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\
--..,
~
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Leslie Lamont, Planning
TO:
RE:
Recycle Center - SPA Amendment
DATE:
June 18, 1991
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pitkin County Dump has operated a recycle center on the
Rio Grande property for the past 2 years. In an effort to review
and plan for the variety of land uses proposed for the Rio Grande,
staff has requested a conceptual SPA application reviewing the
operation of the recycle center and its future plans.
Staff intends to incorporate this conceptual application with
the other SPA applications that the P&Z reviewed at their March 5,
1991 meeting. City Council will conceptually review all these
applications June 24, 1991. A Resolution reflecting P&Z's
conceptual recommendation for the Art Park/Theatre, Trolley and
Snow Melt was prepared for Council. However, the Resolution has
been revised to incorporate the recycle facility. Please review
the attached Resolution. It is assumed that changes will be made
as the Commission reviews the Recycle Facility proposal.
Staff recommends conceptual approval of the recycle facility and
review of the Resolution.
APPLICANT: Pitkin County Resource Recovery, represented by Jim
Duke
LOCATION: Rio Grande parcel, specifically the old impound lot
ZONING: Public (PUB) with a SPA Overlay
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conceptual SPA review for the continued and
proposed expansion of the Resource Recovery facility
REVIEW PROCESS: Staff has recommended conceptual SPA review for
the recycle center because the 1988 conceptual SPA plan approval
did not address specific projects for the Rio Grande property. In
addition, the continuation and/or expansion of the recycle center
is a revision of that original approval.
Staff recently presented to the commission a conceptual review of
the Art Park/Theater, Trolley, and Snow Melt Facili ty. The
Resource Recovery facility was intended to be included in the
review but a delay in preparing the application prevented
concurrent review. However, this review considers the proposed
Trolley facility and Jim Duke has proposed several options that
would be compatible with the development of the Trolley Barn.
/"",,-,
-
Conceptual Review evaluates the general intent and design approach
of the project and basic land uses. Impacts should be identified
and specific issues and concerns requiring further analysis should
also be identified. The detailed architectural elements, site
design issues and budgetary elements will be reviewed during final.
Upon completion of conceptual review, which is a two step process,
the applicant will then submit a final SPA application to be
reviewed.
BACKGROUND OF RIO GRANDE PARCEL: In the early 1970's the Rio
Grande property came into public ownership. In 1977 an "Interim
SPA Plan" was adopted by the City identifying recreation and
parking as the key uses for the property, recognizing certain key
out-parcels, and providing for a land trade to build the Eagle's
Lodge. In 1983 the city and County completed a land exchange that
provided the County with the parcel to develop the Jail. Please
see attached memo from Rio Grande Prooertv, attachment A.
In 1980-1981 the Rio Grande Task Force completed a report listing
potential uses for the property and a general configuration for
such uses. Key facilities included a performing arts center, jail,
parking structure, transit facility, recreation, library, greenway
and restaurant. According to the Aspen Planning and Zoning
commission Resolution 84-9:
"Despite the long history of planning for this property, a
consensus has never been reached as to the optimal mix of uses
and the best development plan for this land...The intent of
the SPA designation is to provide the design flexibility
within which open space, cultural and transportation needs can
be met through a plan which is sensitive to the Roaring Fork
Greenway Plan and the desire for pedestrian and mass transit
access to this site from the downtown area."
Pursuant to 1988 conceptual review the Library, Parking Garage and
Youth Center have all been approved and developed based upon final
plan approval.
The Commission conceptually reviewed the Art Park/Theater, Trolley,
and Snow Melt Facility at their March 5, 1991 meeting. The
Commission recommended approval of the Art Park/Theater and Trolley
and recommended denial of the Snow Melt Facility.
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP: The Rio Grande property (which includes the
impound lot) was purchased with 7th penny transportation funds in
the early 1970' s. Those funds were later reappropriated by the use
of the 6th penny open space funds to allow the interim use of the
playfield.
City staff is currently researching the issues involved with
development of land that was purchased for a pUblic purpose and
2
r-,
.-"
the funds that were used for that purchase.
conclusion is that a change in use of land that
public purpose would require voter approval.
