Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcclc.ag.100202 COMMERCIAL CORE & LODGING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITY ROOM - CITY HALL OCTOBER 2, 2002 8:30 am I. Roll call and approval of minutes. II. Commissioner comments III. Jeff Woods - Parks Director - Lighting Starodoj 2003 budget 8:45 IV. Saturday Market update - vendors 10:00 V. Trash noise - Lee Cassin report and Ed. Sadler 10:30 VI. Adjourn Note: The sign code was amended two years ago. Window displays are exempted. Lee Cassin, 11:21 AM 09/25/2002, CCLC Meeting, Trash Hours Page 1 of 2 X-Sender: leec@comdev X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:21:53 -0600 To: Kathy Strickland <kathys@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Lee Cassin <leec@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: CCLC Meeting, Trash Hours Cc: nicka@ci.aspen.co.us, jannette Whitcomb <jannette@ci.aspen.co.us> X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean Hi Kathy, Here is an update on the status of replacing dumpsters in the core with compactors, and amending the noise ordinance. (Nick, please let me know if there are any changes in your part - thanks.) 1 City Engineering issues permits for dumpsters or compactors to be put in the public right of way. Engineering is very supportive of the idea of changing from dumpsters to compactors. They have the maps of the commercial core dumpsters and compactors that CCLC and Environmental Health worked on together in past years. Nick feels that while these maps are a great start, in some cases his staff will need to look at actua plat maps to make sure they have accurate info to determine placement of compactors in the best locations in each alley in the public right of way (that's the areas where Engineering has jurisdiction.) Nick has agreed to have his staff do that this winter, once their time is freed up with the summer projects ending. After that I assume Nick will get with CCLC to talk about exact locations he has found and the best way to make the switch. Also. I'm sure CCLC knows that both Engineering and Environmental Health have lost a position, which I hope won't affect this project. We have lost our wildlife/alley trash enforcement position. CCLC should probably know that as well. 2. At the recent City Council worksession on issues related to the noise ordinance, Council members and City Manager made the following statements in g~v~ng us direction on what to bring back to Council in a draft noise ordinance: We need to get the studies: if more compactors means fewer pickups, trash companies may not have to come so early and the problem may be solved. We should do that before putting actual restriction of hours in the noise ordinance. See if this solves the problem first. Look into Breckenridge's experience with requiring compactors. See if they are on private property or public property. Investigate whether the problem will be solved if we have more compactors, looking at existing data on our #'s and times of deliveries and Breckenridge's experience. Do we have to pick up at 6 am if we have mostly compactors? Get the best info we can to help make the decision. We will experiment and see if converting most dumpsters to compactors allows trash pick- up hours to start later. We will be glad to let Council know that CCLC would like to go ahead with a restriction on Printed for Kathy Strickland <kathys~ci.aspen.co.us> 09/25/2002 Lee Cassin. I 1:21 AM 09/25/2002, CCLC Meeting, Trash Hours Page 2 of 2 hours of pick up in the no~se ordinance instead of waiting to see if the switch to corn pactors solves the problem, and let Council decide which they want to do. Kathy, please let me know if there is anything different that CCLC would like our department to do. I think Ed will be attending the next CCLC meeting, so I don't think we both need to be th'ere. Thanks, Lee Lee E. Cassin. Director City of Aspen Environmental Health Department 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 leec@ci.aspen.co.us (970)920-5075 fax (970)920-5074 _h~p :_//~_..w3gw....a_._sp e n. co m/airqu_aJj.t..y http://www.a s_p~e ng.ov.com/e h/cit, y/ind ex. ht mi Printed for Kathy Strickland <kathys~ci.aspen.co.us> 09/25/2002 Rising Sun Enterprises, Inc. Lighting Design n, Comtfltation . Fixtures . Controls 10/2/02 REVITALIZING ASPEN'S DOWNTOWN CORE AFTER SUNDOWN: LIGFITSCAPING WHAT WE'VE GOT NOW Dark and unhviting streetseapes and outdoor malls punctuated by globs of light on pole tops · Building facades with glarey or gloomy lighting treatments which clash door to door · No sense of community or unity · Few intimate hangouts · No draw WHAT GOOD LIGHTSCAPING CAN DO FOR THE CORE Attract people · Provide depth -draws people in · Create ambiance · Instill a sense of place or