The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About971967.tiffRESOLUTION RE: ACTION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, CONCERNING SITE APPLICATION FOR FOSTER RIDGE BUSINESS PARK AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board has received a site application from 25-66, Ltd., 5660 West Plymouth Drive, Littleton, Colorado 80123, for the Foster Ridge Business Park, concerning the construction of a domestic wastewater treatment facility located on the following described parcel of land, to -wit: SE%, NE%, Section 27, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, the regulations for site applications for the construction of a domestic wastewater treatment facility require review of the site application by the Board of County Commissioners, and further, that various local and state agencies be given the opportunity to review and comment on said site application, and WHEREAS, the site application from 25-66, Ltd., for the Foster Ridge Business Park was submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County for review and comment, a copy of said application being attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and WHEREAS, after study and review, the Board finds that said site application is not in conflict with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, and that it is in the best interest of Weld County to recommend approval of said application, with the following condition: 1. In accordance with the determination of the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association (208 Committee), the facility shall obtain the services of the St. Vrain Sanitation District (the District) if the District secures commitments for funding from the appropriate property owners to extend sewer service to the Foster Ridge Business Park by October 1, 1997. In the event the appropriate commitments are not secured, the facility may be constructed as described in accordance with the site application and the minutes of the August 21, 1997, 208 Committee. 971967 PL0079 SITE APPLICATION - FOSTER RIDGE BUSINESS PARK PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the site application submitted by 25-66, Ltd„ for the Foster Ridge Business Park be, and hereby is, recommended favorably to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, with the abovementioned condition. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized to sign said site application. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 10th day of September, A.D., 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Weld County Cler BY De.uty Clerk to the APP Dale K. Hall WELDaCOUNTY,COLORADO' Georg E E. Baxter, Chair Constance L. Harbert, Piro=Tem EXCUSED Barbara J. Kirkmeyer /VI LiKIR W. H. ebster 971967 PL0079 APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY FOSTER RIDGE BUSINESS PARK May 19, 1997 Revised July 21, 1997 Prepared by: QCI Development Services Group, Inc. 11184 Huron Street, Suite 12 Denver, Colorado 80234 (303) 280-9200 Prepared for: 25-66 LTD P.O. Box 1764 Englewood, CO 80150-1764 (303) 762-1254 971961 Table of Contents APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL PROOF OF OWNERSHIP PROOF OF POSTING NARRATIVE I. Introduction and Current Processes II. Location III. Existing Conditions IV. Soils and Geology V. Existing Wastewater Facilities VI. Proposed Development VII. Proposed Wastewater Facilities VIII. Proposed Effluent Limitations IX. Analysis of Treatment Facility Alternatives X. Conclusions XI. References Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C ATTACHMENTS Conceptual Plan Area Map _i_ Page 1 1 1 2 3 5 5 6 7 9 10 971.967 APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL 971967 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Water Quality Control Division 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION OF: A) DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS (INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS,, OUTFALL SEWERS, AND LIFT STATIONS) OVER 2,000 GPD CAPACITY. B) INTERCEPTORS (IF REQUIRED BY C.R.S. 25-8-702 (3)) APPLICANT: a.S- 66, / LTp. ADDRESS: 566 (. FLL(MO;(T1-, P . (-11 LETtu\) CA 3 01"2-3 PHONE: (3fl3) 76a —I g-54 Consulting Engineer's Name and Address: QG( DEVEL0PME/JT S�1�VlClrs ill 14 1-((.r .o13 STS SCfrTE 2.) Co 80234- PHONE: (3oo) J j -01 zoo A. Summary of information regarding new sewage treatment plant: 1. Proposed Location: (Legal Description) �'j 1/4, 1\)P 1/4, Section o�:7 Township 3 tJoRN Range 63 (JEaT, We LP County. 2. Type and capacity of treatment facility proposed: , Processes Used _ EXT t)Dr✓D AEk/crno1J C.i4L0RIIJA-nor3 83.4- Hydraulic. '1-0 000 gal/day Organic lbs. BOD5/day Present PE Design FE % Domestic 100 % Industrial 3. Location of facility: Attach a map of the area which includes the following: (a) 5 —mile radius: all sewage treatment plants, lift stations, and domestic water supply intakes. (b) 1 —mile radius: habitable buildings, location of potable water wells, and an approximate indication of the topography. 4. Effluent disposal: Surface discharge to watercourse FOSTEJZ RESERVoi1Z Subsurface disposal Land _ Evaporation Other State water quality classification of receiving watercourse(s) CLASS 2 Proposed Effluent Limitations developed in conjunction with Planning and Standards Section, WQCD: BOD5 .30 mg/1 SS "3() mg/1 Fecal Coliform 6000' /100 ml Total Residual Chlorine t).E5 mg/1 Ammonia mg/1 Other &u. 10 t46/i, 5. Will a State or Federal grant be sought to finance any portion of this project? fJ 0 6. Present zoning of site area? FLU (G01111EF_GAL/111/4.)DU3TR.IfiL} Zoning with a 1 -mile radius of site? GAG L' ULT(4R GO !1EIZc.IAL- GuELP C. 2,f<5itie..n�TIAL ap ComHERCIAL/rr�1�uST7 AL--Yo4)h) 0t hEi917 7. What is the distance downstream from the d sc arge to t e nearest domestic water supply i.-.t..;:_'. NoiV E JEE 13, (Name of Supply) (Address of Supply) What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest other point of diversion? /JO(JL `i.,E /3, (Name of User) (Address of User) -1- WQCD-3 (Revised 8-d3) 971967 8. Who has the responsibility for operating the proposed facility? FoST�lz Rib&yE $cl5Ik)ESS PAR -R MASTER. ASSoGA71oJJ 9. Who owns the land upon which the facility will be. constructed? (Please attach copies of the document creating authority in the applicant to construct the proposed facility at this site.) 10. Estimated project cost: # 9,50..5O1000 Who is financially responsible for the construction and operation of te facility? 66jp, Fog_ co/J57-zuCIZotJ FkBPt-A FcR oP KATrol i 11. Names and addresses of all water and/or sanitation districts within 5 :•.files downstream of proposed wastewater treatment facility site. $E 8 ATT-A C4 ED (Attach a separate sheet of paper if necessary.) 12. Is the facility in a 100 year flood plain or other natural hazard area If so, what precautions are being taken? Np Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources or other Agency? (Agency Name) If so, what is that designation? 13. Please include all additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed decision on your application for site a:;,roval. FoSTEZ RESERS1oiR. 15 At.) IRR.)G-ATrok R,E5Elzuo1 rI- EFoR� t3o mcOOSTra Fl UON8Srrw13`rti rI TAKES PlVER5104 Po11JTS Info.:cation regarding lift stations: 130T APPL►CABLE 1. The proposed lift station when fully developed will generate the follov'.ng additional loa. Peak Hydraulic (MCD) P.E. to be served 2. Is the sit • ocated in a 100 year flood plain? If yes, on a sepa te sheet of paper describe the protective measures t) be taken. 3. Describe emergency syst -, in case of station and/or power failure. 4. Name and address of facility provi treatment: 5. The proposed lift station when fully developed 1 increase the loadir,;; of the treatment plant to % of hydraulic and Z of . :anic capacity znd agrees to treat this waste : er? Yc:; (Treatment Agency) Date Signature and Title -2- WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) No 971967 C. If the facility will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a Federal or State agency, send the agency a copy of this application. D. Recommendation of governmental authorities: Please address the following.issues in your recommendation decision. Are the proposed facilities consistent with the comprehensive plan and any other plans for the area, including the 201 Facility Plan or -208 Water Quality Management Plan, as they affect water quality? If you have any further comments or questions, please call 320-8333, Extension 5272. 1. 2. Date Recommend Recommend No Approval Disapproval Comment Signature of Representative 3. 9/D/q7 1- 4. `77i{/S % c/ 5. 6. 7. Management Agency Local Government: Cities or Towns (If site is inside boundary �or within three miles�/and Sanitatdon DistyXcts. oar d orCaunty Comm, signers City/County Planning Authority Council of Governments/Regional Planning State Geologist (For lift stations, the signature of the State Geologist is not required. Applications for treatment plants require all signatures.) I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Regulations for Site Applications For Domestic Wastewater Treatment Works," and have posted the site in accordance with the regulations. An engineering report, as described by the regulations, has been prepared and is enclosed. DATE �� '�� 'i.