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROPOSAL:
A preliminary
is used for a
A. History - During the late winter of 1989, Aspen City council
approved a temporary but indefinite exemption from the Special Use
Review process to allow the placement of recycling containers next
to the Rio Grande parking lot. Shortly thereafter, City Council
passed a resolution generally supporting recycling efforts but
failed to commit to specific actions. After relocating the
recycling containers several times to accommodate the construction
of the parking facility, the city informally designated the current
site with the intention of preventing these continual
displacements.
It has been a primary goal since the early planning stages that no
recycling services be retracted once established. This is
considered critical to the process of developing routines conducive
to recycling and has been reiterated during every step of the
expansion process.
B. Existing Conditions - The current Pitkin Resource and Recovery
Facility is located behind the Jail on Rio Grande Drive on the old
impound lot. The parcel is directly across the street from the
S/C/I zone district and above the bike/pedestrian path that
connects Herron Park with Mill Street. The site is very flat and
devoid of any improvements except the current recycle center.
The facility accepts the widest variety of materials, and is one
of the most accessible drop points wi thin Pitkin County. The
materials accepted at the site are: aluminum, tin, glass, plastic,
newsprint, cardboard, low grade paper, high grade paper, green bar
computer paper, and used dry cell batteries. There is a 4 yard roll
off for aluminum and tin, a 20 yard roll off for glass, a 100 yard
trailer for newspaper and cardboard, a 95 gallon container for high
grade paper, a 95 gallon container for green bar computer paper,
and a small container for batteries.
The problems with the facility include wind blown trash, unsightly
conditions and illegal dumping. Also, due to the set up of the
facility, staff is required to make at least one trip a day to this
site in order to transport recyclables, and clean up the
surrounding area. Staff must also make one trip a week to Clark's
Market with the collected cardboard as it is not economically
viable to transport this bulky, uncompacted material to the
landfill.
C. purpose - The purpose of the recycle SPA review is two-fold.
Staff recently requested one conceptual review process for the
proposed and existing activities on the northern portion of the
Rio Grande property. It is staff's intent to facilitate an overall
3
"-.,,
"-.,,
review of all those activities. A broad review would enable review
bodies to make an informed decision about what activities should
occur on the Rio Grande and what should be precluded.
The impound lot site, purchased with transportation funds, has been
identified for the Trolley Car Barn. It is staff's intent to
develop a site plan that enables the utilization of the site by
both entities, and considering staff's direction, the Trolley
proponents have included a resource recovery operation on their
site plan.
Secondly, the Pitkin county staff proposes to upgrade the current
facility for three reasons. The first is efficiency. Several of
the materials which are recovered are extremely bulky such as
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. Obviously on site bailing would cut the transportation
costs and amount of hauls 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 recovery facility
is education. The Resource Recovery program's greatest challenge
ia quality control of materials to be recycled, and quality
controls is impossible at an unstaffed facility. contamination of
material is extremely labor intensive 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 is shipped 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 oversee the quality of the material coming
in and to educate the public on the standards of the industry.
The final reason is aesthetics. All drop-offs at the current
facility are conducted outside. Consequently, the dumpsters and
the collected materials are visible to the pUblic. If a
sufficiently large, permanent facility is constructed on this site,
all recycling could be conducted inside. Such a facility would
include a drive through for deposits protected from the wind thus
reducing the likelihood of litter. All storage and shipping areas
would also be enclosed to prevent an unsightly situation.
D. Expansion options - Jim Duke has submitted 3 options for
upgrading the resource recovery facility.
The following is a brief summary of each option. Jim will present
a synopsis of each option with conceptual drawings at the meeting.
4
.-.,
, ,
,.-..,
General Notes: All options include sunken dumpsters to ease
the dumping of materials. The conveyor belt used to unloaded the
dumpsters is also below grade. In addition, all collection bins
will be enclosed. The approximate height of the structure will be
20 feet. 161~
option #1 Gs the largest proposed facility and it is
approximately ~o square feet at grade. This facility would
provide storage for a truck load for each material to be recovered.
