HomeMy WebLinkAbout20013269.tiff PAS
David A. Clinger r-,
k.r f, %i' fi
& AsSOC. Ltd.
Environmental Land Planners
Development Consultants
September 21, 2001
Mr. Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County Attorney
Ms. Monica Daniels, Mika
Planning Director
Weld County- Colorado
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: Substantial Change/Hearing Request
Bee Be Draw Farms & Equestrian Center
Filing No. 2—419 Lots
Dear Lee and Monica:
Pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II 2-3-10 of Weld County Code, my Client, R.E.I., L.L.C.
is submitting this letter to revise and supplement the above referenced application for a
Substantial Change Hearing.
JUSTIFICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE
1. Density—20% decrease
a. Previous plan - - Filing No. 2 - - 519
Revised plan - - Filing No. 2 - - 419
Lot Reduction- - 100 Lots - - 20%
2. Open Space— 62 Acres—9.4% increase
a. Previous plan - - Filing No. 2 - - 960.0 Ac.
Revised plan - - Filing No. 2 - - 1021.8 +/- Ac.
62.0+/- Ac. Increased 9.4% increase
3. Septic Systems—Full maintenance by District
a. Decreased Density- 1 lot for approximately 6 Acres including open space
(gross density) exceeds current County Regulations indicating one (1)lot
per 2.5 acres(including open space.)
b. The design and installation of each I.S.D.S. will be under the supervision
of the Weld County Health Department and maintenance will be under the
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan District which is now in effect, with
approval by said Health Department.
2001-3269
Page 1
EXHIBIT
21759 Cabrini Blvd. • Golden, CO 80401 • (303) 526-9126 • (303) 52 ''j
4. Lot Sizes - Increased
a. 35% of the lots in Filing No. 2 have been increased in size.
b. Minimum lot size 2.5 acres. Others vary up to 6.7 acres.
All lots now conform or exceed the requirements for Weld County septic systems.
5. Traffic—Reduction: approximately 1000 A.D.T.
a. Traffic to and from the site has been reduced by 20%.
b. Internal roads have been decreased by approximately 7000 lineal feet.
6. Land Dedication
The proposed school site and fire station site have now been dedicated and
conveyed to the appropriate agencies.
7. Improvements
Based on the approval of the P.U.D. Master Plan the developer has:
a. Installed a new marina at Milton Reservoir at a cost of approximately
$600,000.
b. Built an information center / future community building which will be owned
and maintained by the Metro District for the benefit of the homeowners for
both filings at a cost of$250,000.
c. Participated in developing an additional storage capacity at the newly
constructed 1 million and 3 million gallon water storage tanks sized to serve
both filings at a cost of approximately M.Q3QQ9.
d. Extended gas mains to the development in anticipation that they will serve
both filings at a cost of approximately $250,000.
8. Water Supply
Central Weld County Water has agreed by contract to serve sufficient potable
water for up to 800 homes. Northern Water Conservancy District has indicated
that they have sufficient capacity to serve the 419 lots as requested herein.
9. Utilities
a. Greeley Gas Company has agreed to furnish natural gas for up to 800 homes.
b. Excel Energy has agreed to supply sufficient electrical service for up to 800
homes.
c. Quest has agreed to provide telephone service for the second filing for the 419
homes requested.
In Summary, the lots in Filing No. 2 have been reduced by 20%, open space has been
increased by 9.4%, a maintenance plan by the district for I.S.D.S. has been finalized,
average lot sizes have been increased (overall density 1 home for 5.7 acres), traffic has
been decreased by 1000 A.D.T.S., and evidence to support an adequate water supply and
other utilities for the additional 419 lots has been provided. These factors warrant a
finding that there has been a Substantial Change in this land use request.
Page 2
The developer has spent over 1.6 million in anticipation that additional lots based on the
prior approved P.U.D. master plan, warrants a Substantial Change Request and
consideration for the substantially changed final plat for Filing No. 2 (419 lots).
We have also included an overall site plan which indicated the extensive pedestrian,
equestrian trails which will be developed in conjunction with Phase I and Phase II of this
development. Also, the plan indicates the environmental zones for bird sanctuaries and
environmental buffers and setbacks approved by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
If you have any questions concerning this application, please contact me at your earliest
opportunity.
Since ely
David A. linger
Enviro tal Land I lanner
Page 3
WITWER, OLDENBURG, BARRY & BEDINGFIELD, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
822-7TH STREET.SUITE 760
§TOW L. WITWER.JR. PATRICK M.GROOM
R. SAM OLDENBURG GREELEY. CO 80631 TIMOTHY V.CLANCY
JOHN J. BARRY
JEFFREY T. BEDINGFIELD (9701 352-3161 CHARLES A. KAROWSKY
RETIRED
JACQUELINE JOHNSON
FACSIMILE(970)352-3165
SENDER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS.
