Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Rio Grande Materials Recovery E Bleeker St.A23-91 ~ ""~ ,/ .,;",. - CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 4~2191 DATE COMPLETE: 11 ~ cr 7 I. , PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 2737-073-00-005 A23-91 STAFF MEMBER: LL PROJECT NAME: Rio Grande Materials Recoverv Facilitv Conceo- tual SPA Aoolication Project Address: East Bleeker. Asoen. CO (old imoound lot) Legal Address: APPLICANT: Pitkin County Resource Recoverv Applicant Address: 530 E.Main. 3rd Flr..Asoen.CO 81611 REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Duke . 'pitkin County Representative Address/Phone: 530 E. Main. 3rd Floor Asoen. Colorado 81611 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- PArD: YES xxNO AMOUNT: $1.690 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 P&Z Meeting Date,-<)/;:( 1 J CZ 1 I I STEP: NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED 1 2 STEP: V- €;) YES PUBLIC HEARING: VESTED CC Meeting Dater-J I~ '"L ~ 1:A, f)..p ~ -t-,-,-<>~>1 ~C) r~~~-;: Planning Director Approval: Insubstantial Amendment PUBLIC RIGHTS: YES HEARING: (Y~~ NO NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO or Exemption: Paid: Date: =====================~-=====- ================================== REFERRA : ity Attorney ,Mtn Bell School District city Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State HwyDept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State HwyDept(GJ) city Electric Building Inspector ~ Envir.Hlth. Roaring Fork X Othe' rY\.~~cr-t Aspen Con. S. D. Energy Center . ,h:,'C'~- ~ ~ 0' G'::JwclL DATE REFERRED: 1~S41 INITIALS: eA.- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: _City Atty _ Housing _ City Engineer Other: _Zoning _Env. Health ~\G I 1'1\ Rio Grande Materials Recovery FAcility Conceptual SPA Applicati( 2737-073-00-005 A23-91 PZM6.18.91 probably more realistic. Do you mean financially or do you mean the way the procedure works at this time. Duke: Financially. It would be the best use of the space. If we are looking for the most cost effective system it would be Sara: Once you have the building. Duke: Yes. If our regional engineering firm thought that we had the money to build this facility and the space was available, it is a guaranteed deal that they would recommend going the full scale facility. Jasmine: There are getting to be more and more structures on the Rio Grande property. It seems to me that all the open space that we had suddenly all we have is a playing field. It might be better to combine buildings. If there is an important need for 2 public uses down there which is the trolley barn and the recycling center rather than having 2 buildings trying to fit together on the same space --if there were any way to combine them into a single building at least it would be only building. It might be a better solution to the whole problem. Leslie: For conceptual review at this point the first question is is this a use that you wanted to continue on that site. And if so I think between now and when the trolley submits final application we have a lot of time then to take in various recommendations that you may and how to incorporate the 2 uses on the site. What Jim is presenting to you is some initial options to give us the case scenario for your comments. I would just like to know from you whether you think this is a use that we should continue and help along for this site. Jasmine then asked for a straw poll. Sara: I say yes. I think it is a real public amenity. I think people are familiar with it and I think it is a real grass roots desire in this town for recycling. I think we would have a big uproar if we take it away. Richard: The question I asked myself even before I got to the memo --OK, this is a nice idea but is it just because we got it started there and is there a better place. I can't think of a better place for it. And I think it is an appropriate place given the uses on the south side of Spring St extension there because it is a light industrial area. It is close to the center 2 r • PZM6.18.91 of town as we are ever going to get. So I am in favor of continuing it at that site. Jasmine: I tend to agree with what Sara and Richard. Roger: I will say yes it qualifies. I want to go back to what P&Z has done in the past by prioritizing what belongs on the Rio Grande SPA. It's original purpose when it was bought with 7th penney funds was transportation. I consider this very appropriate accessory use for this type of site. Not a primary use. If we can take care of transportation first and there is room for recycling I think it is a great idea. I would like to get it to where it doesn't look like a dump yard. And with as good as you guys are keeping it, unfortunately it does have that appearance right now. I think we do need this kind of facility in the central of the community to service the business community. Mari: I agree pretty much with what Richard said and I feel like there will be detractors who will bring up all of my objections to the snow dump on that site and compare the 2 uses and the distinction in my mind is that the snow dump doesn't require the consumer to visit it. And as long as everything has to be hauled away from the snow dump after it is sorted out from the water so it might as well be hauled out to begin with. That is the way I see it. Whereas with the recycling center has got to be convenient for the consumer. That is the justification for the use on that site. It would be nice if the building could have a nice facade so it wouldn't look too much like a corrugated/tin appearance. It should look good being next