Advantage - The facility would enable direct shipping to
markets thus eliminating the need to load, haul, unload, and reload
these materials at the Solid Waste Center. This would reduce the
number of hauling trips to once every 1 or 2 weeks.
option #2 - is approximately 5,200 square feet. This option
eliminates a couple of bins, and moves part of the floor plan to
a lower level for increased space efficiency. ,
Advantage - the enclosed bins and below grade bailing will
eliminate unsightly conditions and blowing trash as compared to the
current facility.
option #3 - is approximately 2,000 square feet and only
provides enclosed storage for all recoverable material. This
system would require a portable bailer to circulate through and
process all materials as the bins become full. All deposits,
processing, and loading would be conducted outside which could
increase the potential for litter. The bailer would have to
brought to the site when necessary as the machine cannot be stored
unprotected.
Advantage - all bins will be enclosed.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering Department:
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.
5
,'-"
t""">.
2. Parking requirements are determined by special review. The
applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the project
have been met.
3. From the 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
three 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
MRF be restricted to exiting East on Rio Grande Place.
6. Given the continuous problems of unapproved
development in public rights-of-way, we would like the
condition of approval:
work and
following
The applicant shall consult city Engineering 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.
7. with reference to Jim Gibbard's comment 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.
Roaring Fork Valley Solid Waste Committee (a sub-committee of the
Roaring Fork Forum) - the city Manager I s Office referred this
application to the Committee and the following comments have been
excerpted from a letter by Davis Farrar, attachment B:
1. Mr. Davis supports the idea of preserving all options for
recycling drop-off centers, transfer stations, Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) , or other related facilities that can effectively
serve the public now and in the future.
2. The Solid Waste Committee is going to contract for a
comprehensive analysis of solid waste and recycling issues in the
three county regions of Pitkin, Garfield, and Eagle Counties.
Until such time as an analysis of haul lengths, population
densities, waste stream are completed, a specific site for a MRF
6
.-..
,r-..
to serve a population center cannot yet be effectively located.
3. The commission and council should seriously consider preserving
a good recycling location that presently serves and will continue
to serve the public.
STAFF REVIEW:
Pursuant to section 7-804 (B) the review standards for development
in a specially Planned Area are as follows:
1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or
enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture,
landscaping and open space.
RESPONSE: The purpose of this conceptual review is to ensure that
the recycle facility and future expansion of the operation would
be compatible with the proposed Car Barn structure. In addition,
whether a recycle facility is an appropriate land use for this
site.
The three options proposed will house most of the recycle
operations indoors. Collection bins will be protected from the
wind thus reducing the likelihood of litter being spread about the
site. All storage and shipping areas could also be enclosed to
prevent an unsightly situation. In order to minimize the size of
the facility, Option 3 does not provide an enclosed drive through
and bundling operation. Of the total square footage required for
each option, a significant amount of square footage is proposed
below grade.
Conceptually the Car Barn facility will be approximately 7,000
square feet. The building is also being designed to accommodate
5,700 square feet of affordable housing on a second level. The
recycle facility is intended to fit in between the Car Barn and
Rio Grande Drive. The conceptual configuration of the facility is
a long narrow structure approximately 20 feet in height. Depending
upon which option is developed the building could range from 20 to
40 feet wide and 60 to 130 feet in length.
Across Rio Grande Drive is the S/C/I zone district with a variety
of service/industrial land uses such as: Auto Tech, Aspen Electric,
Aspen Painting, pet grooming, various maintenance storage areas for
local businesses, Integrity Plumbing etc. A trolley barn and
recycle facility directly across the street would appear to be a
compatible land use.
2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to
service the proposed development.
7
,1""'\
~.
RESPONSE: The necessary utilities required to support the Car Barn
will also be sufficient to support the recycle facility. Only a
single and three-phase electricity are needed, which according to
the application are present on site, and water and sewerage which
are available close to the site.
The site is accessed directly off of Rio Grande Drive. As the
previous review of the Trolley Barn indicated there is adequate
site area for on-site parking but staff has recommended eliminating
the parking in favor of the parking garage less then a block away.
3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally
suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability
and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and
flood hazards.
RESPONSE:
proposal.
This former impound lot is well suited for this
There are no geologic hazards that exists.
4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land
planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid
adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and
similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at
large.
RESPONSE: There are no designated view planes within this area.