JJOHNSON@ W OBB-LLP.COM
May 31, 2001
Monica Mika, Director of Planning Services
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80634
Re: Substantial Change Application for Specific Development Plan and
Planned Unit Development Final Plan,S#525,for Beebe Draw Farms,
Second Filing
Dear Ms. Mika:
With this letter we are delivering the Items Required for Submittal of the above referenced
application as indicated on the attached Substantial Change Procedural Guide. It is my
understanding that you have the items which have not been checked. Please advise me if you have
questions or require further information.
Yours very truly,
WITWER, OLDENBURG,
BARRY& BEDINGFIELD, LLP
Jacqueline Johnson
vle
Enclosures
pc: Jim Fell
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631
Phone(970)353-6100,Ext. 3540, Fax(970)304-6498
APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE
Application Fee Paid Receipt# Date
,Recording Fee Paid Receipt# Date
Application Reviewed by:
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Print or type only except for required signatures.)
Legal Description: Sections 3,4, 5. 8. 9, 10. 15 and 17. T3N, R65 W. of the 6th P.M.
PARCEL NUMBER: (12 digit number- found on Tax I.D. information or obtained at the
Assessor's Office).
Case number under which you are requesting the substantial change: S#525
FEE OWNERS OF PROPERTY
Name: REI,LLC Home Phone#4o 3-231--441work Phone# 303-232-5349
Address: 11409 W. 17th Place City/State/Zip Code Lakewood.CO 80215
Applicant or Authorized Agent: Jim Fell Phone# 303-232-5349
Address: 11409 West 17th Place City/State/Zip Code Lakewood. CO 80215
Name: Home Phone# Work Phone#
Address: City/State/Zip Code
I hereby state that all statements and plans submitted with the application are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
•
reG�
re: weer or Authorized Agent
V✓eid County Pianninb'Dept
LiLl , 82601
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631
Phone(970)353-6100, Ext. 3540,Fax(970)304-6498
•
APPLICATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE
Application Fee Paid Receipt# Date
Recording Fee Paid Receipt# Date
Application Reviewed by:
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Print or type only except for required signatures.)
Legal Description: Sections 3. 4. 5. 8. 9. 10. 15 and 17.T3N,R65 W.of the 6th P.M.
PARCEL NUMBER: (12 digit number- found on Tax I.D. information or obtained at the
Assessor's Office).
Case number under which you are requesting the substantial change: S#525
FEE OWNERS OF PROPERTY
Name: REI.LLC Home Phone# Work Phone# 303-232-5349
Address: 11409 W. 17th Place City/State/Zip Code Lakewood. CO 80215
Applicant or Authorized Agent: Jacqueline Johnson Phone# 970-352-3161
Address: 822 7th Street. #760 City/State/Zip Code Greeley, CO 80631
Name: Home Phone# Work Phone#
Address: City/State/Zip Code
I hereby state that all statements and plans submitted with the application are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
ignature: Owner or Authorized Agent
i
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, S#525 FOR BEEBE DRAW FARMS SECOND FILING
PETITION FOR REHEARING
Pursuant to Chapter 2,Article II §2-3-10 of the Weld County Code,Petitioner REI,LLC(the
"Petitioner")hereby petitions the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado (the
`Board"), to rehear the application of Beebe Draw Farms requesting a Site Specific Development
Plan and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Beebe Draw Farms, Second Filing, on the
grounds that there is a substantial change in the land-use application. The Petitioner provides the
following information in support of this petition:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In December 1984,the Board of County Commissioners (the "Commissioners") approved
a Change of Zone from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development ("PUD") for residential and
recreational uses on a 4,300 acre parcel of land located near the Milton Reservoir. Development
of 803 lots was planned to proceed in phases. The First Filing for 188 lots was approved in 1985,
and an Amended Planned Unit Development District was approved in 1989 to include permitted oil
and gas production uses. As to each approval, the Commissioners determined that the plans were
in conformance with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance in that they: i) were consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan;ii)were compatible with the existing or future development of the surrounding
area; and iii) conformed with the performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
Specifically,the Commissioners found that the type of PUD proposed could not readily be located
within a municipality, that the low-density residential uses permitted would be compatible with
existing development and that adequate utilities and services were available. The Beebe Draw Farms
Metropolitan District was created in 1986 to provide water, parks and recreational facilities, street
and drainage improvements and related services. The Petitioner acquired the property in 1994, and
in 1999, shortly before the Petitioner submitted its application for the Second Filing, the Board
approved the creation of a second Metropolitan District. Relying on these earlier approvals, the
Petitioner, through general obligation bonds of the Metropolitan District, incurred the costs of
bringing utilities sufficient in capacity to serve the entire project, including gas and water lines and
electricity. Additionally,the Petitioner undertook the construction of a marina facility in anticipation
of full build-out of the project. To date, infrastructure costs for the Planned Unit Development total
$4,996,285. (See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.) In 1999, the
Petitioner submitted its application for the Second Filing. The application was substantially similar
to the plans previously approved by the Commissioners in 1984, 1985 and 1989 with respect to the
density of residential development and the provisions for water, sewer and streets. The Weld
County Department of Planning Services recommended approval of the Final Plan. However, a
resolution of approval was not passed by the Board at its September 13, 2000, hearing. The
Petitioner has reviewed the concerns of the Board and has now proposed a new application for the
Second Filing which is substantially changed from the application which the Board failed to
approve.
