Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890912 XV A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Mari Peyton, Michael Herron, Graeme Means, Richard Compton and Welton Anderson. arrived at 4:25. Jasmine Tygre was absent. Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt RIO GRANDE SPA AMENDMENT STREAM MARGIN REVIEW SNOWMELTER FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING Leslie made presentation as attached in record. I would like to amend one of my conditions. (Conditions attached in record) #3 I would like to amend to say "Berming around sedimentation ponds associated with the snowmelt facility and periodic cleaning of those ponds". Graeme: What is the range in possible sizes of the pond? Leslie: It is approximately an acre. Engineering is unsure whether they need 1/2 an acre to an acre. It depends on the discharge. Through this winter as we get information as to exactly the size of ponds we need and whether we want to maintain the snowmelt facility and whether it should be in this area then we will review all of this during the winter and set a review for May 1, 1990. Also since this area also has a future within the Arts Park that the Parks Association we can work with those people as to what their needs are for the uses of this site. Chuck Roth, Engineering Dept: We are continually looking for another place where we can dump the snow. The only other possibility at this time is the Benedict Gravel pit. We have not secured that yet. We are working on that. If we are successful in obtaining that as a site then conceptually we would put any snow that we can dump right into the melter and then any excess snow would go out to the Benedict Gravel pit. If that were to happen which I am not real optimistic on, there would be empty space between the sedimentation pond and the demarkation plant. We are not putting in another melter this year because of our water quality problem. But we are going to make the pit bigger because we can't dump the trucks in there straight-away. -- PZM9.12.89 Leslie: In our meetings with the Art Park people this is really an approved location for re-alignment of the new trail. What we would like to do this October is work on this re-Iocation to be in the place we want it to be. That is our first real task before Mayas part of the plan. Richard: The problem that has been existing all summer with the present lowest pond closest to the river is that because of the filtration system between the pond and the river collects styrofoam, peanuts, tennis shoes and all of that stuff and as far as I could tell it was never cleaned out. Whose responsibility is that? Or has it not been taken into task by anyone? And what is going to be done about it in the future? Leslie: I amended #3 so that the Engineering Dept. is directly responsible for any of the ponds. One of the scenarios would be that the ponds would all be connected and the discharge would be from that point into the river and then the Engineering Dept would be responsible for cleaning and maintaining those ponds. If those ponds are not used as part of the snowmelt facility then it is part of the city's responsibility to maintain those ponds. That whole area is being torn up because of the trench and will have to be re-Iandscaped and cleaned. Richard: Is an out discharge planned for the new pond through the old one or directly into the river? Roth: We would like to have options. We are still very much in the experimental mode on this. We would like to try dumping into the river from the big new pond and if it wasn't clean enough then we would go over to the old ponds and see if it is clean enough when it got out there. We would like to try a sand bed. Our goal is to have the tiniest footprint down there that we can for snow removal operation. If we can do it with a sand bed without having and acre temporary pond, that is what we would do. We have got to try all the combinations of these different facil i ties. Graeme: Are the ponds used in the summer? Roth: Yes. The storm drainage from the Glory Hole Park area comes down and there is a drainage ditch alongside the trail. That drainage is what these ponds were designed for originally. We are also looking at small scale water treatment plants to see if that would be appropriate down there. Optimistically we will solve our water discharge quality problem then we may proceed with more snowmelters. It still appears that they are more cost efficient as opposed to having more trucks and more drivers 2 PZM9.12.89 hauling it further away from town. We will get more data on that this year also. Welton opened the public hearing: Al Blomquist, Parks Association: Basically the SPA plan should be corrected at this meeting to have the staff re-draw the as- built conditions for improved conditions on the river. The official SPA plan shows the Aspen One pre flood configuration of the river and the bank. After the flood an overflow channel is put through and the second channel so you have 2 islands. The edge river then moves way over. So your 100 foot line for Stream Margin Review has moved 50 to 100 feet into the property which puts all 4 of the buildings shown on the SPA within the 100ft review line and suggests that you want to correct that. The parking lot project has moved Spring Street Extension and it is shown the old way rather than the new way and it would be helpful here and in future review of this that it be accurate. The point I would also like to make is that I would disagree with Leslie. You should probably leave section 3 as it is and probably only make it more clear that the Engineering Department should be responsible for cleaning and maintaining the landscape and so on. The ponds used by the snowmelt facility and also by the storm sewer system comes out of a culvert right here--and that storm water that is an engineering source of water. Most of the crud in the pond is probably from the storm water of summer rather than from the snowmelt in winter. The request before you is for a pond of half of an acre to an acre in size with a standing pond. It seems to me that it is far better to have 3 equal size ponds. My point is that if this were enlarged and this were enlarged to be the same size then your summer flow would produce a nice pond in all three situations with the irrigation water coming from here. So you wouldn't have to treat any of this as temporary but rather it is permanent. Landscape it. Do it right so you have a beautiful park for the summer. The Roaring Fork Greenway plan which was described in the Engineering memo to you calls for the restoration of the riparian zone which is the stuff that grows low next to a river. And what we have is a rough escarpment that they planted Daisies on. Then the islands are roughly cut with a bulldozer and if you walk the islands they don't look natural. They look like what they are which is a chunk of dirt left between 2 dug channels. 