The location of the expanded recycle facility is on the south side
of the Car Barn. The approximate height of the facility would be
20 feet while the proposed height of the Car Barn facility is
approximately 45 feet (if employee housing were located on the
second floor). The location of the Car Barn and recycle facility
are planned in such a way as to push the development as close to
Rio Grande Drive as possible preventing the building from
overlooking the pedestrian/bike path and the Art park/Theatre
parcel.
Conceptual plans of an expanded recycle facility indicate that the
physical structure would not exceed the length or height of the Car
Barn.
5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The 1973 Land Use plan identifies this area as Public
with a portion designated Limited Industrial.
One of City Council's stated goals is to increase recycling. The
location is an ideal site for a recycle drop-off because of its
convenience to the community. It is centrally located and has
become a popular drop-off for those citizens and businesses that
do not have curb-side recycling. In addition materials are
collected, such as plastics, at this site that the curb-side
8
,~
'-',
program does not handle. Although the ultimate goal is to provide
complete curb-side recycling, the drop site is necessary because
the transient community may not utilize curb-side pick-up and
businesses need to dispose of materials more then once a week.
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 material recovery facilities and or
transfer stations throughout the tri-county region. The County
staff believes that this site could be a key element in the
regional recycling effort. If regional coordination became a
reality, it is believed that this site could probably be even more
critical to the community and should be reserved for such a use.
6. Whether the proposed development will require the
expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities
for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood.
RESPONSE: This is an extremely conceptual plan. A budget has not
been identified at this time. The purpose of this review is to
ensure some level of site protection for future expansion needs and
to inform the Commission as to the program, and to consider the
appropriateness of the site as a recycle center.
7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty
percent meet the slope reduction and density requirement of section
7-903 (B) (2) (b) .
RESPONSE: Not applicable.
8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the
proposed development.
RESPONSE: If the Commission and council determine that a recycle
center is an essential public facility a growth management
allocation is not required for the construction of the recycle
facility. Formal action for GMQS Exemption would be approved by
Council at final SPA review. However, the question of employee
housing at the site, as was proposed by the Trolley applicants, and
whether employee mitigation should be required, are threshold
issues. The Land Use Code does not allow the waiving of employee
housing.
The criteria for a GMQS Exemption considers the public purpose,
growth generation, availability for general pUblic use, servicing
the needs of the city and whether the development is a not-for-
profit venture. Given the non-profit and public purpose nature of
the facility and the contribution to the community's recycling
effort, staff recommends that the facility be deemed an Essential
Public Facility.
9
,-.,
I~<
SUMMARY: Although the applicant does not have a budget for
construction or specific construction timeline, conceptual review
of this application will help determine the proper land use for
this site and will hopefully secure a portion of the site for
future recycling efforts.
Considering the site constraints, the size of the Car Barn
proposal, and the needs of the Resource Recovery program, Options
2 & 3 could be accommodated on the site with the Trolley Barn. If
the Commission does not want to preclude option 1, staff recommends
that prior to final SPA application submittal by either the Trolley
proponents or the Resource Recovery program a site plan depicting
both Option 1 and the Trolley Barn be included with the final
application. However the level of operation, the physical size
of the facility from a visual perspective, and traffic generation
factors may dictate a smaller operation. The specific option does
not need to be selected during conceptual review. Final SPA review
will require a more in-depth analysis, more engineering details,
and site specific design features.
The waste recovery needs analysis being conducted by the Roaring
Fork Forum will enable the City and County to determine the best
possible recovery operation for the Rio Grande site. Until that
time, and given the Car Barn proposal, staff would recommend
preservation of the land area necessary for all options.
Between conceptual review and final SPA application submittal the
Trolley and recycle program proponents should work together to
carefully develop a site plan that accommodates both facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conceptual SPA
recycle application for all options with the following conditions
that prior to sU9mi~ta~ of a final SPA application:
; ,,-uu c\le....<.\L ~ ~
j. Prior t:o--.final SPA application submittal bY~he Trolley
proponents ~~a site plan depicting
b<f€L .oPt~~~and the TFolley Ba~n shal~ ,b. e.,i.'" inf,lu~ed W,~th the,. final
appl~cat~on. ~ W t~~ y\'}:','--d .'V-'>-'f · i""-X~.tA..( V i\" . KS'.
2. 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.
3. The Environmental Health Department and the Sanitation District
shall comment on waste water runoff collection and/or disposal that
\~ould be potentially generated from any day to day operations.