- / .� :UM RFFS Signa`ur of App icant TYPED NAME WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) 971967 ATTACHMENT TO SITE APPLICATION In accordance with C.R.S. 1981, 25-8-702 (2)(a), (b), and (c), and the "Regulations for Site Applications for Domestid-Wastewater Treatment Works", the Water Quality Control Division must determine that each site location is consistent with the longrange, comprehensive planning for the area in which it is to be located, that the plant on the proposed site will be managed to minimize the potential adverse impacts on water quality, and must encourage the consolidation of wastewater treatment works whenever feasible. In making this determination, the Division requires each applicant for a site approval for a domestic wastewater treatment works to supply an engineering report describing the project and showing the applicant's capabilities to manage and operate the faility over the life of the project to determine the potential adverse impacts on water quality. The report shall be considered the culmination of the planning process and as a minimum shall address the following; Service area definition including existing population and population projections, flow/loading projections, and relationship to other water and wastewater treatment plants in the area. Proposed effluent limitations as developed in coordination with the planning and Standards Section of the Division. (Allow minimum four weeks processing time.) Analysis of existing facilities including performance of those facilities. Analysis of treatment alternatives considered. Flood plain and natural hazard analysis. Detailed description of selected alternatives including legal description of the site, treatment system description, design capacities, and operational staffing needs. Legal arrangements showing control of site for the project life. Institutional arrangements such as contract and/or covenant terms for all users which will be finalized to accomplished acceptable waste treatment. Management capabilities for controlling the wastewater throughout and treatment within the capacity limitations of the proposed treatment works, i.e., user contracts, operating agreements, pretreatment requirements. Financial system which has been developed to provide for necessary capital and continu=_d operation, maintenance, and replacement through the life of the project. This would include, for example, anticipated fee structure. Implementation plan and schedule including estimated construction time and estimated start-up date. Depending on the proposed project, some of the above items may not be applicable to address. In such cases, simply indicate on the application form the non applicability of those. WQCD-3 (Revised 8-83) 971967 SANITATION DISTRICTS St. Vrain Sanitation District 515 Kimbark Street Longmont, CO 80501 c/o Lee Lawson, Manager Town of Mead P.O. Box 626 Mead, CO 80542 c/o Kelly Smith, Clerk/Administrator WATER DISTRICTS Longs Peak Water District 9875 Vermillion Road Longmont, CO 80501. c/o Barry Dykes, Manager Little Thompson Water District 835 East Highway 56 Berthoud, CO 80513 c/o Hank Whittit, Manager Central Weld County Water District 2235 2nd Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 c/o John Zadel, Manager Left Hand Water District P.O. Box 210 Niwot, CO 80544 c/o Cathy Peterson, Manager 971967 PROOF OF OWNERSHIP p719.67 Reception No. _ B 1175 REC 02120380 11/05/87 16:26 818.00 1/006 Recorded at F 2184 MARY ANN FEOERSTEIN CLERIC & RECORDER WELD CO, CO AR2120380 WARRANTY DEED VALLEY 66, a\ Limited Partnership Granted° whose address is c/o 1020 - 15th Street, Suite 30C I State Documentary Fee Date .mC1Y..5.F.148.7- Denver `County of State of Colorado Five Hundred Seventy-five Thousand and for the consideration of No/ 100ths dollars, in hand paid, hereby sell(s) and convey(s) to 25-66 Ltd., a Colorado Limited Partnership, whose legal address is 7125 West Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300, Lakewood, County of the following real property in the Colorado, to wit: , and State of County of Weld Colorado The real property and water rights described in Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein for all purposes , and State of also known by street and number as farmland with all its appurtenances, and warrant(s) the title to the same, subject to general real estate taxes for 1987 and subsequent years and the matters set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein for all purposes. Signed this 2nd day of November John P. Gal in, a neral Partner Tllibi t5 STATE OF CalRoo, County of 9 87 VALLEY 66, A.Limited Partnership Cary m. ic dv ns n, a Gener• ?a _ WilitipAnv ?. 0-s't William P. Stevenson, a General Partner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this R3ad— day of November- , 19 87 byWILLI'AM'.IP, STEVENSON, a General Partner of Valley 66, A Limited Partnership, Au. GALVIN, a General Partner of Valley 66, A Limited Partnership. y s hre*¢f t± '"�"""`? . Witness my hand and official seal comma ) (iiFIC7:11. SEAL Lana A. IISu Nulary nadir, State of Illinois y omnusa,on Lames 3/4/90 •If in Denver, insert "City and." No. 897. Rev. t2-85. WARRANTY DEFO Start Form) SOLto 0.. Lc) „] Wblic and arwifo,d Pobtist.in6. 5a25W dh Ave., 5.akawad. Cn t 2t4—OOJ12lldata 1 12-a5(111(1,1 9�y/! 1.967 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE * * * * * SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: OCTOBER 10, 1996 O 7:00 A. M. RE: Our Order No.: UP38738 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: A. ALTA Owner's Policy Proposed Insured: TO BE AGREED UPON B. ALTA Loan Policy Proposed Insured: C. ALTA Loan Pollcy Proposed Insured: Amount $ TO BE AGREED UPON Amount $ Amount $ 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is a fee simple, and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in: 25-66 LTD., A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: "SEE SCHEDULE A CONTINUED" 971967 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE * * * * * SCHEDULE A "CONTINUED" RE: Our Order No.: UP38738 The NE 1/4 of Section 27, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Mead, Weld County, Colorado; EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to The Highland Ditch Company by Warranty Deed recorded in Book 207 at Page 394, described as follows: Beginning at a goint 722 feet West of the East 1/4 Corner of said Section 27; thence North 56 14' West, 939 feet; thence North 70045' West, 985 feet; thence North 380 West, 336 feet to a point on the North/South center line of said Section 27; thence South 1125 feet to the center of said Section 27; thence East 1918 feet to the point of beginning; and EXCEPT those portions thereof conveyed to The Department of Highways, State of Colorado, by Special Warranty Deeds recorded in Book 1500 at Page 549 and Book 1553 at Page 513. 974 !!r" PROOF OF POSTING 971967 NARRATIVE 971267 I. INTRODUCTION AND CURRENT PROCESSES This report has been prepared to accompany the Application for Site Approval for constuction of a domestic wastewater treatment facility for Foster Ridge Business Park. The purpose of the report is to describe the project and to provide additional information which will be evaluated in conjunction with the review of the Application. II. LOCATION The proposed development is located in the Northeast One -Quarter of Section 27, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Mead, County of Weld, State of Colorado. Foster Ridge Business Park is located at the southwest corner of the interchange of Colorado State Highway No. 66 and Interstate 25. The site is bounded on the west by the Highland Ditch and on the south by Foster Reservoir. The site contains approximately 113.8 acres and is presently zoned Commercial/Industrial P.U.D. III. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is presently used as farmland. Both an existing gas well and storage tanks are located on the south central portion of the site. Irrigation ditches enter the site at approximately the middle of the north side of the property adjacent to Highway 66. These ditches then traverse to the south -1- 9719,67 and east to exit the property along Interstate 25. The site is also traversed by both overhead power lines and a buried gas line. The site slopes generally to the south and southwest at slopes ranging from approximately 1% to 6%. The existing contours are shown on the attached Conceptual Plan. No major drainageways are located on the subject property, and no portion of the site lies within an established 100 -year floodplain. IV. SOILS AND GEOLOGY The surficial soils at the site consist of 4 to 8.5 feet of slightly sandy to sandy lean clays. These soils overlie interbedded of both the possess low siltstone, sandstone and claystone bedrock. Testing clay soils and the bedrock indicates that they swell potential. The soft clay soils encountered in areas of high groundwater are anticipated to possess a low compressive strength. Groundwater was encountered at the time of drilling in test borings in the southeast portion of the site at depths of 4 to 4.5 feet. Subsequent water level measurements indicated groundwater at varying depths thoughout the site. Due both to the irrigation ditches crossing the site and to normal seasonal variations, groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate. -2- 971%7 Due to the slope of the subject property and the absence of rock outcrops, the danger from potential geologic hazards such as landslides, mudflows or rockfalls is considered to be minimal. No mines or prospects are no known to exist on the subject site. The site is not underlain by any commercial sand and gravel deposits. The subject site is located in a region which is generally considered to have a low potential for large, damaging earthquakes. Considering the type of structures to be located on this site, the risk from earthquakes should be no greater than that normally considered for the region. For a complete discussion of the soils and geology of the subject property, see Appendix A. V. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES No existing public or private sewer mains are located either on or adjacent to the subject site. The closest Town of Mead sewer main is approximately 2.5 miles to the north, while the closest St. Vrain Sanitation District sewer main is approximately 2.5 miles to the south. The Town of Mead sewage treatment plant is located approximately 3 miles to the north of the site, and the St. Vrain Sanitation District sewage treatment plant is located -3- 971.967 approximately 3.5 miles to the southeast of the site. For the locations of the two treatment plants together with the locations of potable water wells within a one -mile radius see the attached Area Map. Connection to the Town of Mead sewer system would require the installation of two lift stations, two force mains, gravity mains, a bore under State Highway 66 and upgrades to the existing treatment plant. A preliminary cost estimate for connection to the Town of Mead sewer system is presented in Table No. 1. TABLE NO. 1 ITEM QUANTITY UNIT COST COST 8" PVC Sewer 4' Diam Manholes Lift Station 8" Force Main Highway 66 Bore Upgrade Plant 20% Contingency 7920 LF 23 EA 2 EA 10,780 LF 150 EA 1 EA $12.80/LF $1170/EA $65,000/EA $18.00/LF $142.50/LF Lump Sum $101,376 $ 26,910 $130,000 $194,040 $ 21,375 $100,000 $114,740 Total = $688,441 Connection to would require Barbour Ponds the St. Vrain Sanitation District sewer system an acceptable route either around or through the State Recreation Area and would also require a lift station and force main to cross St. Vrain Creek. A preliminary -4- 971.67 cost estimate based on information from the St. Vrain Sanitation District is presented in Table No. 2. TABLE NO. 2 ITEM QUANTITY UNIT COST COST River Crossing Sec 35 Construction Sec 26 Construction Sec 27 Construction 1 EA 1 EA 1 EA 1 EA Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum Lump Sum $405,800 $103,500 $ 80,000 $199,400 Total = $788,700 VI. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT In accordance with both the Annexation Agreement and the Conceptual Plan for Foster Ridge Business Park, the property is to be developed for commercial and industrial sites. The proposed uses for the sites are office space and light industrial assembly. VII. PROPOSED WASTEWATER FACILITIES The service area for the proposed wastewater treatment facility is the Foster Ridge Business Park. A maximum number of 2000 employees is anticipated for the development at buildout. In accordance with typical average sewage flows for the proposed uses within Foster Ridge Business Park, a flow rate of 20 GPD per -5- 97190 '7 employee was used to establish the proposed size of the wastewater treatment facility at 0.04 MGD. A private internal sewer system is proposed to be installed to serve the development. This sewer system is proposed to discharge to the proposed wastewater treatment facility to be located in the southeast corner of the property. The private sewer system and the wastewater treatment facility will be constructed by the owner, 25-66 LTD. The sewer system and the wastewater treatment facility will then be turned over to the Foster Ridge Business Park Master Association. The Master Association will contract with Ramey Environmental Compliance, Inc. for operation and maintenance of the facility. Appropriate easements and/or rights -of -way will be conveyed by the owner to the Foster Ridge Business Park Master Association for both the treatment facility site itself and necessary maintenance access. Any fees associated with the said operation and maintenance of the facility would be established by the Master Association. VIII. PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Discharge from the proposed wastewater treatment facility is to be to Foster Reservoir, segment 6 of the St. Vrain River Basin. This segment is designated as Use Protected. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, has assigned the following uses to this -6- 971967 segment: Aquatic Life, Class 2 (Warm); Recreation, Class 2; and Agriculture. The following table represents current effluent limitations for the proposed facility as determined by the Water Quality Control Division. TABLE NO. 3 PARAMETER LIMIT RATIONALE Flow, MGD 0.04a Design Capacity BOD5, mg/1 30/45b State Effluent Regs. BODs, % Removal 85 State Guidelines TSS, mg/1 30/45b State Effluent Regs. TSS, % Removal 85 State Guidelines pH, s.u. 6.5--9.0c Water Quality Stds. Fecal Coliform, org/100 ml 6000/12000d Water Quality Stds. Total Residual Cl, mg/1 0.5e State Effluent Regs. Oil & Grease, mg/1 10e State Effluent Regs. a 30 -day average b 30 -day average/7-day maximum c Minimum -Maximum d 30 -day geometric mean/7-day geometric mean e daily maximum IX. ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT FACILITY ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives for the wastewater treatment facility to serve Foster Ridge Business Park were evaluated. The first option is a -7- 971967 field -erected plant, 24' wide x 40' long, with a separate 15' diameter circular clarifier. The main chamber would contain compartments for flow equalization (assumed 16 -hour capacity, 26,800 gallons), extended aeration (loaded 15 pounds of BOD per 1,000 cubic feet), and sludge storage of 9,000 gallons. A separate chlorine contact tank would be provided following the clarifier. An outline drawing of this alternative is included in Appendix B. The second evaluated option uses factory -built tanks, consisting of a 12' wide x 11'6" high x 36' long flow equalization tank, a 12' wide x 11'6" high x 58' long aeration and sludge storage tank with integral chlorine contact zone, and a separate 15' diameter circular clarifier. Field erection would be required only for the clarifier which would be shipped in two halves, to be welded together at the site. Sizing criteria and tank volumes for this alternative are the same as for the field -erected plant. An outline drawing of this alternative is included in Appendix C. Preliminary cost estimates for the installation of the two alternatives for the treatment facility are $257,000 and $250,000 for the first and second alternatives respectively. Due to both the cost difference and the simpler field erection, selection of the second alternative is recommended. It is anticipated that construction of the treatment facility would commence on or about -8- 971'6'7 December 1, 1997 and start-up would occur approximately February 1, 1998. X. CONCLUSIONS The construction of the proposed wastewater treatment facility will allow for the development of Foster Ridge Business Park in conformance with state water quality standards. The environmental impacts of this project are anticipated to be minimal, and no endangered species have been identified that would be impacted as a result of the implementation of the project. The proposed site for the wastewater treatment facility is suitable for the intended use providing that any potential problems associated with the site soils and high groundwater are mitigated by proper engineering design. A foundation investigation should be performed prior to construction to determine the allowable bearing capacities and the consolidation/swell potentials of the site soils, and to present recommendations for the appropriate foundation type to be used. Concrete foundations for the treatment facility should also be designed to resist any hydrostatic uplift forces that may be encountered due to the high groundwater. No other natural hazards have been identified that would either adversely impact the development or be adversely impacted by the development. -9- 97i967 XI. REFERENCES 1. "Regulations For The Site Application Process", Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, June 1996. 