The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About790484.tiff •: R ' �, • f air 75 ,. - . -, r_• d7ju f4-. Y _ L _ _ II! a ��E ,.,,,•Ee 1'129w ae .,s ., o • ,-r.,mtac., a- Jai o,_a f., . I j'' ;E °C E 6 ‘,.,,, ,, ,., i',Ei 1,.WE a Q O 1 r V W O J 0 - r r Z CC 3 C4 O Cr 3 czuj I— yi 1N'.., 4 Q CCa to cr, ? y Woio n FE. pm W ( 1IIIII Q 3 : z '4 �5 •, a LLJ 2 cc coy. ). § z z e „, O = r CZ w CO Q s =, ,' Ie V S U I, 5R r ., o n -: ams s" ` a y O N Vim` o di --- 7' 'CO Q w o tr O O Leo' t �.;m i- --i .... ,.. . . L _ _ W - ,.,,,,,,i. -.:. t , ..- ." ; , ,, : W t L �, OM g 3 L- ti U CO kid 5,1 .1 1 4;7 ;;_ 10002 --6 I5868Li . - • 7- ' I-',•Sf. : '7Q F\UA LI �,"•- rZ I- , TV "•a- P IMF Y n^ A • Pi w ; 0 1 t ''N', !; 1 ,pW' ¢{gi (' M k11 • C NN qpp}0 2 f''i4 _ ' ❑❑ h 'L ObOd 09 `, b F - _ 3 i'' _ _ , , / N -' / , u V - ii Vary R - i \ , z \ DiDi u Y �� _ l _ rl �\ W W Q API O W OYW y Q YW - I zo Kd o 'ia\yryI Ii N i _ 2 lh p r y ❑ 2 ':3,.F: W Ib ,, e i. .ems air --• t, / , \ ' c p / I } •r �� sa`-cr � i . ( y , Gh V A .N K 4 / s. E ,;! % '- \ •...,,... k,4 Li II ! , ( ;i i Q \ f. l ' i , W f' N p N Q I • h-' 1., y W I r---. ,\ 4, `,,. \ Q il V a � —_� p _ o„ t o. C V W W ' (Y W i a.R y s 4 y , 2Q ` I., Wa W E I ft —-- i , y§y��N ,L,,: 2 N .is. 11 N•r i{ RESOLUTION RE: APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY SITE FOR THE TOWN OF SEVERANCE. 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 of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado held a public hearing on the 4th day of April, 1979 at the hour of 2 : 00 p.m. in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners for the purpose of hearing the application of the Town of Severance for the granting of a Special Use Permit for a wastewater treatment facility site on the following described real estate: That portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 2, Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., County of Weld, State of Colorado, more particu- larly described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 2; thence along the South Line of said Southeast Quarter West 1187.97 feet; thence North 06°29'40" East 1092.37 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; said point being on the Easterly right of way line of the Great Western Railroad and 40.00 feet easterly from the center line of said Railroad as measured at right angles thereto; thence along said easterly right of way line North 06°29'40" East 373.00 feet; thence perpendicular to said right of way South 83°30'20" East 320.00 feet; thence South 06°29'40" West 297.00 feet; thence South 17°24'30" West 155.82 feet; thence North 68°39'35" West 300.53 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. • WHEREAS, the petitioner was present, and WHEREAS, evidence was presented in support of the grant of the Special Use Permit for a wastewater treatment facility on the above described real estate, and WHEREAS, Section 3. 3 (E) (2) of the Weld County Zoning Resolu- tion authorizes such a use in an Agricultural District upon appro- val by the Board of County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado heard all the testimony and statements of those present, has studied the request of the petitioner and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and all of the exhibits and 1''' 1..0 r4 > ; „ r evidence presented in this matter, and having been fully informed, is satisfied that the request for a Special Use Permit for a wastewater treatment facility site on the hereinabove described real estate, conforms to the purposes of Section 3. 3 (E) (2) of the Weld County Zoning Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commis- sioners of Weld County, Colorado that the application of the petitioner for a Special Use Permit for a wastewater treatment facility site on the hereinabove described tract of land be, and hereby is, granted subject to the Development Standards contained in the Special Use Permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the reasons for approval contained in the Planning Commission recommendations dated March 6, 1979 be, and hereby are, incorporated as the findings of fact of the Board of County Commissioners in this matter. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 4th day of April, A.D. , 1979. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ).74t-7,--2-.‘4,..-. er-l-ae-.-- ele.;-2. _/Qet- z-1,ez,5 i )lict--1/ (,/_/-3 ['C i / 4/-,'(.--/2'241:L} ' , . _ - ,' g,,.--7k.ou--Lck oe. ./P-47-i sI/j ATTEST: Weld- ounty Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the B Deputy County erk (:- AP OV D AS TO FORM: O County Attorney DATE PRESENTED: APRIL 9, 1979 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMriiSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date march 6 . 1079 Case No. SUP# 361:78 : 13 API-LICATION OF Town of Severance ADDRESS p.n. Box (F , Severance, Colorado 80546 Moved by Percy Hiatt that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the appli- cation for site approval of Wastewater Treatment Facility covering the following described property in Weld County, Colorado, to-wit: See attached with Development Standards be recommended (favorablyAW5WRCIPM to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: 1. It is the opinion of the Planning Ccc+rrission that the request is iu agreement with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. In addressing public sewage treatment facilities, the Comprehensive Plan states on Pages 88 and 01 in pf,rt "Utilities and public goods ane services provide for community needs of the people throughout Veld County. Included in this; category are water , sewer and other utilities, police and fire protection, roads, and health and educatinnal f ci.li_ties. ' . . . The 'no arc, of County Commissioners s not only responsible to the public to see that these facilities are adequately supplied and that they meet certain standards hut also to minimize the Motion seconded by Jim r inor. Vote: For Passage Percy .Hatt Against Passage ?'ran! Suc1-la Ben Y i x Fred Otis Jerry Kiefer C'`harr Carlson---- -- ----- Jinr Gilbert 1R-t t a o-un t z Irma White The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Shirley A. Phillips , Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Color- ado, adopted on h'arch q , 1079 and recorded in Book No. _'T of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission. [gated the —? _ day of March - , 19 7p Secretary �� u Town of Severance SUP-361 : 78 : 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION March 6 , 1979 costs of providing these facilities . ' . . . ' If new urban growth is directed in and around existing municipalities , the cost of urbanizaion in terms of providing public services and facilities , can be minimized . It is also probable that the quality and quantity of services provided will be greater if the populations served are concentrated rather than scattered ' . . . 'The capacity for sewage treatment is an important determinant on the growth a community can accommodate , treatment plans should be expanded and improved to accommodate the growth desired by the individual community . " - Further the following policies are found on Pages 91 , 92 and 60 which relate to this request : "Proliferation of service district shall be opposed while consolidation of existing service districts shall be encouraged when it tends to improve the efficiency and economy of the service . Regionalization of services and facilities shall be opposed if it will lead to growth which is not compatible with the desires of the towns involved . Existing municipalities are the best and most efficient sources of public goods and services which are necessary to serve new residential developments . These municipalities will be encouraged to improve their ability to serve new developments and will be looked to for service of all new developments within their corporate areas , in annexable areas immediately adjacent to the town and even those areas not immediately available for annexation , but within a reasonable service distance from the municipality. " As indicated in the submitted application materials , the lack of a municipal wastewater treatment plant is the major growth constraint in the town at the present time . It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that this request will be able to accommodate future growth desired by the Town of Severance . Town of Severance SUP-361 : 78 : 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION March 6 , 1979 2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the proposed operation is in compliance with the provisions of Sections 3 . 3(E) (2) and 6 . 1(9) of the Weld County Zoning Resolution . The proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding area, in harmony with the character of the neighborhood and existing agricultural uses , compatible with the future development in the area and will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county. This determination is based upon the following: A. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the location , operation and maintenance of the proposed wastewater treatment facility as set forth in the Special Use Permit application and as controlled by the Development Standards attached hereto will minimize adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the area to the greatest extent possible and therefore provide adequate protection of the health , safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county . B. The following referral entities have reviewed the current proposal and have set forth no objections to it : 1 . The Colorado Department of Health 2 . The Weld County Health Department 3 , The West Greeley Soil Conservation Service 4 . The Colorado Geological Survey 5 . The Weld County Engineering Department 6 . Loop Reservoir Company Specific concerns and/or recommendations of the referral entities are addressed, where applicable , in the attached Development Standards , The Planning Commission recommendation for approval is conditional upon : 1. Submittal of a program on or before March 20 , 1979 which identifies methods for monitoring groundwater quality in the immediate vicinity of the wastewater treatment facility . 2 , Submittal of a program on or before March 20 , 1979 which defines provisions for back-up aerators in the event of equipment failure . Town of Severance SUP-361 ; 78 ; 13 PLANNING COWMISSION RECOMMENDATION March 6 , 1979 Items 1 and 2 have been requested by the Weld County Health Department in its letter dated February 28 , 1979 : 3 . The adoption of the attached Development Standards which are designed to set certain standards for the location , operation and maintenance of the proposed wastewater treatment facility . 4 . No building or electrical permits being issued on the Special Use Permit area until the approved Development Standards have been placed on the Special Use Permit plat and said plat has been delivered to the office of the Department of Planning Services . TOWN OF SEVERANCE SUP DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. The permitted use on the hereon described Special Use Permit area shall be a wastewater treatment facility and all other uses permitted by right under Section 3. 3B of the Weld County Zoning Resolution. The facilities shall be limited to what is shown hereon. 2. All phases of the wastewater treatment facility and operations shall conform with all applicable County, State and Federal Health Standards and Regulations and any other applicable rules and regulations of government bodies having jurisdiction on the premises. A. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit from the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Divi- sion. Also, the applicant shall be responsible for obtaining design approval from the above agency for the proposed waste- water treatment facility. B. All phases of the operation shall conform to permissible noise levels as stated in 25-12-103, CRS, 1973. C. The applicant shall be responsible for adhering to the pro- visions of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission' s Regulation No. 2. 3. The Wastewater Treatment Facility shall be flood-proofed to one foot above the elevation of the Intermediate Regional Flood. 4. Lighting provided for security and night operation on the site shall be designed so that the lighting will not adversely affect surrounding property owners. 5. All accesses shall have the approval of the Weld County Engineer- ing Department . All accesses shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations and/or requirements of the Weld County Engineering Department . 6. All design and construction shall conform to applicable local, state and national building codes. 7. All structures shall comply with the minimum setback requirements as de fined in Section 3. 14 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution. 8. Signs warning the public that the site is a wastewater treatment facility shall be placed on all sides of the facility. All warning signs shall be of sufficient size to be read at a distance of 200 feet . 14 ,m+.wS-. rr ._y ..s r .. v s . : ..� ... . f az- _•'• „vn•� .. - ..�... �aw r w .. _T v ..� .fi. r'..�-r 5 rl O O • 9. The Special Use Permit area shall be maintained in such a manner so as to prevent soil erosion, fugitive dust and growth of noxious weeds. The site shall be maintained in such a manner as to present a neat and well kept appearance. 10. A six foot high chain link fence shall be located around the perimeter of the treatment lagoons. 11. The lagoons identified as Cells 1 and 2 shall be lined with Bentonite to prevent infiltration from high groundwater as well as seepage from the lagoons. 12. (Reserved for groundwater quality monitoring program. ) 13. (Reserved for back-up aerator system. ) 14. The Special Use Permit shall be limited to the plans shown here- on and governed by the Development Standards stated above and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Any material deviations from the plans and/or Development Standards as shown or stated above shall require the approval of an amendment to the Special Use Permit by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans and/or Develop- ment Standards shall be permitted. Any other changes from the plans and/or Development Standards shall be filed in the Office of the Department of Planning Services. 74 , . . Comments : 1. The Weld County Health Department has requested in its letter dated February 28, 1979, that a full explanation of the down- stream use of the Law Ditch from the point of discharge. The applicant should work directly with the Health Department in supplying the requested information. 2. To date, our office has received letters of opposition to this request . We have also received a petition in support of the proposed request submitted with the application. Copies of these items are in the attached materials. 74 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date May 16, 1978 Case No. SUP#361 : 78 : 13 APPLICATION OF Town of Severance ADDRESS P.O. Box 5, Severance, CO 80547 Moved by Marge Yost that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the appli- cation for site approval of Wastewater Treatment Facility covering the following described property in Weld County, Colorado, to-wit: Continued be recommended Mixa l yXmatax) toXI itx 'Xlit xxacctKximoiKa for the following reasons: 1. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that there is insufficient evidence available to fully evaluate this application in regard to its effect upon the immediate area, its effect upon the future development of the area, and the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the County. This determination is based on: A. The Weld County Health Department, in a letter dated May 1 , 1978, is requesting further clarification and explanation regarding the probability and effective- ness of the bentonite seal to be used in the first cell. Also, they are concerned that the second cell has no seal proposed, again allowing for the possi- bility of ground water contamination. Motion seconded by Irma White Vote: For Passage J. Ben Nix Against Passage Percy Hiatt (abstained) Jerry Kiefer Irma White Marge Yost Bette Kountz The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Kathryn M. Hrouda , Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Color- ado, adopted on May 16, 1978 and recorded in Book No. III of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission. Dated the_ 18th day of May _ , 1978 . )-/ Secr tary? - Town of Severance SUP-361 :78 : 13 P. C. RECOMMENDATION May 16, 1978 B. The Colorado Geological Survey and the West Greeley Soil Conservation District has not made a full evalu- ation of/or a recommendation on the proposed request prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. C. The applicant has not supplied evidence of acquiring permission from the Loup Reservoir Company to dis- charge the treated effluent into Law Ditch. D. The applicant has not provided adequate evidence considered necessary to document legal interest in the property on which the application has been made. 2. The Planning Commission recommends the application be continued until the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 6, 1978, to provide time for the applicant to address concerns posed by the Weld County Health Depart- ment, to provide time for the applicant to meet with the Loup Reservoir Company concerning the discharging of treated effluent into the Law Ditch, to provide time for the applicant to furnish adequate evidence of legal interest in the subject property, and to provide time for the Colorado Geological Survey and West Greeley Conservation District to adequately evaluate and comment on this request . • The Weld County Planning Commission held a scheduled meeting on March 6 , 1979 at 1 : 30 p .m. in the Weld County Centennial Center County Commissioners Hearing Room, first floor, 915 10th Street , Greeley, Colorado . Roll Call was as follows•, Chuck Carlson Present Ben Nix Present • Jerry Kiefer Present Frank Suckla Present Jim Gilbert Present Fred Otis Present Percy Hiatt Present Irma White Present Bette Kountz Present Also present were : Tom Honn , Zoning Administrator Chuck Cunliffe , Assistant Zoning Administrator Russ Anson , Assistant County Attorney As a quorum was present the meeting proceeded as scheduled . Chairman Carlson called for a motion to approve the minutes of February 20, 1979 . Mr. Kiefer made a motion to accept the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Percy Hiatt . A vote of "aye" was cast by all present to accept the minutes . Motion carried. APPLICANT; East Greeley Land Company CASE NUMBER! S -156 !79 : 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . SW*, Section 10 , T5N, R66W LOCATION; Northeast corner of the intersection of 20th Street and 59th Avenue (County Road 31) SUBJECT! Final Plat - Hiland Knolls Subdivision APPEARANCE; Jay Freese, Ernie Scott DISCUSSION: Mr, Freese is representing Ernie Scott and Carroll Deacon for the final plat . There were no questions asked or comments made at this time . Tom Hqnn then read the staff ' s recommendation for approval of the final plat . In responding to the staff ' s recommendation, Mr . Freese stated that basically everything has been completed as required or almost so. He did, however, want the developer to speak to Item #2 which requires a fee be paid in lieu of land required for public sites and/or open spaces. At this time Ernie Scott commented that he had no prior knowledge of the fee required until just before the Planning Commission meeting and could not understand why the staff had not con- tacted him about it . Tom Honn then sited Section 8 , Design Standards and Section 8-15 of the Subdivision Regulations which deals wtih this matter and the alternatives . Jay Freese stated also that the applicant should have been notified much earlier about the park fees . He also stated that this property will probably be annexed to the City of Greeley which would be double jeopardy of fees and that this will not benefit the subdivision. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to table the application until the Planning Commission hearing scheduled for March 20 , 1979 . Motion by Jim Gilbert , seconded by Ben Nix. A vote of "aye" was cast by Percy Hiatt , Jim Gilbert , Ben Nix, Fred Otis , Jerry Kiefer, Frank Suckla, Irma White , Bette Kountz and Chuck Carlson . Motion carried. Planning Commission I' ___utes ' Page 2 March 6 , 1979 APPLICANT: Lillian V. Bird CASE NUMBER: S-157 : 79: 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . SW*, Section 16 , T5N, R66W LOCATION: 2420 71st Avenue, Greeley SUBJECT: Final Plat - Bird Subdivision APPEARANCE: Martin Bird DISCUSSION: This final plat is for nine lots on 11. 99 acres of land. The preliminary plan for the subdivision was approved by the Planning Commission on November 21, 1978 . Proceedings were begun approximately one year ago for the subdivision . Mr. Bird commented he was aware of the park fee and that they are semi-acceptable. He did, however , want to question the valuation of land and what type of money was placed per acre that he was not informed of . Chuck Cunliffe then read the staff ' s recommendation for approval of the request . Mr . Bird then said that he has been working with the County Engineering Department regarding the amount of the bond to be placed with the county .. The bond would be placed for the streets and pavement only and deleting the water mains . Since a bond is extremely hard to obtain , the water mains are not a major issue in this regard. Chuck Cunliffe stated he had not received anything from the- Engineering Deoartment in this regard. This matter would have to be decided at the Board of County Commissioners hearing. Ben Nix stated that he did not recall a figure amount in the past regarding the Planning Commission ' s recommendation on public sites and open spaces . Chuck Cunliffe responded that Ken McWilliams had been placing the park fee and the bond requirement on the recommendation to the Planning Commission when he was the Assistant Zoning Administrator . Since Chuck is now the Assistant Zoning Administrator this has not been included in the Planning Commission packets . This has since changed and they will not appear in the packets . Mr . Nix asked what formula is used to come up with a dollar amount in different areas . Gil Olson of the County Engineering Department at this time said that he tried to come up with a fair market value, but comparable sales were hard to come up with in the area. He did, however, find a sale that was made in 1973 . This was appreciated at 3/4% per month to come up with the value that was submitted to the Planning staff . This amount was based on dock fees only. Jim Gilbert said he does not think this is a fair way of arriving at these figures and that there ought to be a better tool to use to arrive at them. Jay Freese also said that he feels the fees are not equitable and not fair to all concerned. Discussion followed regarding the park fees. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval based on the staff ' s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners . Motion by Jerry Kiefer, seconded by Frank Suckla. A vote of "aye" was cast by Percy Hiatt , Ben Nix, Jerry Kiefer, Jim Gilbert , Frank Suckla, Irma White, Bette Kountz, and Chuck Carlson . Fred Otis cast a vote of "no" . Motion carried. Planning Commission M tes Page 3 - March 6 , 1979 APPLICANT: Town of Severance CASE NUMBER: S,156 ! 79t1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . SEY , Section 2 , T6N, R67W LOCATION: Adjacent to the southern boundary of the Town of Severance SUBJECT: Wastewater Treatment facility APPEARANCE : Lowell Hummels , Mayor of Severance ; Bill Heller DISCUSION: Mr. Hummels stated that the Town of Severance has been trying to get a wastewater treatment facility for approximately 11 years \ The problem that they have relates to high groundwater and the exclusive use of septic tanks in the town at present . It is a recognized problem by the County Health Department . In 1977 COG prepared a technical plan to evaluate the alternatives for the town as well as several other small communities. It was found that there was funding possibilities through the State and Farmers Home Administration. The majority of the populatio in Severance is over the age of 65 and felt a strong responsibility to th t population . The technical work is now complete . Specifications and plan have been submitted to the Colorado Department of Health and Farmers Home Administration. The documents have been approved. There being no questions or comments at this time , Tom Honn read the staf ' s recommendati n for approval and the Development Standards . Bill Heller, project engineer, then presented some of the technical information on the project such as the aerator capacity, why this particular site was chosen keeping in mind that the primary concern was gravity flow into the plant ; floodplain analysis; bentonite seal of the groundwater; downstream use of water; and the vegetative plan. This facility will eventually serve 800 people . He also stated that the lago n facility will be fenced With barbed wire . The Development SLandards recommend a chain link fence. At this time the hearing was Opened to audience participation . Bob Buderus expressed concern regarding contaminants in the water, whether o not they are prepared for the 100 year flood, what would happen if the Loop Reservoir dries up , are they prepared for an emergency power outag ; and will there be sampling of discharge water and the cost involved. Loren Felte stated he would rather have a chain link fence instead of a barbed wire fence as stated earlier by Mr. Heller. Mr. Heller responde to the Mr. Buderus ' comments in that the water will be sampled as required; there is no emergency power. The system operates on the gravity princ'ple and power is not required. In regard to draught , Mr. Heller commented/that the discharge effluent does not require it to be diluted with any othe water. Discussion followed regarding floodproofing as questioned by rr. Suckla. John Hall was asked by Mr. Nix to comment on any problems he foresees in the proposal . Mr. Hall briefly stated he is concerned w. h groundwater contamination and odors . Discussion followed. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval with the Development Standards and conditions based on the staff ' s recommend tion to the Board of County Commissioners . Motion by Percy Hiatt , secon ed by Jim Gilbert . A vote of "aye" was cast by Percy Hiatt , Ben Nix, Fred Otis , Jerry Kiefer, Jim Gilbert , Irma White , Bette Kountz, and Chuck Car son . A vote of "no" was cast by Frank Suckla. Motion carried. , ,Planning Commission Mi tes Page 4 March 6 , 1979 APPLICANT: Northmoor Acres Metropolitan District LEGAL DESCRIPTION! Northmoor Acres Subdivision 1st and 2nd Filings Pt , S , Section 24 , T4N, R681v LOCATION; Approximately 3 miles southwest of Johnstown SUBJECT; Service Plan APPEARANCE: Kim Lawrence and Doug Murray DISCUSSION! Mr, Lawrence stated that this is a request for approval of the Service Plan for the Northmoor Acres Metropolitan District . This approval is required before members of the District can supply petitions to the District Court calling for an election to create the District . The purpose of the District would be to provide water to the members-of the District for irrigation of the 1 acre plats in the subdivision and also possible fire protection in the future . The Association also owns the water rights listed in the Service Plan and the purpose is to utilize the water rights to the benefit of every member in the Association . Currently the water rights are available to only certain members of the Association who are close to the ditch. Russ Anson then explained why the request is before the Planning Commission for their recommendation and read the Statute that applies for the criteria involved. Doug Murray , President of the Northmoor Acres Homeowners Association , explained what had occured up to the present time regarding meeting with the homeowners of the sub- division and obtaining their approval or denial . Tom Honn then read the staff ' s recommmendation for approval of the request . Mr. Nix asked what the cost would be to the individual homeowner. Mr. Murray responded that if the homeowner taps onto thesystem the first year it would be S100 and $300 the second year, etc. Mr. Carlson then asked for any comments from anyone in the audience . At this time Roger Olsen expressed his opposition because he does not feel it is economically feasible . He thinks it should be decided if it is needed and whether or not it will provide an economical service . Discussion followed regarding the actual amount of water available and the need for the District . Floyd Tremble , property owner in Northmoor Acres , also discussed the availability of water and storage capacities . Tom Honn commented that there seems to be a question as to whether or not there is available water as presented in the applicant ' s proposal and said that the staff would like to withdraw its recommendation. Discussion again followed. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval because it should not be up to the Planning Commission to say that they should deny these people a right to go ahead and work out some of their problems . It should be up to them to determine whether they want this or not by a vote of the people . Motion by Frank Suckla, seconded by Fred Otis . A vote of "aye" was cast by Fred Otis , Frank Suckla, Irma White and Bette Kountz. A vote of "no" was cast by Percy, Hiatt , Ben Nix, Jerry Kiefer, and Chuck Carlson . An abstention vote was cast by Jim Gilbert . The request was not approved because of the 4 to 4 vote . There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Shirley A. Phillips Planning Commission Secretary • The Weld County Planning Commmission held a scheduled meeting on June 6 , 1978 , at 10 : 00 a.m. in the Weld County Centennial Center County Commissioners Hearing Room, 915 10th Street , Greeley , Colorado . Roll Call was as follows : Chuck Carlson Present Ben Nix Present Harry Ashley Present Percy Hiatt Present Bette Kountz Present Irma White Present Frank Suckla 'Present Jerry Kiefer Present Marge Yost Absent Also present were : Gary Z. Fortner, Director of Planning Tom Honn , Zoning Administrator Chuck Cunliffe , Assistant Zoning Administrator• Kay Norton , Assistant County Attorney As a quorum was present , the meeting proceeded as scheduled. The minutes of the May 2 , 1978, meeting were unanimously approved . APPLICANT : Eagles Nest Gun Club CASE NUMBER: CUP-35 : 78 :4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . Sections 17 and 18, T4N, R62W LOCATION: 13 miles southeast of Kersey SUBJECT: Gun Club and Game Reserve APPEARANCE: Joe Smith DISCUSSION: Mr. Smith , agent for the Eagles Nest Gun Club, stated that the request is to place a mobile home on the property to be used as a club house for the club. There are approximately 12 members in the club who would be using the facility. There being no questions or comments at this time, Chuck Cunliffe read the staff 's recommendation for approval and the Development Standards . There was some discussion regarding the two irrigation ditches that go through the property in question . Mr. Suckla asked how many acres are involved and was told 225 acres by Chuck Cunliffe . Mr. Suckla indicated he was concerned for the use of the land other than agriculture in regard to noxious weed control . Not much can be done to control these noxious weeds . Mr. Smith said they would take adequate measures and work with the control to control the weeds . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners with the Development Standards based on the staff ' s recommendation . Motion by Ben Nix, seconded by Bette Kountz. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson, Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, Irma White and Harry Ashley . Motion carried. APPLICANT: Lovemont Investment Company CASE NUMBER: S-148: 78 : 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . NW*, Section 26, T3N, R68W LOCATION: Southeast corner of the intersections of I-25 and State Highway 66 SUBJECT: Final Plat - Farmers Mart Subdivision . Planning Commissio inuCes Page 2 June 6 , 1078 DISCUSSION: Chuck Cunliffe stated that he had spoke with the applicant the morning of June 6 , 1978, at which time he was told the applicant is having problems with the application and did not plan to attend today' s Planning Commission meeting. Chuck Cunliffe then read the staff ' s recommendation for continuing the hearing to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 20 , 1978. At this time Bob Rademacher, surrounding property owners to the south , stated he was concerned with the property value of his home and that since they have small children they would like to have the access only on State Highway 66 . He also feels there could be drainage problems as there is a low spot and he does not see how they could drain it . Some discussion followed. Chuck Cunliffe stated that a retention pond is proposed for the southeast corner of the property. The County Engineering Department at this time is requesting further clarification in this regard. He also stated that they have worked with the State Highway Department and they have approved an access on the frontage road on I-25. Some discussion followed regarding the drainage problem. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to continue the hearing to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 20, 1978 , based on the staff ' s recommendation. Motion by Harry Ashley , seconded by Ben Nix. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz , Irma White and Harry Ashley. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Town of Frederick CASE NUMBER: SUP-363 : 78: 15 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . SE* NE*, Section 32 , T2N, R67W LOCATION: l mile east of Frederick SUBJECT: Treated Water Storage Tank APPEARANCE : Bill Schuler, Rocky Mountain Consultants DISCUSSION: Mr. Schuler stated' that the Town of Frederick desires to upgrade their existing water supply . The project includes enlarge- ment of the present raw water reservoir and construction of a 12" treated water line to the tank and construction of a 300, 000 gallon storage tank at a cost of $118, 000. The Town of Frederick has made application for and received approval of a grant from the Farmers Home Administration for this project . The new storage tank is badly needed by the town as the present one is undersized and very inadequate for future development of the town . This particular site was chosen because of the high elevation in respect to the town . As a result it will increase the water pressure to the town. This increased pressure will substantially upgrade the town ' s water service and provide much needed increased water pressure for fire protection . There are two existing tanks presently adjacent to the site owned by Central Weld Water Dis t:rich which are directly south of the site . The tank will be constructed of reinforced concrete and will be landscaped with native grasses and trees with a securtiy fence around the area. It will be 52" diameter and 23" feet above the existing ground surface. Discussion followed in regard to where the watter will come from and the water pressure . Mr. Hiatt asked for an explanation of the preference of concrete over steel for the tank. Mr. Schuler responded that their firm believes concrete tanks are better for a longer period of time. Planning Cor,imissior "inutes Pago 3 June 6 , 1978 There also is very little maintenance problems with the linings, coatings and corrosion . A steel tank would be more economical if it were smaller than the one proposed. There being no further questions at this time , Chuck Cunliffe read the staff 's recommendation for approval and the Development Standards. Mr. Nix expressed concern with regard to the financial responsibility of the water district . No further discussion or comments. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval with the Development Standards to the Board of County Commissioners based on the staff ' s recommendation . Motion by Jerry Kiefer, seconded by Irma White . A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, Irma White and Harry Ashley. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Town of Severance Removed from Agenda - Applicant does not have legal interest in property. Presentation of the Master Plan for the Town of LaSalle APPEARANCE: Ann Thayer, Planner DISCUSSION: Miss Thayer presented copies of the LaSalle Master Plan to members of the Planning Commissioners for their review and then briefly outlined the physical features , population , community services and facilities, land use , transportation and housing sections of the plan with the use of the Future Land Use map . After the presentation Chairman Carlson asked whether or not there were any mobile homes in Town of LaSalle . Miss Thayer responded there are none , but there is one that has been incorporated onto a standard size lot with land- scaping and put on a foundation . It has the appearance of a conventional home . There are no provisions for a mobile home park in LaSalle . Discussion followed regarding the 1st Avenue road which crosses the Union Pacific railroad tracks . There was also some discussion regarding the School District of LaSalle and when plans are to become a separate school district . MOTION: Be it therefore recommended to endorse the policies included in the LaSalle Master Plan. Motion by Ben Nix, seconded by Jerry Kiefer. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, Irma White , and Harry Ashley . Motion carried. APPLICANT : IIill-n-Park, Inc. CASE NUMBER: S-147: 78 :4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION : Lot 22 , Block 7 and Out lot 13, I1il 1 -n-Park 2nd Filing LOCATION: 4614 Grand Canyon Drive, Hill-n-Park Subdivision SUBJECT: Replat APPEARANCE: Joe Ramey DISCUSSION: Mr. Ramey stated that this property was given to Mrs . Virginia Schadegg seven years ago. She would now like to sell the property and have it replatted so it will all be one lot . There being no questions at this time, Chuck Cunliffe read the staff ' s recommendation for approval . Mr. Ranet stated that the property has been sold and was bought through Urban Renewal. No further discussion . Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 6 , 1978 MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval based on the staff ' s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Motion by Jerry Kiefer, seconded by Bette Kountz. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz, Irma White , and Harry Ashley . Motion carried . APPLICANT: City of Greeley CASE NUMBER: SUP-362 : 78 : 14 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . Nz SE-, Section 11, T5N, R65W LOCATION: Northeast of the intersection of East 18th Street and Holly Street SUBJECT: Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant APPEARANCE: Dennis Sandretto DISCUSSION : Mr. Sandrett , consulting engineering with CH2M Hill for the City of Greeley, presented the background information on the proposal by use of a slide presentation which included the site selection process, gravel deposits , floodplain , and the proposed layout of the plant . This particular site was selected because it is out of the 100 year floodplain , has good vehicle access roads , is the most cost- effective location for serving the region , is situated the farthest away from densely populated areas, stiff clay is less prevalent than at other sites in the delta area, the historic and archaelogical importance of the site appears insignificant and there are less gravel resources at the selected site than at other potential sites within the area. In regard to re—development costs , it was found that there was an economic value over the cost of mining at the present prices. Mr. Sandretto quoted a letter from Flatiron Paving which stated that it was not a deposit that would be economical to mine and also quoted from a letter by the President of Mountain Aggregates who mined at East 16th Street and gave it up after incurring a loss. Borings were taken at the site which indicated that there was not a significant amount of gravel at the location . There being no questions at this time , Tom Ilonn read the staff ' s recommendation for continuing the meeting to July 5, 1978. Mr. Sandretto then comments that they have had difficulty working with the State of Colorado regarding commercial mineability. They have found that the only thing they can find with regard to commercial mineability is the overburden ratio which the delta area has a favorable amount of. Darrell Alleman stated that he feels they have already addressed the concerns of the staff already and do not see where else they could go to get new information . Chairman Carlson then asked for comments from the audience . Glenn Billings, representing the Greeley Chamber of Commerce and the Legislative Committee on Local Development comments that these groups unanimously endorsed the location of the proposed site . Ray Robert , attorney representing the Delta Environmental Protectigp. Association , stated that the ' approval Greeley has received from-tUVAt contingent upon county approval of the site for the plant . The State Water quality Control Commission likewise did not approve the site or take any action until the county had a chance to review the application . He also stated that the gravel issue is not the only issue before the county and the Planning. . John Wheeler spoke in opposition of the Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 June (3, 1978 proposed site because he feels the site is probably within the 100 year floodplain, the access roads are limited and in poor condition, expansion of the 1st Avenue site is an alternative equally cost effective, and the gravel resources of the site are considerable and therefore Colorado Revised Statute 34-1-305 will probably prohibit construction of the plant on that site . IIe also showed the Planning Commission members an aerial map indicating where the flood of 1973 occurred on the John Forester property and where the levee was built . As a result of this, Mr. Wheeler feels that the proposed site is in a floodplain area. He also commented on the diameter of the test holds which were used on the Dill property by CH2M Hill . They stated a 3" diameter auger was used for the borings , but Mr. Wheeler said that nothing could have been brought up larger than a 1" diameter because that was the largest diameter of the inside of the test pipe used. Elmer Jones , President of DEPA, spoke in opposition of the proposal because he feels there is a good market value for the sand and gravel . He also stated that the boring test taken was not accurate because the inside diameter of the sleeve that was not mentioned is only 1". He also found a considerable difference in the cost of pit run gravel . As stated by the applicant it is priced at $1 . 10 to $1. 20 a ton and Mr. Jones found it to be priced at $1. 50 per ton . He also read a letter from the State Department of Highways which stated that material of the type found in the floodplain of the South Platte River contains abundant amounts of fine graded sand and gravel . IIe also read a letter from M. E. Davidson which stated that for the last seven years sand and gravel was taken from a pit mile south of the proposed site. Don Miller, representing the City Council and Town of Kersey, spoke in opposition primarily because of odors and also because of property values in the area. The City of Kersey recommends that the City of Greeley build at the 1st Avenue site. Other persons speaking in opposition of the proposal were Mrs. W. C. Matthews-primarily opposed because of possible flooding and health problems _ that are possible. She was also concerned because only one person had contacted her in regard to the proposal; Mary Scofield because of the ground water problem and sludge ; Glen Cobb because of possible flooding and possibility of fog; Charles Schmidt was concerned with sludge and where it will go; Robert Frank was concerned with the odor problem and that it is very close to the airport. Mr. Sandretto responded to the concerns of the above by stating that according to reports and studies they are not in a floodplain area, the test taken for samples of the area is a commonly used method, there will be no damage to the wells from the treatment plant because there will be no seepage from the units outward. There was some concern expressed about the water rights on Patterson ditch . Mr. Sandretto said that no water rights will be injured as they know they exist . He also commented that the Matthews had been contacted and that the city would like to purchase their property. Property values will probably be increased as a result of the plant ; the County is currently applying sludge to land and there will be very little fog involved. Mr. John Smith stated that Mr. Sandretto failed to make any mention of odor problems which might be expected. Mr. Sandretto stated that those facilities which typically cause odors will be covered and those facilities which do not need to be covered will be Planning Commission "°' nines Page G June G , 1078 designed to accept them if necessary. Dorothy Zabka stated she felt it should be moved away from the people, the city and agricultural farm land as it was proposed in 1965. However, George Hall stated that at that time it was possible to, but not now because of cost . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to continue the meeting until the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 5 , 1978 , based on the staff ' s recommendation. Motion by Ben Nix, seconded by Bette Kountz. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson , Ben Nix, Frank Suckla, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt , Bette Kountz and Harry Ashley. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Best-Way Paving Company, etal CASE NUMBER: SUP-347 : 77 :21 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . NE , Section 2 , T5N, R66W LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of 35th Avenue and 4th Street SUBJECT: Openr Cut Mining Permit for Gravel Pit APPEARANCE : Tom Connell DISCUSSION: Kay Norton briefly explained what has occurred with the application up to the present time. Tom Honn then explained to the Planning Commission members that a meeting was held on May 11, 1978, with representatives of Best-Way Paving Company, opponents of the proposal and the Planning staff to discuss and attempt to reach an agreement regarding the setback of the berm on the west side of the property; type, quality and number of trees regarding the landscaping of the berm; and type of fencing to be utilized. As a result of this meeting, the only agreement reached was the type and quality of trees for the landscaping which would be 6 ' pine-like trees at approximately 200 ' intervals with seedlings to be planted at approximately 30 ' intervals. The amended set of Development Standards was then read by Mr. Honn and shown in map from by Chuck Cunliffe. Tom Connell then stated that he understood the Development Standards and found them to be acceptable . Robert Foose, surrounding property owner, again expressed opposition because the proposal is in a residential area and feels the landscaping, berms , etc. are inadequate . Vicki Reed and Larry Wikholm expressed concern with the proposed buffering. Mariana Reed then asked for clarification of when the trees and seedlings will be planted and the berms are to be constructed. Tom Honn explained that construction will begin within six months of approval by the State Mined Reclamation Board. Discussion followed. Vicki Reed also asked if the fencing and the berms on 4th Street would be extended onto the Ruyle ' s existing property to the tree line which had previously been brought up at another hearing. Chuck Cunliffe stated that there is a letter in the Planning Commission packets which states that the Ruyle ' s have given permission to Best-Way Paving Company to extend the berms and fencing onto their property. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval based on the staff ' s recommendation with the Development Standards to the Board of County Commissioners . Motion by Jerry Kiefer, seconded by Ben Nix. A vote of "aye" by Chuck Carlson, Ben Nix, Jerry Kiefer, Percy Hiatt and Bette Kountz. Motion carried. Plnning Commission " ' nuLos P;a};u 7 June 6 , 14)78 APPLICANT: Charyles Ryberg CASE NUMBER: VI-63 : 77 : 11 Removed from Agenda There being no further business , the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Shirley A. Phillips 4 The Weld County Planning Commission held a scheduled meeting on May 16 , 1978 , at 10 : 00 a.m. in the Weld County Centennial Center , County Commissioners ' Hearing Room, 915 - 10th Street , Greeley, Colorado. Roll Call was as follows : Chuck Carlson Absent Ben Nix Present Jerry Kiefer Present Perry Hiatt Present I rm:r White Present P7:r r•gc Yost Present Bette Kountz Present Harry Ashley Absent Frank Suckla Absent Also present were : Gary Z. Fortner, Director of Planning Chuck Cunliffe, Assistant Zoning Administrator Cathy E. Carter, Zoning Violation Inspector Kay Norton, Assistant County Attorney As a quorum was present , the meeting proceeded as scheduled. The minutes of the May 2, 1978, meeting were unanimously approved. APPLICANT : Bernard Hoogland CASE NUMBER: SUP-358 : 78 : 10 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW* Section 3, T4N, R68W LOCATION: 4 miles west and 1 mile north of Johnstown SUBJECT: Dairy Operation APPEARANCE : Gerritt Hoogland, father of Bernard Hoogland DISCUSSION: Mr. Gerritt Hoogland stated that he and his son are from Minnesota, and wish to start a dairy on the property due to the difference in weather between the two states. IIe also stated that this was an excellent location compared to that in Minnesota. There being no questions from the Planning Commission , Chuck Cunliffe read the staff ' s recommendation for approval and the Development Standards . There were no audience statements of approval or disapproval for this request . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners based on the staff ' s recommendation. Motion by Jerry Kiefer , seconded by Bette Kountz. A vote of "aye" by Ben Nix, Percy Hiatt , Jerry Kiefer , Irma White, Marge Yost , and Bette Kountz. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Continental Pipeline Company CASE NUMBER: SUP-359 : 78 : 11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt. NW* Section 20, T2N, R66W LOCATION: 2i miles north of Ft . Lupton SUBJECT: Oil Storage Facility/Amending SUP-188 : 73 : 3 APPEARANCE: John Rollins , District Manager for Continental Pipeline DISCUSSION: Mr. Rollins stated that Continental Pipeline Company is operating a crude oil pipeline gathering and transportation system supplying the refineries in Cheyenne and Denver. IIe slated that they were requesting an amendment to SUP-188 to allow them to exp:incl the unpacI ty of the Lation operated Co h:Ln(LIu the incrc:isi d * Planning Commiss Minutes May 16 , 1978 Page 2 amounts of crude oil gathered in the Ft . Lupton spindle fields. The tanks will provide additional storage and a service to the shippers . He also explained that they are a common, carrier regulated by a number of governmental agencies, and that the current facilities are in compliance with the regulations of these agencies . He emphasized that the proposed expansion would also be in compliance. The nature or the expansion is storage and Pumping units to more efficiently and safely handle the volumes now gathered. There being no questions from the Planning Commission at this time, Chuck Cunliffe read the staff ' s recommendation for approval and the Development Standards. Staff comments were also read at this time stating that one letter of opposition had been received from Mr . a Mrs. Ralph Elliott , surrounding property owners, stating their reasons for disapproval those being : too close to their home and other buildings on the property , dangerous and hazardous, the existing tank is noisy and already blocks their view to the east . Irma White asked as to the location of the facility to the Elliott ' s property. Chuck Cunliffe stated that the property was located to the west of the facility between Highway 85 and the UPRR tracks. Mr. Nix asked Mr. Rollins if they had been made aware of the objection . Mr. Rollins stated that they were not aware of it until the morning of the meeting. Mr. Nix then questioned as to relocation of the site. Mr. Rollins answered that the current location or possible relocation would be difficult to accomplish without incurring conerns and objections from surrounding property owners. He also stated that the reasons for locating at this area was that expansion of an existing facility was less expensive in terms of investment , and that manpower already exists at this facility. He stated that Continental Pipeline felt that it would be in the community ' s best interest to expand an already established facility rather than having to develop in a new area. Mr. Kiefer asked if they had already obtained an SUP for the existing tank. Mr . Rollins stated that they had, and that this was simply for the addition of a tank. Mr. Nix inquired as to an addi- tional noise factor with this tank. Mr. Rollins explained that it would not , stating that the additional pumping unit was simply to accomodate the various kinds of crude oil . He also stated that the number of pumps running at the same time would remain at the current level . Percy Hiatt added that he had no objections to the proposed expansion . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners based on the staff ' s recommendation. Moved by Percy Hiatt , seconded by Irma White . A vote of "aye" by Ben Nix , Percy Hiatt , Jerry Kiefer, Irma White, Marge Yost , and Bette Kountz. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Amoco Production Company CASE NUMBER: SUP-360 : 78 : 12 LEGAL DESCRIPTION : PL . SW; SecLion 34 , T2N, R67W LOCATION: 1 miles east or Frederick - northeast corner of Lhe inter- sec Lion i on or County Roads 14 and 19 ' Planning Commiss Minutes May 16, 1978 Page 3 SUBJECT: Spindle Plant Enlargement/Amending SUP-314 : 77 : 19 APPEARANCE : Lou Gaskins , Attorney for Amoco Production John Lang, Senior Staff Engineer DISCUSSION: Lou Gaskins, Attorney , stated that the request was to expand the Spindle Gas Processing facility which will permit the additional processing of natural gas and increase the recovery of LPG products. Mr . Gaskins then introduced John Lang who further explained their request , stating that the plant has been in exis- tence for 5 years. Mr. Lang stated that they worked on a closed system and that the only time hydrocarbons would be vented would be in the event of a problem in the plant resulting in emergency shut-down. He explained that they propose to add 1 compressor, dehydrator and regenerator, plus water protection systems for fires . He further stated that no additional water requirements or personnel would be necessitated by the enlargement . Chuck Cunliffe then read the staff ' s recommendation of approval and the Development Standards. Staff comments were also read at this time stating that the Tri-Area Planning Commission has recommended denial based on the following : they felt the additional buildings can be built on the existing property, the danger involved because of the increased capacity, more pipelines will be run across the countryside, an increase in pollution will exist , and increase in plant size will take away from the beauty of the land and the environment . Chuck Cunliffe explained that this property lies within the 3 mile radius of the Tri-Town area, and because of the meeting dates of the Planning Commission and town board, a referral was only sent to the Tri-Area Planning Commission which does have the representation of the three towns. Normally , with time per- mitting , referrals would have been sent to the three individual towns. Mr. Lang responded to the objections of the Tri-Area Planning Commission stating that Amoco felt that their objections were not justifiable. He further commented that the additional buildings would be built on the existing property, and that only 2 five acre tracts have been added for the two buildings ; one of which was for the housing of the fire protection equipment , the other enabling them to spread out the operation, both for the purposes of addi- tional safety. Concerning the pipelines, Mr . Lang explained that the additional capacity being located at the existing site will tend to reduce the number of pipelines because they can utilize the existing pipeline system rather than having to add new lines if the facility were located in a different area. Mr. Kiefer asked about the exact location of the additional building. Mr. Lang stated that the building would actually be farther away from the Tri-Area than the existing facility is. He also stated that there would be minimal additional pollution resulting from the enlarge- ment of the facility. Mr. Hiatt questioned as to the noise increase along property lines. Mr. Lang stated that the fan proposed on the compressor would lessen the noise emission from the area. He also explained that Dr. Chanaud, with Dyna-Systems , Inc. , noise consul- tants in Boulder and Denver , surveyed the operation and concluded that there would be no noticable increase in noise immediately adjacent to the compressor, with a 2 db or less increase. Mr. Hiatt asked if extra muffling was required on the present site . Mr . Lang Planning Commissi Minutes May 16, 1978 Page 4 answered that it was , and certification of compliance had been presented to the Planning Commission . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners based on the staff ' s recommendation. Moved by Marge Yost , seconded by Jerry Kiefer. A vote of "aye" by Ben Nix , Percy Hiatt , Jerry Kiefer, Irma White, Marge Yost , and Bette Koontz. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Town of Severance CASE NUMBER: SUP-361 : 78 : 13 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . SE* Section 2, T6N, R67W LOCATION: Adjacent to the southern boundary of the Town of Severance SUBJECT: Wastewater Treatment Facility APPEARANCE : Don Hoff, Attorney for the Town of Severance Bill Heller , Engineer representing the Town of Severance DISCUSSION: Mr. Heller explained that the application was for a waste- water treatment plant for the Town of Severance which, at this time, has only on-site disposal consisting of septic tanks and privies. Mr. Heller addressed the four issues stated in the staff ' s recommenda- tion, first stating the possibility of groundwater contamination explaining that bentonite seals will be placed on each of the two lagoons since a detailed soils investigation has been received by the town. Secondly, he mentioned that the exterior of the lagoons will be riff-raffed with rocks for flood protection, and that this will be shown on the final plans. Third, the Colorado Geological Survey and West Greeley Soil Conservation District submittal of recommendations , Mr . Heller stated, had been issued when the site plan was presented a year ago. He explained that the Town had been working closely with them and that he could see no problems from them. Concerning the Loup Reservoir Company allowing discharge into the ditch, Mr. Heller stated that the Town had been working with them and could anticipate no problems as they were obtaining an easement from them. Finally, regarding the documentation of legal interest in the property, he stated that the Town did not wish to start condemnation proceedings until they were certain that they could build the plant at this site. Mr . Nix asked Mr . Heller if the Town had reached an impass at this point with the property owners for acquisition of their property. Mr. Heller stated that , while it may not be an impass, that the matter is in the hands of the attor- neys. Kay Norton explained that in order for the County to grant any type of land use permit , the applicants must show some type of interest in the property , either through acquisition by sale or through initiation of condemnation proceedings. Don Hoff requested that the Planning Commission give some decision as to whether or not they would allow the Town to build the plant at this site even if the Board of County Commissioners could not issue the permit until legal interest could be shown . Kay Norton stated her disagreement with this request explaining that state statute required the Planning Commission to review the application and without legal interest in the land, they have no jurisdiction over review of the application . Chuck Cunlil' fc read the sLaff ' s recommendation For continuance of the SUP reclue:;t , ;il;;iin :cL;il. inl; the concern:; ;rciclrr,;;r;ecl by Mr . Heller Planning Commissi Minutes May 16, 1978 Page 5 previously. The floor was then opened for audience participation. Fred Felte , owning the property on which the plant is proposed, stated that he was against any proposal which would hinder agricul- tural production in the area. He also questioned as to why the Town could not put the plant on the north side of the lake due to the possibility of a flood. Carl Felte stated concerns similar to those of Fred Felte. Ron Scott , Town Council of Severance, explained that they did anticipate some growth, and that the plant would infringe upon some agricultural land, but stated that the need for the plant seemed to out-weigh the detriments. Marge Yost asked how many people the plant would accomodate. Mr. Heller stated that it is designed to handle 800 people, bu that the current population which would be handled by the wastewater treatment plant is 100. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to continue the meeting to June 6, 1978 , to allow the Town of Severance time to address the issues presented by the staff in their recommendations. A vote of "aye" by Ben Nix , Jerry Kiefer , Irma White, Marge Yost , and Bette Kountz. Percy Hiatt abstained. Motion carried. Recertification of Section III .H. 5. a of ,the Weld County Building Code as amended by the Weld County Board of Commissioners DISCUSSION: Chuck Cunliffe presented Section III .H. 5. a. of the Weld County Building Code as amended by the Board of Commissioners. He explained that the context of the Section was the same, that the amendment by the Commissioners was simplay a change in the wording that required recertification by the Planning Commission . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recertify Section III .H. 5. a. of the Weld County Building Code as amended by the Weld County Board of Commissioners. Motion by Jerry Kiefer , seconded by Irma White. A vote of "aye" by Ben Nix, Percy Hiatt , Jerry Kiefer , Irma White , Marge Yost and Bette Kountz. Motion carried. 11 : 30 recess for Planning Commission Luncheon . APPLICANT: Best-Way Paving Company etal . CASE NUMBER: SUP-347 : 77 : 21 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . NEB Section 2 , T5N, R66W LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of 35th Avenue and 4th Street SUBJECT: Open Cut Mining Permit for Gravel Pit DISCUSSION: Kay Norton, Assistant County Attorney, explained that the Planning Commission received an order the morning of May 16th signed by Judge Jonathan Hayes, ju of the District Court in which Civil Action #29-8-68 is being head relating to the rezoning action of the Board of County Commissioners on the Best-Way Paving application. The order. stated that the Planning Commission is stayed from hearing further proceedings on this matter pending the hearing on the issuance of the rezoning. 'Planning Commissi Minutes May 16 , 1978 Page 6 APPLICANT: George & Eleann Roberts CASE NUMBER: VI-68 : 77 : 16 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Carol Heights LOCATION: 21 miles east and 1 mile south of Erie SUBJECT: Junk Yard in Agricultural Zone District APPEARANCE: Eleann Roberts DISCUSSION: Cathy Carter read a summary if field inspections and reports on the property in question , and recommended that legal action be taken due to time involved in the existence of the viola- tion and an apparent lack of cooperation from the Roberts to clean up the property. Mrs. Eleann Roberts stated that the initial re- ports were wrong, stating that all vehicles have been moved off the property with the exception of 2 as of the 16th of May. Mr . Nix questioned Cathy Carter as to the last date of inspection of the property . . She answered that that was on April 13 , and that photo- graphs of July 28 , 1977 showed the same vehicles on the property as those located on the April 13th inspection. Mrs. Roberts viewed the photographs and explained that all of the vehicles pictured were removed with the exception of a van and a ' 52 Ford. Cathy Carter asked if these vehicles were licensed or if they were going to be in the near future. Mr. Roberts explained that her husband was going to restore these two vehicles before licensing and that they had complied with all other requests of the County. Marge Yost asked Mrs. Roberts about the number of vehicles on the property at the present time. Mrs . Roberts explained that all vehicles on the property were licensed and running with the exception of the van and the ' 52 Ford. Percy Hiatt asked Mrs. Roberts how long they had lived at this residence. Mr. Roberts replied that they had been here for 15 years. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved that due to the number of vehicles moved off of the property , that it be recommended to the staff that an additional inspection be made and report of that inspection given to the Planning Commission so final decision can be made as to the status of the property . Motion by Jerry Kiefer , seconded by Irma White. A vote of "aye" by Ben Nix, Percy Hiatt , Jerry Kiefer , Irma White, Marge Yost , and Bette Kountz. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Walter and Pauline Thompson CASE NUMBER: VI-69 : 77 : 17 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: WL Lot 6 , Carol Heights LOCATION: 2 miles east and 1 mile south of Erie SUBJECT: Junk Yard in Agricultural Zone District APPEARANCE: Walter Thompson DISCUSSION: Cathy Carter read a summary of field inspections and reports on the property in question , and recommended that legal action be taken due to time involved in the existence of the violation and an apparent lack of cooperation from the Thompsons to clean up the property. Mr. Thompson responded to the violation and explained that all vehicles on the property are currently licensed with the exception of a 1940 Willy , considered a classic , and a 1959 GMC Van used as storage and appraised by the assessor as an appurtenant building to I.he property. Also on the property ' . ' Planning Commissi-.. Minutes May 16 , 1978 Page 7 is a 1965 Plymouth Baracuda, and all vehicles are operational and have all parts with the exception of batteries. Mr. Thompson also stated that he is willing to license the remaining vehicles to comply with the County ' s requests. Mr. Nix questioned as to the number of vehicles currently on the property. Mr. Thompson responded that there were 7 cars on the property, 2 of which are driven constantly, 3 other which are licensed, and the previously mentioned 2 which are the Van and the Willy, which are unlicensed. Mr. Thompson stated his willingness to clean up the property and Mrs. White asked as to the time needed to finish this process. Mr. Thompson stated that 30 days should be adequate time to complete this. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved that a 30 day time extension be given to Mr. Thompson to clean up miscellaneous materials and license the cars, with inspection of property to be done after this 30 day period to check on progress. Motion by Percy Hiatt , seconded by Jerry Kiefer . A vote of "aye" by Ben Nix, Percy Hiatt , Jerry Kiefer , Irma White, Marge Yost , and Bette Kountz. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Howard and Loree Scott CASE NUMBER: VI-70: 77 : 18 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8 , Carol Heights LOCATION: 2z miles east and 1 mile south of Erie SUBJECT: Junk Yard in Agricultural Zone District APPEARANCE: Loree Scott DISCUSSION: Cathy Carter read a summary of field inspections and reports on the property in question, and recommended that legal action be taken due to time involved in the existence of the violation and an apparent lack of cooperation from the Scotts to clean up the property. Mrs. Scott responded to the violation stating that an attempt has been made to remove two of the vehicles from the property, but to no avail . Mr . Nix asked Mrs . Scott if she would be willing to clean up the pro- perty and license the vehicles. She replied that she was told that if she moved the vehicles to the back of the property that this would satisfy the County. Marge Yost asked as to the number of vehicles not being used for personal reasons. Mrs. Scott replied that all are used with the exception of the 2 which they have requested be towed to a junk yard, but have not been as of this date. Marge Yost also asked about the tires and other miscellaneous junk located on the property. Mrs . Scott answered that all of this material had been cleaned up . Bette Kountz asked as to the number of vehicles on the property. Mrs. Scott replied that there were no more than that number on the property in 1977. Chuck Cunliffe stated that there are seven vehicles which are unlicensed, including 3 trucks and 4 cars. Mention of application for a Special Use Permit was made, and Mrs. Scott asked as to the requirements and method of applying for this. Chuck Cunliffe explained that she could come to the office of the Department of Planning Services to discuss this process if she wished to apply for the SUP. Mrs. Scott was informed that even with an SUP that the property would have to be cleaned up and things put in order . MOTION: Be it therefore resolved that 30 days be given for submittal of an SUP application and/or clean up of the property , with inspec- tion Lo be made aI'Le;r this I. im( wiLh pictures being Laken . Motion . ' Planning Commissi Minutes May 16 , 1978 Page 8 by Jerry Kiefer , seconded by Irma White. A vote of "aye" by Ben Nix , Percy Hiatt , Jerry Kiefer, Irma White , Marge Yost , and Bette Kountz. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned. Res-('( i. I'tl I I y ;;ul)m i I. ut'tl , ),'///l( it >/( C/ ((( l Kathryn 714. Hrouda 4, 11 r Planning Commiss March 15, 1977 Page 3 Tom stated that Mr. Rauch informed him that he had been told by the attorney of the individual buying the 50 acres that there would be no problem in the split . Tom Honn stated that since it is a violation of the Subdivision Regulations the staff recommends that legal action be taken. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend to the County Com- missioners that legal proceedings be taken in this matter. Motion by Mr. Nix. Seconded by Ms. Kountz. A vote of "aye" by Mr. Nix, Ms. Kountz, Ms. White, Mr. Carlson, Ms. Yost, and Mr. Hiatt . Motion Carried. APPLICANT: Town of Severance SUBJECT : Tentative Site Approval DISCUSSION: Tom presented a letter to the Commission that was prepared for their signature to the State Health Department on tentative site approval for a sewage treatment facility. Mr. Glenn Paul from the County Health Department stated his approval of this request. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to accept the letter as pre- sented to the Commission and forward. Motion by Ben Nix. Seconded Ms. Kountz. A vote of "aye" by Mr. Nix, Ms. Kountz, Ms. White, Mr. Carlson, Ms. Yost , and Mr. Hiatt . Motion carried. APPLICANT: Sundown and Southern Tape #648 Side II CASE NUMBER: VI-32:76 : 11 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt. SEA- of Section 30, T2N, R65W LOCATION: lz mile north and 3 miles west of Hudson SUBJECT: Use not allowed in A zone APPEARNACE: N/A DISCUSSION: Chuck Cunliffe reviewed the case for the Planning Commission and brought it up to date. Last fall it was decided to give the violaters until February 1 , 1977 to get something worked out between Mr. Hobday who has an interest in the property and the SBA who repossessed the land. At this time, nothing has been resolved. MOTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend to the County Commis- sioner that they proceed with legal action against all violaters. Motion by Mr. Hiatt. Seconded Ms. Yost. A vote of "aye" by Mr. Nix, Ms. Kountz, Ms. White, Mr. Carlson , Ms. Yost , and Mr. Hiatt. Motion Carried. Meeting Adjourned. Respectfully, Pat Rymer Secretary A public hearing was conducted on April 4 , , 1979 at 2: 00 P. M. , with the following present: NORMAN CARLSON CHAIRMAN , LYDIA DUNBAR COMMISSIONER BILL KIRBY COMMISSIONER LEONARD ROE COMMISSIONER JUNE STEINMARK COMMISSIONER Also present: ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD, JEANNETTE ORDWAY ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, R. RUSSELL ANSON PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE , TOM HONN HEALTH DEPARTMENT, JOHN HALL The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated February 26 , 1979 , duly published March 1, 1979 and March 22, 1979 in the Johnstown Breeze a public hearing was held on the special use permit requested by the Town of Severance for a wastewater treatment facility. The Planning Commission recommended that this request be approved with development standards. Luanne Hummels, agent for the Town of Severance, elaborated on the special use permit request. William Heller, Engineer for the Town of Severance, commented on the operation of this facility. John Hall, Weld County Director of Environmental Health Services, commented on this request and the monitoring that will be conducted if this request is approved. Mr. Lauren J. Felte, an adjacent landowner, stated he does not object to this request so long as the Town of Severance complies with the development standards. After review, Commissioner Roe made a motion to approve this special use permit for the Town of Severance including the development standards. Commissioner Dunbar seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. 7-22F-1'-rrt/C. Cam_ CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS z e �� J' .WELD COUNTY, COLORADO t�,H ! L��4I ATTEST : WELD CO NTY CLERK AND RECORDER RK TO THE B BY ,L e �- •� County Cl r DOCKE # 79-8 TAPE # 79-37 LHR# 4 Date : March 6 , 1979 CASE NUMBER: SUP-361 : 78 : 13 NAME: Town of Severance REQUEST: Wastewater Treatment Facility LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . SE , Section 2 , T6N, R67W LOCATION: Adjacent to the Southern Boundary of the Town of Severance THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE approved FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : 1. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the request is in agreement with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . In addressing public sewage treatment facilities , the Comprehensive Plan states on Pages 88 and 91 in part : "Utilities and public goods and services provide for community needs of the people throughout Weld County . Included in this category are water , sewer and other utilities , police and fire protection , roads , and health and educational facilities . ' . . . 'The Board of County Commissioners is not only responsible to the public to see that these facilities are adequately supplied and that they meet certain standards , but also to minimize the costs of providing these facilities . ' . . . ' If new urban growth is directed in and around existing municipalities , the cost of urbanization in terms of providing public services and facilities , can be minimized, It is also probably that the quality and quantity of services provided will be greater if the populations served are concentrated rather than scattered' . . . ' The capacity for sewage treatment is an important determinant on the growth a community can accommodate , treatment plans should be expanded and improved to accommodate the growth desired by The individual community. " Further the following policies are found on Pages 91 , 92 and 60 which relate to this request : "Proliferation of service districts shall be opposed while consolidation of existing service Town of Severance SUP-361 : 78 : 13 PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION March 6 , 1979 districts shall be encouraged when it tends to improve the efficiency and economy of the service . Regionalization of services and facilities shall be opposed if it will lead to growth which is not compatible with the desires of the towns involved. Existing municipalities are the best and most efficient sources of public goods and services which are necessary to serve new residential developments. These municipalities will be encouraged to improve their ability to serve new developments and will be looked to for service of all new developments within their corporate areas , in annexable areas immediately adjacent to the town and even those areas not immediately available for annexation , but within a reasonable service distance from the municipality. " As indicated in the submitted application materials , the lack of a municipal wastewater treatment plant is the major growth constraint in the town at the present time . It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that this request will be able to accommodate future growth desired by the Town of Severance. 2 . It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the proposed operation is in compliance with the provisions of Sections 3 , 3(E) (2) and 6 . 