4:\ The level of noise generated by proposed facility shall be
as~essed and evaluated by the Environmental Health Department.
CY () : a r +0
'.. ,,,{,r-J.O l:.-
~aJ"~d..~,L.,(t/. ,.t Jtr"
'~,,;, ", . - - '-/
"c.~t ('^:'"
:,I.....~'4::..::." J/\..",...,..,
'""
r-,
,~
5. The applicant shall 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
MRF be restricted to exiting East on Rio Grande Place.
6. The applicant shall consult city Engineering 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.
7. The applicant shall provided information that sufficient public
facilities exist on the site or can be accessed.
8. The applicant shall submit a final SPA application for review
within two years of conceptual approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Rio Grande property Memo
B. Davis Farrar Letter
C. Resolution
q,'1'1-L
r,~A<'\ ,l.,ft"
,l.. ...,~,'j.'\';""'~
,"" r, ^" , ('"".; '",.' ,\5" "{",.,,.. .,' ·
'-"""\,;-'V~"""'"""" "
\, ,
'V ~
11
r'-\
/,"--'\
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 18. 1991
LEGENDS SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OPEN SPACE
MOTION
Sara: I move to accept the special review for use of open space
by the Legends of Aspen as recommended by the staff adding to #4
that the gate will be a bi-swing gate and recessed so as not to
swing out into the public right-of-way.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor.
~
'-
-------
---
RIO GRANDE CONCEPl'lJAL SPA FOR RECYCLING CENTER
Sara:
When you mention the second option you said that is
..
1""'\
~,
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:
people
desire
uproar
I say yes. I think it is a real public amenity. I think
are familiar with it and I think it is a real grass roots
in this town for recycling. I think we would have a big
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
,-...
,-.
PZM6.l8.91
of town as we are ever going to get.
continuing it at that site.
Jasmine: I tend to agree with what Sara and Richard.
So I am in favor of
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
3
'~"
,"'-'
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 I 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:
sites?
Would you like us to explore other options?
other
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 '91 16:52
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
254 P02/02
,r-\
I~
\0. ~ rJL~* .
ATTACHMENT B
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
CarolO'Dowd "\Ald
Davis Farrar, Town Manager~
Proposed Pitkin County Material Recovery
Facility
May 6, 1991
OFics
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Carol, I finished my review of the MRF proposed by Pitkin
County for an Aspen location. It ia 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.
...
r"'."
'-',
,,.
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Rob Thomson,Project Engineer, f(::>1:'
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
/~
,-"
-
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. Wi th 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/MEM091. 37,
City of Aspen Planning staff ) ~~ ~
Carol O'Dowd, City Manager~~~~
April 15, 1991
pitkin County Recycle Facility SPA Application
r",
,..-."
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
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.
/cledpape,
~
~,
MEMORANDUM
TO: city Engineer
Parks Department
Roaring Fork Forum (c/o Carol O'Dowd)
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
Rio Grande Materials recovery Facility Conceptual SPA
Application
April 24, 1991
RE:
DATE:
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
~
,,,,-...,
.~
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Leslie Lamont, planning
Rio Grande Conceptual SPA Resolution to council
TO:
RE:
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
.1"""\
~
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.
RECOMMENDATION: 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"""\
--.
",,'1:
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
mmnG&l!lIJtCCDMIlHH
_.1fi.m.
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygr7
and Welton Anderson. Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr
Peyton arrived shortly after roll call.
RIO GRANDE RESO
Leslie: e 4 clarifications I nee
this resolut} n. Those are P&Z asked tha
track alignment a the terminal on ture
assuming that you wan ~nclude that w~ .
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 gQ,~es af'Q,und the bvall field alignment
shllluld go half way around, the ball field, we didn't really
specify which half and alsl't'l, staff was hoping to get to some
conc;lusionbn 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 ,t.i:>etween the Youth Center and the Jail
come aroundontht;lnorthtsiide':!l
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'exactlYi
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:
talking
This was something that I had recommended when we were
about this that before they submit their final
1""',
~.
"
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 pJ..ans we .set up a hiarchy o~
accommodations in the SPA. I would. like that includedsomewhere,i
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
what the 1988 plan that was approved
Ropger: Right. 'l'hesetting up of the priority of the usestt!, 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.
that that is
Sara: On page
the snow dump
because of the
4--Item 8. Is there a conflict if we eliminate
there is still a conflict with snow dump road
?
