Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 PC Staff Report 12.13.2006Exhibits (08/09/06) Exhibits (11/08/06) Commission Members present during the 11/08/06 hearing:Planning /colin '/Phtl ,t cheryl ./shirl"u /sFun' 'Aruce -- [nul,r^ n ^t> t7 *,^ ) (, -l' o Exhibit Lctter {A to Z} Exhibit A Proof of Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield county Zoniqg Regulations of 1978, as amended (the Zoning code) D Staff Memorandum E Application F Memo from the County Road and Bridge Department dated 4/6106 G Comments from the County Environmental Health Specialist dateT/24106 H ISDS design for project received 814/06 from High Country Engineering I PowerPoint Presentation from Staff Exhibit Letter {A ta Z\ Exhibit J Proof of Mail Receipts, Publication, and Posting K Letter from Amanda Maurer to the County dated October 30,2006 L Plan set submitted by HCE dated October 30,2006 M Minutes from PC hearing on August 9,2006 N Letter from Kimley-Horn & Associates dated October 3l,2006 o Letter from Wright Water Engineering dated November l,2006 New Exh bits for 12113/06 (continued from 1 1/08/06) P Comments from county Environmental Health Manager dated Nov. 16, 2006 o comments from Mountain Cross Engineering dated December 6,2006 PC t2lt3l06 (Continued from 11/08/06) PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REOUEST APPLICANT / OWNER LOCATION SITE DATA ACCESS WATER SEWER EXISTING ZONING Special Use Permit request for a "Commercial Recreational Facility'' (referred from the BOCC) Gilbert Ramirez Section 20, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, more practically located east of Mamm Creek andVzmrle south east of the County Airport in Eagle Springs Ranch Subdivision Two adjacent 35-acre parcels Non-exclusive 4O-foot wide easement from CR 315 Commercial Well Septic System ARRD I. NEW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION As you will recall, the Planning Commission decided to continue the matter so that the Applicant could better address the main three issues with the project that included the following: The adequacy ofthe access road to the project; The abitity of the water well to serve the public as a non-transient system; and The ability of the ISDS to handle the visitors and participants in the project. 1) 2) 3) o The Applicant provided a new letter and set of plans. (Exhibits K and L) that addresses these issues' Staff has also attached the minutes from the August 9th meeting that reiterates the three challenges to the project. Based on the new information that was submitted to the County and review by Mountain Cross nngineerirg on behalf of the County, Staff has provided an updated analysis of the three project challenges iisted above followed by a new recommendation. Note, Staff has attached the original Staff report to refresh your memories as to what was originally discussed. 1) The adequacy ofthe access road to the project; The Applicant provided an analysis prepared by Kirnley-Horn & Associates which examined the road serving the property and the proposed traffic that will use the road. The report ultimately stated the following: It is recoffimsnded that the existing gravel road provide an asceptahle width to accornmodate fitro-way traffic for the anticipated traffic generated to and &om the equestnan center during peak co*ditions. To accourmodate lmger vehicles with horse trailers along this gravel road, it is recomrnended that the gravetr raadway be at least 22 foot wide lrith I fbot shsulders on nach sids" Mountain Cross Engineering reviewed the study and commented that it appears to address the road impact issue and that the Applicant is willing to address the impacts in the following way: a) Repair erosion damage to pull-outs; b) Replace the cattle guard at the intersection with CR 315 with a}4-footcattle guard pursuant to Road and Bridge Comments; c) Repair and lengthen the drainage structures in the access road; and d) lmprove the gravel road to at least 22 feet wide with 1 foot shoulders on each side. Additionally, the Applicant has revised the times of use to 2 trainin g I racingevents per month on either a Saturday or Sunday from May through September during daylight hours. This will impact the area significantly less than originally proposed. Staff finds this standard has been met. 2) The ability of the water well to serve the public as a non-transient system. The Applicant submitted an analysis by Wright Water Engineering to demonstrate that the proposed water system was adequate for the proposed use. Mountain Cross Engineering reviewed the proposal on behalf of the County and stated The letter from Wright Water recommends a treatment system of the well water; so a water source appears to be feasible. The well water proposed treatment is filtration, softening, and reverse osmosis (RO). This proposed treatment system will require equipment that is not located or detailed in the documents provided. Because the system will require review and approval by CDPHE, these details will need to be worked out prior to construction. Approval of the designed system by CDPHE should be a condition of approval by Garfield County. The County Environmental Health Manager reviewed the proposal and provided the following o two comments regarding the proposed water supply: 1) Based on the size of this facility, is there a possibility that over 25 people will be utilizing this facility for at least 60 days of the year. If so then this will be classified as a public water system and will require approval o.f CDPHE. 2) No indication is given in the plans as to how water service will be provided to each building. Are the existing wells being usedfor drinking water at all of the buildings? Location of water lines must meet required ISDS setback distances. Based on the fact that it appears feasible, Staff could recommend approval so long as the system design and its subsequent approval from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) is submitted to the County prior to any activity taking place on the property and no Special Use permit will be issued until the water system has been approved. Staff finds this standard has been met. 3) The ability of the ISDS to handle the visitors and participants in the project. The Applicant commissioned an ISDS plan from High Country Engineering (HCE) which has been reviewid by the County Environmental Health Manager and Mountain Cross Engineering on behalf of the County. Their comments are included here: County Environmental Health Manager 1. The general notes are somewhat confusing in that the engineer sizes the ISDS of the public restroom facility on a specific flow then indicates that the exact configuration of the proposed restroom facilities is unknown. He follows with the comment that the ISDS for this facility will be sized for the maximum allowable flow allowed under the GC ISDS Regulations. He appears to confuse the term "average daily flow" and indicates that an average daily flow of 3000 gallons per day will be utilized. (Just for clarity sake, the Garfield County ISDS Regulations allow a maximum average daily flow (what CDPHE refers to as design capacity) of under 2000 GPD which would equate to a design flow of less than 3000 gpd before the design is kicked up to CDPHE for a site application review.) 2. The ISDS serving the public restroom is approximately 350 feet away from the building. Using a minimum 27a slope on that line, the leach field will be well over 7 feet" deep. Depending on the initial depth of the building drain and the septic tanks, it is likely that the leach field will be even deeper. lnstallation of leach fields at this depth is poor design as we lose oxygen transfer capacity in the soil, resulting in less opportunity for aerobic organisms to develop and assist with the sewage treatment process. In addition, soils at that depth will likely have less biological activity present, further reducing the capacity for thorough treatment. 3. Serial Distribution is proposed for both the public restroom facility and caretaker residence ISDS. This could result in parts of the system being even deeper because overflow pipes need to slope to the next adjacent trench. A better design for the public restroom facility ISDS would be to pressure dose and equally distribute the effluent to a shallow system to take full advantage of the entire absorptive surface and to utilize the more highly oxygenated and biologically active soils. Current science indicates that the individual trenches could even be valved and trench use alternated. This would allow for all trenches to be utilized during large events but allow for some biomat development (and better overall treatment) in trenches that are being utilized. General note #3 on the public restroom facility ISDS Plan also calls for clean outs every 100 feet along the house sewer. I believe the engineer may be referring to the effluent line as the house (building) sewer is probably less than 10 feet long. Although the GC ISDS Regulations don not require such cleanouts, it is probably a good idea so that the effluent line couldbe jetted out if there was ever a freeze up of that line. The grading of the drainage swale east of the Public Restroom facility leach field appears to be far enough away from the leach field but it looks as if the drainage couljtle routed even farther away. Probably not a huge issue but I like to see drainage routed as faq f$ absorption areas as possible. \-/ On the caretaker residence ISDS plan, the flow figure used for calculating the leach field area is 900 gallons per day. However the overall