2. "Design Criteria Considered In The Review Of Wastewater Treatment Facilities", Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 1996. 3. "Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report - Proposed Foster Ridge Business Park",.Terracon Consultants Western, Inc., December 1996. -10- 971.967 APPENDIX A 971.9£7 Terracon PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED FOSTER RIDGE BUSINESS PARK SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 66 AND INTERSTATE 25 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 22965145 December 11, 1996 Prepared for: 25-66, LTD. 925 W. Kenyon Avenue, Unit 17 P.O. Box 1764 Englewood, Colorado 80150-1764 Attn: Mr. Jim Rees Prepared by: Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. Longmont, Colorado lierracon 971.967 1 Irerracon December 11, 1996 CONSULTANTS WESTERN, INC. EMPIRE DIVISION P.O. Box 1135 • 1242 Bramwood Place Longmont, Colorado 80502 (303) 776-3921 Fax (303) 776-4041 Larry G. O'Dell, P.E. Edward J. Peas. P.E. Eric S. Willis, P.E. 25-66, LTD. Mr. Jim Rees 925 W. Kenyon Avenue, Unit 17 P.O. Box 1764 Englewood, Colorado 80150-1764 Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Foster Ridge Business Park Southwest Corner of Highway 66 and Interstate 25 Weld County, Colorado Project No. 22965145 Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. (Terracon) has completed a preliminary geotechnical engineering exploration for the proposed project to be located at the southwest corner of Highway 66 and Interstate 25 in Weld County, Colorado. This study was performed in general accordance with our proposal number G229666A dated November 5, 1996. The results of our preliminary engineering study, including the boring location diagram, laboratory test results, test boring records, and the geotechnical recommendations needed to aid in the preliminary design and construction of foundations and other earth connected phases of this project are attached. The accompanying geotechnical report presents our findings and recommendations concerning the preliminary design and construction of foundations and general site development. Further details are provided in this report. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this phase of your project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service to you, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, TERRACO S SULTANTS WESTERN, INC. Prepared • y: ��oONV h F 6/s,' .`p •• S. w •.F 1 = Eric S. Willis, • = U UJ • 27741 • • 1�= Larry G. O Dell, P.E. . • Project Geotechnical Mai4t�.�•��•• � Division Manager � Copies to: Addressee (3) lkinOnnito ``�`�� Reviewed by: Offices of The Terracon Companies, Inc. Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Engineers Arizona • Arkansas • Colorado ■ Idaho M Illinois IN Iowa I Kansas M Minnesota Missouri • Montana ■ Nebraska a Nevada R Oklahoma ■ Texas ■ Utah ■ Wyoming QUALITY ENGINEERING SINCE 1965 971.967 TABLE OF CONTENTS Terracon Page No. Letter of Transmittal INTRODUCTION 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1 SITE EXPLORATION 2 Field Exploration 2 Laboratory Testing 2 SITE CONDITIONS 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4 Geology 4 Soil and Bedrock Conditions 5 Field and Laboratory Test Results 5 Groundwater Conditions 5 CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 6 Geotechnical Considerations 6 Slab -on -Grade Construction 8 Preliminary Pavement Design and Construction 8 Earthwork 9 Site Clearing and Subgrade Preparation: 9 Excavation: 10 Placement and Compaction: 12 Slopes: 12 Compliance 13 Excavation and Utility Construction 13 GENERAL COMMENTS 14 APPENDIX A Site Plan and Boring Location Diagram Logs of Borings APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX C General Notes 1 971267 Terracon PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED FOSTER RIDGE BUSINESS PARK SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 66 AND INTERSTATE 25 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 22965145 December 11, 1996 INTRODUCTION This report contains the results of our preliminary geotechnical engineering exploration for the proposed Foster Ridge Business Park to be located at the southwest corner of Highway 66 and Interstate 25 in Weld County, Colorado. The site is located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Weld County, Colorado. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: subsurface soil and bedrock conditions groundwater conditions preliminary foundation considerations floor slab design and construction considerations preliminary pavement design and construction earthwork The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and experience with similar soil conditions, structures and our understanding of the proposed project. Supplemental geotechnical exploration and engineering analysis should be undertaken on individual building sites in order to develop final design parameters and to confirm or modify the conclusions and preliminary recommendations. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Based on information provided by the client, the 113 acre site will be developed for a commercial/light industrial subdivision and will include building lot sizes ranging from about five to thirty acres. Preliminary information indicates that approximately one mile of roadway will be developed and paved within the subdivision. Acceleration/deceleration lanes for site access 1 971967 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Terracon from Highway 66 are also planned. The size and type of building construction is not known at this time. Final site grading plans were not available prior to preparation of this report. However, given site topography and the elevation of adjacent streets, it appears that some mass earthwork will be required to achieve final construction grades. We should review the site grading plans when they become available. SITE EXPLORATION The scope of the services performed for this project included site reconnaissance by a geotechnical engineer, a subsurface exploration program, laboratory testing and engineering analysis. Field Exploration A total of six (6) test borings were drilled on November 20 and November 21, 1996 to depths of about 20 feet at the locations shown on the Site Plan. All borings were advanced with a truck - mounted drilling rig, utilizing 4 -inch diameter solid stem auger. The borings were located in the field by pacing from property lines and/or existing site features. Elevations were taken at each boring location by interpolation from contours indicated on the USGS 7.5 minute series topographic map of the Gowanda quadrangle. The accuracy of boring locations and elevations should only be assumed to the level implied by the methods used. Continuous lithologic logs of each boring were recorded by the geotechnical engineer during the drilling operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by pushing thin -walled Shelby tubes, or by driving split -spoon and California barrel samplers. Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the split -spoon or California barrel into the subsurface materials with a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The penetration resistance value is a useful index to the consistency, relative density or hardness of the materials encountered. Groundwater measurements were made in each boring at the time of site exploration, and where possible, one to two days after drilling. Laboratory Testing All samples retrieved during the field exploration were returned to the laboratory for observation by the project geotechnical engineer, and were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in Appendix C. Samples of bedrock were classified in 2 9719617 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Terracon accordance with the general notes for Bedrock Classification. At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Boring logs were prepared and are presented in Appendix A. Selected soil and bedrock samples were tested for the following engineering properties: Water content Grain size Dry density Plasticity Index Swell -consolidation Compressive strength The significance and purpose of each laboratory test is described in Appendix C. Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B, and were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. All laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards. SITE CONDITIONS The site is currently vacant and portions of the site are being used or have been used for crop production or agricultural purposes. Highway 66 and Interstate 25 form the northern and eastern boundaries of the site, respectively. A business park is currently being developed at the northeast corner of 1-25 and Highway 66; the remaining property adjacent to the site generally consists of open agricultural land with widely scattered single-family residential construction. A dirt road runs from Highway 66 to the south to the south-central portion of the site where an oil/gas well -head is present. Topographically, the site slopes downward to the south-southwest; review of the USGS 7.5 minute series topographic map of the Gowanda quadrangle indicates a maximum grade differential of about 30 feet across the project site. Site elevations vary from about 4990 feet near the northeast corner of the project site to about 4960 feet near the southeast corner of the site. For a given area, surface slopes are estimated to vary from about 31/2 percent to less than 1 percent. Overall site drainage was generally directed to the south-southwest by apparent sheetflow. The surface of the site is covered with a variety of vegetation including numerous trees adjacent to the irrigation ditches. The east one-half of the site consists of either fallow fields or a cultivated corn field while most of the west one-half of the site consists of a recently planted wheat crop. The southern portion of the west one-half of the site is covered with vegetation indicative of shallow groundwater levels. A series of three irrigation ditches traverse the northeast quadrant of the site. These ditches varied from about 6 to 10 feet wide by 3 to 6 3 971967 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Terracon feet deep and were dry at the time of our field exploration. A large irrigation canal also forms the western boundary of the property. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Geology The project area is located within the Colorado Piedmont section of the Great Plains physiographic province. The Colorado Piedmont, formed during Late Tertiary and Early Quaternary time (approximately 2,000,000 years ago), is a broad, erosional trench which separates the Southern Rocky Mountains from the High Plains. Structurally, the site lies along the western flank of the Denver Basin. During the Late Mesozoic and Early Cenozoic Periods (approximately 70,000,000 years ago), intense tectonic activity occurred, causing the uplifting of the Front Range and associated downwarping of the Denver Basin to the east. Relatively flat uplands and broad valleys characterize the present-day topography of the Colorado Piedmont in this region. Due to the relatively flat nature of the site, geologic hazards at the site are anticipated to be low. Seismic activity in the area is anticipated to be low; and from a structural standpoint, the property should be relatively stable. With proper site grading around proposed structures, erosional problems at the site should be minimal. Mapping completed by the Colorado Geological Survey (Hart, 1972), indicates that the southern portion of the site is in an area of "Moderate Swell Potential". Potentially expansive materials mapped in this area include bedrock, weathered bedrock and colluvium (surficial units). The remainder of the site has been mapped in an area of "Windblown Sand or Silt". This material has been described as having low swell potential and may be subject to severe settlement or collapse when water is allowed to saturate the deposits. Bedrock with higher swell potential may be locally less than 10 feet below the ground surface. Site specific swell testing indicates that the clays and bedrock tested are non -expansive or have only low swell potential. 'Hart, Stephen S., 1972, Potentially Swelling Soil and Rock in the Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey, Environmental Geology No. 7. 4 971.96'7 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Soil and Bedrock Conditions Terracon As presented on the Logs of Boring, surface soils to depths of about 4 to 8'/z feet consisted of lean clays with varying amounts of sand. Fine-grained clayey sands appeared to be intermixed with the sandy clays in Test Boring 2. Sedimentary bedrock was encountered beneath the overburden clays in all of our test borings at depths ranging from about 4 to 81/2 feet below the ground surface. The bedrock consisted primarily of interbedded siltstone, sandstone and some claystone. Please refer to the Logs of Boring for more comprehensive strata descriptions. Field and Laboratory Test Results Field test results indicate that the clay soils in Borings 1, 2 and 3 typically vary from stiff to medium stiff in consistency, while the clays in Borings 4, 5 and 6 vary from medium stiff to very soft in consistency. Up to two feet of weathered bedrock was encountered at the contact between the overburden soils and the bedrock stratum; however, the underlying bedrock varies from medium hard to very hard. Laboratory test results indicate that clay samples tested are non -expansive or have only very low expansive potential. The soft, high moisture content clays will consolidate and compress readily when loaded. The dry density of the clays varied between 88 to 107 pcf at moisture contents ranging from 10 to 33 percent. Unconfined compressive strength of clay samples tested varied from 1,700 to 3,700 psf. However, we believe that the soft, high moisture content clays would have significantly lower compressive strength. Swell -consolidation test results indicate that the bedrock tested generally has low swell potential. Results of gradation and plasticity tests on the samples tested indicated that the subgrade soils classified as A-6, A-7-6 and A-4 according to the AASHTO classification system. AASHTO group indices of these subgrade soils ranged from 2 to 21. These subgrade soils have a "CL" classification in accordance with USCS methods. Soil classification test results and physical properties indicate that the subgrade soils at the site generally have fair to poor pavement support characteristics. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered in Test Borings 5 and 6 at depths of about 4 to 4% feet immediately after completion of drilling. The other borings remained dry immediately after drilling. When checked 1 to 2 days after drilling, groundwater was measured in borings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 at depths ranging from 3 to 16 feet. A subsequent water level measurement could not be taken from Boring 5 because this boring was plowed under prior to our return visit. These observations represent only current groundwater conditions, and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions. We would expect to see an over-all rise in the level of 5 9'71967 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Terracon groundwater, particularly for the portion of the site down -gradient from the series of irrigation ditches, once the on -site ditches carry water again. Based upon review of U.S. Geological Survey Maps (2Hillier, et al, 1983), regional groundwater beneath the project area predominates in colluvial or windblown materials, or in fractured weathered consolidated sedimentary bedrock located at a depth near ground surface. Seasonal variations in groundwater conditions are expected since the aquifer materials may not be perennially saturated. Groundwater is generally encountered at depths ranging from 5 to 20 feet below ground surface; depth to seasonal groundwater is generally 10 feet or less. Zones of perched and/or trapped groundwater, where not already present, may also occur at times in the subsurface soils overlying bedrock, on top of the bedrock surface or within permeable fractures in the bedrock materials. The location and amount of perched water is dependent upon several factors, including hydrologic conditions, type of site development, irrigation demands on or adjacent to the site, fluctuations in water features, and seasonal and weather conditions. Fluctuations in groundwater levels can best be determined by implementation of a groundwater monitoring plan. Such a plan would include installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and periodic measurement of groundwater levels over a sufficient period of time. We would expect to see an over-all rise in the level of groundwater, particularly for the portion of the site down - gradient from the series of irrigation ditches, once the ditches carry water again. The possibility of groundwater fluctuations should be considered when developing design and construction plans for the project. CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Geotechnical Considerations Based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in our widely spaced test borings, the site appears suitable for the proposed construction. We believe that the major constraints for site development are shallow groundwater and associated soft, high moisture content clay soils. These conditions were encountered in Borings 5 and 6 and to a lesser degree in Boring 4. We believe that problems associated with these concerns can be mitigated with proper planning during site development, design and construction. 2Hillier, Donald E.; Schneider, Paul A., Jr.; and Hutchinson, E. Carter, 1983, Depth to Water Table (19791 in the Boulder -Fort Collins -Greeley Area, Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado, United States Geological Survey, Map i-855-1. 