community · Enhance safety and security · Define gathering places and intimate spaces WHAT WE'VE GOT TO WORK WITH' · Building Facades · Business Signage Storefront Windows · Pedestrian pathways · Planter beds and trees Park benches · Water features · Pole Lights 40 Stmset Drive #1 Basalt, Colorado 81621 (970) 92%8051/3635 (fax) sardo~rselight, com www.rselight, com LIGHTING STRATEGIES/TOOLS: LAYERED LIGHTING · Accent lighting of building facades~ columns, corbels, etc. · Discrete business sign lighting · Tasteful and engaging window display treatments · Uplighting of tree trunks and canopies (Aspens and Spruce) · Highlighting of water features · Delineation of "bridges." waterways, planters, etc. · Downlighting of intersections, and gathering places · "Holiday" lighting for sparkle THE PITKIN COUNTY DRY GOODS EXPERIENCE · Graze brickwork and columns · Add decorative entrance lighting · Shield downlights · Illuminate planter beds and steps · Uplight Spruce tree trunks and lower canopy · Punch up storet~ont window displays ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS · Light Pollution, i.e., "Sky glow" · Light Trespass, i.e. Offending light beyond the property line Use "cut-off" distribution sources for "down lighting" and low intensity, narrow bean~ carefully aimed and shielded sources for "up lighting" and sign lighting. WHERE TO FROM HERE · I.D. the effects and elements already in community that reinforce the look and feel desired · Mockup key strategies · Check locations and condition of power sources, conduit runs, abandoned well light vaults · Storefzont/window consults · Establish budget · Implement fast track upgrades · Plan for longer term upgrades 40 Sunset Drive #1 Basalt. Colorado 81621 (970) 927-8051/3635 (fax) sardo~rselight.com www.rselight.com Feasibility Study: "Compactors In the Commercial Core" Commissioned By: City of Aspen Environmental Health Prepared By: Waste Services Unlimited, Inc. January 2002 Alley Survey Alley number 1 contains 7 dumpsters as follows, one 90-gallon, 5 two-yard dumpsters and 1. three yard dumpster. There are two service providers in this alley. Alley number 2 contains 2 dumpsters as follows, 1 compactor owned by the city and 1 two-yard dumpster. There is one service provider in this alley. Alley number 3 contains 6 dumpsters as follows, 2 compactors, 1 one-yard dumpster, 2 two-yard dumpsters and 1 three-yard dumpster. There are two service providers in this alley. Alley number 4 contains 8 dumpsters as follows, three 90-gallon dumpsters, 1 compactor, 1 two-yard dumpster, 2 three-yard dumpsters and 1 four-yard dumpster. There are two service providers in this alley. Alley number 5 contains 5 dumpsters as follows, 1 one-yard dumpster, 1 two-yard dumpster, 2 three-yard dumpsters and one 4- yard dumpster. There are two service providers in this alley. Alley number 6 contains 5 dumpsters as follows, 1 one-yard dumpster and 4 two-yard dumpsters. There are two service providers in this alley. Alley number 7 contains 7 dumpsters as follows, 4 compactors and 3 two-yard dumpsters. There are two service providers in this alley. Alley number 8 contains the Brand alley compactor (large) and 1 two- yard dumpster. There are two service providers in this alley. Alley number 9 contains 4 dumpsters as follows, 3 compactors and 1 two-yard dumpster. There is one service provider in this alley. Alley number 10 contains 9 dumpsters as follows 1 compactor, 5 two-yard dumpsters and 3 three-yard dumpsters. There are two service providers in this alley. The work done in this study is a continuation of work done previously by the city in its attempts to come up with a solution to the solid waste needs of the downtown commercial core area. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of corn pactors as a means of solid waste collection in the town's commercial core. Previous studies by the town have determined that while compactors were an attractive alternative to present systems, their use was not functional in all alleys. This study hopes to show that through a new approach and by using new technology that compactors are both viable and feasible for use in the commercial core area. The first step in evaluating the use of compactors is to assess the current means of collection. An alley-by-alley survey was taken to determine the placement and use of current trash dura psters in each alley of the commercial core. The results of this survey are included in the next section of the report. Current Core Area Dumpsters The following map highlights the area under consideration, the commercial core, as outlined by the city's environmental health department. Each alley has been numbered and the locations of present dumpsters are marked. See Map Next Page Alley number 11 contains 11 dumpsters