leach fleld area requirement is consistent with the 225 GPD desigrflow for a l-bedroom apartment. I believe this is probably a t)?o or proofreading mistake. No mention is made of additional water use appliances in the apartment. ISDS regulations allow for an increase in absorption area size if a garbage grinder or clothes washer is installed in a residence. There doesn't appear to be any reason for locating the caretaker residence system so far from the building. At the proposed distance, the leach field will be a minimum of 2.7 feet deep but will likely be deeper dependent on the depth of the building drain and septic tank. The plans show and irrigation easement within approximately 60 feet of the caretaker ISDS leach field. Is this an irrigation ditch? If so what are the irrigation practices in this area. Should there be requirements to keep flood irrigation practices away from the leach fields and a 50-foot separation distance to ditches. Mountain Cross Engineering The application proposes to dispose of waste water through two ISDS, one for the public restroom and another for the ADU. No profile hole or percolation test results were included in the documents provided for either ISDS location to verify that soil conditions are suitable for ISDS. The ISDS shown to serve the restroom facility and ADU appear to be designed for an assumed building and fixture count but there may be other waste water demands as design proceeds, perhaps in the proposed barns and from an RO system. Additionally, Garfield County Public Health had some legitimate questions and comments. Therefore the ISDS designs in the documents should be viewed as preliminary. Howevet, treatment of wastewater by ISDS does appear to be feasible, so submission of engineered ISDS 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. encompassing the County. o final design improvements should be a condition of approval by Garfield Based on the forgoing, Staff suggests that while it appears feasible to implement an ISDS, the Applicant should be required to submit a fully engineered set of plans for the ISDS based on accurate usage flows and percolation test results encompassing the final design improvements to be reviewed by Mountain Cross Engineering prior to the hearine before the Board of County Cornmissioners. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the new information appears to be adequate to render a recommendation of approval with conditions to the Board of County Commissions. This is based on the significant decrease in volumes of traffic and limited time of the operations at the proposed facility as proposed. To this end Staff recommends the following findings and conditions of approval for the Planning Commission to consider: Findines of Fact 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use permit is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County ZoningResolution of 1978, as amended. The Planning Commission recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the Special Use Permit Application with the following conditions: a) This Special Use Permit shall be specific to the following uses and hours and days ol' operations. Should the Applicant wish to change any of these parameters, a new Special Use Permit shall be required to be approved by the BOCC: i. Hours of Operation shall be limited to daylight hours (sunrise to sunset per Farmers Almanac); ii. Days of operation shall be limited to 2 days per month on either a Saturday or Sunday from May through September (for a total of 10 events per year); iii. No more than 15 truck-trailers shall be allowed on the property at any one time for events onlY; iv. No more than7} spectator vehicles shall be allowed to be on the property at any one time for events onlY; v. The Applicant shall only be allowed to use 18 stalls in the barn for commercial purposes 2. 1 4. 5. b) oo prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit and any training I tacingon the property, the Applicant shall somplete the followins improvements to the access road and intersection with CR 315 to the satisfaction of the County Road and Bridge Department: i. The entrance / driveway onto CR 315 shall be paved at a width of 1O0-feet and ZO-feetdeep into the driveway and 4-inches in depth; ii. Repair erosion damage to pull-outs; iii. Replace the cattle guard at the intersection with CR 315 with aZ4-foot cattle guard pursuant to Road and Bridge Comments which required the new cattle guard should comply with Colorado Department of transportation standards M- 611-1 which details the cattle guard and the concrete base with installation design; Repiir and lengthen the drainage structures in the access road. All drainage structures (culverts) should be marked on the inlet end with a reflective delineator post to define the opening to alert a vehicle operator to its location. All delineator post should comply with CDOT standard 5-612-1; and v. lmprove the gravel road to at least 22 feet wide with 1 foot shoulders on each side. The Applicant shall be required to submit a fully ensineered set of plans for the ISDS based on accurate usage flows and percolation test results encompassing the final design improvements to be reviewed by Mountain Cross Engineering prior to the hearine before the Board of Count)'commissioners' No Special Use Permit or activity related to this request shall occur on the property until the Ertable water svstem has been designed, approved by Colorado Department of public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and constructed per engineered specifications. Additionally, the final design, approved by CDPHE, shall be submitted to the County Building and Planning Department prior to the issuance of any Special Use Permit. Due to the size of disturbance, the Applicant shall be required to obtain a stormwater permit will be required for this development from CDPHE. No activity shall occur until such permit is provided to the County. That all representations of the Applicant, either within the application or stated at the hearing beiore the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval unless explicitly altered by the Board. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a fugitive dust control plan to the County prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit that is intended to control dust generated from vehicles using the private access road and on the subject property' rr t' ,{ F\v ('{l ,s' v {rr' x\r ku b. c. d. e. f. \A I No commercial trainin$fl#r, shall occur at this property until all of these conditions\ 'v have been met and a Sple[lat Use Permit has been issued by Garfield County Board of County Commissioners. lv. 6 PC 11/08/06 (Continued 10111106 but renoticed for 1110g/06) PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REOUEST APPLICANT / OWNER LOCATION SITE DATA ACCESS WATER SEWER Special Use Permit request for a ,,Commercial Recreational Facility" (referred from the BOCC) Gilbert Ramirez Section 20, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, more practically located east of Mamm Creek and.yzmile south east of the County Airport in Eagle Springs Ranch Subdivision Two adjacent 35-acre parcels Non-exclusive 40-foot wide easement from CR 315 Well Septic EXISTING ZONING ARRD L As you will recall, the Planning Commission decided to continue the matter so that the Applicantcould better address the main three issues with the project that included the following: 1) The adequacy ofthe access road to the project;2) The ability of the water well to serve the public as a non-transient system; and3) The ability of the ISDS to handle the visiiors and participants in the project. The Applicant provided a new letter and set of plans, (Exhibits K and r) that addresses these issues. Staff has also attached the minutes from the August 9th meeting that reiterates the three challenges to the project. It appears the Applicant may have adequately addressed the ISDS but Staff received the information on october joth ana has not had the benefit of a review by the County Environmental Specialist prior to this meeting. Additionally, the additional application materials submitted for this meeting (a letter from Amanda Maurer) indicates an analysis Uy Wrlgt t Water Engineering was to be submitted to demonstrate that this water system was adequate for the proposed use. However, this was not submitted' This is a critical issue that the Application has not addressed. Finally, the additional application materials (a letter submitted by Amanda Maurer) states that Kimly- Horn & Associates *ur io provide a traffic analysis which was requested by the Planning Commission for this meeting. This report has not been submitted to the County for review to demonstrate that the road is adequate to handle the anticipated traffic. As a result, this standard has not been met. ln summary, Staff cannot recommend the Planning Commission recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed project as these issues continue to be inadequately addressed' What follows the body of the original Staff Report with an adjusted Staff recommendation at the end for your review. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL rn.rypartmentreceivedaSpecialUsePermit(SUP)applicationfora ..Commercial Recreational Facility" which would be comprised of an equestrian training center, barn with 36 stalls, 36 parking spaces for truck & horse trailers, 200 visitor / spectator parking spaces, spectator bleachers, restroom facilities, and a straight horse racing track accessible to the public. The proposed use will take place on two adjacent 35-acre properties (both owned by the Applicant) whici are generally located in Section 20, Township 6 South, Range 92 West, 6tn PM, approximately 2 miles southwest of Silt, Colorado east of County Road 315. The owner requests to operate the facility to train different types of horses for racing which would also occur on the property. Proposed days and hours of operation are from 6:00 A. M. to 9:00 P' M.' seven days a week. Vehicles accessing the facility will be at least 100 passenger cars and 36 truck and trailers to iransport horses that are racing / training. Applicant anticipates at least 100 vehicles per day on the weekend due to horse owners holding competitions between their horses. Primary access to the property is by way of a 40-foot non-exclusive access easement from CR 315 to the subject property across several properties which is legally described in Attachment A attached to the deeds. The Board of County Commissioners unanimously referred the Application to the Planning Commission 1) due to the challenges with the capacity of the physical access easement to the proposed use, the number of vehicles accessing the use, and 2) the practically unlimited hours of operation and days the proposed use is being proposed. III. Pursuant to Section 5.03, as listed under theZoneDistrict Regulations, special uses shall conformto all requirements listed thereunder and elsewhere in the Zonrng Resolution, as well as the following standards: I' Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall beconstructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Staff Response The Application proposes to provide water to this use from an existing well which was originally approved as an exempt domestic well (permit # 229119). Recently, the Diririon of Water Resources approved a re-designation of that well to a commercial status (permit #63980). This permi t states, the use from this approved well permit is limited to drinking aid sanitary facilities for a commercial business and watering of 40 head of stock. This well shalliot be usedfor-irrigationt, dust suppressionor any other outside uses. All use of this welt will be curtailed unless the waler allotment contract orplanfor augmentation is in effect. The Application contains an approved augmentation contract fromwest Divide Water Conservancy District for l-acre feet of water for this well and its associatedcommercial use. The Application contains a well pump test conducted on February 8, 2006 by Aqua Tec Systems, Incwhich pump tested the well at the required four hours at a rate of 50 gallons a minute. The well isapproximately 44Vzfeetdeep. The drawdown went down to 31 feet and recovered back to static withint hour. Regarding water quality, the Application contains a water quality report performed by National TestingLaboratories, Ltd which indicates that the following inorganic chemicali were detected well above themaximum contaminant level (MCL): Level Detected Uu, Sulfate Total Dissolved Solids Turbidity The County Environmental Health Specialist commenred in the ability of ISDS to handle the proposed use: The water system would be considered a transient, non-communiqt public water $tstem. More analysis will be necessary to assure that all primary drtnking *rtur rtordord*u b"irg met.CDPHE will require that the system be constructed to meet minimum sanitary standards(disinfection, etc). The Ramirez group will be required to submit a complete applicaiion an-d plan to CDPHE, and construct all required facilities before they will be approred for public use. 'l am the usual county reviewer on these applications and CDPHE rrquirii my sign-offbefore they willapprove the application. The CounQ will also want to be assired that the plumiing sysiem isbuilt to the current plumbing code so that no cross connections exist and that necessary bacffiow 250 680500 1400 1.0 1.9 protection is built into the plumbing system. Well heads in the pastures should be protected and drainage around these well heads should be improved to protect the well heads fromJlooding. These types ofissues are usually covered in the application review process. The additional application materials submitted for this meeting (a letter from Amanda Maurer) indicates an analysis by Wright Water Engineering was to be submitted to demonstrate that this water system was adequate for the proposed use. However, this was not submitted. This is a critical issue that the Aoolication has not addressed. Sanitation Service The applicant does contain an ISDS Pllan prepared by High Country Engineering (HCE) in the new submittal materials. The return flow from the well is required to occur via an ISDS system. It appears that the proposed system meets the comments provided by the County Environmental Health Specialist commented in the ability of ISDS to handle the proposed use (.Exftibit G). An ISDS sizedfor a minimum 1180 gallons per day wouldbe necessaryfor 2 j6 people per day as long as no other sources of wastewater were developed on the property (living quarters, kitchens, laundry, etc). This could be done under a county ISDS permit with proper engineering. It is also possible that public restroomfacilities will require more than one toilet and sink per sexfor that number of people. The County Chief Building Official will have those numbers. Additionally, County Environmental Health Specialist commented that, As a commercial operation, can the County hold the operator to a higher standard in tetms of dust mitigation, fire protection, ffash, manure handling drainage, etc. than an agricultural operation? With that many vehicles on the road, we could have days when the dust will be horrendous. We can't expect oil and gas to mitigate dust and not hold other commercial operations to the same standard. Accessfor emergency vehicles and waterforfirefighting could be dfficult. Can on-site fire mitigation/water storage be required? It's also likely that they will want to store fuel on site for tractors and other equipment. Proper spill containment systems and spill management plans will be needed if they plan to keep larger quantities on site. You may want to have Jim Sears address that or Rifle FD. Trash and manure management should also be spelled out to avoid developing nuisance issues. 2. Streetimprovements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generatedby the proposeduse and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Staff Response Primary access to the property is by way of a 4O-foot wide non-exclusive access easement from CR 315 to the subject property across several properties. The easement is legally described in Attachment A attached to the deeds. Physically, the road is a dirt / gravel road that varies in width through the Eagle Springs Subdivision. It is not a public road maintained by the County. It is maintained by the property owners in that subdivision who have access on that road. 4 The Application contains a statement (I.rtter from Amanda Maurer dated 8/30/04) that: The existing driveway to the Applicant's property is adequate to accommodate the additional trffic volume generatedfrom the proposed use andwill provide safe, convenient access to the site. The Applicant will make additional improvements to the driveway if required by the BOCC. This statement above included no supporting information regarding what is "adequate." Section 5.03.12 of the Zonrng Resolution states that regarding access routes, all special uses must be provided with access routes of adequate design to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access for the use constructed in coniunction to the proposed use. The minimum design standards shall be the Garfield County Road speiifications. As a result, the measure of adequacy is based on County Road specifications. The photo on th" previous page was taken on the more recent site visit where the road has been somewhat improved to this condition. Staff conducted two site visits to the property over the course of the last two years with the Road and Bridge Department and the Applicant's representative to examine the condition of the access easement that provides access to the subject property. Resultant from those site visits, the Road and Bridge Department provided the following comments (Exhibit F): Due to the increased trffic flow with the proposed race track, the regular residential trffic and the 24-hour, 7 days a week drilling trffic the following road improvements should be implementedfor the safety of all users of this road. 1) The driveway access to Eagle Springs is also being used by Bill Barrett Corporation to access their drilling operations. They have widened the access at the entrance to CR 315 to 100-feet wide but the entrance will need to be paved at a width of 100- feet and 2O-feet deep into the driveway and4- inches in depth. 5 3) 4) 2) The cattle guard at the entrance to Eagle Springs should be replaced with a 24-footwide cattleguard to allow two vehicles to cross at the same time. It is now a single section cattle guardsuitable for only one vehicle at a time to cross and has openings on eithJr side that would allowa vehicle to drive off the cattle guard. The new cattle guard should comply with CDOTstandards M-61 1 - 1. This details the cattle guard and the concrete base with installation design. The road width and design should be done by an engineer using road design standards and traffic allowances. The high spot where the road tops out could be lowered to allow for better visibility and a better road design. There is damage to some of the drainage structures (culverts) that need to be repaired and some that need to be lengthened for added road width. All drainage structures (culverts) should be marked on the inlet end with a reflective delineator post to define the opening to alert a vehicle operator to its location. All delineator posr should comply with CDOT standard 5-612-1. 