1(9) of the Weld County Zoning Resolution . The proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding area, in harmony with the character of the neighborhood and existing agricultural uses , compatible with the future development in the area and will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county . This determination is based upon the following : A . It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the location , operation and maintenance of the proposed wastewater treatment facility as set forth in the Special Use Permit application and as controlled by the Development Standards attached hereto will minimize adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the area to the greatest extent possible and therefore provide adequate protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county . Town of Severance SUP-361 : 78 : 13 PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION March 6 , 1979 B. The following referral entities have reviewed the current proposal and have set forth no objections to it : 1 . The Colorado Department of Health 2 . The Weld County Health Department 3 . The West Greeley Soil Conservation Service 4 . The Colorado Geological Survey 5 . The Weld County Engineering Department 6 . Loop Reservoir Company Specific concerns and/or recommendations of the referral entities are addressed, where applicable , in the attached Development Standards . The Department of Planning Services staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon ; 1 . Submittal of a program on or before March 20 , 1979 which identifies methods for monitoring groundwater quality in the immediate vicinity of the wastewater treatment facility. 2 . Submittal of a program on or before March 20 , 1979 which defines provisions for back-up aerators in the event of equipment failure . Items 1 and 2 have been requested by the Weld County Health Department in its letter dated February 28, 1979. 3 . The adoption of the attached Development Standards which are designed to set certain standards for the location , operation and maintenance of the proposed wastewater treatment facility . 4 . No building or electrical permits being issued on the Special Use Permit area until the approved Development Standards have been placed on the Special Use Permit plat and said plat has been delivered to the office of the Department of Planning Services . TOWN OF SEVERANCE SUP DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. The permitted use on the hereon described Special Use Permit area shall be a wastewater treatment facility and all other uses permitted by right under Section 3. 3B of the Weld County Zoning Resolution. The facilities shall be limited to what is shown hereon. 2. All phases of the wastewater treatment facility and operations shall conform with all applicable County, State and Federal Health Standards and Regulations and any other applicable rules and regulations of government bodies having jurisdiction on the premises. A. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit from the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Divi- sion. Also, the applicant shall be responsible for obtaining design approval from the above agency for the proposed waste- water treatment facility. B. All phases of the operation shall conform to permissible noise levels as stated in 25-12-103, CRS, 1973. C. The applicant shall be responsible for adhering to the pro- visions of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission' s Regulation No. 2. 3. The Wastewater Treatment Facility shall be flood-proofed to one foot above the elevation of the Intermediate Regional Flood. 4. Lighting provided for security and night operation on the site shall be designed so that the lighting will not adversely affect surrounding property owners. 5. All accesses shall have the approval of the Weld County Engineer- ing Department . All accesses shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations and/or requirements of the Weld County Engineering Department . 6. All design and construction shall conform to applicable local , state and national building codes. 7. All structures shall comply with the minimum setback requirements as de fined in Section 3.14 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution. 8. Signs warning the public that the site is a wastewater treatment facility shall be placed on all sides of the facility. All warning signs shall be of sufficient size to be read at a distance of 200 feet . 9. The Special Use Permit area shall be maintained in such a manner so as to prevent soil erosion, fugitive dust and growth of noxious weeds. The site shall be maintained in such a manner as to present a neat and well kept appearance. 10. A six foot high chain link fence shall be located around the perimeter of the treatment lagoons. 11. The lagoons identified as Cells 1 and 2 shall be lined with Bentonite to prevent infiltration from high groundwater as well as seepage from the lagoons. 12. (Reserved for groundwater quality monitoring program. ) 13. (Reserved for back-up aerator system. ) 14. The Special Use Permit shall be limited to the plans shown here- on and governed by the Development Standards stated above and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Any material deviations from the plans and/or Development Standards as shown or stated above shall require the approval of an amendment to the Special Use Permit by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans and/or Develop- ment Standards shall be permitted. Any other changes from the plans and/or Development Standards shall be filed in the Office of the Department of Planning Services. Comments: 1. The Weld County Health Department has requested in its letter dated February 28, 1979, that a full explanation of the down- stream use of the Law Ditch from the point of discharge. The applicant should work directly with the Health Department in supplying the requested information. 2. To date, our office has received letters of opposition to this request. We have also received a petition in support of the proposed request submitted with the application. Copies of these items are in the attached materials. Date: N 16 , 1978 CASE NUMBER: SUP-361:78 : 13 NAME: Town of Severance REQUEST: Wastewater Treatment Facility LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt . SE4 Section 2 , T6N, R67W LOCATION: Adjacent to southern boundary of the Town of Severance THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE continued FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : 1. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services Staff that there is insufficient evidence available to fully evaluate this application in regard to its effect upon the immediate area, its effect upon the future development of the area, and the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the County. This determination is based on: A. The Weld County Health Department, in a letter dated May 1, 1978, is requesting futher clarification and explanation regarding the probability of ground water contamination depending on the reliability and effectiveness of the bentonite seal to be used in the first cell. Also, they are concerned that the second cell has no seal proposed, again allowing for the possibility of ground water contami- nation. B. The Colorado Geological Survey and the West Greeley Soil Conservation District has not made a full evaluation of/or a recommendation on the proposed request prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing on May 16, 1978. C. The applicant has not supplied evidence of acquiring per- mission from the Loup Reservoir Company to discharge the treated effluent into Law Ditch. D. The applicant has not provided adequate evidence considered necessary to document legal interest in the property on which the application has been made. 2. The Department of Planning Services Staff recommends the appli- cation be continued until the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for June 6, 1978, to provide time for the applicant to address concerns posed by the Weld County Health Department , to provide time for the applicant to meet with the Loup Reser- Town of Severance SUP-361: 78 : 13 STAFF COMMENTS May 16, 1978 voir Company concerning the discharging of treated effluent into the Law Ditch, to provide time for the applicant to furnish adequate evidence of legal interest in the subject property, and to provide time for the Colorado Geological Survey and West Greeley Conservation District to adequately evaluate and comment on this request . DATE : Febi 'y 23, 1979 TO: The Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado FROM: Clerk to the Board Office Commissioners : If you have no objections , we have tentatively set the following hearing for the 4th day of April, 1979. Otto Scheller, Special Use Permit, Dairy Operation Town of Severance, c/o Lowell Hummel Mayor, Special Use Permit, Wastewater Treatment Facility Site OFFICE OF, TIIE CLERK TO TIIE BOARD BY: '. ttc_ y,/,,/, i'r (.(0Deputy The above mentioned hearing date and hearing time may be scheduled on the agenda as stated above. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO )729-11-7^- -.-- 4 DEPAR i :EN'T OF PLANNING SERV!CES PHONE (303)356-4000 EXT 404 915 10TH STREET �� GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 \._ j ?) COLORADO January 30, 1979 Mr. Lowell Hummels, Mayor Town of Severance P.O. Box 96 Severance, Colorado 80546 RE: Request for a Special Use Permit for a wastewater treatment facility on a parcel of land described Pt . SF-, Section 2 , T6N, R67L� of the 6th p .m. , Weld County, Colorado containing 8 . 215 acres more or less Dear Mr. Hummels : ,r' The application and related materials for the request described above are complete and in order at the present time . I have scheduled with w the Weld County Planning Commission for Tuesday , March 6 , 1979, at 1 : 30 p .m. This meeting will take place in the County Commissioners Hearing Room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street , Greeley, Colorado . It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance to make your presentation on your request and answer any questions the Planning Commission might have with respect to the Town of Severance application . If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully, ay.& �r Chuck Cunliffe Assistant Zoning Administrator CC : sap cc : Mr. Bill Heller 2020 Airway Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 N ,.) t , ti-3 POSTFPAR,i OA t3A PC -----` .ti • Cl nA DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303)356.4000 EXT.404 915 10TH STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 nil ]; ,, ©, • COLORADO January 19 , 1979 Mr . Lowell Hummels, Mayor Town of Severance P.O. Box 96 Severance, Colorado 80546 RE: Request for a Special Use Permit for a wastewater treatment facility on a parcel of land described as Pt . of the SE of Section 2 , T6N, R67W of the 6th p .m. , Weld County, Colorado containing 8 . 215 acres more or less I Dear Mr. Hummels : s This is to acknowledge receipt of the Town of Severance ' s revised Special Use Permit plat received in our office on January 10 , 1979 . The staff has reviewed the submitted application materials which have been submitted to date and we are still in need of the following items before we can consider the application complete and schedule it before the Weld County Planning Commission : 1. Evidence documenting that the Town of Severance has obtained legal interest in the property on which the revised application has been made . 2 . Evidence that the Town of Severance has the right of ingress and egress over and across the access road as shown on the Special Use Permit plat . I look forward to receiving these items as soon as possible so that we may expedite your application . If you have any questions or if I may be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me . Respectfully, 1ct _ Chuck Cunliffe Assistant Zoning Administrator CC: sap e cc : William B. Heller, Engineering Professionals , Inc . 2020 Airway Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 • • ;ENEM'i Cw'Pt`•it'ms1 . ' 3 Adc >..• iddre+, r •-( G,k TUT N c.cr• .r revo",t+ • 1 The following sc+rvlce Is rr+qur sted check')ro Sho.+.to-horn and dart .cc4verc�d C a Show to:.hcm,date,and zr.idress of ee,,vr r C RESTRICTED DELIVERY Show to.ocrn and date .Ic�v�red C RESTRICTED DELIVERY • Show to r.h..n,data,and odcress of deli vory $ (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES • 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO m n m J _ 3 ARTICLE_ DESCRIPTION • r;EG'STERED NC CER Eli ;ED NO INSJGt[-D NC m ;Always ootain s:gnature of addressee o•agent; Addre„t ' A:Itr- zr ,..gc t' .iTL t)r .)EL .t NY FOSS':ACK 7 a9 `A • `• ';-• „ % j Y Pall lP! r I ' ,t P ,r I : it 1 U )1 PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (3031 3564000 EXT 404 915 10TH STREET !' t*"' xt Js. nr, GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 ' r j .`fit V g•• �+iW. r, 5 COLORADO April 20, 1078 Town of Severance c/o Mrs . Frances Brownell P.O. Box 96 Severance, Colorado 80546 RE : Request for a Special Use Permit for a wastewater treatment facility on a parcel of land described as Pt . SE-1s. of Section 2, T6N, R67W of the 6th p.m. , Weld County , Colorado Dear Mrs. Brownell : The application and related materials for the above described request are complete and in order. y I have scheduled a meeting with the Weld County Planning Commission for ' May 16 , 1978, at 1 : 30 p .m. This meeting will take place in the County t l Commissioners Hearing Room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street , Greeley , Colorado. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be there to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have with respect to the Town of Severance application . If you have any questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office . Respectfully, 0.10411.... (lk./-NNLiA.R....• Chuck Cunliffe Assistant Zoning Administrator d CC :sap i1 cc : Mr. Lowell Hummels , Mayor P.O. Box 112 , Severance , Colorado 80546 Mr. W. 13. Heller 2020 Airway Avenue Fo r i, Collins , Colo 3•;Ido 80 521 1 4 N • SENDER Complete item; 1,2,and 3. Add your address in the "RETURN TO" spate on o IT reverse r c - ctfollowing service is requested (chec,..O. ,N co I ; "' e ' Show to whom and date delivered w� FZ 250 RECEIPT FOR CEG aFdED C,„',,• t r.��$ftgw to whom,date,&address of delivery 45 m V'-'Q RESTRICTED DELIVERY. f yp FED[:—� L;!��EMI,f2�f� i Show to whom and date delivered 85(+ (�£^Reverse) )„ b',7 'RESTRICTED DELIVERY. SENT TO Show to wham,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 p��,,M (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other TREET ND NO ' fees). 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: O,STATE AND ZIP CODE POSTAGE 23 A ♦ - c ra CrRTI,;ED FEt r ,✓ al SPtiCIAL DELIVERY m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: ir'., __ C REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO I ____ -�_ oG (a R-.+I t,C'E O DcLIVERY 0 23 INSURED NO. t•l Lyr --__ 2 U U 1 SkO 7r - '1 WV) m ' dr - O y (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) I ' ''I ` —___ Pi I have received the article described above. to cT f srD'.;TDt',�.1 DATt m SIGNATUREI , ,-; C O Addressee O Authorized agent t7 ai i 4. y' ` `O" a suonT0th0'1 DATE Ar.DCo m DATE OF DELIVERY POSTMARK CJ a A'I�;ESSC•EriIttERYr,'TH g- f: Fit s1 CTtJ0F.l JE7Y C > Ir '� p 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if reques d) h TOTAL RLISTAC_AND PEES r J m PO;,Tf�ARY OA DATE u A a u -71 t Q m 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: s 00 O \ f, CLERK'S D i•3 INITIALS �O\ ' L. •H GOP 1r5-O 203 456 L; 4 a 1 4 lkidi engineering professonais inc. March 20 , 1979 Chuck Cunliffe Assistant Zoning Administrator Weld County Planning Dept. 915 10 St. Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Cunliffe: Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. John Hall regarding a ground water monitoring plan. We apologize for not sending you this copy at an earlier date. Sincerely, ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS, INC. -,,,//7 k.,---',- -,---/-% C -- W. B. Heller, P.E. Enc. WBH/jb X r'' _ t,; 303/221-3760 • 2020 Airway Ave. • Fort Collins, CO 80521 ' yc_1 , 179 roc �cl County i.ealth Department 1516 16 P.ve. Court C,r e ley, Colorado 80631 i:t.tention: r. John Hall C ittLe ::cn In response to your request regarding ()round water monitoring ';c have develoj,cc a nlan which we feel is-appropriate. If you are agreeable we would like to expand this monitoring �roc:ra:q beyond your or.irina1 rec.uest. We woulC like to ,lave some surface water monitorinc of the. Lau Ditch alon7 wit.' tie cround water monitoring. The reason is that we have no historical data to Corp1"C_ with the data to i)(2 collected . we bogjn collecting uater sar r,lcs well 1)efore the sewecre plant is built, T .iaye essentially no knowl eC'Ce of seasonal conC_iticns. ( rounC, atcr C:uc.1it"" chancres somewhat as a result of agricultur:' r-'�aCLi i;c s. r_he ground water '_I`_ this area is in an eccu l- i.??"lu:.' wi ti? the stream. lherofore, I suggest that the s rea!is be monitored upstrear and do nstrear, of the out' ril_l E t:iis information we should have a better ic'ea of t?le 'i oio pict.ur . Once wer-dtete( tests tren •' s in the qualit �tecrase the number oF t.es L.s and lust run sp0 L c.c cks . If we c on' t do it we ' ll never understanr' t:"lc' result c`- ni toring T)roc-rcar'. -The pro nosed samnic locations are sho\•-n on t.ne accorpanyinc; pint. If You want, we can slow the samrile locations on the plat. ionitoring of the following pararletors is suggested: Nitrate NO3 Amronia TRHs F. ColiForm F. Strep. :iese should l e a minir'ur to which you can add . IF you want to do an oxygen demand test . we should rrohably run COD rather than DOD. Talk it over with Steve and le me know. I will be in Greeley the afternoons of march 15 or 19 if you would like to set up a meeting. Incidentally, one of the proposed monitorin^ wells is the Spock watering well owned by Mr. Robert Buderus . If you recall, the quality of this water was one of his concerns at the hearing. Mr. Buderus has agreed to participate and seemed genuinely pleased that this step is being taken. Maybe in three years we can co-author an article for a technical journal. This should be an interesting study. I am looking forward to workin-r with you. Very truly yours, ENGI`dEFRI_NG PROFESSIONALS , INC. W. B. Feller, P.T. },nc. :•'BFI/j b WALKER MILLER ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 804 7TH STREET - P O BOX 1424 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 TELEPHONE (303) 352-9469 June 5, 1978 Mr. Tom Honn Weld County Planning Department Centennial Center Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Town of Severance - Felte Dear Tom: I stopped by your office today (June 5, 1978) and determined that the above scheduled matter had been removed from the agenda again. I believe that is only appropriate as no condemnation proceeding has been instituted. In actuality, any such action would be pre- mature at this time. Nevertheless, I would appreciate being advised by your office if the matter is again scheduled. We do not plan to attend on June 6th as our information is it has been removed. V y truly yours, ller WM/ltt cc. Mr. Lauren Felte 06789 rb 7O rt- JUN 1978 j RECEIVED Weld County Planning Commission 40 � �� cZe LG UG,\ a r 4 a t ,ups cor twatiCon a" ,,,, :'. ;X�s'',rt. .t``"t„_x,` ._..4,.<.'".,,e..sca Yip. ,1#,.- ,.e . i t1 ir. .. _ _ ., S c' February 8 , 1977 szfl . 0 �•. Weld County Commissioners 3 915 10th Street ` .z0 Greeley, Colorado 80631 L.