HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report BOCC 9.4.01,,1/n,*/ L ** t'
..Ie--J LL'a//
,',rii ur*l / 7/*tr4
REQUEST:
uu ycrtu'L(tuJA ,P 4
,'' l,il-n/7 4 *r'"
,*/
BOCC 9104101
PROJECTINF0RMATIoNANDSTAFFCoMMENTS
APPLICANT:
Review of the Proposed Blue Creek Ranch Wastewater
iieatment Faciliry and Recommendation to the
Colorado Department of Health and Environment' Water
a;tt Control Division, per regulations22' Section
22.4 (2).
Blue Creek Land Holdings, LLC
The Blue Creek Ranch is a proposed PUD on an 82 acretract just to the south and east of
the Catherir" Stor" roi"rr""tio, wrth Highway 82-and County Road 100, Extending from
HrA;;y 82 to the Roaring Fork River (See Auached Map). The applicant proposes a
working build out d;;;it?". this analysis of 40 single farnily homes' 6 affordable
housing units and n ii"" iur.o/horr" UoitAng facilit| on the iite which results in a plant
buJhg'fu"tor of 52 equivalent dwelling units'
Theproposedmethodoftreafinentistoinitiallycollecteffluentinsingleorclustered
septic tanks for solids removal. A gavitt se#1.wrll convey the tank effluent to a lift
station that will p.*pi" , ";;t*; f*ifitY utilizing a Recirculating Filter System' The
facility is designedto n*dt.20,000 guii* ner OaVStrich would handle any peak flows
from an estimated 12,740GPD average daily flow' The.lift station is designed to
accommod ate a24hour back-rrp fait,,rl si-o| 8e atea. -The proposed facilities are directly
adjacent to, but Oo not lie within, tUe roO jeainooO plain witli the exception of required
connecting pipes. A geotechnical ,ePort oi'* p."put"A for this project by HP Geotech of
Glenwood Springs *tich indicates tirat much'of ine property and ftt-ltlllt:d site for the
lift station and plant is subject to high ground water ievels' The construction of
basements is not r.ro*.roea ana spEtiut r*. is advised in construction of any sub-
surface structure. The potential for sint hotes and eroding subs!rugture is present in the
general area. The pi"fit.a srte tras uO.q*t" access and setbacks from potential
Ia3oiolrg uses as currently envisioned'
The applicant proposes that the-ownership, operation and maintenance of the system will
be turned over to u ho*"o*rr"r's associaiiorr. R proposed operations budget indicates
twice weekly visits by a class D operator to inspect operations, periodic pumping of
biosolids, u "upit
l ro"*. fundand "tt*auv charge fol undeveloped lots to assist in
funding prior to Uuifa-ort, and related operytiols costs for an estimated $40'73 per
dwelling unit per montfr rn*g.. Cost for the facility is estimated at $250'000' or
essentially S5000 per dwelling unit'
B.
II. Issues and Concerns
A. Legal Process: To install a new sewage treatment facility and a lift station' an
applicant irffiUoa io submit an Appl-ication for each to the Colorado
Department of public Health ana rnvironment (CDPHE). The site applications
are required to be reviewed by the county Board of Health, Board of county
Commissioners and Planning Authority. fthel reviewers for this application
include the Town of carbondale, carbondale Sanitation District, and Mid valley
Metropolitan District. As the piurt u.ro lift station are to be constructed together
i',p,o*i*ity-atthesametime,theyarebeingreviewedintandem.
These entities are given three recommendation options; approval, disapproval and
no "orrr-"nt.-
ihe"charge to these reviewing entiiies is to address the following
question:
..Ate the proposed facilities consistent with the Comprehen:,^u9-|lu,1nd anv
other plans 6i trr" area, including the 201 facility Plan or 208 Water Quality
Management Plan, as they affect water quality?"
The recommendations made by local governments and entities are considered by
the cDPHE in their approval ot deniulof the site applications' If thecDPFIE
recommends denial of the propor.J site applicationi, that denial can be appealed
to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission'
n: The current Garfield CountY
Parcel in question as@ a recommended density for the
Low Density Residential (10 acres perdwelling unit) yhi:l-Y:.*9^ry^'::l':l:{
^,ilt ;ilT'J il:ffi ; rX ffi .;J.tur), 8 ;G-"o _y1l' n g units for a totar of
16. The proposed trJe farm and horse boarding operations would potentially
.ourt as seueral additional units for the purposes of plant loading'
This designation was applied to this area primarily-due to septic system
-
constraints (Plan, pug" rv-:l "These areas eithei have inadequate percolation
,ui.r, rrigr, grourrd *a'teror ulre underlain by the Eagle valley Evaporite
formation."
section III of the plan, 7.0 ..water and sewer seryices" provides guidance in
,.r.tut areas: (Plan, Section III, Pages 14 and 15)
objective 7.1: "Development in_areas without existing central water and sewer
service will be."q"ir.Oio provide adequate and safe provisions for these services
before proj ect aPProval-"
objective 7.2 "Development locatgd adjacent,to municipalities or sanitation
districts with availabi. fupu"ity in their tentral water/sewer systems will be
strongly encouraged to tie into these systems'"
2
C.