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN NEW APPLICATION
The substantial changes in the new application are as follows:
1. Decrease in Total Number of Lots. The Petitioner has responded to the Board's
concerns about density by proposing a substantial change in the total number of lots in the Planned
Unit Development. In 1984, the Commissioners unanimously concluded that the Planned Unit
Development was compatible with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and with existing
surrounding land uses and future development. They recognized that the project's proximity to the
Milton Reservoir provided an additional 2,000 acres of recreational area to the development's 4,300
acres. They also recognized that in order to offer this amenity,the development could not be located
adjacent to an existing municipality. Although the development was residential, it was not urban
in density,and the Commissioners concluded that there was sufficient land to support 803 residential
lots with a substantial amount of open space and that all required utilities and services could be
provided. However, at the hearing on the Second Filing application in September 2000, some
members of the Board expressed concern that the number of lots in the development was not
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the surrounding area. In response
to this concern, the Petitioner has proposed a substantial change in the total number of lots to be
developed from 803 to 707, a decrease of twelve percent (12%). Additionally, the Petitioner has
proposed that no lot will be smaller than 2 acres, rather than the 1.6 acre minimum lot size in the
prior Second Filing application. Based upon this change,the Second Filing,which consists of 2,317
acres will have 1,034 acres or forty-five percent(45%) open space.
2. Metropolitan District Management of Wastewater System. In addition to the
reduction in the total number of lots in the PUD, the Petitioner has addressed the Board's concern
about density by proposing a substantial change with respect to waste water management. In 1984
and again in 1989, the Commissioners determined that wastewater treatment for each lot could be
accomplished by an engineered septic system. However, at the hearing on the Second Filing
application in September 2000, some members of the Board expressed concern about the potential
for harm to the soil and groundwater in the event such systems were not properly maintained. In
response to this concern, the Petitioner has proposed a substantial change by requiring that the
Metropolitan District assume the function of on-site disposal system management. The details of
this proposal are contained in the Service Plan Addendum, prepared by David Shupe, P.E. (See
Exhibit"B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.)(Under this plan,the Metropolitan
District will levy a fee for services which will include annual inspection of leach fields, pumping of
septic tanks,as indicated by measurements but no less often than every four years, annual testing of
monitoring wells to provide information regarding downstream quality of underground waters and
ongoing education in the proper care and use of systems for all new owners, including water-use
conservation techniques)
3. Metropolitan District Septic System Design Standards. As explained in the April 20,
2001, letter from Horizon Construction Services,LLC,the soils report for the development included
83 soil borings extending 14 to 15 feet below grade with no groundwater encountered in any of the
2
borings. (See Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.) The soils report
has identified an extremely high level of uniformity in the upper-level soils over the area, including
the percolation or absorption rate. Based upon the report, the Petitioner proposes a substantial
than e b rovide a uniform design for the septic system for each lot with
inal sizing of tankage and field related to the specifics o the home design. The details of this
proposal are found in Exhibit "B". Additionally, as stated above, the application has also been
changed so that no lot will be less than 2 acres. Final approval of all septic systems will remain with
the Weld County Health Department.
RESPONSE TO OTHER CONCERNS
In addition to the substantial changes set forth above, the Petitioner provides the following
information with respect to other concerns raised by some members of the Board in the September
2000 hearing:
1. Law Enforcement Services. The Beebe Draw Law Enforcement Authority("LEA"),
which was created in 1986,has a current mill levy of 7.00 mills,which levy has been "de-Bruced".
The Board of Weld County Commissioners constitutes, ex officio, the governing board of the LEA
with all powers and duties prescribed by statute, including the authority to contract with the Weld
County Sheriff to provide additional law enforcement services in the PUD.
2. Schools. A letter dated May 16,2001,from David H. Seiler, Superintendent of Weld
County School District RE-1 reconfirming the District's ability to serve the PUD is attached hereto
as Exhibit "D".
3. Erosion Control. Pursuant to a permit from the Corps of Engineers(see Exhibit"E")
requiring re-vegetation of all disturbed areas,the Petitioner has completed construction of a marina.