— —...z0 Gentlemen: Enclosed is a site application for wastewater treatment facilities for the Town of Severance. The proposed facilities include sewer lines, an aerated lagoon system, and chlorination. Severance has not yet decided whether or not to annex the property. We have started the process of obtaining a special use permit, should Severance decide not to annex the property. A large percentage of the funding for this project will come from the Department of Local Affairs and the Farmers Home Administration. To conserve time, this application is being sent to the others listed on Page 5 of the application simultaneously with yours. IF any negative comments are received from the others , we will notify you immediately. Very truly yours , TOUPS CORPORATION W.B. (Bill) Heller, P.E. Project Engineer WBH/bt Enclosure O COUNTY Of WELD ss° Filed with the Clerk of thn I3otlrd of County Commloslnnor8 C(+IOv P.PIO nNH Or - By ,)"r,,, 4 '" A PLANNING RESEARCH CORPORATION COMPANY July 26, 1977 !barn of Severance . P. O. Box 5 Severance, Colorado 80547 _. Res Application for Site Approval of New Sewage Treatment Works for the Town of Severance - Weld County - #2376 Gentlemen: This is to inform you that your "Application for Site Approval of New Sewage Treatment Plant" for a sewage collection system and treatment facilities consisting of a multi-Dell aerated lagoon system to be located in the bbntheast Quarter of Section 2, T6W, R67W of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado was approved by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission at its meeting held on July 5, 1977 subject to the following conditions: . 1. A certification from the engineer must be furnished prior to ccamencement of operation stating that the facilities were construction as shown on the plans submitted or a justification by the engineer and/or operating entity of any changes that were made. 2. This facility must be operated by a certified operator in accordance with regulations established by the Certification Board for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators. 3. The facility must be connected to a regional facility and interceptors at such time as they are available in accordance with the Basin Water Quality Plan. 4. This site approval will expire on July 5, 1978. If the construction of the project has not commenced by that date, you must reapply for a site approval. We have not received completed plans and specifications for the wastewater collection system and treatment facility for our review and comments. State law requires that we review plans and specifications prior to construction of the system. 4bwn of SQver+anwe ably 26, 1977 Page 2 . This approval does not relieve the owner from compliance with all county regulations prior to construction nor from responsibility for proper engineering, construction, and operation of the facility. Please retain this letter for your permanent records. Very truly yours, Ivan D. Dildin. Technical Secretary Water Quality Control Commission IDD:DDH,dec ‘\/!ri r Neld County Health Department 4bupa Corporation District Engineer 1 j 1 r � �=_: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES � a PHONE (303) 356-4000 EXT. 400 915 10TH STREET GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 tiff .4.p), COLA ♦ ® February 25, 1977 Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division 4210 East 11th Ave. Denver, CO 80220 RE: Application for site approval for Town of Severance New Sewage Treatment Works Dear Sirs : The Weld County Planning Commission has reviewed the appli- cation for Site Approval of New Sewage Treatment Works for the Town of Severance, Colorado. Based on the preliminary information submitted, the Commission finds that the request is in compliance with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, and local planning objectives. The Commission thus recommends that the application be given favorable consideration. However, the applicant and Water Quality Control Commission should be aware that the favorable recommendation is for the Water Quality Control Division ' s review purposes and based solely on preliminary information. A final determination for siting of the Town of Severance treatment facility can be given by Weld County only if the applicant complies with the Special Use Permit Procedures outlined in the Weld County Zoning Re- solution. Thank you for the opportunity to comment in this matter. Respectfully, Ron Heitman -- Chairman RH/TH pr OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I " PHONE (303) 356-4000 EXT. 200 a` P O BOX 758 . GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 COLORADO February 25, 1977 Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division 4210 East 11th Ave. Denver, CO 80220 RE: Application for site approval for Town of Severance New Sewage Treatment Works Dear Sirs : The Weld County Board of County Commissioners has reviewed the application for Site Approval of New Sewage Treatment Works for the Town of Severance, Colorado . Based on the preliminary information submitted, the Board finds that the request is in compliance with the Weld County Compre- hensive Plan, and local planning objectives. The Board thus recommends that the application be given favorable con- sideration. However, the applicant and the Water Quality Control Commis- sion should be aware that the favorable recommendation is for the Water Quality Control Division' s review purposes and based solely on preliminary information. A final determin- ation for siting of the Town of Severance treatment facility can be given by Weld County only if the applicant complies with the Special Use Permit procedures outlined in the Weld County Zoning Resolution. Thank you for the opportunity to comment in this matter. Respectfully, 4e 5eg;' ''"lt,I,tOAL' une K. Steinmark Chairman JS/TH FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER '� 'IQ 1 5 /14 Ito l NAME 76k.A.IVNAJ.1:;‘)&frftat REQUEST WO, &r W 2.4k,J tr.% t►•k\ LEGAL DISCRIPTION S C R I P T I O N , 5e4- AA.A 'Z. I (p1 .1 'QkDlw . . J LAND USE ` � w �� v�CU. I ► ZONING N Acce M,,, iIA a( LOCATION ON ►� E SrIj(t4'(rrtevvy... se....\02Aeihme„ . w a s COMMENTS : WOIVOttcl S'Ae0 1 ocaaeA 401D irt Sc-t) Si JAN �C1r�,�p1 r . 1i'A‘Y1 CR42siztvt r Nuts �- 1 Sir va% r cc:es 5 `C ‘Cl).0v‘ u__1, . ez\ ocka„ o. 'R�.6}1 NV:( &.l 4S '\ mot' Sae.... 01112- TWO o \'1 4.r?.c l o C Ol_ (PM ..,e411- 10 s'Aedi 'T to..)ca 0 k.Q,o Vca..ie+ 4r \-to cio lakp... ;;I>ITIAL U I>kIiPll 'I' r s FLOW SHEET APPLICANT: Tenk,__ _- - Se'Verchvxce - CASE # UALIVOVialeiVb REQUEST: JQk \ w - "\ �t0�Stw1/44" Foc.Sdv LEGAL: .K• Sta.' %QC0, Z.. ' ` (pN Q b1 W LOCATION: C1/411., ocer # T ' Se ANnler \ ‘OQ‘d1A4M % vis;\ie„ +e tAIJ h 06 5106414,4D.r-IA.00 DATE BY Application Received %CV%st' . Maley , 10i1q cAo., Application Fee - Receipt # 'V /50/-vi Che.. Recording Fee e Application Complete ' /U./1114 19 �00 P.C. Hearing Date: \ \ 1o'c(.\ (l ,I1q I eAta- Letter to Applicant Drafted 130 1-t1 Ca•M, Referrals Listed 1 o 1_I O Field Check by D.P.S . Staff 51n_JiFile Assembled \ \c\ ,'C • Referrals Mailed ��"� - Chaindexed VIZ-0V, S\S) ' Notification of Applicant � � - CNs-\ tom' Surrounding Property Owners Researched( ii01.4 \ 51®1q ``D till Airphoto/Vicinity Map Preapred (ups , ► ) -1 la) Property Owners Notified by : F'Gb, Z 19', I '"\� \ R- I Mailed by : FQ„\CI. 1,(e1 1 %CM DvY/ 8‘ . Legal Approved by County Attorney 'LZI 11 To&, Referrals - Complete Z,�/ / 5 iiii l^a Preliminary D.P .S . Staff Comments 3 5 11 C.110.o Staff Conference 3 5 InAi to D.P.S . Comments 1010‘ 0Ar.J P.C. Hearing Action : ` �\(�\,\j� `c�`� - _t—N 'C P.C. Resolution �� 9N- -\ %' Case Sent to Clerk to Board , \ C.C. IIearing \\\��\ Action : "\�� C C C. C. Resolution Received \NV�� c\' k History Card Complete -\ �\ ,R. C.C. Resolution Sent to Drafting %-\ - \ %,-- Drafted on Mylar g -99 "-- 4/0 Document Sent to Clerk and Recorder %- l.N c, C P.C. Minutes -k\ \ -N c �• . • , • . SPECIAL, US'; PERMIT . . , . . . ► FLOW SHEET • APPLICANT: T0LY\ Of 5eAke.ro.r1 ►vd -- c'ASI.: ;/ 11,%. Lls'\r.\`�;. REQUEST: \ 3ek r ye r .1 ---- � LEGAL: c4 • 3Er td . t i61.(0 ,N4;1\iN L0toc \0," % odym-0-‘eV -6 44,e0 SeQr\ANY"in be)UY,d. (y 1O +b.e. lit w+4,N c Verekv‘c DATE I BY Application Received 4 V I'M Ca Application Fee - Receipt # tI\ 4" rb re) Recording Fee Application Complete l\c / t P,C. Hearing Date : \ PtOs\/ \k4P , Rib , 41\1 bb Q 1.Q t Letter to Applicant Drafted ,1j1% Referrals Listed `TCV/V1 VIiib _ Q. / _ Field Check by D.P. S . Staff File Assembled ao ‘k eJ.•Q , Referrals Mailed \k\W \It &"Q• Chaindexed `�\�tlAfit ..,\. Notification of Applicant \aQ\7\5► %D.A. Surrounding Property Owners Researched Airphoto/Vicinity Map Preapred 3/C/76 PEk Property Owners Notified by : 1 �� % % _ �J �ti\ •\, , \'-\'A� `ii1 i� R. Agendas Mailed by : .-,� \ Legal Approved by County Attorney 5's` 76 10V Referrals - Complete a Preliminary D.P.S . Staff Comments 15 1lb CAri Staff Conference tit . D.P .S . Comments \ . n P.C. Hearing Action : __ _ __ _ _ ____-_____ --- -.-:--- % ��44. P.C. Resolution Case Sent to Clerk to Board C.C. Hearing Action : C.C. Resolution Received History Card Complete C.C. Resolution Sent to Drafting Drafted on Mylar Document Sent to Clerk and Recorder P.C. Minutes %`V- Ca 6 -a -"7 (6 S. l} . 2 Lk. - ,q- �. :� NC)'l ICI( Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Land Use Code, a public hearing will he held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in Lhe Special Use Permit are requested to attend and may be heard. BE IT ALSO 1:NOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may he examined in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 lOtli Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. Docket No. 79-8 Town of Severance c/o Lowell Hummels, Mayor P. 0. Box 122 Severance, CO 80546 Date: April 4, 1979 Time: 2:00 P.M. Request: Special Use Permit, Wastewater Treatment Facility Site LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter (SE%) of Section 2, Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the East Quarter Corner (E i Cor) of said Section 2, and considering the East line of the Southeast Quarter (SE 4)of said Section 2 as bearing North 00°01'07" West, with all bearings contained herein relative thereto; Thence South 02°02'23" West, 835.51 feet to a point on the West Right-of-Way line of Weld County Road #23; Thence South 80°53'27" West, 251.82 feet; Thence North 58°26'23" West, 214.56 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Said True Point of Beginning lying on the West right-of-way line of the John Law Ditch; Thence along the West right-of-way line of said ditch by the following three (3) courses and distances: South 35°41'43" West, 305.27 feet; South 26°19'28" West, 207.42 feet; South 07°13'02" West, 418.70 feet leaving the Ditch right-of-way; Thence North 68°51'11" West, 300.38 feet to a point on the East right-of-way line of the Great Western Railroad: Thence North 06°18'12" East, along said East right-of-way line 1046.84 feet (recorded bearing North 06°29'40" East) leaving the Railroad right-of-way; Thence South 58°26'47" East, 572.79 feet (recorded South 58°26'23" East 572.77 feet) to the True Point of Beginning. Said described parcel of land contains 8.215 acres, more or less, and is subject to any rights-of-way or other easements as recorded by instruments of record or as now existing on said described parcel of land. PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the , State of Colorado and the Weld County Land Use Code, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Colorado,Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley Colorado,at the time specified All persons in any manner interested in the Special Use Permit are requested to attend and may be heard BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado Docket No 79-8 Town of Severance c-o Lowell Hummels,Mayor P O Box 122 Severance,CO 80546 Date•April 4,1979 Time:2:00P M. Request: Special Use Permit, Wastewater Treatment Facility Site LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A tract of land situated in the Southeast Quarter (SE iy4) of Section 2 Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M , Weld County Colorado being more particularly described as follows' Beginning at the East Quarter Corner(E ' Cor) of said Section 2 and considering the East line of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/,O of said Section 2 as bearing North 00 degrees 01'07' West, with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, Thence South 01 degrees 02' 23" West 835-51 feet to a point on the West Right-of-Way line of Weld County Road No. 23; Thence South 80 degrees 53' 27 West, 251.82 feet; Thence North 68 degrees 28' 21 West,214.56 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Said True Point of Beginning laying on the West right-of-way line of the John Law Ditch; Thence along the West right-of- way line of said ditch by the following three (3) courses an distances: South 35 degrees 41' 43" West, 302 27 feet; South 26 degrees 19' 28" Went 207 42 feet; South 07 degrees 13' 02" West 418 70 feet leaving the Ditch right-of-way; Thence North 68 degrees 51' 11' West,300 38 feet to a point on the East right-of-way line of the Great Western Railroad Thence North 06 degrees 18' 12" East,along said East right-of-way line 1046 84 feet(recorded bearing North 06 degrees 29' 40" East) leaving the Railroad right-of-way; Thence South 58 degrees 26' 47" East, 572.79 feet (recorded South to the rnTru Po Point of Begir572.77 in feet) Said described parcel of land contains 8.215 acres,more or less, and is subject to any rights-of-way or other easements as recorded by instruments of record or as now existing on said described parcel of land THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO BY MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY Keitha Hubbard,Deputy DATED• February 28, 1979 PUBLISHED March 1 1979 and March 22, 1979 in the Johnstown Breeze Co Legal 79-59-Clerk to Bd Page 2 Docket No. 79-8 (Continued) THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY: Keith Hubbard, Deputy DATED: February 26, 1979 PUBLISHED: March 1, 1979 and March 22, 1979 in the Johnstown Breeze from the Office of it ' Greeley, Colorado THE BOARD OF .COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO March 7 , 1979 Publisher : • Please insert the enclosed notice in your issue the week of March 26, 1979 one time only. Regarding payment , complete the enclosed voucher and forward it to us. When returning the voucher, please include an affidavit of publication so we may complete our files . Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, THE BOARD ON ('nIIIJ't'Y COMMISSIONERS • WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Docket No. 79-8 BY : . Mary Ann Feuers l ei n County Clerk and Recorder Enc. and Clerk to . the Board I y: Keitha Hubbard Deputy County Clerk I i 3? • SENDER Complete item; 1,2,and i -Tartu o Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on 9 reverse m 1. The following service is requested (check one). N,;, •' . —.. . r. ® Show to whom and date delivered 250 Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 450 REGt=1v i '-vi r .,,, . , ._D MAIL :° ❑ RESTRICTED DELIVERY. %0 'i'St,!?f.'J�1 lildu'I,,;� .��.fl 6 . Ey— i ° Show to whom and date delivered 850 - { Y c.S I FOR INICF-"Za;,°1 nu. a�r�1�' RESTRICTED DELIVERY. �.. (See Reverse) 1 Show to whom,date,and address of delivery . .$1.05 SENT TO - (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other Windsor Beacon fees). STREET AND NO -- l, r , 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: r 425 Main_ _ P O,STATE AND ZIP CODE ' ' Windsor Beacon t ,,cc Windsor, CO 80550 i Z 425 Main • POSTAGE 79-8 5 , , , m Windsor, CO 80550 79-8 CERTIFIED FEE Q ' n ca --- - v m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: • W SPECIAL DELIVERY t t I REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO_ !� RESTRICTED DELIVERY q P. 280547 .,; '; ' P. - - - - - _ O (Always obtain signature �- �y pun 1;H0'1 A4D DATE to y of addressee or agent)! • DELIVERED ¢ M I have received the article described above. i ' c l m SIGNATURE ❑ Addressee a=. ` �.I ADD;1 TO OF DEL DATE A'„ — — ,. O �] Authorize t w —116.—. ADDRESS OF DELIVERY Z I= ®I -Q SHGCI TO WHO-1 A',D DATE • „„�, Z - - �t m G DELI'+FRED LdTH RESTR CTE 4 C 4. '1-.--...-- A DATE OF DELIVERY ' 'POSTMARK c DELIVERY A O 1 \,,,, - ' ,.�. w ADDRESS 0FHDELI.'DERY CiTH O L -.-` _ .a' RESTRICTED DELIVERY •r+..r, •+ 0 5 ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) 4�..g L— TOTAL POSTACE AND FEES S xi a POSTMARK On DATE k 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: CLERK'S O INITIALS n A- m , s F o * GOP I976-O-203-456 C/2 -.i i'S 4 saw • ♦Y s - v _a —V-c-- , 4- r' -y.. - ♦ - 'R - - '� L -i -s +tom .v.. ,.':Z.; ` . yx,m,•a�14 ,X'S. ty„-¢ "� '�' "� , . _ 4 '1ty AFT _"" ,/ fi 1' n-x , a• =k'P b. NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Land Use Code, a public hearing will be held in the i Chambers of the Board of County l Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, I Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th rStreet, Greeley, Colorado, at the time AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION specified. All persons in any manner interested in the Special Use Permit are ie,uested to attend and may be heard BF II ALSO KNOWN that the text and STATE OF COLORADO 1 map, so certified by the Weld County Plat sing Commission may be examined in SS, the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County COUNTY OF WELD 1 (r--imissioners located in the Weld County 4tennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third I-li>>r,Grec Icy, Colorado S)6 iQ a.1 C.-O 9- t. Of said County of Docket No 79-8 Town of Severance I, _ cio Lowell Hummels,Mayor Weld, being duly sworn, say that I am office manager of P O.Box 122 Severance,CO 80546 THE WINDSOR BEACON, INC. Date April 1979 time I 200PM l ime r Special Use Permit. Wastewater a weekly newspaper having a general circulation in Treatment Facility Site said County and State, published in the town of LEGAL DESCRIPTION: WINDSOR, in said County and State: and that the A tract of land situated in the Southeast notice, of which the annexed is a true copy, has beei Quarter (SE'.) of Section 2 Township 6 North,Range 67 West of the 6th P M,Weld Fr County Colorado, being more particularly published in said weekly for ...----- ... successive described as follows weeks, that the notice was published in the regular Beginning at the East Quarter Corner(E '/. and entire issue of every number of the papers during CUD of said Section 2, and considering the t ast tine in the Southeast Quarter(SE".)of the period and time of publication, and in the news- '.aid Section 1 as bearing North 00°01'07" paper proper and not in a supplement, and that the West, tveth alt s^-inryes un'a..cd hc.r,,ii first publication of said notice was in said paper bear- relatise oh,iehi trig the date of the ;hence South 02'02'23"West.835 51 feet to a point on the West Right-of-Way line of Weld County Road #23, thence South �j . I - 80'53 2'' West, 251 82 feet, Thence North .. _ ---_ day of 1 A C' , A.D., 19 C. 58'26'23"West,214 56 feet to the True Point of Beginning, Said True Point of Beginning and the last publication bearing the date of the lying on the West right-of-way line of the John Law Ditch, Thence along the West right-of-way line of said ditch by the following i f I A R.C..N three (3) courses and distances: South -- day of - ., A.D., 19 ! 