6 971967 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Terracon We recommend limiting cuts during final grading operations and setting the building floors as high as practicable to reduce the impact of shallow groundwater and soft clay soils on the proposed construction. Conventional rubber -tired earthmoving equipment may encounter soft soils and/or severe pumping due to repetitive construction traffic loads, particularly in cut areas. For this reason, the use light -weight earth -moving equipment may be needed to reduce the potential of "pumping" subgrade soils. Where possible, every effort should be made to minimize construction traffic in soft clay areas of the site. Some subgrade stabilization should be anticipated prior to fill placement or pavement construction, particularly for the southern portion of the site and in cut areas. Stabilization techniques could include the use of import granular materials and/or geogrids or geotextiles. Chemical stabilization could also be considered. Final site grading plans should be prepared with due consideration given to the potential constraints and/or potential construction difficulties associated with shallow groundwater and soft clay soils. As discussed above, shallow groundwater and soft clays were found in our borings on the southern portion of the site. When fills are placed over the soft clays, they will consolidate and settle due to the added weight of the fill. Our experience suggests that the settlements induced by fills less than about 10 feet deep should occur within a relatively short time after grading and we believe that the impact of site settlement can be mitigated by proper construction sequencing. Preliminary design and construction recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project are outlined below. Preliminary Foundation Considerations Foundation selection will be dependent upon the type of construction planned, final site grades and site specific geotechnical conditions. Preliminary data from this exploration indicates that the clay soils in Borings 1, 2, 3 and 4 are non -expansive or have low swell potential and will tend to consolidate when loaded. For these conditions, lightly loaded structures can usually be supported by low contact -pressure spread footing foundations. However, heavy building loads or movement sensitive structures may require the use of straight -shaft piers drilled into bedrock. Very soft and compressible clays were found in Test Borings 5 and 6. Spread footings founded on these materials could experience excessive foundation movement. In some instances, the load bearing characteristics of the soft soils can be improved by removal and replacement with a densely compacted structural fill which may be suitable for footing support. Depending upon location on the site, this option may require temporary dewatering to properly place the structural fill_ For soft, compressible clay soils, straight -shaft piers drilled into bedrock could also be used to control foundation 7 971967 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965/45 Terracon settlement. Since groundwater is present above the bedrock, temporary casing will be required to adequately dewater and clean drilled pier holes. The requirement for temporary casing will increase the difficulty of pier installation and will result in higher foundation construction costs. Swell -consolidation tests on samples of the bedrock generally indicated low swell potential. Depending on final site grades (cut areas in particular), the level of the bedrock could be at or near foundation bearing depths. For low swelling bedrock areas, narrow spread footings or isolated pad and grade beam foundations usually perform satisfactorily. This type of foundation system is intended to concentrate building dead loads to resist uplift forces caused by swelling soils if they become wetted. Higher swelling soil or bedrock conditions may require the use of drilled pier foundations. Swell potential can vary and should be more thoroughly defined during design -level geotechnical exploration of each building site. A more detailed, site specific geotechnical exploration will be necessary for each building lot to develop specific foundation recommendations after site grading is complete and final building locations and type of construction have been established. Slab -on -Grade Construction Subsoils at the site generally consist of non -expansive to low swelling clays and bedrock. The swell potential of fill derived from the on -site soils/bedrock is unknown, but is judged to be low if properly compacted and moisture conditioned. The use of slab -on -grade floors for low swelling soils is generally considered acceptable provided some movement of floors can be tolerated. For movement sensitive floors or equipment, slab heave resulting from low swelling soils could be excessive in some instances. For moderate to high swelling soils/bedrock or where slab movement must be held to a minimum, the use of structural floors supported independent of the subgrade soils should be considered. Swell potential can vary and should be more thoroughly defined during design -level geotechnical exploration of each building site. Preliminary Pavement Design and Construction The required total thickness for the pavement structure is dependent primarily upon the foundation soil or subgrade and upon traffic conditions. Results of gradation and plasticity tests on the samples tested indicated that the subgrade soils classified as A-6, A-7-6 and A-4 according to the AASHTO classification system. AASHTO group indices of these subgrade soils ranged from 2 to 21. These subgrade soils have a "CL" classification in accordance with USCS methods. Soil classification test results and physical properties indicate that the subgrade soils at the site generally have fair to poor pavement support characteristics. The 8 971967 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Terracon preliminary pavement thicknesses presented are based on minimum design criteria and traffic numbers outlined in the Town of Mead roadway design manual. For preliminary planning purposes, we anticipate pavement sections for the industrial streets at the site would consist of either 8 to 81/2 inches of full -depth asphalt or 5 inches of asphalt over 11 to 13 inches of aggregate base course. Rigid concrete pavements could also be considered for use at the site. We anticipate that 61/2 to 7 inches of concrete pavement would be appropriate. As discussed, the design presented herein is for preliminary planning purposes for the project. Final pavement design, upon completion of site grading, will be required to meet Town of Mead requirements. The final design will account for variations in pavement subgrade soils which may occur in cut/fill sections required to bring the site to construction grade and along the actual alignment of the streets within the project. Accordingly, the actual required pavement thickness may vary from those presented. For estimation of construction costs, pavement materials should meet the following specifications: Colorado Department of Pavement Component Transportation Criteria Asphalt Grading C or E Aggregate Base Course Class 5 or 6 Concrete Class P Given the relatively shallow groundwater encountered on the site, careful consideration should be given to design subgrade elevations. Design street subgrade elevations should be established at least 3 feet above the groundwater. If this is not feasible, an adequate underdrain system should be provided to minimize water infiltration to the pavement soils and associated loss of subgrade support. Earthwork Site Clearing and Subgrade Preparation: 1. Strip and remove existing vegetation, debris and other deleterious materials from proposed building and pavement areas. All exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions which could prevent uniform compaction. 9 971967 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Terracon 2. If unexpected fills or underground facilities are encountered during site clearing, such features should be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction. All excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to backfill placement. 3. Stripped materials consisting of vegetation and organic materials should be wasted from the site or used to revegetate exposed slopes after completion of grading operations. If it is necessary to dispose of organic materials on -site, they should be placed in non-structural areas and in fill sections not exceeding 5 feet in height. 4. Drainage blankets, consisting of free -draining gravel enclosed in filter fabric should be placed in any natural drainage beneath fill sections which exceed 12 feet in height. Drainage blankets should be led to a positive gravity discharge. 5. Sloping areas steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical) should be benched to reduce the potential for slippage between existing slopes and fills. Benches should be level and wide enough to accommodate compaction and earth moving equipment. 