The Petitioner is currently contracting for seeding and fertilization in the developed areas of the First
Filing and around the marina, and it will continue to do so with respect to the Second Filing.
Additionally, the Declaration of Covenants for the First Filing, which contains requirements
concerning the landscaping of each lot, will be expanded to include all lots in the Second Filing.
Based upon the foregoing, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Weld County Board of
Commissioners to grant this Petition for Rehearing and to permit the Petitioner to file a new
application for a Site Specific Development Plan and PUD Final Plan for Beebe Draw Farms,
Second Filing, incorporating the substantial changes described herein, with the Department of
Planning Services.
sf
Dated this 14 day of May, 2001.
REI, LLC
(4e
es Fell
i
3
HFR-1 _ 4nr_11 0& :0 / kil h. IHF::_LHNLI US cl4 -4t f .11
Zr1irand and Associates, Inc.
2357 Oak Ridge Road• Sedalia,CO 80135
(303) 814-2197 •Fax(303)814-2450
MEMO
To:Jim Fell
From; Lou Kirkland
Date:March 6,2001
The following is a summary of the infrastructure costs to date of the Beebe Draw Farms
Metropolitan District:
Water J. L Walter $ 74,850
Northern Colorado Constructors 599,266
Central Weld Water 195.763
869,879
Water purchases(179 units)
Various 795.960
Roads Milestone Engineering 147,763
Aspen Surveying 16,095
Matthew Delich 3,919
Terracon 4,900
Mountain Constructors 1,439,325
Horizon Construction 34,177
RN Oas Gathering 8367
1.654.546
Buildings/Rec. Kent Colburn 21,740
Michael Knorr Assoc. 19,000
Martin Design 2,000
Chadwick Ecological 780
Tuttle Applegate(Christina) 4,047
Tuttle Applegate(Milton) 25,966
ERO 8,058
Landmark 13,198
Silver Lace Landscaping 68,597
Lockhart Constructors 357,804
Miscellaneous furnishings 11.822
533.012
Marina Century Commercial Builders 598,679
J.L. Walter JIM
i
611 290
4.464,687
IEXHIBIT
A
Stephen C. Thurston, CPA
7839 Notch Mountain
Littleton, Colorado 80127.4050
Telephone(303)904.1574 Facsimile(303)904-1578
E-mail SThurstCPA@aol.com
Fax to: Jim Fell, REI LLC
Fax#: (303)232-5451
Date: April 14, 2001
Fax from: Steve Thurston
# Pages including this cover:
Regarding_ Pelican Lake Ranch—Costs of bringing utility services to the project
Jim,
Following is summary of the costs Incurred to bring utility services to the project for
purposes of serving the 800 lots included in the PUD filing:
Electric service (Public Service Co of Colo.) $138,610
Gas service (Greeley Gas & BlueRidge Enterprises) 190,356
Telephone service (US West) 27,532
Restoration of disturbed areas (SilverLace & Phillips Seeding) 25,100
Engineering (Milestone& Landmark) 150,000
Total costs of bringing utilities to the project $531,598
Weld County School District RE-1
Gilcrest•LaSalle•Platteville
FO Box 157
14827 WCR 42
Gilcrest,CO 50623
Jo Barbie-Redmond,Superintendent Phone 970-737-2403
David H.Seiler,Superintendent Emeritus Fax 970-737-2516
Bj Stone,Director of Curriculum and Staff Development Metro 303-629-9337
May 16, 2001
R.E.L Limited Liability Co., LLC
tb
11409 W. 17 Place
Lakewood,CO 80215
Attention: James W. Fell, Development Manager
Dear Mr. Fell:
We have the following comments in regard to our agreement dated January 15, 1998:
1. The site will be deeded to Weld RE-1 on or before the recording of the plat for Filing No. 2 in the PUD.
2. The 36 acre site,more or less, is located on the site plan. A certified survey will be prepared at your
expense and furnished with the deed.
3. The site will be accepted by the district and the district is under no obligation to build a school on the
site and may use the site for any purpose. The acceptance of the site will not alter the obligation of the
district to provide public education to residents of Weld RE-1. The deed shall convey the site free of
any mortgages or deeds of trust and taxes will be paid to date of closing.
All communications with Mr. Morris Burk and yourself have been very open and cordial. You have met each and
every request positively. You have provided a central pick up point for current students and will provide
additional ones,with our approval, as the project develops. It has been a pleasure working with you and your firm.