35°41'43 West, 305 27 feet, South .ind that the said "WINDSOR BEACON" has been 26'15'28" West, 207 42 feet; South published continuously and uninterruptedly for the 07'13'02" West, 418.70 feet leaving the Ditch right-of-way, Thence North 68°51'11" period of 52 consecutive weeks, in said County and West, 300 38 feet to a point on the East State, prior to the date of first publication of said right-of-way line of the Great Western notice, and the same is a newspaper within the mean- Railroad I hence North 06`18'12" East, mg of an Act to regulate printing of legal notices 1 along said East right-of-way line 1046.84 feet (recorded bearing North 06'29'40" East) and advt crises(.niti, approved May 18, 1931, and all leaving the Railroad right-of-way, Thence prior .0 is so f.ir .i:, in force, South 58°26'47" East,572 79 feet(recorded South 58°26'23"East 572 77 feet)to the True Point of Beginning J � ' Said described parcel of land contains 8 215 `C� , acres, more or less, and is subiect to any OFFICE MANAGER I rights-of-way or other easements as recorded I by instruments of record or as now existing on said described parcel of land The Board of County Commissioners Weld County,Colorado Li BY:Mary Ann Feuersteln Subscribed and sworn to before me this / day County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners rd,Dep afivi By:Keith Hubbard,Deputy of19.79 Dated February In the 26,19o9 Published In the Windsor Beacon March 29, 1979. S2/' J /YziC. NOTARY PUBLIC s My commission expires ... ---.7/•-1--91-- • I'II fAl !I',I I'II I Alt! Ir ,. l I' til - ;,nl I ;i1 ' ! hrin Lop.. I, ',rnl•[("1, ( nl„r I 1 ) J r,R PLAl1JJ,J1(1 LL-l'i\l: l',N.!1T fl'2E Ulf Y: IE AR [II(C [ATE-: EC: I1,'P RAU(;E: CC IlEARIN; DATE: _ '.Ai1iI r;'Ii)!:: I': 1/1 : KEY: -;IIP,/OIV mil'! - I•! : 1_UI : KEY: RLT I-P TO: - Pi-RMIT FEE : _ I) l) TE: --- - APP. C'I1r.VLI) BY: 2) IAFE: _ RLCFIPT NO. DATE: LLIAL I)I-Si;. APPRVL: 1) LATE: TC i C Cif I I-TFU i-,V AI Pt.IflAH F Iii ACCORPANC1. 19'LLT E PROC[ I)UR.AL CUII F NI I4Il1RIM1 NT`;: Print n1 tyl,e OMI excepi f r ne.eo,ary r,iCJnatures: I , (,.;e) the under'..i uued, hereby request a her in•? Ln f r're the ','(old County PLinn i nn Conan crr r.�rrrino a propo',nd Gpncial. Use Permit rr,z the following do'e il,ed unlncoupnr,ited County: I_i tr DI_r,r R [PIIr'!1 I coo L i'Il:nil'', property owned upon Spec i 11 I!oe I'eimi t. i t propo';""l: I F' "•.J. DF JCRIPTIC,! ')I '";P1-'-;IAA_ U',E PERMIT AREA : See attached. •T! ' Cr L( CrATTON : West of Co . Rd. 23 & North of Co . Rd. 72 (lilt A LIcTO;ED i'; L-: Wastewater Treatment facility site . - RIA,',CiI!: To provide adequate wastewater treatment for Town of Severance . n';r.v, (Jr ARIA PR'CI') NLI_I I I?R EPECIAI. USE: 11',MP: Town of _Severance ADDREnS: Ti-1.: BA;"L: A I)DR E.0;: ilh;, ,.: _ — — ---_ - -- ADDRLY.;: 'I-i-I . I heJr,,Lv c _'porn onJ ' tate under the penalties of perjury Ihal all statements, proposal ;, nn;?-r.r pions ;uhmittrd with or contained within this dpplicaLion are true and correct to Lhe be.,-,t of my knowled-re. CCU!II!T'r OF IA ft -11-1wa414-eL Signat re: Owner or Puthori;ed A'jent Cu!,',, ribed and sworn to before me this /;9 — day of , ,' —, VASA_A ..t3 ruk FV-C6 ', f_ A L My r,o'r';nission expire.; - \c3111Z137Q�s GD APR 1978 00ECEIVED Cr)) '401., n 11BiAV C4.10 I4 88 -4,1) vl ��6.82LZ 9252\1L SPECIAL USE PERMIT INFORMATION The proposed use of this site is for a wastewater treatment facility which will adequately treat the sanitary sewerage from the Town of Severance. The technical facility plan which analyzed the treatment needs of the Town of Severance is entitled "Plan for Wastewater Treatment Works" . This was developed for Severance as part of the 208 Water Quality Management Plan by the Larimer- Weld Regional Council of Governments . The facility plan analyzed technical and financial consider- ations . The planning period was through the year 2000 . Treatment processes which were analyzed and screened include four types of lagoon systems , three types of mechnical systems , and individual disposal systems . An aerated stabilization pond system was con- sidered optimum because of low initial and annual cost, reliable operational characteristics , odor minimization, and ability to meet water quality standards imposed by the Colorado Department of Health. The plant is sized to serve the existing residents of the Town of Severance and the potential residents of a proposed sub- division with 40% of the capacity remaining. The absolute capacity is to serve a population of 800 people. This is a hydraulic capacity of 80 , 000 gallons per day. Funding for this facility is in part from the Department of Local Affairs (56%) and from Farmer' s Home Administration ( 23%) . A site application has been obtained from the Colorado Department of Health. 4/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 2, Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , County of Weld, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows : Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 2 ; thence along the South line of said Southeast Quarter West 1187 . 97 feet; thence North 06°29'40" East 1092. 37 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, said point being on theEasterly right of way line of the Great Western Railroad and 40 . 00 feet Easterly from the centerline of said Railroad as measured at right angles thereto ; thence along said Easterly right of way line North 06°29' 40" East 373. 00 feet; thence perpindicular to said right of line South 83°30' 20" East 320 . 00 feet; thence South 06°29'40" West 297. 00 feet; thence South 17°24 ' 30" West 155. 82 feet; thence North 68°39' 35" West 300 . 53 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel is subject to right of way along the Easterly side thereof for existing canals . The above described parcel contains a gross acreage of 3 . 0 acres more or less . COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF ; LTH ' , WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL OF NEW SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS (Submit in Duplicate) Applicant: Town of Severance Address: P.O. Box 5, Severance, Colorado 80546 A. Information Regarding Project Submitted for Review: 1. Briefly describe on a separate sheet of paper the justification for locat- ing the sewage treatment works on this particular site. This should include, but is not necessarily limited to, a description of the present and possible • development of the site location and service area. 2. Size and type of treatment facility proposed: GPD: 80,000 PE served: 800 % Industrial: 0 (Gal/day) (Population equivalent) % Domestic: 100 Proposed class of facility: D Class of operator required: D 3. Location of facility: Map • Attach a map of the area which includes the following: (a) 25-mile radius: all sewage treatment works; (b) 5-mile radius: domestic water supply intakes; N/A (c) 1-mile radius: habitable buildings, location of potable water wells, and an approximate indication of the topography. 4. Wastes will be discharged to: Watercourse John Law Ditch (Name of watercourse) Classification of watercourse N/A Subsurface disposal Land • Evaporation Other 5. If the discharge is to a watercourse, what is the waste load allocation for that watercourse? N/A What is the remaining wasteload allocation uncommitted in the basin? (See 303(e) and 208 Plans) N/A 6. Does your proposed facility require lift stations anywhere in the plant or service area? No 7. What is the zoning for the proposed service area? Severance is not zoned Present zoning of site area? Agriculture Zoning within a 1-mile radius of site? Agriculture Please explain zoning: Application has been made to Weld County Zoning and Planning, requesting a special use permit for the proposed Facility 8. What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water supply intake? No domestic intake below Severance in Colorado Owner and address: What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest non- domestic water supply intake? Discharge is to non-domestic water supply (irrigation ditch) Name and address: John Law Ditch Company, c/o Mr. Carl R. Miller East of Windsor, Windsor, Colorado 80550 9. Sewer lines: Approximate number of feet: 8 ,900 Sizes: 8" • 10. Who has the responsibility for operating the facility? Town of Severance What is the legal status of the responsible party? Incorporated community 11. Who owns the land upon which the facility will be constructed? Felte Brothers Please attach copies of the document creating authority in the applicant to construct the proposed facility. 12. Estimated project cost: $246, 000 Who is financially responsible for the facility? • Town of Severance What is the method of finance? Revenue bonds; Local Affairs & FmHA Grants -2- 13, Are there any major land developers involved in the development of the proposed service area? Yes Give the name, address, and percentage of service area developed by any person if that percentage of development is greater than 10 percent. Walter Stearns , 1634 Lakeside Drive, Greeley, Colorado - 50% Of the total PE that you indicated in No. 2, haw many of those PE's are presently existing? 1'00 ; are presently committed? . How many PE's are proposed? 400 add;t;.nn,9 1 14. Names and addresses of all water and sanitation districts within 5 miles of proposed wastewater. treatment facility site and proposed service area: North Weld County Water District, Lucerne, Colorado (distribution lines only) Attach separate sheet of paper if necessary. 15. What is the relationship of this facility to any Areawide (208) Plans or Basin (303(e)) Plans? (Contact Planning Section, Water Quality Control Division.) Compatible 16. Is the facility in an area subject to flooding? No If so, what precautions are being taken? N/A • • Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources? No If so, what is that designation? N/A 17. List other sites other than the proposed site that were considered. North of this site, adjacent to town, but above lake; further south, more interceptor 18. Are there any available laboratories for your use? Yes If so, give name and location of lab. M & I , Fort Collins , Colorado -3- • • 19, Attach proof that a copy of this application was sent by certified mail to each of the following federal agencies, requesting their comment. (a) United States Forest Service, Director of Watershed, Soil3 and Minerals Management, 11177 West 8th Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80225. (b) National Park Service, Office of Cooperative Activities, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 655 Parfet Street, P. O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225. (c) Bureau of Land Management, State Director (911 Planning) , Room 700, Colorado State Bank Building, 1600 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 Please note: These federal agencies do not need to be contacted if the site that is being proposed bears no relationship to any of the lands, streams, lakes, or rivers operated by these agencies. The burden is on the applicant to show that the proposed site does not affect anything within the jurisdiction of these agencies. 20. Please attach proof of mailing to Director of State Parks, 1845 Sherman, Denver, CO 80203. The same criterion applies here as in No. 19. 21. Consulting engineer: Toups Corporation Address: 1 4titi w i- 1 St11 Si-raaf- , T•OQP1 ana, rolnrarin 80037 Telephone: 303-667-8690 22. - Please include all additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Commission make an informed decision on your application for site approval. This application is for an aerated lagoon system with disinfection. At this time no provisions are made for algae removal in anticipation of a change in standards. If the proposed change does not become reality, a revised site application will be submitted, requesting site approval for algae removal facilities . Date *,,A 7 /Jr.() • • Signature of App ant • -4- B. SIGNATURE OF GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS The undersigned have reviewed the proposal for the location of the above-described wastewater treatment facility and recommend approval or disapproval in spaces provided below: Recommend Recommend No Date ' Approval Disapproval Comment Signature of Representative Local Health Department Local Planning Agency Board of County Commissioners Regional Planning Agency C. Natural Hazards: Comments of State geologist regarding possible natural hazards: Recommend approval: Recommend disapproval: • Date: Signature -5- JUSTIFICATION OF LOCATION The proposed site for a wastewater treatment facility was chosen based on three main reasons: 1. It is accessible to the entire service area by gravity flow. 2. It is felt there would be less adverse environmental effects if the discharge were below Law Reservoir, _rather than into it. 3. In an effort to keep costs at a minimum, more interceptor sewer to get to a location further from town was felt to be unjustifiable. The site is presently used for the production of crops. Approximately two acres will be required, which will be removed from agricultural use. The owners of the irrigation ditch have agreed to take the effluent in return for the right to the water. IFIGURE 8-1. SCHEMATIC OF PROPOSED FACILITIES 1 % : ' '. _4 i 10 ',;t:, ._• Severance is . •I o —i see ti e u 1 r n a . r •, � r - U 141I 0 . :-.'":...il 5'J 111 1. LA1� RESERVOIR `.,::, 't L° "lli L. /' ( PRoposee� '1/4 ' ^ i Localc%o,;' 68.0 . c°POND a1 '52 itil CHWRI. ,j774',.J .4 6 K i% ''ig all . \._) ,i0 VT N v 24 A/TS [ . I 4. 19 Bentonite Application. Prior to application, the Contractor shall submit for approval laboratory test results that determine the percentage by weight of bentonite required to seal the lagoons. The permeability of the soil-bentonite mixture shall be less than 10-4 cm. per second when tested at 95% compaction in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D-698 and at an eight foot head of water. Payment for "Furnishing and Installing Bentonite Sealer" , I Bid Item No. 7 , shall be on a per square yard basis. The bentonite shall be as manufactured by Wyo-Ben Products, Inc. , Wyoming, or an approved equal. The Contractor shall base his bid upon an application rate of 36.0 lbs. ll per square yard. Final application rates will be determined by the test procedure noted above. A change order will be issued specifying the final application IIIrates and the unit price for Bid Item No. 7 shall be reduced or increased by the actual cost of the decrease or increase in material per square yard. IlThe bentonite shall be applied at the rate of the number of pounds per square foot as determined by the approved test results to an area one foot above the lower end of ll the tar impregnated panel in the first cell . Application shall consist of disking the top four (4) inches of the surface, spreading a uniform layer of bentonite and mixing I into the surface by redisking, followed by tamping to compact it. r I 4 . 20 Infiltration Test. After compaction of fill materials has been completed, tested, and approved, the Engineer } will check infiltration of groundwater into the line. This check will begin at the furtherest upgrade end of 'I the system and proceed downgrade from section to section. A section shall be defined as any portion of installed sewer line between two adjacent manholes. Il . 4.21 Gate Valves. The gate valves installed o r n the sewer main effluent lines at the treatment facility shall be low I head valves designed for use in sewage treatment facilities and adaptable to PVC gravity sewer pipe. The gate valves shall be as manufactured by "Dresser" or an approved equal. ll4 .22 Surface Restoration. Where curb and gutter, sidewalks, i drainage culverts, headwalls, etc. , or other improved surfaces have been removed during the course of the work II such items shall, be restored to a condition equal to that tF prior to removal, to the same elevation and alignment. F 16 �11lit " JAN 19 Q II 4-5 jc7IV1g cP Doom.F�804 g C® ® -7'4 �T 4 ',1*"' �9� fr7c;a jv 208 AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL PLANNING REPORT WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS SEVERANCE, COLORADO Prepared For Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments 201 East Fourth Street Loveland, Colorado 80537 F. A. Eidsness, Jr. , 208 Program Director Terrence L. Trembly, Assistant Director Technical Planning By: W. Tom Pitts , P.E. , Project Director W. R. Everest, P.E. , Project Manager W. B. Heller, P.E. , Project Engineer TOUPS CORPORATION Loveland, Colorado Financial Planning By: James Murray, Ph.D. E. W. Lewan, P.E. BRISCOE, MAPHIS, MURRAY, AND LAMONT, INC. Boulder, Colorado May 1977 The preparation of this report was financed in part through a Water Quality Management Technical Assistance Planning Grant from the Environmental Protection Agency under the provisions of Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500)- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 1.1 TECHNICAL PLANNING SUMMARY 1 1. 2 FINANCIAL PLANNING SUMMARY 1-a 2. 0 INTRODUCTION 2 2. 1 AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS 2 2. 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF TECHNICAL PLAN 2 2. 2.1 Purpose 2 2.2. 2 Scope 3 3. 0 PLANNING AREA CHARACTERISTICS 4 3.1 EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION 4 4.0 WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 6 4.1 ESTIMATED CHARACTERISTICS 6 4.1.1 Flow 6 4 .1. 2 Composition 6 4.1. 3 Design Factors 7 5. 0 DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS 9 5.1 WASTE DISCHARGE STANDARDS 9 5.1.1 Existing Requirements 9 5. 1. 2 Proposed Requirements 9 5. 2 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT METHODS 11 5. 2. 1 Land Treatment 11 5. 2. 2 Treatment and Reuse 12 5.2. 3 Treatment and Discharge 12 6. 0 BASIS OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 13 7. 0 ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL 14 7.1 PROCESS SELECTION CRITERIA 14 7.2 ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROCESSES 15 7. 2. 1 Pond Systems 15 7. 2.1.1 Stabilization Ponds 16 7. 2.1. 2 Aerated Lagoons 16 7. 2.1. 3 Aerated Lagoons with Algae Removal 16 7. 2. 1.4 Total Evaporation System 17 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT. ) 7. 2.2 Mechanical Systems 17 7. 2. 2.1 Extended Aeration 17 7.2. 2. 2 Oxidation Ditch 18 7.2. 2. 3 Rotating Biological Contactor 18 7. 2. 3 Land Disposal 18 7. 2.4 Septic Tank Systems 19 7. 3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 19 7. 4 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS 20 8. 0 BEST ALTERNATIVE PROJECT 22 8.1 RECOMMENDED PLANT LOCATION 22 8. 2 RECOMMENDED FACILITIES DESCRIPTION 22 8 . 2. 1 Collection and Interceptor Facilities 22 8. 2. 2 Treatment and Disposal Facilities 23 8. 3 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 25 9. 0 FINANCIAL PROGRAM 26 9. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS IN SEVERANCE 26 9. 1.1 Financial Capabilities 26 9. 1. 2 Sewage Handling Facilities and Proposed Improvements 27 9. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEWER UTILITY MANAGEMENT 27 9 .2 .1 Utility Service Area 27 9. 2. 2 Financial Policies 27 9. 2. 3 Service for New Developments 28 9. 3 ANALYSIS OF SEVERANCE 'S ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT A CENTRAL SEWAGE SYSTEM 28 9. 3. 1 Financing the Proposed Capital Improvements 29 9 .3.1.1 Plant Investment Fees 29 9. 3.1. 2 Grants and Subsidized Loans 33 9 .3. 1.3 Town Borrowing 34 9. 3.2 Sources for Financing System Operating Costs 36 9. 3. 3 Effects of Population Growth 37 9. 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 38 9.4. 1 Conclusions 38 9 . 4. 2 Summary of Major Problems 39 9. 4.3 Recommendations 40 Appendix A - Bibliography ii LIST OF TABLES TABLE NO. PAGE Table 4.1. 3-A Unit Design Factors 8 Table 4. 2-A Wasteload Projections 8 Table 5.1. 1-A Current Waste Discharge Requirements 10 Table 7. 2-A Alternative Treatment Processes 15 Table 7. 3-A Estimated Costs of Alternative Plans 21 Table 8.2-A Cost Estimate for Best Alternative Project 23 Table 8. 3-A Estimated Implementation Program 25 Table 9.3-A Typical Annual Cost for Each Unit on the System (25 Initial Taps) 30 Table 9.3-B Typical Annual Cost for Each Unit on the System (50 Initial Taps) 31 Table 9 .3.1-A Sources of Potential Financial Aid 35 iii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NO. PAGE Figure 3.0-A Location of Severance 6 Figure 8. 2. 2-A Schematic of Proposed Facilities 24 iv 1. 