as follows, 1 compactor, 8 two-yard dumpsters and 2 three-yard dum psters. There are two service providers in this alley. Alley number 12 contains the I:{ed Onion alley compactor (large) and 1 two-yard dumpster. There is one service provider in this alley. Alley number 13 contains no dura psters. Alley number 14 contains 5 dumpsters as follows, 5 two-yard dumpsters. There is one service provider in this alley. Alley number 15 contains 10 dumpsters as follows, 2 compactors, 5 two-yard dumpsters and 3 three-yard dumpsters. There are two service providers in this alley. Alley number 16 contains 5 dumpsters as follows, 4 two-yard dumpsters and I three-yard dumpster. There are two service providers in this alley. Notes on alley count In alleys number 5, 10 and 11 there is at least one dumpster in each used by the hauler as cardboard dum psters. This is noted because these dumpsters will not be used in later discussed conversion factors for determining the number of corn pactors needed in each alley. Recycling dumpsters were intentionally left out of this alley survey and will be discussed later in the report under Recycling Options. Attempts were made by both Waste Services Unlimited and the City of Aspen to gain information on the frequency that each dumpster in the alleys was dumped. This information was not given by either of the service provides. The competitive nature of the Aspen business was sighted as the reason for withholding this information. This is noted because as determinations are made as to the number of compactors required for each alley, assumptions on usage wil have to be made in lieu of hard numbers. As the city moves forward with its plans for compactors these numbers will need to be provided to assure the success of the program. During peak season most alleys have at least one dumpster that is serviced seven days a week. Corn pactors Once the survey of present dum psters was accomplished, the next step was to determine how the conversion to compactors should look. In this we look at the following criteria: the number of compactors needed in each alley and the placement requirements for these compactors. Previous-attempts and studies on the use of corn pactors in the commercial core area have focused on the use of large compactors similar to the ones in use in the Brand Alley and Red Onion Alley. While the advantages to having one compactor servicing each alley ~s noted, the fact that they cannot be used in all alleys due to placement restrictions pointed this study in a different direction. The use of small compactors in the alleys of the commercial core has been proceeding in place of a city mandate. These small compactors have advantages similar to their larger cousins, red ucing the number of dumpsters, reducing the frequency of pickups and containing the trash in an absolute bear proof design. Their advantage over the larger compactors is that th~ey fit in alleys where access restrictions do not allow large compactors. New technology in the design of compactors has netted a compactor especially adapted for tight alley configurations. An example of this compactor is already in use at several locations in the commercial core. The "Untouchable VIP" produced by Marathon equipment can be used in the tightest of alleys and is currently the smallest available compactor of its kind on the market. It should be noted that other compactor manufacturers might be able to produce similar units but have not come to market with them as of this report. Using these smaller compactors as the basis for the conversion we now looked at the needs for each alley. In looking at each alley individually it is apparent not every alley requires or is appropriate for the use of corn pactors. In these alleys the city will have to decide what they would use in place of compactors. This also will be discussed in this report under/n Closing. In the alleys that compactors would work, the following criteria was used in determining the conversion factors: · Since the information on frequency of pickup was not provided we would assume the maximum number of pickups needed to provide for the current durn pster count. For use in demonstrating the feasibility of corn pactors it is accepted that these numbers will suffice. In future studies the exact number should be obtained. · Industry standards on corn paction for various units and working knowledge we possess of compactors will be used. · The issue of placement (whether on private or city property) for the compactors will be used to help determine the size requirements for each alley. · The power requirements for each unit. This may or may not be a factor depending on the direction the city would like to take. Most corn pactors may be hooked up to a standard 110 volts 20 am p