Sincerely,
David H. Seiler
Superintendent Emeritus
Enclosure
CC: Jo Barbie-Redmond, Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION
.o:1012 r Cynthia L3oelesalar Larry A.Elting Kid Yamaguchi CnatRitduy Audrey Gabel
President Vice Preeidmt Secretory Tnruter D,reda Director
FXRIBIT
as
30 'd rsbs 3£3 £02 713d WIl Wti Lr = Ot :ldc-63—ANW
R.E.I. Limited Liability Co., LLC
11409 W. 17th Place • Lakewood. Colorado 80215 • (303) 232-5349 • Fax (303) 232-5451
January 15. 1998
Weld County School District RE-1
1065 Birch
Giicrest. CO 80623
• Attention: David Seiler. Superintendent
Gentlemen:
rhrsuant to the subdivision regulations of Weld County, we are requesting that you confrm to the
Board of County Commissioners our mutual understanding with respect to our agreement to
donate to you a potential school site at Beebe Draw Farms.
Our understandings at:
1. The site will be deeded to you on a before the recording of the plat for Filing No. 2 in the
PUD.
2. The site. consisting of approximately 36 acres, more a less, is shown on the new master
sketch plan fa the PUD and is located in the NE 114 of the NE 114 of Section Five and the
NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M. A
certified survey of the site will be prepared at our expense and furnished to you with the
deed.
3. You agree to accept this site with it being understood that:
(a) You shall be under no obligation to build a school on the site at any time a use the
site for any purpose
(b) Your obligation to provide public education to residents of District RE-1 shall not be
affected by your acceptance of the site.
(c) The deed shall convey the site free of any mortgages a deeds of trust. Taxes will be
paid to date of dosing by R.E.I.. LLC.
20 '8 TSbS Z£Z £0£ 1733 wTf wtl 8T : OT TOO —SZ—.flew
Wdd County School District RE-1
January 15, 1998
Page 2
If the foregoing correctly states the terms under which you have ageed to accept a deed to the
site please so indicate by signing below. A copy of this letter wig be submitted to Weld County to
indicate your ageement to accept the site.
Sincerely,
R.E.I. Limited Liability Co.
JLEDis W. Fell, Development Manager
APPROVED:
Weld County School District RE-1
David Seiler. Superintendent
gic
40 '4 TSPS Z£Z £0£ 1134 WIf WM 8I : 0T T00Z-SZ-AtW
SERVICE PLAN ADDENDUM-
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
FOR
BEEBE DRAW FARMS
METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT No. 1
AND
BEEBE DRAW FARMS
METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT No. 2
APRIL 2001
EXHIBIT
E B
CERTIFICATION
This report has been prepared for the developers of Beebe Draw Farms by
David Shupe, Colorado P.B. 5914 $,940,.
'ASOy ' 5914
David S rpe �S J J` ss .c;':'''' ",
i� l: jaunt r
)4,,,-74,-___�/, of C0���P`
dMgEAll5W111
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION 1
INTRODUCTION 3
CONCERNS 5
EVALUATION OF PROBLEM FACTORS .6
SYSTEM PROPOSAL 7
SYSTEM SUITABILITY 8
ECONOMIC EVALUATION 9
GENERIC SYSTEM DESIGN 10
REFERENCES 11
APPENDIX
SEWAGE DISPOSAL REPORT
For
BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
April, 2001
INTRODUCTION
There are several factors which impinge upon the decision as to the type of sewage
disposal and treatment most appropriate for any given development. Among these are:
I. Location relative to existing treatment facilities.
2. Availability of adequate and appropriate management entities.
3. Site suitability for construction of proposed facilities.
4. Economic evaluation, both short- and long-term.
In terms of proper evaluation and determination of appropriate sewage=waste disposal,
Weld County Health Department has sought to be in the forefront of efforts to address the
overall needs for this area. Together with them, the developers of the project have
studied newly available literature, including the USEPA Response to Congress on Use of
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (EPA 832-R-97-001b, dated April 1997)
and EPA Guidelines for Management of Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems (EPA
832-F-00-0122, dated July 2000).
As the site is quite remote from existing municipal treatment facilities, and construction
of long trunk lines is discouraged both by economic and land-use policies, the planning
decision was made early in the review process that onsite treatment would be the most
feasible in this case. In fact, Filing 1 of the development was approved and has
proceeded on that premise. As the project continues, however, the need has been
expressed to develop a management structure which will ensure proper supervision and
operational management, beyond the levels currently available through the Weld County
Health Department.
3
The EPA contends that decentralized wastewater systems can provide the necessary and
appropriate treatment to protect public health and meet water quality standards just as
well as centralized systems. The key is proper management. Such systems are
•
particularly appropriate in low density communities such as proposed here. They are
adaptable to a variety of site conditions. Also, when properly installed and maintained,
they can achieve significant cost savings, while avoiding such concerns as inter-basin
transfer and drawdown from local aquifers, which can occur with centralized collection
and treatment systems.