6. All exposed areas which will receive fill and/or pavement, once properly cleared and benched where necessary, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted. Excavation: 1. It is anticipated that shallow excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. For deeper excavations, conventional rubber -tired equipment may encounter soft soils and/or severe pumping, particularly when nearing the level of the groundwater. For these conditions, the use of a trackhoe or light -weight excavation equipment may be needed. 2. Excavation penetrating the bedrock may require the use of specialized heavy- duty equipment. Drilling and blasting to facilitate rock break-up and removal is not anticipated. 10 ►71967 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Terracon 3. Depending upon depth of excavation and seasonal conditions, groundwater may be encountered in excavations, particularly on the southern portion of the site. Pumping from sumps may be utilized to control water within excavations. Well points may be required for significant groundwater flow or where excavations penetrate groundwater to a significant depth. 4. On -site clay soils may pump or become unstable or unworkable at high water contents. Workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. Overexcavation of wet zones and replacement with granular materials may be necessary. Lightweight excavation equipment may be required to reduce subgrade pumping. Proof -rolling of the subgrade may be required to determine stability prior to paving. 5. Due to the plastic nature of the subsoils and depth to groundwater, roadway subgrade stabilization is anticipated. With properly designed stabilization, reductions in the pavement section may be possible. Fill Materials: 1. Clean on -site soils, processed bedrock or approved imported materials may be used as site grading fill. The properties of the fill will affect the performance of foundations, slabs -on -grade and pavements. 2. Frozen soils should not be used as fill or backfill. 3. Imported soils (if required) should conform to the following or be tested and approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer: Percent finer by weight Gradation (ASTM C136) 4100 3" 70-100 No. 4 Sieve 50-80 No. 200 Sieve 35 (max) Liquid Limit 35 (max) Plasticity Index 15 (max) 11 971.67 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Placement and Compaction: Terracon 1. Place and compact fill in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift. 2. No fill should be placed over frozen ground. 3. Materials should be compacted to the following: Minimum Percent Material fASTM D6981 Subgrade soils beneath fill areas 90 On -site soils or approved imported fill: Beneath foundations 95-98 Beneath slabs 95 Beneath pavements 95 Utility Backfill 95 Miscellaneous backfill 90 4. Clays and clayey soils should be compacted within a moisture content range of 2 percent below to 2 percent above optimum. Slopes: 1. For permanent slopes in compacted fill areas, recommended maximum slope angles of 21/2:1 (horizontal to vertical) for on -site materials are recommended. If steeper slopes are required for site development, stability analyses should be completed to design the grading plan. 2. The face of all slopes should be compacted to the minimum specification for fill embankments. Alternately, fill slopes can be over -built and trimmed to compacted material. 12 971.9€ 7 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Terracon 3. For permanent slopes in cut areas, the following maximum angles are recommended as follows: Maximum Slope Material Horizontal:Vertical Cohesive soils (clays) 3:1 Bedrock 2:1 If steeper slopes are required for site development, stability analyses should be completed to design the grading plan. Compliance Performance of slabs -on -grade, foundations and pavement elements supported on compacted fills or prepared subgrade depend upon compliance with "Earthwork" recommendations. To assess compliance, observation and testing should be performed under the direction of the geotechnical engineer. Excavation and Utility Construction Excavations into the on -site soils will encounter a variety of conditions. Excavations into the clays above groundwater and bedrock can be expected to stand on relatively steep temporary slopes during construction. However, caving soils and/or groundwater may also be encountered. The individual contractor(s) should be made responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. The soils to be penetrated by the proposed excavations may vary significantly across the site. The preliminary soil classifications are based solely on the materials encountered in widely spaced exploratory test borings. The contractor should verify that similar conditions exist throughout the proposed area of excavation. If different subsurface conditions are encountered at the time of construction, the actual conditions should be evaluated to determine any excavation modifications necessary to maintain safe conditions. Due to the relatively shallow depth to groundwater, temporary dewatering of excavations will probably be required during placement of the pipe and during backfilling 13 971.967 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Terracon operations for at least the southern portion of the site. Dewatering should continue through the excavation, pipe placement and backfilling operations to ensure proper construction of the utility lines. The type of dewatering system utilized during construction should be based on the depth of the excavation below the water table and the permeability rate of the subsurface materials. Pumping from sumps may be utilized to control water within excavations where groundwater is penetrated for shallow depths. Well points may be required for significant groundwater flow or where excavations penetrate groundwater to a significant depth. As a safety measure, it is recommended that all vehicles and soil piles be kept to a minimum lateral distance from the crest of the slope equal to no less than the slope height. The exposed slope face should be protected against the elements. GENERAL COMMENTS Supplemental geotechnical exploration and engineering analysis should be undertaken on individual building lots in order to develop final design parameters and to confirm or modify the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. It is recommended that the Geotechnical Engineer be retained to provide a general review of final design plans and specifications in order to confirm that grading and preliminary foundation recommendations have been interpreted and implemented. In the event that any changes of the proposed project are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and the report modified or supplemented as necessary. The Geotechnical Engineer should also be retained to provide services during excavation, grading, foundation and construction phases of the work. Supplemental geotechnical exploration is recommended once final building locations and site configurations have been established to determine site specific geotechnical conditions. Observation of foundation excavations should be performed prior to placement of reinforcing and concrete to confirm that satisfactory bearing materials are present and is considered a necessary part of continuing geotechnical engineering services for the project. Construction testing, including field and laboratory evaluation of fill, backfill, pavement materials, concrete and steel should be performed to determine whether applicable project requirements have been met. It would be logical for Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. to provide these additional services for continuing from design through construction and to determine the consistency of field conditions with those data used in our analyses. The analyses and recommendations in this report are based in part upon limited data obtained from the field exploration and should be considered preliminary in nature. The nature and extent 14 971.967 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration 25-66, Ltd. Project No. 22965145 Terracon of variations beyond the location of test borings may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. Our professional services were performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical engineers practicing in this or similar localities. No warranty, express or implied, is made. We prepared the report as an aid in the preliminary design of the proposed project. This report is not a bidding document. Any contractor reviewing this report must draw his own conclusions regarding site conditions and specific construction techniques to be used on this project. This report is for the exclusive purpose of providing geotechnical engineering and/or testing information and recommendations. The scope of services for this project does not include, either specifically or by implication, any environmental assessment of the site or identification of contaminated or hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination, other studies should be undertaken. 