outlet. The following is a proposed alley-by-alley accounting of what compactors would look like. We have tried to point out in each alley any obstacles we see to the implementation of this plan. We have also highlighted the alleys we consider to be the "priority" alleys as directed by the city and/or the easiest ones to convert. Alley number 1 - 2 "Untouchable VIP" models. These compactors would be placed on city right of way. Alley number 2 - No additional compactor. This alley contains the one city owned compactor and only one additional dumpster. Alley number 3 - The addition of 1 three-yard vertical compactor should contain the current needs. The compactor in this alley would be required to be placed on private property creating possible problems for implementation. It would also require a sharing arrangement between businesses. Alley number 4 - This ~s another alley where the lack of city right of way comes in to play. The possibility of 1 six-yard compactor to be shared is the most cost effecti.ve alternative, though this may be difficult to work out between the different businesses. Alley number 5 - 2 three-yard compactors placed at opposite ends of the alley would provide the best approach in this alley. Here again, the ability to place these on private property comes in to play. Alley number 6 - two three-yard compactors placed at opposite ends of the alley would more than handle the volume in this alley. Again, placement must be on pdvate property. Alley number 7 - The addition of 1 three-yard packer would complete this alley, which already contains 4 compactors. This again must be placed on private property. The addition of the fifth compactor may not be necessary if one or more of the other compactors could be shared. Alley number 8 - Brand alley, no need for additional packers. Alley number 9 - An example of small compactors being used successfully. I two-yard dumpster remains with 3 small packers n place. Alley number 10 - One business in this alley has added a compactor and eliminated 3 dumpsters. I four or six yard compactor could be placed on private property. This would allow for I to 2 "Untouchable VIP" units to be placed on the opposite side on city right of way. Alley number 11 - A prime alley for conversion. You have several "big I~ volume" trash producers. The placement of compactors on the east end of this alley would most likely be on private property, although there may be a place on city right of way for compactors to be placed. On the west end and middle of this alley the compactors could be placed on city dght of way. The number of corn pactors in this alley will greatly depend upon the frequency of pickup, thought to be high. We estimate based on our knowledge of this area and the business types that at least 4 of the "Untouchable VIP" models would be needed for the conversion. This alley would greatly benefit from the conversion to compactors. Alley number 12 -The Red Onion alley. No additional packers needed. Alley number 13 - No dumpsters in this alley. Alley number 14- 2 "Untouchable VIP" models could be placed on city right of way and handle the volumes in this alley. Alley number 15 - Another prime alley with a large amount of dumpsters and availability of city right of way. 3 "Untouchable VIP" models placed at each end and the mid-point of [he alley would be well advised. Alley Number 16 -The main producer of trash in this al ey is McDonalds and their service provider has indicated their desire to acquire a compactor. McDonalds does have the room on their property for an "Untouchable VIP". The remaining businesses on this alley may not generate the volume of trash to necessitate a compactor. Improving the bear proofing of these dumpsters should be considered. Notes on the compactor proposal The "Untouchable VIP" model is mentioned by name because as of yet, no other models produced by other companies offer its size options. When considering wording for future ordinances or actions you may wish to include "or other models with similar dimensions'. As stated before, the fact that we did not have frequency rates provided to us makes all of the conversion factors subject to change. Every effort was made to give the city as accurate an estimation as possible. Before any plan is implemented there should be an accurate accounting of frequencies on pickup for each alley. Feasibility We believe the data confirms the fact that small compactors are a feasible option for the collection of solid waste in the commercial core of Aspen. There are several existing success stories within the core that should be considered. While feasible, there are some obstacles to over come when considering the mandating of corn pactors in this area. · The fact that there will have to be compactors placed on