to the library. But I think that the architecture of the garage was clever enough that it doesn't look like a garage and I just hope that with clever use of materials and so on so that it doesn't look like a recycling center and I also feel that we should err in the direction of allowing them to expand rather than trying to squeeze it into too small a space to be able to expand in the future. I think this will be a growing movement. David: I disagree with all of you. I think there are other sites in town. I think there are more convenient sites in town and I think this in the commercial zone and the FCI zone there are other sites. The masterplanning currently calls for the block which is now the Buckhorn/Bell Mountain Lodge. And the Kraut property to the parking garage to the City. And that is just with the masterplan. I would say it is doubtful that parking garage status right across from City Market would be a real handy site. Just like this is somewhat handy but not real handy to Clark's Market and the Postoffice. So I think that kind of location perhaps underground, perhaps out of site. And I 9 PZM6.18.91 definitely agree with the comments about the design of this. I would encourage that some sort of design review to assure that we get some kind of architectural amenity acceptable to the community. It was purchased for transportation then transferred to open space and along that line I agree --first it is transportation and second open space. If however it were being incorporated into this site there are ways to do it. I know there is water in the ground. How much water? How far underground? My guess is that a smaller structure could be made that is depressed, could be made --perhaps one that doesn't have a roof. There are several publications in the last month on green architecture. You can have a sod covered roof so that it looks like landscaping so it is all natural elements to further decrease the use of fossil fuels. And to use solar energy maybe not for heating but for lighting. Leslie: Would you like us to explore other options? Other sites? David: I would say that is up to you all. I think they are out there. It is almost like a traffic generator. It is another destination point. And I just think there is a better way to do it. Bruce: I tend to agree with David. If it boiled down to the fact that this were the only possible site for it I probably would vote in favor of it. The thought just came to me what about the sanitation district land down there. I know at one time they were talking about some housing or something. I don't know what is going on there. I think there may be some other sites. And I just hate to clutter up the Rio Grande too much. It is the same reservations I had about the theatre. I just hate for us to build out that land and not really have thought it out thoroughly. Sara: 4 MAY 06 191 16:52 ATTACHMENT B TOWN OF CARBONDALE � U , MEMORANDUM 254 P02/02 TO: Carol O'Dowd FROM: Davis Farrar Town Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Pitkin County Material Recovery Facility DATE: May 6, 1991 Carol, I finished my review of the MRF proposed by Pitkin County for an Aspen location. It is my understanding from Jim Duke that this application to be used to preserve future options at the existing recycling drop off facility location in Aspen. I, as a member of the Roaring Fork Valley Solid Waste Committee, support the idea of preserving all options for recycling drop-off centers, transfer stations, MRFs, or other related facilities that can effectively serve the public now and in the future. I can not comment on the specifics of a MRF at that site at this time. The Solid Waste Committee, as you know, is about to contract for a comprehensive analysis of solid waste and recycling issues in the three county region of Pitkin, Garfield, and Eagle Counties. A MRF typically is a large facility designed to serve a large population. They can be quite expensive depending upon design and function. I (nor do I believe that any member of the committee) do not feel qualified to objectively site a MRF at any specific location at this time. This kind of facility should be sited after analysis of haul lengths, population densities, waste stream analysis etc. I do encourage the Planning Commission and the City Council to give serious consideration to preserving a good recycling location that presently serves the public and likely will continue to serve in the future. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of 'further assistance on this issue. MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Rob Thomson,Project Engineer 4 Date: May 6, 1991 Re: Rio Grande Materials Recovery Facility Conceptual SPA Application Having reviewed the above referenced application, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. It is preferable that no runoff from the buildings go onto any public rights -of -way. Per section 24-7.1004C.4.f of the municipal code, all but historical drainage must be maintained on site. The applicant must demonstrate to the engineering department that the drywells are sufficient to accommodate drainage on site by providing calculations from an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. We also need the engineer to comment on the functional aspects of the facility in order to determine that it can be cleaned for continual, proper performance. It is staff's recommendation that the environmental health department and the sanitation district comment on waste water runoff collection and/or disposal that could be potentially generated from any day to day operations. 