5) There are some alternate pull outs Some of the pull outs are not on stable ground and are not safe to use. The photo to the right is an example of the pull-out area not being stable enough to handle traffic. fti'j':lill.:lt *o.l:]]io, contains no in-depth discussion of anticipated traffic counts. rt only statesin the narrative that they would anticipate up ro (but not limited toi too ""hi;;;;:ffi;:;;isunday' A letter from Amanda Maurer dated April 28,2005 also states that aparking area is proposedto accommodate 200^ visitor / spectator spaces and 36 truck / trailer spaces. The latter statement resultsin the anticipation of at least 236 vehicles per day resulting in 472daily trips at least on saturday andSunday. on the road that seem to be visible from one to the other. The subdivision regulations (albeit not applicable here) would require this road to be designed to a ,,Minor Collector" with a 60-foot right-of-way, two 12-foot lanes,, two 6-foot shoulders, two 1O-foot ditches, a max grade of 87o and to a chip / seal surface. The County Engineer's Office was contacted about the requirement for this roadway to meet County Road Standards. Their comment was that they would require that a qualified engineer examine the access route to make recommendations regarding any improvements to be made vase on the volume and type of vehicle traffic resulting from the use. The Road and Bridge Department stated the same response. Additionally, simply because the access easement for this road is labeled as a "non-exclusive" easement, it does noi-"un any use is allowed. The uses allowed on the easement are to be reasonable. Staff finds that the Application does not demonstrate that the existing access route is not adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use in a safe or convenient manner' The additional application materials (a letter submitted by Amanda Maurer) states that Kimly-Horn & Associates was to provide a traffic analysis which was requested by the Planning Commission for this meeting. This report has not been submitted to the County for review to demonstrate that the road is adequaie to handle the anticipated traffic. As a result, this standard has not been met. Staff received the Kimley-Horn analysis on the day this report is to go out to packet' The analysis recommended the following: It-ii recon:r*el:dsd that the exi*ting grar€] road pro'ride an aoceptable widt^h to ascffinmodate twcway haffic f*r the anticipated traffic ge-nerated to and frorn the equeskian centsr during peak conditions. To accornrnodate larger vehicles with horse kailms along this gravel rCI&d) it is recommended that the gravel roadwaybe at least 22 foot,-ari$e with I foot shoulders on each side. 3. Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adiacent uses of land througt t itoilotioi of screenfencis or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access pointsr lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. Staff Response ffo eppil.ation contains a letter from Amanda Maurer dated August 30, 2004 which provides a ..rponi" to this standard: The Appticant' s property is 3 5.297 acres. The Applicant' s use of the propertl' will not have an impact on adjacent uses. Although the Applicant does not intend to install screen fences of landscape materials on the periphery of the lot at this time, the Applicant will install such " screeniig if deemed necessary. Equestrian training wilt take place during daylight hours, thus lighting will be unnecessary. Any signage will conform to the character of the area' 7 Since that statement was written, the Applicant purchased the adjacent 35-acre tract so the total acreage is approximately 70 acres on top of the mesa with relatively few residential homes nearby. Additionally, there is a substantial power line that crosses this property to a sub-station also adjacent to this property. The character of the land / area is clearly agricultural in nature used primarily as irrigated pastureland as can be seen from the photo to the right. Regarding the proposed structures, the Application proposes to construct a 36-stall horse barn and horse track which are agricultural in nature and wouldn't need to be screened. The proposed spectator bleachers, 200 car parking area, and bathroom facility are not considered purely agricultural in nature and are not compatible with the character of the area and would need to be screened. In this case, however; there is virtually no "public" view of the proposed use due to its remote location away from the public road. The screening would be effective only for the limited neighbors in the area of their own 35-acre tracts. At that distance, Staff finds any screening makes little impact and is unnecessary. No nighttime activities are proposed and thus no lighting is needed and all signage shall be required to adhere to the County Sign Code. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend the Board of County Commissioners deny the Special Use Permit for a Commercial Recreational Facility finding that the Application has not adequately addressed 1) physical water quality for general domestic consumption as a transient non- community water system to be required by CDPHE, and2) an inability to demonstrate that the access route is of an adequate design to accommodate traffic volume generated (472 daily trips) by the proposed use and will provide safe, convenient access for the use. V. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to recommend the Board of County Commissioners deny the Special use permit request for a Commercial Recreational Facility based on the following findings of fact:" 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use permit is not in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. That the application is not in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, 8 2. 3. 4. as amended specifically including the following: a) (Section 5.03(1)) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. b) (Section 5.03(2)) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. c) (Section 5.03.12) Regarding access routes, all special uses must be provided with access routes of adequate design to accommodate traffic volume generated bythe proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access for the use constructed in conjunction to th" proposed use. 9 Wpssrrn: www. amandamaurer.com Re: Dear Fred: AuauoaN. MaunER, P.C. AttonNryAT I,Aw P.O.Box66 201- l4rH SrREm, Surrn 200 GlrNwooo STRTNGS, CO 8f602 Ttsr-rpnorve z 97 O.9 45.499 4 FACSnvrrE: 970.945.6 I 16 EMIII,: amanda@amandamaurer. com October 30,2006 Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 8'n Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Fred Jarman Special use Permit Application for commercial Recreation Facility Gilbert Ramirez, Silt, Colorado I am providing you with twelve (12) copies of this letter and of the updated site plan, grading and drainage plan and ISDS design plan and details prepared by High Country Engineering to supplement the above-referenced application. Overall, there have not been any significant changes to our application as reviewed by the Planning &Zoning Commission on August9,2006. The revisions that have been made are as follows: Reconfiguration of the training facilities to accommodate location of the ISDS system. We discussed this at our meeting of August 28,2006 and although the reconfiguration of the facility will not substantially change visual impacts, etc., we did re-notice this hearing to provide the public with notice and opportunity to comment on the changes. Downsizing of facility. Applicant had previously applied for 36 spaces for truck/trailer parking and 200 visitor parking spaces. The revised application only proposes l5 truck and trailer parking spaces and 72 spectator parking spaces. Applicant anticipates that the requested parking would be constructed in phases, with only a portion initially constructed and the remainder added if there is sufficient public interest in the facility. Use of facility and access. Applicant anticipates using this facility for general training and boarding year-round. General training of applicant's horses would generate very little, if any, traffic. Applicant anticipates using at least one-half of the barn (18 stalls) to board his own horses, and requests the ability to use the remaining 18 stalls in the barn OCISO za06 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. Enclosures cc: Gilbert Ramirez (w/o enclosures) October 30,2006 Page2 of2 for commercial boarding purposes. Applicant requests the ability to use the facility for training events that are open to the general public during the months of May through September. Public training events would be limited to no more than two (2) per month and would only take place on either Saturday or Sunday during daylight hours. Horse owners would be on the property for a total of five to six hours per event and spectators would be on the property for a total of three to four hours per event. As a condition of approval, applicant will agree to improve the access road to the facility to a minimum of 20-ft. gravel surface with a minimum one-ft. dirt shoulder on each side. Applicant will repair erosion damage on pull-outs, will replace the cattle guard at the entrance to the Eagle