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.
2
-
1"""\
~
-.
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 GMOS. 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 ~
competing with another applicant.
Amy: We can add some language to the code to allow for that.
3
0-
A,
,-"
ASPEN/PI".r1UJ!l PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-50~0 FAX# (303) 920-5197
Jim Duke
Pitkin County
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
,r-"\,
ATrACHMENr 1
I1IND USE APPIJ:CATICN ~
~
1) Project Name Rio Grnade Materials Recovery Facility
2) Project IDeation Rio Grande SPA
Old impound lot site
(indicate street address, lot & block runnhPr, legal description 'Where
appropriate)
3)
Present Zoning Public with SPA overlay
4) Lot Size approx. 12,700 sq. feet
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Ehone i ' Pitkin County Resource Recovery
530 E Main, 3td Floor, Aspen, CO 81611
920-5215
6)
Repl:eSeIltative's Name, Addl:ess & Ehone i
SAME AS ABOVE
Jim Duke
7) 'lYJ?e of Application (please dleck all that awlY) :
O:>rrlitianal Use
---1L Concep\:1lal SPA
Final SPA
--'- Concep\:1lal Historic Dev.
Final ,Historic Dev.
_ SJ?"<"i'" Review
M::lUntain view Plane
.
SUbdivision
Minor, Historic Dev.
Historic ,l)annUtion
_ Historic Designation
, 8040 Greenline
_' Concep\:1lal RID
Final RID
,;
_ stream Margin
<Jondcminiumization _ '1'eKt/MaP Amerrlment
_ Lot SplitjLot Line
lIdjusl:IJent
8) Description of Existing Uses (J'lnnhPr, and' type of exist:i.n:J' st:rucb1zes:
awraximate sq. ft.: J'lnnhPr of I-:h...........:any previous awrovals granted to the
property) .
'-- QQ3 Allul:1ll=.IL
_ QQ3 ExelIption
This site is currently bein2 used as a recvcl{u2 dron noint~ m~int~inpn hy Pitkin
County. The facility consist of one 40' pn~lo~p..rl APmi nnx rT::tilPT. t'hT~P. ro.
four 20" lonQ: roll off dumpster containpT'A. ;:mn ::t V:::IT; pry of ~m::tll PT' T'p"yc.1ing
9)' ~i~~' of Devel~.t 1q:ip1ication
SEE ATTACHED
10) Have you attadled the foll~?
~ Response to Attad~.t 2, Minim.nn Snhmi=ion Oantent:s
~ :R.,spoilSe to Att.admlent 3, Specific Snhmi...",jt)[l Oantent:s
~ RespaJ:lSe to Attad~IL 4, Review st:.amards for Yoor Application
r-,
,.-,
, ,
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
POlicy Area/
Referral Aqent
J;\ X(-Y'- 0 (l ~
.J l' :::,
0l ( I j(', L/'''(j
~(,- (:J L\ /)
@evoJ:,:S
Comments
4.
Review is:
(P&z Only)
(CC Only)
~~ to cCi)
6.
\. /
Public Hearing: ',..:.:::,('Y::E:f:ll) (NO)
Number O~of'~he application to be submitted:
What fee was applicant requested to submit:
Anticipated date of submission:(leJ I q
COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: r ~\. '(41.;..-.. Q
-- % '>- ',co ~'C'\'X' '-. />F,
:-(
-~/
I
5.
7.
9.
i"/)
.. .~ I, - 'J
.. ". '."'*.7......."
~'y\...J.~' /'--~
c~9
8.
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 b, enefic~,,' a,,2-. t.o ,th~,.".~",-~,.E,R.!1,U~bJ.~~i5SL for three primary
reasons. ,A", -~, ",!__!!Il[~_.',4>-~. 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.
~~~,E:l@l!ll!lt"__.",.;<i.g~~"iilpgra:ct-~,"-ctne:"oqlla'fifCaid:Yd:h~~'f"~fmF--'"-'<is.",,",
~d~qa~~Qqt; Our greatest challenge in recycling is quality .