objective 7.5 "Garfteld county will strongly discourage the proliferation of
private water and sewer sYstems'"
policy 7.4 "where I.s.D.S. is not feasible, Garfieldcounty will require a sewage
disposal system approved by the State of Colorado'"
UnderS.0,NaturalEnvironment'PolicyS'4*TheCountywillrequire
development with ri;;;il"-rtrg. to uoor"s the issue through physical design in a
way that will protecift"gti" *iUands and scenic resources-and protect floodplains
from encroachment'"
lliil,i,'.lio'ffiffirffiJffi;; ,oui. r'ai,i*,i, rot a'ea pe' dweiling unit is
2 acres. sit. 'orrt uiis *i.,ro proiably not allow 41 selarate lots to be
subdividedfromthislarger32acreparcel,,equiringaPUDtoallowtheproject
proponents to approachihe density levels proposed'
TheapplicantproposestoenterintoaPIIDprocessforthedevelopmentofthe
oarcel that will facilitate weighing ttrese-and-other issues in the overall approval
ffii]r;.'t# ililu[| t u, .[*.Jtry iointined the maximum probable densitv
allowedundertheunderlyingzoning,subjecttoothersrteconstraintsand
considerationr, *hi.h i' uppiop'iatJ oiv ana -tgfl:::'""fl1r3::::.,",1evaluatine
se' orchard or
'ff:-Y#'*li f.., o", dwelling unit i
consloerauorls' w'ru* r' .vPrv'rr-* "'-iu,i""s
and costs' The approval of the
p"i""ti"t effluent levet-'T:"T:Lt^?:f:- onrr rrecrmenr facilitv do notin a4yr
: The parcel in
as the
III. StaffComments'
l.TheparcelinquestionresidesinalocationwheretheComprehensivePlanand
the Zoning Resolution ur. ,."*i"r,ril;;;;;fl*-,11. comprehensive Plan, based
on soil and ground water constrain=ti, suggests minimum 10 acre lots in an effort
to recogniz. r.s.o.s. constraints r."* g.i*dwater and subsurface issues as well
as to preserve the agricultot-"f u'a.1t"'":t **""I:of this corridor' and not
pto*ot" urban gto*th levels outside of urban seruces areaa'
2. The comprehensive Plan also identifies a broader area of concern dealing with
water q*ritv irru.s and speciuiun"",io" to river frontage' The underlying
concern ir Jil#ffi;;ffi;*tstreams and rivers mav be approached
cumulatively, impactingnl*.ffi ;i'."*r ura rrrlo of special districts, should
there be u piofii.iu,ion-of smatler, private wastewater systems' There is also an
underlying;;;;.* that privateGl;;, "'d facilities managed by homeowner's
associations have had an *.";;'il;il;J track record of maintenance and
comPliance'
the Permitting Process'
3.TheapplicantsowngeotechnicalleportstatesthatthesitecontainsEagle
Valley Evaporite tpi,e"T),'ugg"to further study by a hydrologist for areas along
the river and flood fiil6"#"+;, and states *Giound water level typically
appears shallow thr"rgd;itre prqect area. Field sprinkler and flood irrigation
could be contributilfi" the shaiow groundwater condition' Due to the shallow
water level and flrtl;;g;;uir, it r,ill probably n9t be practical to protect below
grade areas from *.tttil and hydrostatii pressure buildup. by use of an underdrain
system. (... ) gasemenil?""ft may not be
-feasible'
Potential groundwater impacts
on proposed development should be Juated as part of the site specific building
study."(Page 7)
4.TheCDPHEreviewandapprovalprocessprimarilyfocusesonthetreatment
plant itself, the lift station, and what will be discharged into the river environment'
It is less ,orr.-.a *iit, the collection system, which in this case is part of the
overall system with the individual septi; tanki acting as solid settling vaults prior
to effluent reachirrg i't. pi*, itself. taking an overview of the entire system
therefore falls on the countY'
5. county staffhave not had the opportunity to evaluate the proposal from an
engineering standpoint, or a water q*ltt standpoint, by. in-house staffor external
consultants *,th that';;.rirr..*p.rtir.. we wiil rely primarity on cD?HE
evaluation fo, *uto-q11tflty issuls but note that in their report on preliminary
effluent limits cDpm ;iates that at lowest flows the ratio of discharge to river
volume is 1:6065 ul}dtmt "assimilative capacities aJ9 extremely large" (page 1)
and later in discussing loading along the reach considering uptT"* 111^.,^
downstream discha-rgZrs "the-ambient water quality backpround concentrattons
used in the mass-balance equation account foi poliutantslf concern contributed
by upstream ,o*,",, and thus it was-not necessary to model upstream dischargers
together with the Sir. Ct".t Ranch WWTP when determining available
assimilativ" "upurlii",
in the Roaring Fork River. Because of the signifrcant
dilution available i.tutir" to the sizJof the dischargers of concern' downstream
dischargers were not found to affect the assimilativi capacity calculations for the
Roaring Fork River near the proposed Blue creek Ranch 'w'wT?>" (Page 9)
6. The applicant has explored the potential for consolidation into the treatment
facility at the Ranch at ioaring Foik and has been told that their loading would
trigger a threshoiJtnat woutA iequire system expansion at a cost of $7500+ per
dwelling unit, and in addition.*"*.rrt, to reac-h the nearest lift station would
cost at teast szoo,ooo, o, u, additional $4000 Pef {we}ing unit equivalent'
Assuming that the "ort
of th. system and the indiviaua septic tanks is
approximat.f, SiOOO per dweliing,roit u. proposed, a Ranch at Roaring Fork
alternative could double the cost per unit.