Springs Ranch Subdivision with a 24-ft. guard, and will repair and lengthen drainage structures unless such improvements are already made by Bill Barrett Corporation or another oil and gas company in conjunction with their drilling operations. Applicant understands that Bill Barrett Corporation is already required to pave the entrance onto C.R.315 to 100-ft. wide,20-ft. deep into the driveway and 4-inches in depth. Chris Rowe of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. is in the process of preparing the requested traffic analysis for this application and I anticipate having it available for review prior to the November 8, 2006 hearing to show that the access route is adequate to accommodate traffic volume/type generated by the proposed use in a safe and convenient manner. Water and sanitation. Plans for an ISDS system sized for 2000 gallons per day have been submitted. The County Environmental Health Specialist previously commented that an ISDS sized for a minimum of 1180 gallons per day would be necessary for 236 people. As a condition of approval, applicant agrees to submit a complete application and plan to CDPHE for construction of all facilities prior to utilizing them for public use. The revised site plan depicts a proposed ADU/caretaker facility. Approval of the ADU/caretaker unit would be the subject of a separate application, and plans have been submitted depicting a separate ISDS for the ADU should that be applied for in the future. Wright Water Engineer, Inc. will provide information pertaining to the necessary treatment of the existing water to meet transient, non-community public water system standards. I anticipate having the treatment requirements available for review prior to the November 8, 2006 hearing. Please contact me with questions or to obtain additional information. Very truly yours, Amanda N. Maurer, P.C. // //lil,,rr- Amanda N. Maurer t 69Oo8s cir uio9; 9H;3 rfl fiH 8E- S,; ,;E:d udo lrd u.RB sd -6t 9S H8l!i6 !6UO Uh oz lz60 aO6t :r 9G v-[a196 =! x, Id Lo- :Id NUNY O &?, 1z2:. Z< #E AJEi gil EI ?hod EEFqo63 o IJ PROJECTNO, 20sr03t.oo EXHIBIT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 9,2006 6:30 PM The next item on the agenda is a public hearing request to review a Special Use Permit application for a Commercial Recreational Facility. The property is located east of Mamm Creek and Vz mile southeast of the County Airport in the Eagle Springs Ranch Subdivision. The applicant is Gilbert Ramirez. Mark Bean is the County Planner on this project. Present for the applicant are Attorney Amanda Mauer and Barbara Ramirez. Phil Vaughan swore in all speakers and reviewed the process we would follow for this item. Jan Shute questioned Amanda Mauer about the noticing that took place for this hearing. Did you determine the owners both public and private of property located within 200 feet of the subject property and did you use the County Assessors records to make that determination? Amanda responded yes. All of those people as well as the one owner with separated mineral rights were sent notification. Was mailing done certified return receipts? Applicant received all the green cards back except for one which they tried to deliver three different times. Notice was published in the Gienwood Post lndependent on Iuly 7,2006 and it included the same information as in the mailed notice. Property was posted on east side of property at the Eagles Springs access road which is the Eagles Spring Ranch Subdivision road and it was visible from there. Did check posting last week. Did not check today to see if posting was still in place. Sign was posted on the property on July 7,2006. Certified mailings were done on July 5,2006. Jan Shute reviewed the documents and the only issue is whether the posting sign is still in place today. Otherwise the noticing appears to be in order. Phil Vaughan asked about subdivision road. Amanda Mauer believes that road is a public road. Amanda had spoken to Fred Jarman about where to post. Amanda stated that the subdivision road is used on a regular basis. Phil Vaughan asked if we need to see noticing done on a county road. Jan Shute stated it is suppose to be a pubiic right of way. Amanda says that road is. Mark Bean said the thought was that these people who own these lots use this road. Phil Vaughan said when he looks at the map it appears to him that the correct public noticing would occur at the intersection of the subdivision road with Mamm Creek roadway. Jock Jacober said the intersection that we would be discussing is about aVa mLLe from the proposed facility. Mark Bean showed where posting was located on site map. Jock stated in his perspective staff was on the right track because you are talking about people who would be mostly impacted that use this road. Phil Vaughan asked Legal Staff with this posting location shown here if there would be a District Court challenge? We have had this discussion before. Amanda Mauer wanted to add that this is a public road that anyone can access. This is open to general public use. Notice has been up over 30 days. If posting would have been done on the county road and entrance to subdivision it would have been approximately a % mlle from the property. Jan Shute said what she thinks has always been the policy of the county in the event there would be a challenge based on notice the county would say we need to rehear the issue. How the policy has been created the applicant is taking a risk if there is any inconsistency in notice that they may have to come back for another hearing. Phil Vaughan stated first there is no verification that sign is in place and the placement questions. Jock Jacober's view is that we can take Amanda's word for it and it is okay with him to move forward. Steve Reynolds agrees with Jock. No objection was made by other Commission members to move this hearing forward tonight. Mark Bean entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit A: Proof of Mail Receipts Exhibit B: Proof of Publication Exhibit C: Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended (the Zoning Code) Exhibit D: Staff Memorandum Exhibit E: Application Exhibit F: Memo from the County Road & Bridge Department dated 416106 Exhibit G: Comments from the County Environmental Health Specialist dated 7/24/06 New Exhibits: Exhibit H: ISDS design for project received 814106 from High Country Engineering Exhibits A - H are accepted into the record. Mark Bean presented the staff comments and project information. This request is for a Special Use Permit to allow for a Commercial Recreational Facility which would be comprised of an equestrian training center, barn with 36 stalls, 36 parking spaces for truck and horse trailers, 200 visitor / spectator parking spaces, spectator bleachers, restroom facilities and a straight horse racing track accessible to the public. Mark showed the proposed site plan in his power point presentation as well as the rest of the property and the surrounding area. The septic design for this proposal has not been reviewed by staff at this time because it was just received on 81412006. The Garfield County Road & Bridge department commented on this application which is included as Exhibit F in your packet. One issue talks about the width of road and the ability to handle traffic. The water well being proposed in the application is an approved commercial well. If there are over 25 people then the CDPHE require approval as transient non-community water. Staff has some concerns in terms of the water quality itself. At the time Mark Bean wrote the staffs report we did not have the ISDS design in hand so it was unclear how this project was going to accommodate all the visitors which were identified as 260 dailY users. roba with the ock id he to com site with do not match up. Amanda accurate. ffiCountyEngineerthinkstheroadneedstobereviewedagainstthe. - r^-^ -nL^*6tfi,ffi;nOu.Or and have a separate analysis by an outside Engineer done' The application does not demonstrate that the existing access loute is adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposal for the proposed use in a safe and convenient manner. Staff is recommending denial of this Special Use application based on the four conditions listed in the staff repoit on pages I &.8. There are still issues that need to be dealt with' o water quality for domestic purposes and consumption. o Sewer- County Environmental Health Dept. needs to review to determine if the proposed sYstem is adequate. o Inability to demonstrate access route is adequate design to handle traffic generated. No questions were asked at this time and Mark Bean's power point presentation is accepted into the record as Exhibit I. Amanda Mauer will speak next and she will review comments in the staff report. Events will not be happening everyday of the week. There are horses on the property and training is a use by tilnt. ft "." hut been a large general response from the public to be able to watch these triining events. This would be happening approximately two times a month. There is a 36 stali barn proposed. Not expected to have 36 horses at all times' Applicant's property is at the top of the road and doesn't think they will affect other home owners in the-area. Applicant owns two adjacent parcels which are each 35 acres in size. Don't think there is any screening or view issues. There is a very large power line that cfosses the property. Barrett Corporation has a well site close by' Amanda stated there are other ioads niar by so she doisn't think access is a problem' Applicant is interested in hearing your comments, questions, and