
Minimum Parking Requirements
This is a request for a recommendation to City Council regarding Yproposed
revision to the Land Use Code. This revision pertains to creatin a minimum
parking requirement for multi -family development in the nsit-Oriented
Development (TOD) Overlay Zone. The recommendation is t revise the Land
se Code to require a minimum ratio of 70% parking sp s to the proposed
n ber of bedrooms and a provision to meet the Stan rd through alternative
coMD ' nce.
City Council the adoption of LUp4mendments
Hearing Testimony, Written Commentsiknd Other Evic
CDNS Director Kadrich said the issue beforethe board is
Planning and Zoning Board Joint Work Sessionne of tJ
negative effect of higher density projects within the
which may be causing spill -over parking in adjacent. e ' (
parking requirement within the TOD, the purposefonight i,
step or stop -gap measure. It would allow for further study
parking within the TOD.
i�ow- up to the July gch City Council/
e emerging issues discussed was the
ransit Oriented Development) Overlay Zone
itial areas. Because there is not currently a
to follow Council direction to look for a first
4 more systematic approach to the issue of
City Planner Seth Lorson said the Land Use Code (LUC) amendm t is to establish minimum parking
requirements for the TOD. He said a minimum parking requirement f that area has not existed since
2006. Staff analyzed 11 multi -family projects that have been del elope 'n the TOD since 2006. He
reviewed a table showing project names, bedrooms, parking provided, an atio of parking spaces to
bedrooms. On the table he compared that to parking requirements had the oject been outside the
TOD and what the ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms would have been in that si ation. The average
ratio between inside and outside the TOD was 73%. Within the TOD, the average out outliers was
58%. Lorson saiMhose results show what the market is providing.
Lorson sai staff compared our TOD requirements with other communities' TOD districts cluding
Boulder urora, Lakewood, Denver, and Eugene and Portland Oregon). Lorson said event ay's
prop al for 70% parking spaces to bedrooms is much higher than what we're seeing in of r
communities.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 8, 2013
Page 18
The proper completion of a stormwater outfall and alignment for the Integrated Recycling Facility
outfall must be submitted to the City Stormwater Utility with final utility plan documents, in
accordance with Section 3.4.3 of the Land Use Code.
Public Input
None
Board Questions
Member Hatfield asked what kind of fees will be charged and why do they charge fees when all the
materials are 'donated'. Caroline Mitchell, Environmental Services Department, said in the recycling
world many materials are valuable while others cost to recycle. When you factor in the economics of
operating the entire site, fees must be charged to net to zero. The goal is to charge less than the landfill
tip fee.
Member Schneider said the Larimer County Landfill accepts hazardous materials like household paints
and oil free of charge. What would behoove a citizen to pay a fee if they can go to the landfill free of
charge? Mitchell said the household hazardous waste materials were not initially part of the initial cost
structure of $3.75 per cubic yard. At this point, she's not sure if the cubic yard fee will charged on the
household hazardous materials. Holland said some of the items in the fee area will not require a fee --
you can obtain free mulch or look in the valued wood area to recycle lumber.
Member Schneider asked about off -gassing and the need to protect air quality. Ron Gonzalez of Poudre
Fire Authority (PFA) said there is a difference between hazardous materials and hazardous wastes.
Hazardous materials are things that are either flammable liquid, toxic, reactive, or corrosive. Hazardous
wastes are things like eWaste, cardboard, and glass; those items are not regulated by the fire
department. Motor oil is not considered toxic.
Member Schneider asked if PFA had concerns related to the one access point for entrance and exit in
the case of an emergency. Gonzalez said there's usually another point of access and he thinks there will
be one provided from the south/the adjoining neighbor. Holland said they do have an access easement
through the main drive —it goes all the way through and around the back. Gonzalez said it was not going
to be significant given they're buildings are less than 120 square feet and what they have is primarily
stored outdoors. Gonzalez said there are no big structures or real need for big water. He said the
containers they have are relatively small. There will not tanks out there. They are limited to containers
(60 gallons or less) as defined in the fire code.
Member Schneider asked is the intent for this site to be more a consumer or a commercial driven site.
Holland said primarily its primary focus is consumer but the glass recycling program is designed for local
restaurants and breweries.
Member Schneider asked if there are plans to allow left turns on Timberline to accommodate those going
north. Traffic Systems Engineer Ward Stanford said Traffic has concerns from the standpoint of safety.
He said the crossing of three lanes to head north is the worst condition of the four movements that can
be done. The project is planned for right-in/right-out with the feasibility of a 3/a. They believe a 3/a will be
accommodating. Stanford said he went out to the site and did some measurements. He said it doesn't
meet sight distance criteria at those speeds. He said there could also be a significant delay to make a
left turn because it could impact other traffic also trying to exit the site. Stanford said they have not found
a truly viable solution to provide a northbound movement.
Member Schneider asked where we're at currently on the diversion rate. Mitchell said their most recent
numbers are from 2012. The municipal solid waste diversion rate (includes both residential and
commercial) is at 42%. She said that is the rate being considered when they set their goal of 50%. She
Planning & Zoning Board
August 8, 2013
Page 17
Project: Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan, # PDP130020
PDP130012
Project Description: This Project Development Plan (PDP) is a request to develop an Integrated
Recycling Facility located on South Timberline Road, approximately 1/4 mile south
of the intersection with East Prospect Road. The project will be located on
approximately 3.7 acres of the 30-acre Timberline and Prospect Overall
Development Plan (ODP). The site is zoned Industrial (1).
The Integrated Recycling Facility will replace and expand upon the Rivendell
recycling facility by providing two drop-off areas: one for free and one for a fee.