CONCERNS
There are several concerns identified in EPA report 832-R-97-00lb (See p. iii of the
Executive Summary), connected with the use of onsite or decentralized systems which
need to be addressed. One of these is a general lack of knowledge and public
misperception. Many people in the real estate and development professions as well as the
general public often feel that central collection and treatment systems are better for
property values. Further, few if any formal education programs deal with decentralized
systems, even though a relatively high percentage (25% of existing and an estimated 40%
of new construction) of homes in this country are served in this manner.
A second problem area, one which is prevalent in this state, is that the legislative
authority for decentralized systems is split between State and local governments,
resulting in a relatively non-unified approval process. A third problem area, perhaps the
most controllable one from the private perspective, has been the lack of acceptable
management programs. While this need has long been perceived by local health
department authorities, which do not have the manpower in most cases to provide such
oversight, little if any implementation of effective management programs has been
achieved. As early as 1984, this writer attempted to address the need in a nearby County,
by proposing the establishment of a management sanitation district for decentralized
systems. This approach was felt by County government officials to cause a possible loss
of ability to use septic system regulations as a land-use control. On that basis the
proposal was rejected.
5
EVALUATION OF PROBLEM FACTORS
This report sets forth techniques intended to address these concerns as much as possible,
from the public sector perspective, although obviously, some of them can only be
addressed by appropriate governmental agencies.
1. Location — In the initial evaluation of this PUD, its remote location relative to
existing treatment facilities was noted, and a determination was made in the
planning process that the proposed on-site waste disposal was the most appropriate
method. The Master Plan for the PUD was approved on that basis.
2. Governmental Schisms — This can only be addressed by State and local authorities,
and is beyond the scope of this report. (See comment in preceding section.)
3. Appropriate Management—In this case, the need for adequate management of many
contemplated municipal-type services within the PUD has dictated the formation of
a Metropolitan District, a taxing entity with compulsory membership, which can
provide on-going management independent of individual resident input. The
District is intended to be multi-purpose, providing such services as road
maintenance, mosquito control, open-space management, recreational facilities
maintenance and management such as clubhouse, marina, barns and corrals. It is
proposed that on-site disposal system management become an additional function of
the District. The enabling provision for such addition is found in Section II B 6. on
page 19 of the Service Plan. Such a system would be in keeping with the intent of
Management Program 4, as outlined in the EPA Guidelines for Management of
Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems, but with some relationship to
Management Program 2 as well. These guidelines are included in the Appendix to
this report. The Metropolitan District will represent an agency contractually related
to each individual homesite to provide oversight, proper use training, and
maintenance of each system.
6
SYSTEM PROPOSAL
It is proposed that the means of sewage disposal shall be a site-specific individual system
located on each lot. Components of the system shall remain the property of the
individual lot owner. A composite maintenance fee shall be levied by the District, based
upon the Service Plan thereof Included within that fee shall be the following services
related to the on-going maintenance of each system:
1. Annual inspection of leach field, and measurement of sludge and scum levels
within the septic tank, for verification of pumping schedule. Random
checking for toxic or hazardous chemicals in field.
2. Pumping of septic tank as indicated by measurements, but no less often than
every four years. Tank will be pumped also upon change of ownership, if not
done within the previous 6 months.
3. Annual testing of monitoring wells located so as to provide information
regarding downstream quality of shallow (15' —20') underground waters,
relating to nitrates or other possible concerns. NOTE: No water table was
identified to a depth of 15 feet. (See Soils Report)
4. Ongoing education program in proper care and use of septic systems provided
to all new owners, either first-time or subsequent. This will include water-use
conservation techniques and recommendations as well.
7
SYSTEM SUITABILITY
The soils report for the development (Horizons Construction Services LLC, May 12,
2000) has clearly determined an extremely high level of uniformity in the upper-level
soils over the area, including the percolation or absorption rate. Given that uniformity,
the District will provide a uniform design for the septic system for each lot. Final sizing
of tankage and field will relate to the specifics of home design, including number of
bedrooms and use of unique water-use features such as hot tubs and the like. Parameters
for locating the field relative to site drainage will be supplied on an individual basis.
Risers with concrete lids will be specified at tank ports for ease of access and testing.
Tanks will be located to facilitate pumping and testing efforts. Accurate "as-built"
drawings of system components will be required to be supplied to the District by
installing contractors, at the time of final inspection. Construction inspections of the
systems by District personnel and by Weld County Health Department personnel will be
required, and will be specified in the design. The nature of the design will be pre-
approved by the County Health department, and final sizing will be verified as part of the
permitting process by the builder.
In the event a homeowner should choose to use an alternative design, such as wetlands,
carbon filtration or other technique, specific arrangements will need to be made with the
District's consultant regarding alternative monitoring schedules, additional costs, etc. It
will also require specific approval by the Weld County Health Department. Further, if
any unacceptable impact upon neighboring lots or the District as a whole by such unique
systems, the District will have the right to disapprove its continued use within the
District. The intent is to maintain a consistent level of service and maintenance
throughout the District's service area, as well as a relatively level cost structure for its
services.