or concerns. Steve Reynolds has a question on width of road and access' If a truck meets on the road meets another truck with a horse trailer thinks this could be a problem' Amanda Mauer responded that she does not think that will be a problem because there are several pull out poirt, along the road. Steve Reynolds asked applicant what are your intentions for the 36 horse stalls. Amanda Mauer stated that a lot of horse owners live out of town so they would use during training periods. They are not planning a boarding facility. They have no intention of that. Mauer stated that the site plan Mark Bean is Bob Fullerton said you are assuming you are going to do this two times a month. Amanda Mauer stated they will commit to that twice a month on the SUP. Owner will charge a small fee to help with the costs of up keep on the facility. No further questions from the Commission so we moved out to the public for comments next. No questions were asked from the public so that portion of hearing is closed. Moved back to the Commission. Jock Jacober asked what the demands on the water and waste facility are. Mark Bean stated potable toilets are for a temporary facility. Jock sated the applicant hasn't nronosed how thev will treat water. Bob Fullerton asked the applicant if they are willing to improve the existing cattle guard. Amanda Mauer said yes the applicant is willing to improve the road. Amanda met with Fred Jarman and Jake Mall at this site and Jake commented to her that an agreement had been made with Bill Barrett to pave this intersection. She doesn't know why that has not been done to date. Before the Applicant will commit to upgrade the cattle guard Amanda would like to do further research as to what's in place with Road & Bridge. Applicant is willing to participate. Cheryl Chandler said the pull out is not big enough for big trucks with trailers to pull out so she would like to see that opened up to the bank. Jock Jacober asked if this is shared well. Amanda Mauer responded that originally there was a well agreement. Neighbor has signed his rights to Ramirez. Do have a West Divide water agreement in Place. Amanda Mauer is requesting a continuance of this SUP to the next Planning Commission meeting. Jock Jacober made a motion to continue this hearing as requested by the applicant to the October ll, 2006 Planning Commission meeting to address water quality, to give staff time to review proposed ISDS system, a more clarified traffic report, and review of the easement issue. Cheryl Chandler seconded the motion. Applicant verbally waives the 120 day time limit and will follow up with a letter to Planning Staff tomorrow. Phil Vaughan agrees with Jock's request. Need to decide where traffic is coming from' Misht need a traffic studv done. Bob Fullerton mentioned scheduling of events and Mark Bean suggested to the applicant to look at that closely. Amanda Mauer mentioned that the facility would be used May through September. A vote was taken and the motion to continue this to the October Il, 2006 Planning Commission meeting passed unanimously. fl'" 7-fN --: ----L"f LJ ano Assocrares, rnc. October 31,2006 I Suile 1050 950 Seventeenlh Street Denver, Colorado 80N2Garfield County Planning 108 Sth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Fred Jarman Ramirez Equestrian Center Access Road along CR-315 south of Rifle" Colorado Dear Mr. This lefter presents the results of an access evaluation for the proposed Ramirez Equestrian Center located southeast of Rifle, Colorado in unincorporated Garfield County, Access to the project is proposed from an existing gravel road that accesses cR-315. The existing gravel road approach to cR-315 operates with stop control. Specifically, this study has been conducted to determine the adequacy ofthe existing gravel road along cR-315 to serve the proposed development. A site plan of the proposed equestrian center is attached. The Ramirez Equeskian Center project is proposed to consist of a36 stall bam. It is estimated that 10 of the stalls will be available for commercial boardrng and the remaining stalls will be used by the owner. The facility will be used for year round boarding and some training. spectator events open to the public are planned two times per month dunng the summer months of May through September. Site-generated kaffic estimates are determined through a process lsrown as trip generation. It is anticipated that the maximum traffic generated to and from the site will occur during spectatff events. For this study, Kimley-Horn used the site plan provided by the client to determine the maximum number of vehicles anticipated to enter and exit the site during the AM and PM peak hours based on the available parking. Thereare 72 spectatorparkingspacesprovidedon site, alongwith 15 truck and trailer spaces. It is anticipated that the truck and trailer parking spaces would fill prior to the event; therefore these tnps would not occur at the same time as the amval and departure of the spectator trips. Assumrng the spectator parking lot empties and fills once during a common peak hour, this development would generate 72 entenng trips and 72 exitingtrtps during a common peak hour. The following table idenhfies the maximum likely trip generation for the project. 303 228 2300 303 446 8678 I TEL FAX 7-fl --= ----L,"IZ--: ano Assocrares. rnc. Mr. Fred Jarman, October 3 l, 2006, Page 2 Ramirez Equestrian Center Traffic Generation Vehicles Trips Peak Hour In Out Total Equestrian Center 72 72 144 The distribution of trips along the existing gravel access road would be 72 trips eastbound (inbound) md72 trips westbound (outbound) during a peak hour. This was assumed as a worst-case evaluation as it is likely that only a majonty of either entering trips or exiting to-rps would occur dunng the same hour. This would equate to a design hourly volume (DHV) of approximately r44 vehicles per hour and potentially in the range of 200 to 250 vehicles per day. per the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Engineenne Handbook, 5th Edition, "a locai roadway can be unpaved, particularly if a speed of 50 miles per hour or less is expected and the traffic volume is less than 250 vpd". Therefore, it is believed that the exrsting gravel surface roadway will be sufficient for this proJect. It is recommended that the existing gravel road provide an acceptable width to accommodate two-way kaffrc for the anticipated traffic generated to and from the equestrian center during peak conditions. To accommodate larger vehicles wrth horse trailers along this gravel road, it is recommended that the gravel roadway be at least 22 foot wide with 1 foot shoulders on each side. If you have any questions relating to this analysis, please call me at (303) z2g-2304. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.kPz" Curtis D. Rowe, P.8., PTOE Project Manager Attachments EXHIBIT0 818 Colorado Avenue, Surte 307, p Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 (970) 945-7755 TEL (e70) 945-9210 FM e-mail : jkelly@wrightwater.com November 1,2006 Via Email and First Class Mail AmandaN. Maurer, Esq. AmandaN. Maurer, P.C. P.O. Box 66 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Ramirez Equestrian center well water euality preliminary Evaluation Dear Ms. Maurer: Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has performed an initial evaluation of the water quality associated with the Ramirez well. Based on the information you provided, our understanding is that the well is to serve as a potable water supply for an equestrian training center near Silt. The facility is anticipated to accommodate up to 200 spectators on the weekends. The water supply system will be classified as a transient, non-community public water system bythe Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHEi. Therefore, prior tL operation, the system will need to be reviewed and approved by the CDPHE. Wastewater will be treated by individual sewage disposal system (ISDS), such as septic tank and leach field. WELL WATER QUALTTY Aqua Tec Systems, Inc. sampled the well water and submitted the samples to National Testing Laboratories, Ltd. for analyses of drinking water parameters. The lab identified the results foi four parameters exceeding secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) or suggested limits. The following table lists only those parameters exceeding secondary or suggested li"mits. Ramirez Well-selected Water Quality Results Parameter SMCL or suggested limit (ms.lL\ Level Detected (mg/L) Hardness r00 700 Sulfate 250 680 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)s00 1400 Turbidity 0.3x 1.9. This is a primary only if well is the direct influence of surface water. DENVER (303) 480-1700 TEL (300) 480-1020 FAx DURANGO (970)259-7411 TEL (970) 259-8758 FAX AmandaN. Maurer, Esq. November 1,2006 Page2 Based on the laboratory results, the well water would be classified as extremely hard. While the hardness likely does not present a health hazard, hence no MCL, the water will result in severe scale deposits forming on equipment. Softening will be required to reduce the hardness below about 150 mglL. Sulfate and TDS are water quality parameters for which the CDPHE has established SMCLs- nonenforceable gUidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects or aesthetic effects in drinking water. The concerns regarding the reported levels of these constituents are primarily aesthetic effects such as taste and odor. The possible health issues associated with the elevated levels of these parameters can be laxative effect or diarrhea. WWE recommends