'control of materials to be recycled, and quality control is
impossible at an unstaffed facili ty. 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 l% contamination of certain materials,
the load is rejected, or severely downgraded at the"lllarket site.
If our current site were upgraded to a 'lI.laiOir~' !Jij"'j"jll/rr--"l. 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.
.~'\;'fill!f~_~-''''l?-;:~'r.;.[JIMU~gt~4~. At the current facility, all
arop offEr' are conducted outs~de. 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 conf;tructed on this site, all recycling could be conducted
~t'i'ndeGr4. Such a facility would include a drive through for
citizens wishing to deposit their recyclables in an enclosed
area, protected from winds and weathE!r~, ,t;hus reduc:ing. the
likelihood of litter being spread. ~rJ:"''j;/(;'';J:'''ag>e-L''r-'''1~~.
_q,J::,e?,,?'could~~,?o:"-~~n.c:;l:'~~a-~'tiO';~~eri'ti:biErtr--u~f1;ln'eI1"'::~~~-9~
..,.,.~
~
~
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. .. q,tiqn ,#1/.the
largest proposed facility of approximately'" ,," "~~,
would provide storage for complete truck 1 ads' of each of the ~
n ~ differen~~s to be recovered. This would allow directcft:~
~~-, ' shipping to market \rom the facility thus eli inating the need to
"~' I' r+~~c~7aO . ~;;P1d~11 materials '~ tcfN~~waste ,
, "">),option'lf2_1tl9UI 0 allow deposit, storage, and processing of
'..""',..:if.IJ".,., (.f"'" '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
'c. , where they would be, unloaded, sorted out, and reloaded onto
- other trucks for Shipping to marke~.wit.hyonl~the storage being
enclosed. Cf~ C ~ CJ1r.~A._ ~UL:- +, F'(}()
Option #3 is very similar to the second option, except it
'eliminates a couple of bins, and moves part of the floor plan to
lower level for increased space effiCien~y. Th,e, trade Offjre
is the constructionl1.costs w~u d imlrease. "-"'0" ,:;:x
, \JL~ 0'0 'fr~ ,/.;;) '."-1
(",'.. Option #4 would provide onl indoor storage for all recovera Ie
.' . material. This system would require a portable bailer to
:, circulate throuqh and process all materials as the bins become
~' fUll. ee~roCeSSing, and loading would be conducted
outdoo . ./
-
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.
4.; ~ lZl.. '
, Ot:,~.
J \,.
$Q> z.;;.y" , .
pccah/~2.69
(,
~ JJJc
i!O . ) ~(J
, fov,-./-oJ sr\(fe:J.~.6~. J t;;~
~O/-!-~ j~
/d! ~ (''l"-C.Q. 0 J/t-<-]
.~
"
,
l"""'-
e
1"""",
- - - -:- -, - T -r -1- r -r -,- r -,- r "I
r-,
I""""c
1""'-
L
.J
I ii Q! I:l
W
I:l W <t ~ ~ r=
III
SS'Vl~ 'w '" l-
X ,ll! - z ~ tJ NIl
N'V31J - )0 :z: r..J ii2 a:
'Z; !l! =- r..J 21
Q!
~ (.J
n::
w
-3
1-1
HS'V~l <[
, , ~
~
<C
W
0::"
<C
J-
, u..
I-f
-3
~
0:::
0
u..
D
pa.LLaja.Ld
: i # uO'Pl- dO
"
t"""",
-- - - -
~- -. - ------~-----
-- ---- - - - - - - - - -- - --- --~-- -------
- ~ - - -
- - - - -- - -- -
- - ~ - - -- - - -- -- - -- - ----
- - - - - ----- -- -- -
- - -
- - - - - - . - -
- - - --
- - --
- -- - - -- -
- -~ - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - -- - - - ~ --
GLASS
f""'"
_t"'"
_f""'"
,
-
/-,\,
-
..1"""
;;: .
-
~
,
r- --..
GLASS
MIXED
ALUMINUM/TIN
V1
Z
D NE\v'SPRINT
1--1
.J-
<J:
eJ' 'WHITE
0-
D
GREEN BAR
CORRIGA TED
H,D,P,E,
P,E.T.
TIN
-.-.
1
l'
(k::
W
2:
o
J-
V1
::J
U
l'
',-