R
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
The district will contain approximately 724 homes at full build-out. Each will require the
annual inspection noted above. It is estimated that this would require 3/4 time for a trained
inspector. Some 200 tanks per year will require pumping, and 10 to 20 random tests may
be conducted.
4—5 inspections/day @1 %2 hr/insp. $30,000.00/yr.
200 tanks pumped @ $300/ea. 60,000.00/yr.
10 -20 tests/yr. @ $200/test 3,000.00/yr.
$93,000.00/yr.
This represents a monthly cost to the homeowner of approximately $11.00 per month.
The employee's salary would be included in the monthly service fee.
9
GENERIC SYSTEM DESIGN
The system type is proposed to be a subsurface single-pass sand filter with no collection.
The filter depth would be 4', with sides lined to prevent lateral migration of filtrate. The
filter medium is proposed to be a graded sand, all passing a #4 screen, with a uniformity
coefficient of less than 4.0 and an effective size of 0.25 to 0.60 mm. Filter beds will be
dosed on the basis of 4 times per day, using a pump and dosing chamber sized for the lot.
The district will keep an inventory of spare pumps in the event of failure, but pumps have
a normal life-expectancy of 15 to 20 years. The septic tanks will be of the 2-
compartment type, with risers on all ports up to ground level, for easy access. Tanks will
be sized based on the number of bedrooms, with a minimum size-of 1000 gallons. Under
these parameters, the life of a sand filter before needing substantial maintenance should
exceed 25 years.
16
REFERENCES
1. USEPA Publication EPA 832-R-97-00l b
"Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems,"
April 1997
2. USEPA Publication EPA 832-F-00-012 (Draft)
"EPA Guidelines for Management of Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems,"
July 2000
3. Geotechnical Investigation Report of Beebe Draw Farms & Equestrian Center,
Filing 2, Horizon Construction Services, L.L.C., May 12, 2000.
4. Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment
ISDS Regulations
ISDS Guide for Weld County
5. Consolidated Service Plan for Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District, May 1,
1999
6. National Small Flows Clearing House, Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
"The Care and Feeding of Your Septic Tank"
"So Now You Own a Septic Tank"
"Your Septic System"
11
SYSTEM DESIGN
150 gal/bedroom
Tankage
3 bedrooms 1000 gal.
4 bedrooms 1250 gal.
5 bedrooms 1500 gal.
Additional bedrooms 200 gal. each
All tanks 2 compartment-type (60%/40%)
Risers to surface on all comps.
System type— Subsurface sand filter(1 pass) with no collection
Filter depth 4'
Filter medium Sand (all —4) Unif. Coeff<4.0
Line sides of filter bed with 10 mil PVC or equal
Area: 3 bedroom—450/.95 = 475 sq. ft. say 18' x 26'
Dist. Pipe vol.
23x4x .3332Hx7.5 = 60 gal.
4
Dosing volume : 450/4 = 112 gal >60 . .OK
Add 160 sq. ft./bedroom field size
Dosing vol: 40 gal. additional
Dosing pump: Zoeller Effluent Pump, or equal
Siphon: May be permissible when sufficient grade available
Contractor to have spare pumps on hand in the event of malfunction. Cost of
replacement and installation to be borne by homeowner.
Inspections required:
1. (By Designer)prior to placing filter sand
2. (By County Health Department)prior to covering components
3. (By Designer) prior to covering components.
12
ADDENDUM
13
DRAFT- EPA Guidelines for Management of
Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems September 26, 2000'
3) determine both an appropriate management program, and the necessary program
enhancements to achieve its management objectives and public health and environmental goals.' '
EPA recognizes that States;:tribes and local governments need a flexible,framework and ` '
guidance to best tailor their programs to the specific needs of the community,and to the 'h
institutional capacity of the regulatory authority. These model programs 'are not intended to
supersede existing federal, State,tribal and local laws and regulations,but rather be a '
complement to them. ,
EPA recommends Model Program 1;'System Inventory and Awareness of •
Maintenance Needs, as a minimum level of management. Model Program 1 is a suitable
management program where conventional onsite systems are owned and operated by individual
property owners in areas of low environmental sensitivity, i.e.,no restricting site or soil
conditions such as drinking water wells in close proximity.'Conventional systems are passive
and durable treatment systems that can provide acceptable treatment under suitable site
conditions despite a lack of attention by the owner: Failures that may occur and continue
undetected will pose a relatively low level of risk to public health and the environment.'The
objectives of this management program are to ensure that all systems are sited, designed and
constructed in compliance with the prevailing rules,that all systems are recorded and
inventoried,and property owners are informed of maintenance needs of the systems: Model
Program 1 is intended to raise the local regulatory agency's awareness of the location of systems,
raise homeowners'awareness'of basic system needs and ensure that homeowners attend to those
needs. This Program is also a starting point,providing communities with basic data for ' '
determining whether higher management levels are necessary.