providing treatment to meet the SMCLs for TDS and sulfate. Turbidity is only a regulated parameter for surface water sources or groundwater under the direct influence (GWUDI) of surface water in accordance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule. Since the well is less than 100 feet in depth, a microscopic particulate analysis (MPA) will need to be performed to evaluate whether the groundwater is in direct hydraulic connection with surface water. If the well water is classified as GWUDI, turbidity levels will need to be less than 0.3 NTU in the treated water. The selenium concentration of 0.042 mglL was the only other water quality parameter that approached the limit of 0.05 mglL. The proposed treatment of the well water will ensure that the levels remain below the MCL. TREATMENT OF WELL WATER At this time, softening of the water is the most critical need due to the very high hardness. Softening is most commonly performed by ion exchange or chemical addition, such as lime and soda ash. Additional water quality sampling should be performed to determine the most appropriate method of softening. Softening can result in an increase in sodium concentration, which can inhibit performance of an ISDS. TDS and sulfate will likely need to be treated using reverse osmosis (RO). Pretreatment, consisting of filtration and softening, will need to occur prior to RO to prevent membrane fouling. Some packaged RO systems will provide the necessary pretreatment as part of the unit. RO treatment also results in a waste stream that will need to be disposed of and is not suitable for discharge to an ISDS. In summary, the Ramirez well water is characterized as very hard with high levels of TDS and sulfate. Additional testing for a MPA must be done on the water prior to fnalizng treatment requirements. Based on this initial evaluation, pretreatment by filtration and softening, followed by RO and chlorine disinfection will provide water suitable for use as a public water supply. A New Capacity Report and the treatment system design (and all accompanying information) must be submitted to the CDPHE for review and approval prior to construction and operation of the watff system. Amanda N. Maurer, Esq. November I,2006 Page 3 Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Verytruly yours, WRIGTTT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. ,.{],,/J ,/i {.J /,' ,/..1 - By Enclosure cc: Wayne F. Lorenz, P.E., Wright Water Engineers, Inc. CI_WORK\WWE\061 -1 30\000klb\Water Trearnent Ltr.dc Jonathan M. I EXHTBIT $_P To: Jim Rada Thursday, November '16, 2006 2:0g pM Fred Jarman Sgregory@ hceng.com Public Health review of Gilbert Ramirez Equestrian Training center Jim Rada.vcf Fred, The following are my comments. regarding thereferenced facility. I never did receive any soils information fromulr . n9 l. have only received site llans ind lsDS ptans, some'ot ,y "orr"nts ;;i te addressed elsewhere insubmittal documents in your possession. ISDS Comments 1' The general notes are somewhat confusing in that the engineer sizes the lsDS of the public restroomfacility on a specific flow then indicates thai the exact coniguration of the proposed restroom facilities isunknown' He follows with the comment that the ISDS for t6is facility wilio!- rlii tor, the maximumallowable flow allowed under the GC JqDS- negutatLns. H" "pp"ris to confuse the term ,,average daityflow" and indicates that an average daily flow "i Cooo g"irons per day wilt be utilized. Just for clarity sake, the Garfield coun^ty ]!D^S_legs allow a maximum average daity ftow (what cDpHErefers to as design capacity) of under 2boo GPD ilhicn would equate to a o"iign flow of less than 3000gpd before the design is kicked up to cDpHE for a site apprication review. - r 2' The ISDS serving the public restroom is approximately 350 feet away from the building. Using a minimum27o slope on that line, the leach field will be well or., i feet -deep. Depending on the initial depth of thebuilding drain and the septic tanks, it is likely that the i"r"n fi"to'*irr oe even "o;;;"r. tnstalation of teachfields at this depth is poor design as we lose oxygen transter capacity in the soil, resulting in lessopportunity for aerobic organisms to develop and'assist with the ."*Lg" ir""tment process. ln addition,soils at that depth will likely have less biological activity present, f urthei reorclnj t e capacity for thoroughtreatment. 3' Serial Distribution is proposed for both the public restroom facility and caretaker residence ISDS. Thiscould result in parts of the system being even deeper because overflow pipes need to slope to the nextadjacent trench. A better design for the public restroom facility ISDS would be to pressure dose and equally distribute theeffluent to a shallow system to take full advantage of th; entire absorptive surface and to utilize the morehighly oxygenated and biologically active soils. burrentscience indicates tnatine individualtrenchescould even be valved and trench use alternated. This would allow for ail trenches to be utilized duringlarge events but allow for some biomat development lano uetter overall treatmlnt) in trenches that arebeing utilized. Subject: 4. 5. 6. General note #3 on the public restroom facility lsDS Plan also calls for clean outs every 1oo feet along thehouse sewer' I believe the engineer may b.e ieJerring to the effluent line as the house (building) sewer isprobably less than 10 feet long-' Although tne GC tsbs R"!rr"tior" don not require such cteanouts, it isprobably a good idea so that the effluent line could be jetteJ out if there was ever a lreeze up of that line. The grading of the drainage swale east of the Public Restroom facility leach field appears to be far enoughaway from the leach field but it looks as if the drainage could be routed even farther away. probably not ahuge issue but I like to see drainage routed as far fro absorption areas as possible. on the caretaker residence lsDS plan, the flow figure used for calculating the leach field area is 900gallons per day. However the overall leach field irea requir#"nt i. .onil.tent with the 225GpD design 11/16/2006 Fred Jarman Page 2 of 2 flow for a 1-bedroom apartment. I believe this is probably a typo or proof reading mistake. I . No mention is made of additional water use appliances in the apartment. ISDS regulations allow for an increase in absorption area size if a garbage grinder or clothes washer is installed in a residence. 8. There doesn't appear to be any reason for locating the caretaker residence system so far f rom the building. At the proposed distance, the leach field will be a minimu m ol 2.7 feet deep but will likely be deeper dependent on the depth of the building drain and septic tank. 9. The plans show and irrigation easement within approximately 60 feet of the caretaker ISDS leach field. ls this an irrigation ditch? lf so what are the irrigation practices in this area. Should there be requirements to keep flood irrigation practices away from the leach fields and a SO-foot separation distance to ditches. Water Supply 1. Based on the size of this facility, is there a possibility that over 25 people wlll be utilizing this facility for at least 60 days of the year. lf so then this will be classified as a public water system and will require approval of CDPHE. 2. No indication is given in the plans as to how water service will be provided to each building. Are the existing wells being used for drinking water at all of the buildings? Location of water lines must meet required ISDS setback distances. Stormwater 1. obviously, a stormwater permit will be required for this development. 2. Location of manure storage and management of manure will need to be addressed on the County's conditions of approval both from a water quality protection and nuisance control standpoint. Hazmat 1. Will there be any f uel stored on site for equipment operation. lf so, then appropriate containment systems should be required that are consistent with applicable state and local regulations. Jim Rada, REHS Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W 14th Street Rifle, CO 8'1650 Phone 97A-625-52A0 x81 1 3Cell 970-319-1579Fax 970-625-8304 Email irada @ garJield-county.com Web www.garfield-county.com tUt6/2006 From: Jim Rada Sent: Thursday, November 16,2006 2:09 pM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Sgregory@hceng.com Subject: Public Health review of Gilbert Ramirez Equestrian Training Center Attachments: Jim Rada.vcf Fred, T.he following are my comments regarding thereferenced facility. I never did receive any soils information fromHle . e9 I have only received site plans ind ISDS plans, somiof ,y.orr"nt. ;rt be addressed elsewhere insubmittaldocuments in your possession. -- ..--' - ISDS Comments 1. The general notes are somewhat confusing in that the engineer sizes the ISDS of the public restroomfacility on a specific flow then indicates thaithe exact coniiguration of the proposed restroom facilities isunknown. He follows with the comment that the ISDS for t[is facility will be il."O tor the maximumallowable flow allowed under the GC ]SDS_ Regulations. He appeais to confuse the term ,'average dailyflow" and indicates that an average daily flow of 3OOO gallons per day will be utilized. Jrt.qt for clarity sake, the Garfield Coun_ty !SD_S legs allow a maximum average daily flow (what CDpHErefers to as design capacity) of under 2bo0 GPD which would equate to a oeiiln flow of tess than 3000gpd before the design is kicked up to cDpHE for a site application review. 