3 PZM9.12.89 So if this is ultimately to be a park and a naturalized riparian zone as intended by the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan then it would seem to us that we should be restoring this by lowering the river area, moving it back on the hill or elsewhere and then planting trees and trying to get the original kind of riparian zone that we have over by the Art Museum on both sides of the river. Welton: Chuck, do you want to respond to Alan's 3 pond suggestion. It seems to make a lot of sense. Roth: Well, the asphalt on the existing trail by that middle pond is right next to the pond. In order for us to enlarge that pond we would have to tear out the asphalt trail and re-locate that. Since we are still in the experimental stage snowmel ting, this is still conceptual SPA, I wonder trying to lock some things in that aren't ready to be with if we locked the are in. Blomquist: We think if you move the trail over a little bit into the trees, that would be very nice. It is something to look at between conceptual and final. Roger: About the first pond--operationally do you have to dry that pond out to pull the silt out? I assume the highest rate of settling is in that pond. Roth: Yes. That is where most of the debris would settle out. It has to dry out. Historically we go down about 9 layers from the snow bank. After the snow melts then we go down and scrape up all the garbage and haul it to the dump. Year before last they hauled about 115 truck loads until they get down to regular dirt. We would still operate in that kind of a mode. Only instead of having a 3 acre layer of crud we would be down to a 1 acre layer of crud. Roger: My point is is it advisable to run the water through the summer in that pond if that is what you have to do with it. And especially if you are going to pull that much crud out of 1 acre instead of 3 acres. Roth: We do have our shoulder seasons. And if we did a permanent pond we would have plenty of opportunity both in the spring and the fall to do our maintenance operations. We do have an existing bypass that bypasses the storm runoff into the river. That is legal and we can use that. Bob Gish, engineers different Public Works Director: I guess if you ask any of the 3 on the staff what the solution is you would get answers. I have my own thoughts. 4 PZM9.12.89 This is experimental. And also remember that the capacity of a snowmelter is 40 tons per hour. To handle the snowload of Aspen, we are looking at a minimum of 5 snowmelters. Each snowmelter discharges 40 to 60 gallons per minute and in the snowmelting operation the bulk of the material that is left over at the end of the season will be mucked out on a routine scheduled maintenance because it collects in the bottom of the snowmelter. So we are now looking at a volume of 100 plus trucks a year into the pond. This year needs to be a year of experimentation. I am not even looking to putting in a permanent type pond this first year. I am saying to be safe to try to discharge clean water into the river, what I would like to do is get as large a pond as we possibly could use and that would be at least an acre. We would like to experiment with a series of sand filters or maybe a series of sand baffles across existing ponds. We don't know what we want to do. What we have to do is trap the suspended solids--those small particles that get into the water to get discharged into the river. That is what we want to try to get out. I liked what Leslie's recommendations were. Give us one more year of experimentation. Let us come back before you with some discharge numbers, suspended solids into the river, the size of the ponds we need. I don't like the ponds the way I see them. They are all cloudy. That is suspended solids. At this point we can't tell you the answers. We are working with the manufacturer on the problem of the flame going out. We are also working with schmeiser, Gordon to help us on the solution. I do disagree with Chuck a little bit. You are going to see a snow pile. In order to maximize the use of the snowmelter you are going to see a pile of snow there. As far as parking are going to have kind of parking. there is not going is concerned I doubt very seriously whether we room this winter during skiing season for any If we go with the 1 acre pond plus the snow to be room for parking. Peter Lockner, Property owner across the river: My objection to this is it is a very noise-generating operation. It still makes an awful lot of noise with the snow dumping and with the trucks with the tail gate banging. That usually happens all through the night. And I wonder if this is going to continue. If it has to 5 PZM9.12.89 continue that way then I feel this ought to be installed somewhere else. Across the street the City Council wants this to be zoning for R- 15. That is a very sensitive zoning for 1 family houses and this is a commercial operation. I don't feel that this should be put there. Kent Reed, Art Park Committee: I think the Arts Park I s main concern has to do with the permanence of this pond. Last Fall the city designated that land as Art's usage. The whole parcel. We are for experimentation in that this pond be