-Given
the potential and likely market
niche these lots uiJ J*"ff ings are likely to be targeted at, that is not an
insurmountuUf. ,ort tt"eshojd despite ihe statemint by the applicant that this cost
differential represents economic unviabilrty. However, as the Ranch at Roaring
4
Fork is a private System, there is no assurance that the homeowner's association
would uppror" that expansion. The applicant also approached Mid Valley about a
service expansion and they were told it ut ro plans exist to extend down valley at
this time. There is no indicat'ion that discussions were held about Mid valley
managing the facilitY, however'
7. There is an existing dwelling and at least one existing I'S'D'S' system at
present on the p6.f ."ffre appiicant states that the dwelling will remain but fails
to state whether the existingi.S.O.S. will be taken out of commission and
integrated into the r.rr ryrG*. Verbal communication with the engineer
indicates that it will be tied in'
fV. Conclusions and Findines
1. Staff finds that a consolidation with the Ranch at Roaring Fork system is not
supported Uy any evidence that water quality would be enhanced by such
consolidatior,, oi by any preliminary conc"*t by CDPFIE. To burden the
applicant with the *"..tuirty of negotiations with a private facility T'by u
homeowner's association and the cJsts involved would be unfair, and while this
finding doesn't address the issue of proliferation,-such consolidation would still
result in a private system subject to maintenance by a homeowner's association'
2. Stafffinds that should the proposed facility meet the water quality standards
set by CDPHE, and an apparent iack of concern about cumulative loading by that
agency on this stretct of tt" Roaring Fork River, that baring evidence to the
conffary water quality issues and impacts on the river should not preclude
upprouul if itre proposed standards aie met. CDPIIE comments appear to suggest
that Total t ta*i*um Daily Load standards for the Roaring Fork River are not an
issue for this aPPlication'
3. Stafffinds that the overall system as proposed does not address significant
issues p.o, io effluent reaching the lift itationand pl1nt, nor does itaddress
specific flood plain and *etland. issues at the lift siation and plant site. Pipes will
need to "ror,
.-d.r flood plain areas, facilities are ploposed right on lhe edge of
the flood plairl and no site specific information is given about vegetation' habitat'
hydrolory, "ir,if impact and other riverbank and riparian concerns' The site
adjoins a live steam with valuable riparian characteiistics and sits in a wooded
area with mature trees. While not reasons to recommend denial' these concerns
trigger the suggested conditions below'
4. Stafffinds that the applicant has met the intent of those aspects of the
comprehensive plan thif require care and attention to groundwater issues and
soils issues at ftris particulariite in seeking to construct a State Approved sev/er
system to rnitigate site constraints for development. The proposal does not
address the isslue of proliferation of smaller, private sewer systems, or suggest
management structures and monitoring that might alleviate that concern'
5
V. Recommendations and Conditions
Staffrecommends approval of the proposed site applications with the following
comments to be forwarded to the applicant, the CDPHE and the other partners in
the review Process-
1. That the facility only be approved if it can meet all water qualitystan9tlt f*
ihe Roaring Fork Riveiand uoy
"ot
r"*s by public wastewater facilities both
upstream and downstream.
2. Thatthe applicant completes a site specific ludy.for the lift station and plant
by a qualified iire, hyarofogist and engineer addressing all site concerns but
,p."iii"uffy addressing pipJocations and foundation issues where pipes must
cross under the 100 ye"ar flood plain, ground water issues, channelization and
bank erosion and site disturbance issues'
3. That the applicant specifies that any existing I.S.D'S' systems now existing on
the parcel be de-commissioned and reclaimed,ind that existing dwellings will be
integrated into the proposed system'
4. That the applicant specifies that the "individual or clustered septic tanks"
which are an integral part of the proposed system be totally non-discharging
.
except to the gfavity fed sewer lines, specifies design standards for those septic
tanks that meet ground water "or,""*., and show that such tanks will be
constructed to allow for visual inspection of their continued integriU to be non-
discharging over time. Further, thl applicantvill specit/ that the individual or
clustered septic tanks shall be the resfrnsibility of ihe homeowner's association
to periodicuily ir.p"tt and repair and maintain as necessary'
5. That the applicant show that the gravity fed sewer lines are designed in such a
way as to totally r.rirt irfilt utio, *d exfiltration over time, and a proposed
-"thodolorytoperiodicallyverifftheintegrityofthepipingsystem'
6