2. Parking requirements are determined by special review. The applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the project have been met. 3. From a Trolley Barn site plan and schematic elevations dated February 15, 1991 the location the applicant has indicated for the MRF contains a little over 2,000 square feet. This area is less than the minimum requirement, as stated in the application, for all four options. 4. There should be some consideration to what levels of noise the facility might generate from the compaction equipment to the vehicles hauling the materials away. 5. The applicant should provide information as to the traffic generation and its effect on Rio Grande Place. In particular addressing the size and frequencies of the vehicles hauling materials away from the MRF. In addition, it is staff's recommendation that the vehicles hauling materials away from the 0 • MRF be restricted to exiting East on Rio Grande Place. 6. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we would like the following condition of approval: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights - of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). 7. With reference to Jim Gibbard's comment number 8 for the Aspen Trolley Conceptual SPA review, "there is potential for the proposed access to the recycling center and for the parking spaces that are proposed to be in conflict with the movement of snow dump trucks". Until the city resolves its snow disposal operations it is difficult to consider any site plan. cc: Chuck Roth, City Engineer rt/MEMO91.37 • i City i� As 130 Muth Galena Street Asp ru 1611 TO: City of Aspen Planning Staff FROM: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager ' '�'Zza DATE: April 15, 1991 APR 1 6 10 I L.� RE: Pitkin County Recycle Facility SPA Application At the April 8 Aspen City Council meeting, the City Council approved Pitkin County preparing an application for the Pitkin County Recycling Facility currently located on city property at 32045 Highway 82. Therefore, I request your assistance in working with the Pitkin County staff to facilitate the inclusion of their application in the Rio Grande SPA. Thank you for attending to this matter. We look forward to scheduling Council review at the appropriate future date. If you have any questions, please let me know. 4 recycledpaper 0 • I L IDI ; col VIA z10 1�1 TO: City Engineer Parks Department Roaring Fork Forum (c/o Carol O'Dowd) FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: Rio Grande Materials recovery Facility Conceptual SPA Application DATE: April 24, 1991 Attached for your review and comments is an application from Jim Duke, of the Pitkin County Resource Recovery Department, requesting approval for a materials recovery facility conceptual SPA application. I need the City Engineer to meet with me on his own so we can talk over his comments. Also, I need the Roaring Fork Forum to take special note of Attachment 3A. Please return your comments to me no later than May 6, 1991. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 920-5090. 0 I IN„CO)::.1Dili . TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Rio Grande Conceptual SPA Resolution to Council DATE: April 16, 1991 SUMMARY: The Commission at the March 19 meeting approved the conceptual SPA plan for the Art Park/Theatre and Trolley Car barn applications. The Commission also denied the continued existence of the snow melt/dump facility on the Rio Grande. The Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution granting conceptual SPA approval to Council for these projects. Please see attached Resolution. KEY ISSUES: Utilizing the minutes from the Commission meetings, staff has prepared a Resolution for your review. There are several conditions of approval that were somewhat unclear in the Commissions motion to approve. Those points that need clarification are: 1. Section 1: (4) The Commission has requested mapping information of the proposed valley rail track alignment and terminal on the Rio Grande parcel. Staff assumes that this was a direction for the staff and not the applicants. 2. Section 3: (1) The Commission recommended to the applicant that specific alignment concerns be reviewed by Council. It is unclear whether that refers to just the alignment around the ball field or the entire routing question and whether alignment review should occur at final SPA review. Staff had suggested that the entire route be reviewed at final SPA review. Regarding the track alignment around the ball field, staff had hoped that some conceptual decision could be made about an alignment closer to the ponds in the Art Park thus taking advantage of the existing trees providing camouflage to the wires and poles verses an alignment on the edge of the field in front of the existing trees. (9) The Commission did request that the Trolley track not encompass the entire ball field but the Commission did not specify which half of the field should accommodate the trolley track. Should this also be discussed with Council? It was also discussed during approval of the Art Park/Theatre • E program that the trolley stop should be eliminated at the Art Park and that condition should be included in conditions for the Trolley. Is that your recollection? The minutes were somewhat unclear. RECOMUENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution _, with clarifications, recommending conceptual SPA approval for the Trolley car barn and the Art Park/Theatre program including the Theatre building but no on -site housing and recommending denial of the snow melt/dump facility. 