put in on a temporary basis. As Bob has pointed out with 5 snowmelters the pond could get 5 times that size to take care of the solid settlement or if it is decided that 3 snowmelters is the optimum then that pond could get 3 times the size. It is an acre now and that parcel is only about 3 acres. It is almost a third of the land area the way it is drawn. So we are really concerned that the pond be put in as an experimental thing. And we are really adamant about it being a temporary pond in that they want to start construction October 1st. None of it has been thought out in a conceptual sense as it melts out into the whole property use and how all that is going to evolve. So we would urge you to please allow the pond but that it be reviewed on May 1, 1990 and we have all had a winter to look at the parcel of land to see how the snowmelter is working and how the pond is working. We feel it would be in error that anybody is under the impression that it is a permanent thing and we are afraid that somebody is going to come back and say "We have invested X amount of dollars making this pond. Let's just leave it here now so we don't have to reconfigure it". Rita Richards: I live near by that area. Children are very attracted to playing in these sort of ponds. Those edges are just very, very attractive to children coming down on the trail. I don't know what is contained in that sort of snowdump, waste, the storm runoff waste. I don't want my 8 year old going over to play in some sort of water that is possibly toxic in some form. I am also concerned that this is barely 300 yards away from our new library. Probably 200 yards away from the proposed site of the youth center. This is a very prized piece of real estate and if the City owns this real estate it should remain as some sort of park. It should not become some industrial site for our snowmelt problems. I think Mr. Moffit has a very valid point that people in the neighborhood across the street from this have 6 PZM9.12.89 been urging the city to move the snow dump and not to invest in it to become a more permanent site. Al?: A lot of people are concerned that the City is converting what is essentially a solar power snowmelter where they just let it melt to a fossil fuel powered snowmelter which is quite an expense and the settling ponds. This is really going to be an expensive proposition. I just question the need to go into that kind of system that when you get that natural gas off the market and burn it for the snowmelter you are taking gas that could otherwise be used to offset the coal powered electricity. And therefore you might as well be burning coal down here. That is my concern. make this conversion of the world really. I think it is environmentally unsound to and I think it is a bad example to the rest Hal Clark, Parks Association: I obviously support what Al is saying. Parks Board has been on this subject 15 years or so. We had a committee that investigated the relocation of the snowmelt site. They were unable to come up with another site so we ended up reluctantly agreeing with the city that this is probably the only interim place that they could locate the snow. However I also add that we have been constantly caught in this catch 22 situation on having temporary uses on this property. That is the reason I am here tonight to express my frustration at seeing another late Fall application for a use on the Rio Grande property. I must have seen a dozen of these temporary applications for use on the Rio Grande property. What you really should do is make some nice improvements to the Rio Grande. but when you do that you re-enforce the uses that you have there now which is the snowmelt use. My own observation is that all the numbers that have been used to evaluate the cost of relocating the site, you never can get an account of the value of this land. You have 3 acres of land in downtown Aspen on the Roaring Fork River. The land is extremely valuable. My personal feeling is that this would be a great housing site. It is a wonderful location. It is centrally located and would have few transportation problems. It is hard to get the City to re-locate to another alternative. But I think that when the property is valued with the value as a factor, I think you can afford to re-locate this outside the city. Roger asked if a linear pond had been considered. Roth: Yes. The engineer does not feel that would add appreciably to the effectiveness of the pond. 7 PZM9.12.89 Roger: I basically like what Al has produced there and I think we should work towards that in the future. But at this point and I want everyone to realize that in my motion I feel that this is a temporary solution. I agree with the Engineering Department. Welton asked if there was any further comment. David Floria, Curator of the Aspen Art Museum: I would like to add the argument that we would like to see the bank across the river from the Museum that Al was talking about be improved and landscaped along there. And that the snow situation be removed to somewhere else. The Museum has many thousands of visitors throughout the year. winter and Summer it is an incredible eyesore and detraction from the Museum's grounds where we place sculpture. And to have this eyesore in the Summer and in the winter--the big mounds of dirty snow piled up there as well as the noise problem. There being no further public comment, Welton closed the public hearing. Roger: I hope that some day we will be able to remove that snowmelt operation to somewhere else. If we ever get a down valley commuter maybe it goes by rail down valley somewhere. But we are stuck with it right now. And we all on this commission hope to get it out of there. But accepting the impossibility of that at this point-- MOTION I recommend approval of the SPA amendment to install 2 additional sediment ponds and relocate the pedestrian trail and enlarge the apron and pit of the snowmelt facility with the conditions being the same as on Planning Office memo dated September 12, 1989. (attached in record) Welton: with condition #7 to say "to revise the SPA map to reflect the existing conditions of the river edge and the re- alignment of Spring Street as part of the SPA amendment". Roger: I will add that to my motion. Welton: Condition #3 was suggest to be amended that the Engineering Department shall be responsible for landscaping the sedimentation ponds associated with the snowmelt and the periodic cleaning of those ponds. The Parks Association said that the Engineering Department should 8 PZM9.12.89 really be responsible for the ponds whether or not they are used for snowmelting or for City runoff. Roger: I accept that amendment to my motion. Welton: The Parks Association didn't want to have it amended. They liked it the way it was. That the Engineering Department should be responsible for the ponds whether they are used for storm drainage or for snowmelting. They are their ponds. Gish: The Public Works Department and the streets Dept. have some of the responsibility there too along with the Engineering Department. Roger: We will modify #3 to read "city Public Works Department shall be responsible for--as above worded. Michael: Has any investigation been done as to whether other sites are available. Roth: We have presented Council with a list of 17 sites. Included in those was the golf course and the Marolt property and nobody thought they were any more appropriate than the Rio Grande. Even the city/County Dump doesn't want our leaches down through the landfill solid waste the groundwater. snow because it and contaminates Mari seconded the motion. Bruce: I am sympathetic with our dilemma here. But I think I am ready to send a message to Council that enough is enough. We don't want the snow dump there. We don't want the snowmelt there. I am ready so say leave the land alone down there and do the right thing. Mari: I think that when this thing has gone around Aspen and always come back to the snowmelt it was before we had the snowmelter and I think that idea with the snowmelter is to see what works here instead of screwing up another site on experiment. And if it does work then there might be a possibility that it could be installed someplace else. But we have to see whether it can work. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Bruce Kerr. MOTION 9 PZM9.12.89 Welton: Bruce, would you like to make a motion to have the Planning Office to compose a resolution to include in this recommendation to City Council with appropriate language that indicates the temporary nature of this facility and our continued desire to find a permanent solution to the snowmelting facility. Roger: Re-affirming our previous position that we would like to re-locate the thing. Welton: Snow dump and snowmelt facility and to come up with a final landscaped higher and better use for this property than dumping snow. Bruce: That is my motion. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. Al Blomquist: There is an irony in all of this. You should be on the lead on all of these things--not reacting. Bruce: Then staff ought to present all of those 17 sites to us and let us know. Put it on the golf driving range. That doesn't even need grass on it. Who cares whether the driving range is green or brown. Blomquist: You should be asking for this kind of thing on all of these problems. Then you come up and recommend to Council. That is what a Planning Commission is supposed to do. You can't put it onto Council. That is what has happened on the Meadows. Tom: I agree with Bruce's last comment. Perhaps what we can do is get ahold of the work that Chuck has done on the alternate sites and bring it to you at the same time we come back May 1 with an analysis so you can make a recommendation to Council about what happens on that site and what happens to the snow as well so it is a package deal for you. Gish: I make a guarantee to this committee that when we approach you in May, we will have facts and figures. We will look at the operation. We will analyze the operation. We spent hours and hours looking for a location as to where we can take the snow. Nobody wants the snow. So maybe the solution is for the Council to bite the bullet and say OK I am willing to spend one and a quarter million dollars a year to make the problem go away. We will give you the facts and figures that you can take to Council in May. MOTION 10 PZM9.12.89 Welton: I will entertain a motion of approve stream Margin Review for the large temporary pond with conditions as listed in the Planning Office memo dated September 12, 1989. (attached in record) Roger: I think an additional #5 is when they come back with a plan on May 1990 that that should include a plan to restore the riparian area on that side of the bank. I will so move with that condition #5 added. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor except Bruce Kerr. Graeme: Tom said they would be willing to start the process whereby we would try and make a recommendation about where the snowmelt--how that should be done. Tom: The Rio Grande SPA--we have attempted to plan that for 15 years. And it has only been in your most recent effort last year where we were able to reach agreement on a conceptual plan. The P&Z was very reluctant to have the snowmelt facility on the Rio Grande. But they acquiesced at that time in the face of not a better solution. We have been struggling with finding another site for the snow dump for years and it has been the length of travel time to the gravel pit or whether it is out to the ABC area that has always made it a negative in terms of the cost benefit analysis. Chuck has looked at different sites more than once. What I would say to you as part of the May lst review that you have that Leslie has set forth in the conditions we would work with Engineering to bring to you not only a plan for the site along with an economic analysis but also revive Chuck's work to see if you would like to step forward and make a recommendation to Council on an alternate location. Maybe that will be the Benedict site which Chuck has already identified. Meeting was adjourned. Time 11