15 9719F7 7 1 m� INTERSTATE 25 cH MW = 400' a FOSTER RESERVOIR er < LQ c c°N O cn X3(7 oc tr" pi( Lig 4Len ram limns 971967 LOG OF BORING NO. TB -1 Page 1 of I OWNER/CLIENT 25-66, LTD. ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SITE Southwest Croner of 1-25 & HWY 66 Weld County, Colorado _ PROJECT Foster Ridge Business Park GRAPIIIC LOG DESCRIPTION Approx. Surface Elev.: 4975.0 ft. c USCS SYMBOL SAMPLES TESTS N } PENETRATION BLOWS / .. m DRY DENSITY (1'CP) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (PSF) %SWELL-CONSOL /SURCI IARGIE LOAD (PSI) A "". 0.6 TOPSOIL 4974.4 _ CL SS 4 17 \ / " LEAN CLAY, slightly sandy, brown to medium brown, moist, medium stiff. 4.0 4971.0 — ST 18 107 3700 5 SS 7 HIGHLY WEATHERED BEDROCK - _ 6 0 4969.0 r-f�? _h2 ^.71zz L E. t—/-17----- - -r Wiz_ 1"1-J �7 7�L Y L -7 SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE/CLAYSTONE, - CB 44 13 120 11300 14^ - _ interbedded, mottled olive, tan and gray with rust streaks, moist, medium hard. 20.0 4955.0 — 15 CB 47 12 120 13000 _ _ _ - SS 50 12 ?0 BOTTOM OF BORING ME STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES IIETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN -SITU. THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS err acon BORING STARTED 11-20-96 BORING COMPLETED 11-20-96 WL a Dry 11/20/96 M 12' 11/22/96 RIG CME-55 FOREMAN CVS WL 5. APPROVED ESW JOB # 22965145 WL 9'71.%7 LOG OF BORING NO. TB -2 Page 1 of 1 OWNER/CLIENT 25-66, LTD. ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SITE Southwest Croner of I-25 & HWY 66 Weld County, Colorado PROJECT Foster Ridge Business Park W U DESCRIPTION Approx. Surface Elev.: 4990.0 ft. — " SAMPLES TESTS .A - r u R a z ?- Z F C; < I3 c:a, a U 0 r ---q Fr: rr �U c:: v ? `ra = c`3L 8l"5,, aoua o cn 0� V r, E .5a_ F.- R, sa� c�=,7 r7 "„"' 0.6 4939.4 _ SS 13 11 \TOPSOIL : SANDY LEAN CLAY, light brown to tan, _ CL CB 16 10 104 -0.3/500 — 5 — _ dry to slightly moist, stiff, contains some bedrock fragments at greater depth, varies to a clayey sand. 8.5 4981.5 _ CB 30 17 _ — SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE, clayey in part, 10— — CB 50/11 14 —_ — - tan and gray with rust streaks, poorly cemented, moist, medium hard to very = hard. 20.0 4970.0 15 _ _ SS 50/5 15 20 BOTTOM OF BORING THE riETWEEN STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: INSITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS err acon BORING STARTED 11-20-96 BORING COMPLETED 11-20-96 WL 2 Dry 11/20/96 X 16' 11/22/96 RIG CME-55 FOREMAN CVS } WL S APPROVED ESW JOB # 22965145 WL A W I A A W LOG OF BORING NO. TB -3 a uwfNtt./[ I JENT 25-66, LTD. - b` ` — . ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SITE Southwest Croner of 1-25 & HWY 66 Weld County, Colorado PROJECT Foster Ridge Business Park SAMPLES TESTS V U - < o DESCRIPTION Approx. Surface Elev.: 4970.0 ft. _ = E. >. Lf r • a z �: E- c ty 3 zE. ° cc . z = r. u t= z can : : O - a u v 0 U U 7:3 Q st o L s v ; 0.6 4969.4 \TOPSOIL SS 8 16 _ — LEAN CLAY, slightly sandy, _ olive-brown/tan/gray, moist, medium CL CB 3 15 104 170O ,:/ stiff to soft. 5.5 4964.5 5— — _ _ CB 50/ 10 13 120 +0.3/50 l0-+ _ SANDSTONE/SILTSTONF, clayey in part, -X — tan and gray with rust streaks, poorly cemented, slightly moist to moist, hard — to very hard. I5 CB 50/6 11 20.0 4950E 0 - SS 50/11 I6 BOTTOM OF BORING 7O THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES 1161 -WHEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN -SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS ECOfl BORING STARTED 11-20-96 WL Q Dry 11/20/96 1 13' 11/22/96 BORING COMPLETED 11-20-96 WL Gerr RIG CN1E-55 FOREMAN C`'S WL APPROVED ESW JOB # 22965145 971967 OWNER/CLIENT SITE GRA1'IIIC LOG 25-66, LTD. LOG OF BORING NO. TB -4 ARCHITECT/ENGINEER Page 1 of 1 Southwest Croner of 1-25 & HWY 66 Weld County, Colorado DESCRIPTION Approx. Surface Elev.: 4955.0 ft. PROJECT USCS SYMBOL Foster Ridge Business Park SAMPLES TESTS z z o. � o c.n MOISTURE, % r r -0.9/500 0.6 \TOPSOIL LEAN CLAY, slightly sandy, brown to medium brown with gray, moist to very moist, slightly porous, medium stiff to soft. 4954.4 7.0 = 4948.() CLAYSTONE/SILTSTONE, sandy, 10.0 Bray/brown with rust, moist, weathered. 4945.0 SANDS TONE/S ILTSTONE/CLAYSTON, interbedded, tan/gray and brown, with rust streaks, moist, medium hard to hard. 20.0 4935.0 BOTTOM OF BORING 5 SS 4 CL ST 30 8g SS 4 CB 18 20 105 5600 10- 15 20 CB 50/11 15 117 9300 + 1.1/500 SS 36 14 TIIE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: 111 -SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED WL WL WL I)ry I1l21/96 _ 6.5' 11t22/96I BORING COMPLETED erracon RIG CME-55 11-21-96 11-21-96 APPROVED ESW FOREMAN CVS SOB# 22965145 971.967 LOG OF BORING NO. TB -5 Page 1 of 1 OWNER/CLIENT 25-66, LTD. ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SITE Southwest Croner of 1-25 & HWY 66 Weld County, Colorado PROJECT Foster Ridge Business Park J u - 5. DESCRIPTION Approx. Surface Elev.: 4965.0 ft. �— - L. ^— USCS SYMBOL SAMPLES TESTS a z TYPE z0 ¢ t. i- i2 W p c.. N v O I)RY DENSITY (PCP) UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGPII (PSP) %SWELL-CONSOL /SURCHARGE LOAD (PSI) .. ' y- f .A,.A. 0.6 TOPSOIL 4964.4 SS 5 23 • • j LEAN CLAY, slightly sandy, medium - CL CB 2 31 89 -3.8/250 brown, moist to wet, medium stiff to very soft. 7.0 4954.{? 5 —i - :71T ,- - T , �- —2 -- -- SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE/CLAYSTONE, - CB 50/9 16 114 4700 - I 0- --I u — interbedded, mottled olive, tan and gray with rust streaks, moist, medium hard to hard. 20.0 4945.0 _ CB 50/7 i 5 _ — — - SS 43 18 20 BOTTOM OF BORING 'rt1E STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES RETW£EN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN -SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 11-20-96 BORING COMPLETED 11-20-96 WL � 4.5' 11/211/96 M Plowed over [err acon RIG CNIE-55 FOREMAN CVs WL APPROVED ESW JOB # 22965145 WL 971967 LOG OF BORING NO. TB -6 Page 1 of 1 OWNER/CLIENT 25-66, LTD. ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SITE Southwest Croner of 1-25 & HWY 66 Weld County, Colorado PROJECT Foster Ridge Business Park GRAPHIC LOG DESCRIPTION Approx. Surface Elev.: 4965.0 ft. USCSSYM0OL SAMPLES TESTS z z o o MOISTURE, % • U 6TOPSOIL , 4964.4 4.0 LEAN CLAY, slightly sandy, medium brown, moist to wet, soft to very soft. Y 7 4961.0 HIGHLY WEATHERED BEDROCK 6.0 4959.0 SILTS TONE/SANDSTONE/CLAYSTONE, interbedded, mottled olive, tan and gray with rust streaks, moist, medium hard to very hard. 20.0 4945.0 BOTTOM OF BORING 5 CL SS 3 28 ST 33 H SS 17 CB 40 13 118 10- 15 20 CB 50/5 SS 50/6 TI IE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: N -SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS WL 4' 11/20/96 1 3' 11/21/96 1V L WL lierracon BORING STARTED 11-20-96 BORING COMPLETED 11-20-96 RIG CMVME-55 FOREMAN CVS APPROVED ESW JOB # 22965145 971967 APPENDIX B 971967 Model V Treatment Plants Outline Drawings Page 24 October, 1989 CLI .v.10 -\ Smith& Loveless, Inc. 14040 W. Santa Fe Trail Dr. Lenexa, Kansas 66215 co AERATION TANK Z J 0 jj O a B fA L a Ie i _ a2. m 4 ,3 0 :3 i3 EI SECTIONAL ELEVATION !t .; 11 caz e 11 s! t1 !! II 1.! It i } r I1 Oa r T n 8 o v i - 4 d1:210 N �Q, Q 2,-'e 5 took, 4Z 971967 aSmith & Loveless, Inc. 1989 APPENDIX C 971%7 PJT Srtith&® Loveless, Inc. 14040 W. Santa Fe Trail Dr. Lenexa, Kansas 66215 Factory -Built Addigest Treatment Plants Outline Drawings Page 5 May, 1988 • 0 s rt, L.1 V N N V 2 1 „O 1 .15 ✓ am . 4 III O P 4 d 3'Cloriller Oran =10 0 S u PLAN VIEW C Alto 4 a ! G O A SIDE ELEVATION o:, it e2 z 97,'96'7 ©Smith & Loveless, Inc. 1988 Aae* WUD€. COLORADO NAME: Foster Ridge Business Park DATE: September 2, 1997 s REQUEST: Site application for the construction of a domestic wastewater treatment facility for the Foster Ridge Business Park. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 27, Township 3 North, Range 68 West. The site is located within the City limits of Mead. LOCATION: The Foster Ridge Business Park is located at the southwest corner of the interchange of Colorado Highway 66 and U.S. Interstate 25. THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: s 1) In accordance with the determination of the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association (208 Committee), the facility shall obtain the services of the St. Vrain Sanitation District (the District) if the District secures commitments for funding from the appropriate property owners to extend sewerage service to the Foster Ridge Business Park by October 1, 1997. In the event the appropriate commitments are not secured the facility may be constructed as described in accordance with the site application and the minutes of the August 21, 1997, 208 Committee. THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WAS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1) The nearest existing sewer is approximately 2 1/2 miles away. 2) The North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association reviewed the site application on August 21, 1997. Its only concern was addressed in the above condition. tj\812 971967 Hello