2 1 0 0 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, .aid---idfzrr-1 Peyton arrived shortly after roll call. _ RIO GRANDE RESO Leslie: There are 4 clarifications I nee rom P&Z fre4arding this resolution. Those are P&Z asked tha e valley alight rail' track alignment and, the terminal shown on uture maps. I am assuming that you wanC--staff--M-�include that within the memo in your future review packets. The second one is the actual alignment for the trolley. You have said that specific alignments concerns should be reviewed by the City Council and I am sure if we are all to referring to the alignment as it go4es around the bvall field alignment should go half way around the ball field, we didn't really specify which half and also staff was hoping to get to some conclusion on whether the alignment shoudl dip down into the trees. The last point was someone had made a comment that the trolley stop should be eliminated right there at the Art Park and I wasn't sure if that is really what came out of the meeting or if that is something you want to include in the future review fo the actual alignment of the trolley. Sara: I recall on discussing the ball field that the trolley would go down that between the Youth Center and the Jail come around on the north side. Roger: And along that --assuming there is a north side alignment I see no reason to exclude the stop at the Art Center. Richard: Those are my conclusions exactly. Sara: One question --regarding prior to the time of submission the applicant shall work with the Commission to develop and operational policy of multiple use for the --I don't want them to work with us. I want them to come back with the idea but I am not going to schedule it for them. Leslie: This was something that I had recommended when we were talking about this that before they submit their final PZM4.16.91 application that we can get confirmation from you whether they are on the right track or not as far as the operation. It is something that they are very concerned about that ? theatre group or you wanted to insure that other groups ? And I suggested that maybe we kind of before final submission check in with you guys to see if they are on the right track with you. Sara: Because I was really adamant about that. Leslie: I want them to present to you what it is that they have come up with prior to final submission. Roger: On the first Whereas that plan of 1988--is that the plan that is the adoption priororitization of the uses to be accommodated on the Rio Grande SPA? Leslie: Yes. That is where you talk about that the snowmelter should be eliminated and the area should be used for arts usage. Roger: We prioritized Leslie: You did not prioritize that statement. I did not see a prioritization. This SPA plan of 1988 is the last time anybody looked at the plan as a whole. Roger: Well, on one of those plans we set up a hiarchy of accommodations in the SPA. I would like that included somewhere. As far as I know that was adopted by both us and City Council. I would like a reaffirmation of that or inclusion of that. Leslie: So I will take this first Whereas and that that is what the 1988 plan that was approved Ropger: Right. The setting up of the priority of the uses. For example primarily transportation uses were to be accommodated first. And then on an available basis other uses to be looked at on top of that. That was the plan I remember. Sara: On page 4--Item 8. Is there a conflict if we eliminate the snow dump there is still a conflict with snow dump road because of the ? Leslie: Yes. There would still be a conflict because that is your only vehicular access to the lower portion of the site and if the theatre building is built down there that ?. It is called Snow Dump Rd right now. Sara: Art Park Way. K, PZM4.16.91 MOTION Roger: I move to adopt Resolution concerning the Rio Grande SPA as relates to the Art Park, Trolley and Snow Dump. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor except Jasmine. Jasmine: The reason for my "no" is I cannot approve of the Art Park structure. MOTION Roger: I further move the modified resolution to be signed by the Chairman. There was no second or vote on this. ASPEN MEADOWS RESIDENTIAL GMQS, FINAL SPA AND REZONING CONTINUED SCORING Amy: We would like you to re -confirm your vote on the Growth Management scoring. Code requires that each Planning Commissioner individually give his project bonus points. The last time you gave bonus points and then voted on it. It was a 4 to 2 vote. What we would like for you to do now is if you wish to give theproject bonus points to write those down and yur reason or rational for those bonus points. And we will incorporate that into the final score. Welton: Would you put onyour list of things to do for the next miliniuma way of making the voting to confirm the Planning Office recommendation to give it some form of substance. Most of the time it hasnot been a problem. This because of the concerns of the applicant that all the Ts be crossed and the Is be dotted that we are having to jump through a lot of hoops that it might have made more sense to score the whole thing as if it was competing with another applicant. Amy: We can add some language to the code to allow for that. 3 i • Jim Duke Pitkin County ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197 Re: Rio Grande Materials Recovery Facility Conceptual SPA Application Dear Jim: This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review at a meeting by the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, May 21, 1991, to begin at 4:30 p.m. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan, Office Manager CONCEPTUAL SPA ATTACHMENT 3A 1. Pitkin County does not have any definite or specific plans for a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in the Rio Grande SPA. This application is being submitted in response to increased competition for the use of this site, in hopes of reserving this site for potential future utilization. The regional recycling cooperative effort being conducted through the Roaring Fork Forum has recently hired an engineering firm to design a regional recycling plan, which will likely include the placement of several small MRF's and, or, transfer stations throughout the region. County staff feels that this particular site will be a key element in any regional efforts, and could indeed make the difference between success and failure of a recycling program for this region. If regional coordination, for whatever reason, become a reality, it is believed that this site could probably be even more critical to the city of Aspen, and should be reserved for such a use, at least until such times as a satisfactory alternative site is identified, or until the City of Aspen has a firm plan for the handling of recycling which does not involve a local site, or until the City of Aspen formally decides not to provide any recycling services to their community. Because this is an extremely conceptual plan, that does not even currently have an attached budget, we are not submitting a general tim schedule for construction of this proposed development. 2. The facility will require only single and three-phase electricity, which are currently present on site, and water and sewage, which are available close to the site. 3. Please see schematic drawings submitted with this SPA. Also note that we will work with the Trolley Barn Supporters in their plans to develop this site. pccah/wp/2.66 e ATMCHMEW 1 IAND USE APPLICATION FURM 1) Project Name Rio Grnade Materials Recovery Facility 2) Project Irxation Rio Grande SPA Old impound lot site (indicate street _ , lot & block n ter, legal description wbex e appropriate) 3) pit Zoning Public with SPA overlay 4) Iot Size approx. 12,700 sq. feet 5) Applicant's Name, Address & pbone # Pitkin County Resource Recovery 530 E Main, 3td Floor, Aspen, CO 81611 920-5215 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phcm # Jim Duke SAME AS ABOVE 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply) : Conditional Use X Conceptual SPA Oanoeptual Historic Dev. Special Review 8040 Greenline Stream Margin Maintain View Plane Condomi ni umi zaticin Iot Split/Iot Line Adjustment Final Historic Dev. Mirror, Historic Dev. Historic Demolition Historic Designation GMQS Allotment GMS Rion 8) Description of Existing Uses (barber and type of e3usting structures; approximate sq. ft. ; rimber of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the PAY) - This site is currently being used as a recycling drop point-, m inraineri by Pitkin County. The facility consist of one 40' enclosed semi hn), railer, three t- four 20' long roll off dumpster containers and a variery of smaller rPr3.cling containers. 9) De��cription of Development Application SEE ATTACHED 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to Attachment 2, Mnimim Submission Cont Its X Response to Attac3ment 3, Specific Submission Dante is X Response to AttadmLant 4, Review Standards for Your Application 0 CITY OF ASPEN 0 PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PROJECT .'rz APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, m �� �Ln au i�1 GC�_n �.j REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: OWNER'S NAME: S 1. Type of Application: 2. Describe action/type of development being requested: . , A 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments J j L1 A - 4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) L_(P&Z then _to CC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO) 6. Number of copieslof the application to be submitted: 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: 8. Anticipated date of submission:(:::c.I f ` 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: frm.pre app ATTACHMENT 1 #9 Pitkin County staff proposes to upgrade our current facility located on the old impound lot in the Rio Grande SPA. This is an ideal site for convenience to the community and seems compatible with surrounding uses. The facility could be centered on the south side of the existing site facing the S.C.I. area with the north side being backed by the proposed trolley barn, or with screening vegetation to minimize impacts on open space areas. The maintenance and upgrading of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in the Rio Grande parking area is considered to be extremely beneficial to the Aspen public for three primary reasons.-,Tha&�-€first-u-reason is efficiency. Several of the materials which are recovered by Pitkin County are extremely bulky; prime examples are corrugated cardboard and plastics. Approximately twenty yards of each of these materials can be compacted into a bale of less than one yard each. The cost of transporting these materials uncompacted to the Solid Waste Center can easily exceed the cost of shipping these materials to market after they have been processed. The twenty fold reduction in volume makes this haul twenty fold more efficient. Obviously on site baling, as would happen if a MRF were established at the Rio Grande, would cut transportation cost immensely. In terms of cost effectiveness, a process facility as close as possible to the source of these materials is essential to the long term success of the recycling program. The second reason for upgrading and maintaining a MRF is education. Our greatest challenge in recycling is quality control of materials to be