EPA recommends Model Program 2,Management Through Maintenance Contracts,
as the minimum necessary where more complex system designs are employed to enhance the
capacity of conventional systems to accept and treat wastewater because of small lots,slowly
permeable soils, or shallow seasonal water tables. This program may also be appropriate for
areas that supply water to public water systems (e.g.,source water or wellhead protection areas).' "
The objectives of this program build on Model Program 1 by ensuring that'maintenance contracts
with trained operators arein'aintainedby the property owner. Marginally suitable sites typically''
require-improved effluent dispersal to the soil or advanced treatment such as media filters or '
aerobic treatment units., Maintenance of these more complex systems is critical to sustaining
acceptable performance in these areas of greater environmental 'sensitivity. 'Therefore,these ' ""'
systems should be allowed only where trained operators are under contract to perform timely
maintenance. „
EPA recommends Model Program 3, Management Through Operating Permits, where'
the onsite system must provide treatment to achieve specific water quality criteria.'Examples
include shellfish growing areas,or situations where a source water assessment has identified
onsite/decentralized systems as threats to drinking water supplies.'The objective of this
management program, in addition to the previous levels into ensure that the onsite systems
continuously meet their performance requirements. Treatment systems that are designed to meet
specific effluent limits are less dependent on site characteristics and conditions. Therefore, they
can be used safely in more sensitive environments but only if their performance can be ensured
continuously. Limited term operating permits are issued to the property owner that are
renewable for another term if the owner demonstrates that the system is in compliance with the
terms and conditions of the permit. The permit provides the management program a mechanism
for continuous oversight of system performance and negotiating corrective actions or levying
Page 6
DRAFT- EPA Guidelines for Management of
Onsite/Decentralized Wastewater Systems September 26, 2000
penalties if compliance with the permit is not maintained. To comply with these performance
standards,the property owner should contract with a maintenance provider,as in Program 2.
EPA recommends Model Program 4, Utility Operation and Maintenance, for
performance-based systems where the sensitivity of the environment is high and there is a need
for continuous monitoring an
d d reliable operation and maintenance: For example, this P approach
P ,
may be applicable where monitoring of a drinking water supply has detected pathogens or
elevated levels of nutrients and a source water assessment has identified onsite/decentralized
systems as sources of concern. The objective of this program is to achieve greater control over
compliance by issuing the operating permit to a utility instead of the property owner. This
allows use of performance systems in more sensitive environments that Model Program 3. The
utility takes responsibility for the operation and maintenance of systems owned by subscribers
for a service fee. This reduces the number of permits and the necessary administration by the
management program. System failures are also reduced as a result of routine maintenance.
Ownership of the system remains with the property owner: The operating permit system is
identical to Model Program 3 except that the permitee is a public or private utility.
Model Program 5, Utility Ownership and Management is a variation of the utility
operation/maintenance concept in Model Program 4, except ownership of the facilities is no
longer with the property owner. The designated management entity both owns and operates the
onsite systems in a manner analogous to a conventional wastewater utility. Under this approach,
the utility maintains total confiol of all aspects of management, not just operation and
maintenance. This model is appropriate in similar environmental or public health conditions as
Model Program 4,but provides a somewhat higher level of control and reduces the likelihood of
disputes between the system operator and the property owner. The utility can also more readily
replace existing systems with higher performance units where necessary. EPA recommends
implementation of Model Program 5 in cases such as when new,high density development is
proposed in the vicinity of sensitive receiving waters.
ii•`
Page 7
HORIZON
•
CONSTRUCTION
• ��= •, i SERVICES, LLC
_
_ � I ENVIRONMENTAL-GEOTECHNICAL-MATERIALS TESTING
• --- • I
April 20, 2001
Mr. Jim Fell
Beebe Draw Farms
11409 W 17th Place
Lakewood, CO 80215
RE: Beebe Draw Farms
Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 17 of T3N, R65W
Weld County, Colorado.
Dear Jim:
Horizon Construction Services LLC performed 83 soil borings at the above referenced site
in April and May 2000. The borings extended 14 to 15 feet below grade and the
subsurface conditions consisted of damp to moist sandy soils. Ground water was not
encountered within the termination depth of 14 to 15 feet in any of the borings. Please
refer to our Geotechnical Investigation Report dated May 12, 2000 for more detailed
information.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call us at (970) 353-4828.
Sincerely,
HORIZON CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC
Terry T er Keith A. Laube, P.E.
President Geotechnical Engineer
CF: File 2000039
IEXHIBIT
2015 2"d AVENUE,SUITE O,GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
OFFICE-(970)353-4828 FAX-(970)353-4898
Hello