both public and private land lends itself to all kinds of interesting challenges. · How to get participation? Mandate or encourage the use of compactors? · The cities position in the process? Mandate through ordinances? Ownership in some or all compactors? · What to do in alleys where compactors are not an option? · How to treat existing compactors? These and many other questions will have to be answered before this issue is resolved. It is our belief that the use of compactors in the commercial core would have many more benefits than downsides. Recycling Options Recycling was intentionally left out of the survey of dumpsters. It was indicated that the main focus should be on the solid waste. We were, however, guided to think about possible inclusion of recyclables into the compactor issue. The volume of recyclables, the nature of differing types of recyclables and the pickup methods used by different service providers does not make it feasible to have recycling compactors in the commercial core. This being the case, there is the possibility of central collection points within each alley for all types of recyclable materials. This would require the design of a containment system that would allow for multiple item storage and collection. This is an option that should be explored in the future discussions on solid waste in the commercial core. In Closinfl In concluding this report we would just like to add the following points for the cities consideration: Due to lack of data, we were unable to determine how much the frequency of trash trucks in the alleys would be reduced with the conversion to compactors. We do, however, know form experience that in most of the alleys affected that there should be a significant reduction. This would depend on the number and size of compactors used. The town of Breckenridge has done similar work and has what we consider a good approach to the situation. Through zoning requirements, ordinances and city owned compactors they have achieved a very pleasant alley situation in their main commercial district. It may be of help as this is debated to get in touch with the town of Breckenridge for their input. For more information please contact: Terry Perkins, Director of Public Works, 970-453-3185. In alleys not requiring or needing a compactor the city should consider tougher ordinances on "bear proof" containers. There are designs, including our own that would offer greater protection from bears and also enhance the visual quality of the alleys. The ~ssue of the cities involvement in the compactor conversion may be the single biggest determining factor to the success of Compactors in the commercia core. When considering the cities role we offer the following examples of how the city could be involved: · The city could mandate, through ordinance, that all businesses must use compactors or other approved containment systems and force the businesses to comply. · The city could purchase and place compactors in all or chosen alleys, then mandate their use by businesses in those alleys. · The city could partner with businesses in the core and use the cities buying power to reduce the cost of compactors. thus encouraging their use. 10 · The city could mandate the use of packers within the core and turn the process over to a s~ngle or several private companies to administer. · The city could use a combination of approaches to accomplish its task, · The city could do nothing and let the natural progression of things take place. You would see some other businesses buying compactors, but we do not anticipate 100% participation using this alternative. One item not taken into consideration in this report but one that should be discussed is the one of waste reduction as a means of consolidating trash dumpsters. By reducing the amount of trash produced you could greatly alter the need for corn pactors on the commercial core. We have several cases on file of communities and businesses alike significantly reducing the amount of trash produced. We feel that Aspen could be a leader in this arena with its commitment to these issues already proven. The map on the final page is what we feel the cities alleys would look like with the recommended placement of compactors. You will note a marked improvement over the first map in this study. i~I~~1 ~[; Proposed Budget for 2003 REMAINING FUNDS ORIG AMT BALANCE 53652-82000 Mall Fountain Maintenance $6,000.00 ~0.00 53652-83900 Mall Fountain Repair Parts $1,000.00 ~0.00 53800-82900 Improvement Projects $3,000.00 ~0.00 53800-83900 Christmas lights, garland, etc. $9,000.00 ~0.00 53801-82000 Contingency Fund $6,000.00 ~0.00 53801-83040 Trees $9,000.00 ~0.00 53801-83600 Office Supplies $1,000.00 ~0.00 53801-83900 Bike Racks, fences, grates $2,000.00 ~0.00 $37,000.00 ~0.00