recycled, and quality control is impossible at an unstaffed facility. This contamination is extremely labor intensive to sort out after the fact, but could easily be prevented by an employee working close enough to watch what is being dumped. If, for example, a load of cardboard that we ship to market has over 1% contamination of certain materials, the load is rejected, or severely downgraded at the market site. If our current site were upgraded to a .process facility, this would provide the on site staff necessary to police the quality of the material coming in, and to educate the public on how and what the standards of the industry are. The..fina.1 reason is aesthetics. At the current facility, all drop offs are conducted outside. Consequently, the dumpsters and the debris put in them are visible to the public, which is obviously unsightly. If a sufficiently large, permanent facility is constructed on this site, all recycling could be conducted indoors. Such a facility would include a drive through for citizens wishing to deposit their recyclables in an enclosed area, protected from winds and weather, thus reducing the likelihood of litter being spread. All storage and shipping areas could also be enclosed to prevent an unsightly situation. Staff has designed and proposed four possible facility floor plans ranging from 15,000 to 3,000 square feet. The minimum requirements for all plans is the capacity to store at least forty yards each of eleven different materials. Option #1, the largest proposed facility of approximately ,000 square feet,., would provide storage for complete truck 1 ads of each of the a,Y different materials to be recovered. Thisrwould allow direct r 11 shipping to market from the facility thus eliminating the need to d ha 1 unload, and reload these materials at the Solid Waste Center. /0 1 ry;-�,` Option #2 would also allow deposit, storage, and processing of all materials to be conducted indoors, but would have storage room for only one semi -load of processed materials. These materials would then be transferred to the Solid Waste Center a where they would be, unloaded, sorted out, and reloaded onto other trucks for shipping to market wit only the storage being enclosed. �,A O O t, (YC) r� Option #3 is very similar to the second option, except it eliminates a couple of bins, and moves part of the floor plan to a lower level for increased space efficien y. The trade off here is the construction( costs wou d increase. V �� �. Option #4 would provide only indoor storage for all recoverable !material. This system would require a portable bailer to circulate through and process all materials as the bins become full. Al�deposits, rocessing, and loading would be conducted outdoors. Recycling supporters are aware of the significance of this property and the extent of the commitment we are requesting. The incorporation of this facility into the Rio Grande SPA would show that our community is willing to invest in recycling on a long term basis, rather than superficially as a temporary fad. As with most investments, the returns are proportionate. If Aspen chooses to remain a leader in the field of recycling and provide the most efficient and cost effective services possible to the community, there should be room reserved for the largest facility acceptable on this site. CJ 1 �0 J 1)3© pccah/wp/2.69 All opt ion, # 1 Preferred • • 0 Illlilllllllllll Illlilllllllllll llll{illlIIHIII Illllllllllllill illlllllilllllll IIII{NIIIIfINI INIIllilllillll !IIIIIIIIIII{III Illlilllllllllll IIIIUIIINIIIfI Ill!lllllfllllli I1I11111111N11 IIVlIIIIII{Illli !IIIIIII lIIIII! 1(IIIIII�iIlIIII Illlilllllllllll !IIIIIIIIIIIINI IIIiIIIIIIIIIIU IIIUiillllllll! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIU(IIIIIIIIIII Illlilllllllllll IIIIIIIIHIIiIII Illllllllfiltlil Illlilllllllllll !Iltlfllliililll IIIIIIIII(Ililll lIIIHllllllllll IlNllillllllUl IIIIlIIHlllllli Ililll{IIIlillll liilliilllllllll Illlilllllllllll Illllllfilllll!I Hillllllfllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1HIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illllllllllllill Illlilllllllllll IIlIIlllllll(II! Illlilli11111111 I l I I1111111111 N !INlIIIIlllllll! '!lllllltllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIiIIIIIN Illlilllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIillllllllll I(Illlllllililll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I{Illlllllllllll Illlllll(IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIfINllilll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illllllllllllill IIIlilllll!!1111 Iltlilllllilllll lllllilllflllll Illillilllllflli Iflllll(IIIIlIII Illllltlllllllll Illlilllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illlilllllllllll Illlilllllllllll IIIlililllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII lillllllllllllll IIIIIIIIiII{Illt IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII llllllllllllllll Illllltlllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illlilllllllllll illlllllllllflll Ulllltlllllllfl Illlilllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I! 1111111111111 Illillllllllllll IIII1111lllllill ulunnunul illllllllllflll! IIfIIIIHNIIIi! IIIIHiIlilll!ti IUf(11111lIIIII IIIIlIIIIIIHI(I IIIIf Illilllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illlilllllllllll Illlilllllllllll Illllltlllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II!IINIIIIIIIII • V J Z C-I H nQ L.LW n C7 ry LLI 0 r� V U //, : Preferred -1 J -1 Option, n G1 D 0 Z r m Gl Z H -gyp C D d x H m ty OPERATIONS n C1 D _ d m m m C H H [� I L1 z c X D _ D f'Tl z H d tj m -I z CUSTOMER -