2. The ISDS serving the public restroom is approximately 350 feet away from the building. Using a minimum 2o/o slope on that line, the leach field will be well over 7 feet deep. Dlpending on the initiat Oeltfr of tfrebuilding drain and the septic tanks, it is likely that the leach field will Oe even i""p"r. lnstallation of leachfields at this depth is poor design as we lose oxygen transfer capacity in the soil, resulting in lessopportunity for aerobic organisms to develop and assist with the se*Lge treatment process. ln addition,soils at that depth will likely have less biological activity present, furthei reOucinj the capacity for thoiough treatment. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. Serial Distribution is proposed for both the public restroom facility and caretaker residence ISDS. Thiscould result in pafts of the system being even deeper because overflow pipes need to slope to the next adjacent trench. A.better design for the public restroom facility ISDS would be to pressure dose and equally distribute theeffluent to a shallow system to take full advahtage of the entire absorptive surface and to utilize the morehighly oxygenated and biologically active soils. burrent science indicates that the individualtrenchescould even be valved and trench use alternated. This would allow for all trenches to be utilized duringlarge events but allow for some biomat development (and better overall treatment) in trenches that arebeing utilized. General note #3 on the public restroom facility ISDS PIan also calls for clean outs every 1OO feet along thehouse sewer' I believe the engineer may be re^ferring to the effluent line as the house (Ouitoing; ,e*"i i.probably less than 10 feet long. Although the GC lSbS Regulations don not require such cleajiouts, it isprobably a good idea so that the effluent line could be jetted out if there was ever a freeze up of that line. The grading of the drainage swale east of the Public Restroom facility leach field appears to be far enoughaway from the leach field but it looks as if the drainage could be routed even farther away. probably not-ahuge issue but I like to see drainage routed as far fro absorption areas as possible. On the caretaker residence ISDS plan, the flow figure used for calculating the leach field area is 900gallons per day. However the overall leach field area requirement is coniistent with the 22s GpD designflow for a 1-bedroom apartment. I believe this is probably a typo or proof reading mistake. No mention is made of additional water use appliances in the apartment. ISDS regulations allow for an increase in absorption area size if a garbage grinder or clothes washer is installed in a residence. fiIe://T:\fjarman\Land Use Cases\2006\SUP\Ramirez\Public Health review of Gilbert Rami... l2/7/2006 Page 2 of 2 8. There doesn't appear to be any reason for locating the caretaker residence system so far f rom the building. At the proposed distance, the leach field will be a minimu m ol 2.7 feet deep but will likely be deeper dependent on the depth of the building drain and septic tank. 9. The plans show and irrigation easement within approximately 60 feet of the caretaker ISDS leach field. ls this an irrigation ditch? lf so what are the irrigation practices in this area. Should there be requirements to keep flood irrigation practices away from the leach fields and a 50{oot separation distance to ditches. Water Supply l. Based on the stze of this facility, is there a possibility that over 25 people will be utilizing this facility for atleast 60 days of the year. lf so then this will be classified as a public water system anO witt require approval of CDPHE. 2. No indication is given in the plans as to how water service will be provided to each building. Are the existing wells being used for drinking water at all of the buildings? Location of water lineshust meet required ISDS setback distances. Stormwater 1. obviously, a stormwater permit will be required for this development. 2. Location of manure storage and management of manure will need to be addressed on the County,s conditions of approval both from a water quality protection and nuisance control standpoint. Hazmat 1. Will there be any fuel stored on site for equipment operation. lf so, then appropriate containment systems should be required that are consistent with applicable state and local regulations. Jim Rada, REHS Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 195 W 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 Phone 97 0-625-5200 x81 1 3Cell 970-319-1579Fax 970-625-8304 E m a i I jrael a r@ gadjeL{-_sp_unty_ co mWeb www.garfield-county.com file://T:\fiarman\Land Use Cases\2006\SuP\Ramirez\Public Health review of Gilbert Rami... l2/712006 g =p'' December 06,2006 Mr. Fred Jarman Garfield County Planni ng 108 8'h Streer, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Review of special use Permit for Equestrian Training center Dear Fred: A review has been performed of the documents provided for the Special Use Permit of the proposed Equestrian Training Center. The following comments, questions, or concerns were raised: o The letter from Wright Water recommends a treatment system of the well water; so a water source appears to be feasible. The well water proposed treatment is filtration, softening, and reverse osmosis (RO). This proposed treatment system will require equipment that is not located or detailed in the documents provided. Because the system will require review and approval by CDPHE, these details will need to be worked out prior to construction. Approval of the designed system by CDPHE should be a condition of approval by Garfield County. o The application proposes to dispose of waste water through two ISDS, one for the public restroom and another for the CDU. No profile hole or percolation test results were included in the documents provided for either ISDS location to verify that soil conditions are suitable for ISDS. The ISDS shown to serve the restroom facility and CDU appear to be designed for an assumed building and fixture count but there may be other waste water demands as design proceeds, perhaps in the proposed barns and from an RO system. Additionally, Garfield County Public Health had some legitimate questions and comments. Therefore the ISDS designs in the documents should be viewed as preliminary. However, treatment of wastewater by ISDS does appear to be feasible, so submission of engineered ISDS encompassing the final design improvements should be a condition of approval by Garfield county. o The application provided a traffic study assessing the increased traffic with the associated impacts; the Applicant is willing to address the impacts. No further comment seems warranted. o No comments were generated concerning the drainage plan. But a permit from the State will be required for storm water discharges and should be a condition of approval by Garfield County. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, PE RECEIVED DEC 0 I 2006 December 06,2006 Mr. Fred Jarman o MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Crvrr nno EruvtnoN,r.trNtlr CoHsulrrruc nxo DrstcN Garfield Counry planning GARFTELD COUNTY l0g grh Street, Suite 401 BU|LDING & PLANN|NG Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Review of Special use Permit for Equestrian Training Center Dear Fred: A review has been performed of the documents provided for the Special Use Permit of the proposed Equestrian Training Center. The following comments, questions, or concerns were raised: o The letter fiom Viright Water reoornmends a treatrnent system of the well water; so a ,water source appears to be feasible. The well water proposed treatment is filtration, softening, and reverse osmosis (RO). This proposed treatment system will require equipment that is not located or detailed in the documents provided. Because the system wilf require review and approval by CDPHE, these details will need to be worked out prior to construction. Approval of the designed system by CDPHE should be a condition of approval by Garfield County. o The application proposes to dispose of waste water through two ISDS, one for the public restroom and another for the CDU. No profile hole or percolation test results were included in the documents provided for either ISDS location to verify that soil conditions are suitable forISDS. The ISDS shown to serve the restroom facility and CDU appear to be designed for an assumed building and fixture count but there may be other waste water demandi as design proceeds, perhaps in the proposed barns and from an RO system. Additionally, Garfield County Public Health had some legitimate questions and comments. Therefore the ISDS designs in the documents should be viewed as preliminary. However, treatment of wastewater by ISDS does appear to be feasible, so submission of engineered ISDS encompassing the final design improvements should be a condition of approval by Garfield county. o The application provided a traffic study assessing the increased traffic with the associated impacts; the Applicant is willing to address the impacts. No further comment seems warranterJ. o No comments were generated concerning the drainage plan. But a permit from the State will be required for storm water discharges and should be a condition of approval by Garfield County. Feel free to call if any of the above needs clarification or if yorl have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountgin Cross Engineering, Inc. ; {' ' t-*. \,--- ,tk\ ty.- _\ \i 'Chris Hale, PE 8261/Z Grand Avenue . Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 97o.945.5544 . FAX: 9z0.94s.sss8 . www.mountaincross-eng.com