The free -drop off area will accept cardboard, paper, newspapers glass,
commingled containers, and clothing. The fee -drop off area will accept
concrete/asphalt/aggregate, lumber materials, metal, yard waste, e-waste,
batteries, paints, oil and antifreeze. A special materials area is also proposed,
which will provide free landscape mulch to the public, and a glass collection (for
shipment to glass bottle -making plants) area.
Recommendation: Approval with condition
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Damon Holland of Ripley Design, Inc. said in 2012 City Council charged the Environmental Services
Department to further the city's waste divergence goals from the landfill by 50% of the community's
waste stream. What they're trying to do is maximize the efficiency of the center by accepting more items
and providing a one -stop shop. The site was selected for a number of reasons including its central
location.
Holland said the 3.7 acre site is situated on the south end of the Prospect and Timberline ODP. The site
slopes roughly 8% from south to north. There are 24 existing trees. Eight have been slated to be
removed. Fourteen will be relocated. Programmatically there will be a free drop area for cardboard,
paper, newspaper, glass, commingled containers and clothing. The fee drop off area will accept
concrete, asphalt and aggregates, lumber, metal, yard waste, e-waste, batteries, latex only paints, and
used oil and antifreeze.
Holland described the projects consistency with City Plan, the OPD, the zone district uses, and
landscaping requirements. He outlined access and parking, lighting, water quality (100 year detention
and vegetative swales and rain gardens), hazardous materials handling, and transportation circulation.
Holland responded in detail to the questions raised by the board at their August 2, 2013 Work Session.
Questions and responses can be found in detail in the memorandum from Lindsay Ex dated August 6,
2013.
Staff Presentation
Senior Environmental Planner Lindsay Ex said in addition to the presentation staff has submitted a staff
report for the record. Recycling facilities are a permitted use within the Industrial zone district subject to
the board's review. The PDP does comply with the applicable general development standards or Article
3 and the land use and development standards of Division 4.28 of the Industrial zone district. Staff
recommends approval of Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan, PDP #120033, subject
to the following condition:
Planning & Zoning Board
August 8, 2013
Page 2
Chair Smith asked if anyone (audience, board or staff) would like to pull an item from consent. An
audience member asked that Colorado Water Conservation Board Floodplain Regulation Adoption and
other Minor Policy and Clean-up Item be moved to Discussion.
Consent Agenda:
1. Minutes from the July 18, 2013 Hearing
2. Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency and Rehab Hospital Project Development Plan, # PDP130018
3. Rigden Farm 14`" Filing Extension of Vested Rights, # 56-98-AS
9. Land Use Code Amendment related to Definition of Large Base Industry
10. Land Use Code Amendment related to Extension of PDOD
Member Hart made a motion to approve the consent agenda which consists of the Minutes of the
July 18, 2013 Hearing, Fort Collins Veterinary Emergency and Rehab Hospital Project
Development Plan, # PDP130018, Rigden Farm 14`h Filing Extension of Vested Rights, # 56-98-AS,
Land Use Code Amendment related to Definition of Large Base Industry, and Land use Code
Amendment related to Extension of Planned Development Overlay District. Member Hatfield
seconded the motion. The motion passed 6:0.
Discussion Agenda:
7. Colorado Water Conservation Board Floodplain Regulation Adoption and other Minor Policy and
Clean-up Items
4. Feeders Supply Project Development Plan, #PDP130012
5. Prospect and Timberline Overall Development Plan, #ODP130001
6. Integrated Recycling Facility Project Development Plan, #PDP130020
8. Land Use Code Amendment related Transited Oriented Development Minimum Parking
Requirements
ct: Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Floodplain Regulation
''�� Adoption and other Minor Policy and Clean-up Items
Project Description�TJie CWCB adopted minimum state-wide floodpla' gulations in January 2011.
All communities must adopt these new suds by January 2014. The City of
Fort Collins afready has adopted may~61 these standards. Therefore, there are
relatively few changes needed-to"meet the CWCB state-wide regulations.
Recommendation: Recommend t9_Zity_Council the AdopCon of the CWCB Floodplain Regulations
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence
Director Kadrich said the purpose of this item is for the board to consider a recommendation to City
Council for the adoption of the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Floodplain Regulation
Ado pti rid other Minor Policy and Clean-up Items.
Chair Andy Smith called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Hatfield, Hart, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Schneider
Excused Absence: Heinz
Staff Present: Kadrich, Eckman, Levingston, Holland, Varrella, Shepard, McWilliams,
Langenberger, Siegmund, Ex, Stanford, Lorson, and Sanchez -Sprague
Agenda Review
Director Laurie Kadrich reviewed the items on both the Consent and Discussion agendas and noted this
is the first hearing using the recently modified LUC order of proceedings. The most significant change is
the applicant will make their presentation first.
Chair Smith provided background on the board's role and what the audience could expect as to the order
of business. He described the following processes:
• Citizen Participation is an opportunity for citizens to address the board on non -agenda related
topics.
• Consent agenda items are considered items which have no known opposition. They are
approved collectively at the beginning of the meeting unless a board member, staff or audience
member requests an item is pulled and moved to the discussion agenda.
• Discussion agenda items will include an applicant presentation, a staff presentation, and public
comment.
• At the time of public comment, he asked that you come to the podium, state your name and
address for the record, and sign -in. He asked that the speaker clearly state their position. He
encouraged speakers to share comments relevant to the topic under discussion.
• Responses by applicant and staff will follow public comment.
• The board will deliberate and reach a decision once a motion has been made and a vote taken.
• He will begin each new item with a description of the development type being considered. The
board will do their best not to use acronyms or jargon.
Citizen participation:
None