0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. 1 TECHNICAL PLANNING SUMMARY The septic tank systems currently being used by the Town of Severance for sewerage service are failing, and pose a health hazard to the residents. The Weld County Health Department has a policy of not allowing additional septic tanks in the town. Since other basic municipal services are offered, the lack of a municipal wastewater treatment plant is the major growth constraint in the town. Several wastewater treatment alternatives available to Severance are evaluated in this report. Considering the Weld County Health Department policy concerning future septic tanks, the results of the technical analysis of these alternatives indicate that it will be necessary to construct a centralized sewerage system if the town desires to grow. The most cost-effective solution is the construction of a wastewater collection system throughout the town, and a treatment facility in the vicinity of Law Reservoir. The treatment plant would consist of a multi- celled aerated stabilization pond system, polishing pond, and chlorination facilities. Total project costs are estimated to be $246,000. Initial operation and maintenance approximate $3 ,700 annually. This cost-effective system is based on conformance with EPA-proposed waste discharge standards which contain a relaxed suspended solids limitation for pond systems. If these proposed standards are not adopted by EPA, it would be necessary for the town to construct a mechanical treatment plant. Under this alternative, total system costs would increase to $315 ,000 capital and $6,400 initial O&M, respectively. These higher costs would result in the project being financially infeasible. A process has been outlined in the report such that the town can make its own decision concerning financial planning for the project. Specific sources and amounts of financing can be estimated and combined into an overall financial plan and revenue program. The process can be used to refine the program to meet Severance' s specific circumstances, and the town's willingness and ability to assume financial committments. 1 1. 2 FINANCIAL PLANNING SUMMARY Serverance has very limited financial capability for the construction and operation of a central wastewater facility. The tax base is quite small, reflecting the Town's small population. Even though the combined mill levy is not high at 67 mills, each additional mill would produce only $117 for the Town. No Town sales tax is levied. Although this source is a possibility, these funds may be needed for other non-revenue producing facilities desired by the Town's residents. Median family income is quite low as reported in the 1970 census. This indicates a limited capacity for the Town to set user charges to finance a central sewerage system. Severance is not in a favorable position to generate public revenues for any major community project. It will be essential that capital funds are raised from sources outside the community. This may be from grants and/or developer participation. Problems that will arise as the Town attempts to garner the necessary financing for its wastewater system will demand much attention from the existing residents. However, care should be exercised not to overlook the broader problem at hand which is how a central wastewater system should be managed in the best long-run interests of the citizens. Management policies regarding the utility service area, extensions, and utility operation are equally as important, and closely related to, financial policies on new hookup and service charges. Policies in these areas should be discussed early to gain citizen understanding and to set the stage for the purely financial decisions. To assist in these areas, the Town should obtain a copy of the Utility Management Handbook (1977) available from the LWRCOG. Assuming outside assistance can be obtained to cover the system capital costs, the most critical financial variable will be the Town's success in securing hookups from among the existing residents. A maximum of 50 taps appears to be potentially possible. Because this group of system users will bear most of the costs (over that which can be charged to new growth) a maximum number agreeing to hookup initially will lower the individual burden to each. For this reason, incentives (or advance agreement) to hookup immediately are highly desirable. This suggests the plant investment fee (PIF) charged the existing residents should be lower than what might be charged new growth. 1-a If the Town can secure all 50 potential hookups, and obtain 100 percent outside capital funding, annual user charges of $86 would cover the system's operational costs, even with no growth beyond the first 50 taps. Growth would lower this charge per user so long as no additional operating or capital costs are incurred. If there is a developer in the picture, the possibility that the developer might cover service charges on prepaid taps should be explored. Of utmost importance is that Severance is sure of its residents' desire for a central system, and their understanding of, and willingness to bear the associated costs. If there is agreement to proceed, the management policies should be discussed and sources for outside financial assistance contacted. 1-b 2. 0 INTRODUCTION 2. 1 AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS This Technical Planning Report has been prepared as part of an overall Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (208) for the Larimer-Weld region begin developed by Toups Corporation and Briscoe, Maphis, Murray, and Lamont, Inc. , for the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments (LWRCOG) . The purpose of the Technical Planning component of the 208 plan is to assist various communities in the Larimer-Weld region in solving particular wastewater management problems by developing the best alternative project for waste treatment and disposal. This Technical Planning Report has been prepared to provide near-term guidance for the Town of Severance. This report (along with appropriate modifications) will be incorporated into the LWRCOG Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan following review and approval by all govern- mental agencies involved. 2. 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF TECHNICAL PLAN The residents of the Town of Severance currently use septic tanks for wastewater disposal. These systems have not performed satisfactorily in recent years due to a high water table. The Weld County Health Department (1976) has expressed concern for groundwater quality degrada- tion in the area, and they have indicated that existing septic tanks are inadequate. Development of a recently proposed 115-unit subdivision has been prevented due to lack of community sewerage facilities. An engineering study was prepared for the Town of Severance in 1975 to investigate the feasibility of installing a community wastewater treat- ment system. The report was not approved by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs or by the Colorado Department of Health. A site application submitted to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission has been tabled for more than a year pending satisfactory completion of a feasibility study. 2. 2. 1 Purpose The purpose of this Technical Plan is to reanalyze all wastewater treatment and disposal options available to the Town of Severance, recommend the best alternative project, and fully describe that project. Upon completion of the report, the town may submit an application for a governmental grant to assist in project implementation and solve the problems discussed above. 2 2 .2.2 Scope The scope of this Technical Plan includes the following phases: . Describe the planning area characteristics; . Determine wastewater characteristics; . Analyze waste treatment and discharge requirements; . Develop, analyze, and screen alternative plans; . Prepare a detailed description of the best alternative project, including engineering, financial and institutional programs; . Prepare a Technical Planning Report presenting all data, and outlining a wastewater management program for the 20-year planning period. . Assessment of current financial capabilities; . Development of a procedure for establishing a financial program; . Analysis of the ability (and risks involved) in financing the proposed wastewater treatment program. 3 3. 0 PLANNING AREA CHARACTERISTICS The Town of Severance is located in west-central Weld County approximately six miles northeast of Windsor. Severance was founded in 1906 and incorporated in 1920. Severance is primarily a residential community; however, there are presently some limited commercial and industrial activities within the town. The location and current town boundary of Severance is shown on Figure 3. 0-A. 3.1 EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION The population of Severance at the time of the 1970 Census was 52 people. The present population is estimated to be about 100 people. The proposed 115-unit subdivision will increase the population by slightly more than 400 when fully developed. Projection of future population for a town such as Severance is difficult. The development of a single subdivision can drastically alter any projections that are made. Past projections have indicated only minimal growth, primarily because of a lack of a community sewerage system. However, the town is centrally located, easily accessible, has a relatively low tax structure, and served with other required utility services. Based on these factors, and assuming a wastewater treatment and disposal system can be developed in the town, moderate growth will occur. Previous population projections developed for the Town of Severance [NHPQ-1975] indicate an estimated 777 people by 1997. A population of 800 by the year 2000 is utilized for planning purposes in this report. It is estimated that the 1983 population of the town will be approximately 600, assuming full development of the presently proposed subdivision by that time. 4 Z O w re ai w z o J — a W J Cr W W w O g Z c' cc a a W J > d i W CL Li) a 2 4111 i \ Z Z Jj,6, O 3 a O I. m ow W Z W cc z a • O Q o) n CCtl)AItl )tl� O O z z E -J 0 ✓ O 3 U Z m FIGURE 3. 0-A. LOCATION OF SEVI;PANCE 5 4 . 0 WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS Because no treatment system presently exists in Severance, wastewater characteristics will be estimated based on historical data, results of a regional wastewater quality sampling program recently conducted by Toups, and on recommended design criteria published by the Colorado Department of Health (CDH) . Wasteload projections will be developed based on waste characteristics and population projections . 4. 1 ESTIMATED CHARACTERISTICS In analyzing wastewater characteristics , it is necessary to investigate components affecting both the amount of wastewater and its strength and composition. 4. 1. 1 Flow Since Severance is predominately a residential community and will probably continue as such, a unit average flow of 100 gallons per capita per day (gcd) is a realistic value for design purposes and will be utilized in this report. This value represents typical domestic waste, including residential and normal commercial contributions , together with infiltration/inflow (I/I) expected even from well- designed and constructed sewerage systems. Peak flow will be calculated based upon 250 percent of the average flow. These two values are also recommended by CDH. 4. 1. 2 Composition Wastewater strength is generally measured in terms of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and suspended solids (SS) . Evaluation of other constituents such as chemical oxygen demand (COD) , ammonia (NH3) , temperature and pH are necessary in particular situations. Based on past analyses of waste characteristics in the area, and the results of a sampling program conducted by Toups Corporation in the Larimer-Weld region as part of the Technical Planning component of the 208 Plan, the following unit values are appropriate for design purposes: 200 milligrams per liter (mg/1) BOD5, 200 mg/1 SS, and 15 mg/1 ammonia. Based on a unit flow of 100 gcd, the unit strength of wastewater is 0.18 pounds per capita per day (pcd) BOD5 and 0.18 pcd SS. 6 4 .1. 3 Design Factors A summary of unit design factors for sizing various components of the wastewater system is presented in Table 4. 1. 3-A. 4. 2 WASTELOAD PROJECTIONS Wasteload projections have been developed by applying the unit design factors shown in Table 4 .1.3-A to the projected population of 800. Resulting wasteload projections are summarized in Table 4. 2-A. 7 TABLE 4 .1. 3-A. UNIT DESIGN FACTORS ITEM FACTOR Wastewater Flow Average flow (gcd) 100 (a) Peak flow (% of average) 250 Wastewater Composition BOD5 (pcd) 0.18 SS (pcd) 0.18 Ammonia (mg/1) 15 gcd = gallons per capita per day pcd = pounds per capita per day (a) Includes minimum I/I contributions. TABLE 4. 2-A. WASTELOAD PROJECTIONS CONSTITUENT WASTELOAD Flow (gd) Average flow 80,000 Peak flow 200,000 Average Composition (lbs/day) BOD5 150 SS 150 Ammonia 10 gd = gallons per day 8 5. 0 DISCHARGE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS Wastewater must be disposed of in a manner which will protect the public health, maintain receiving water quality consistent with its beneficial uses, and prevent nuisance at the site of disposal. These conditions, along with economic considerations , determine the degree and type of wastewater treatment necessary prior to disposal or reuse. In this section, discharge standards are delineated, treatment requirements are outlined, and an overview of alternative treatment processes are presented. 5. 1 WASTE DISCHARGE STANDARDS Standards promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) for the discharge of wastes to receiving waters have been extensively discussed in the South Platte River Water Quality Management Plan [Toups-1974] . Current standards have been refined, and further changes are presently being proposed. 5. 1.1 Existing Requirements As a minimum, planning of publically-owned wastewater treatment facilities must provide for secondary treatment by 1977 or as soon as possible thereafter, and for application of Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology (BPWTT) prior to 1983. The levels of BPWTT and various waste management techniques available to meet those levels have been defined (EPA-1975] . Secondary treatment and BPWTT requirements apply to discharges to all surface waters of the State. The WQCC has ruled that these standards also apply to discharges to privately-owned irrigation supply waters. More stringent standards apply to discharges to water quality limited segments of State receiving waters; however, no such segments are located in the vicinity of the Town of Severance. Table 5. 1.1-A summarizes current EPA secondary treatment requirements as promulgated under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (PL 92-500) , together with current standards of the Colorado WQCC. 5.1. 2 Proposed Requirements EPA has recently proposed a relaxation of suspended solids limitations in discharge standards of communities which utilize stabilization pond systems (Federal ,Register, September 2 , 1976) . 9 The proposed standards recognize the need to retain pond systems for many smaller communities because of their inherent economical and functional advantages. Adoption of the regulations would allow the EPA Regional Administrator or state agency to grant a variance with respect to suspended solids limitations of secondary treatment requirements defined in NPDES permits, providing the community can show that: (1) waste stabilization ponds are used as the process for secondary treatment; (2) the treatment facilities have a design capacity of 1 mgd or less; and (3) performance data indicates that the facilities cannot comply with present suspended solids limitations, even if properly operated, without the addition of treatment systems not historically considered as secondary treatment (i.e. , filtration systems for algae removal) . Pond systems would still be required to meet an effluent quality achievable by "Best Waste Stabilization Pond Technology" (BWSPT) . BWSPT is defined as a suspended solids value which is equal to the effluent concentration achieved 90 percent of the time within a state or appropriate contiguous geographical area, by waste stabilization ponds that are achieving the levels of effluent quality established for BOD (30/45 mg/1) . TABLE 5. 1. 1-A. CURRENT WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS Federal PL 92-500 State WQCC Parameter 30-day 7-day 30-day 7-day Single Average Average Average Average Sample BOD5 (mg/1) 30 (a) 45 ns ns ns SS (mg/1) 30 (a,d) 45 (d) ns ns ns pH ns ns ns ns (b) Total Residual Chlorine (mg/1) ns ns ns ns 0.5 Fecal Coliform (MPN/100 ml) ns ns 6 ,000 12 ,000 ns Oil and Grease (mg/1) ns ns ns ns 10 (c) ns = none specified (a) Shall not exceed 15 percent of 30-day average influent concentration. (b) Within the limits of 6. 0 to 9. 0 unless it can be demonstrated that: (1) inorganic chemicals are not added to the waste stream as part of the treatment process; and (2) contributions from industrial sources do not cause the pH to exceed the 6. 0 to 9. 0 limits (EPA requirements) . (c) Nor shall there be a visible sheen. (d) Conditional relaxation of these standards now proposed by EPA for communities utilizing stabilization ponds systems with a design capacity of 1 mgd or less. 10 5. 2 OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT METHODS There are three general classes of treatment systems available today: land treatment, treatment and reuse, and treatment and discharge. The first two alternatives will be discussed in general while the third--treatment and discharge--will be developed in detail. 5. 2. 1 Land Treatment Land treatment must be distinguished from treatment and reuse by agriculture. While these two alternatives may involve identical processes , land treatment refers to the situation where the municipal agency is responsible for ownership, operation and maintenance for all treatment facilities involved with pretreatment (stabilization ponds, primary sedimentation, etc. ) , disinfection, land application, crop harvesting, etc. In contrast is treatment and agriculture reuse where the municipality enters into an agreement with a second party who accepts the treated wastewater and uses it for irrigation purposes. In this second alternative, the municipality generally assumes no responsibility for the distribution of the wastewater or for the harvesting of the crops. The factors which affect the cost of a land system most directly is the area of land required for the design flowrate of the community. Both the size of the application equipment and the land capital costs are directly related to the required area which is determined by the allowable hydraulic loading rate. The allowable hydralic loading rate for a high-rate irrigation process is dependent only upon the soils ' capacity for transmitting water and not on crop irrigation requirements. The maximum hydraulic loading rate is the sum of soil moisture depletion plus the quantity which can be transmitted through the root zone. The soil moisture depletion for the local climatic conditions is approximately 12 inches for the season while the soil transmission rate can range between 10 and 600 inches per year depending on soil type and surficial geology. Total hydraulic loading rates can therefore range between 22 and 612 inches per year which correspond to area requirements of 610 acres/million gallons and 20 acres/million gallons respectively. The suspended solids concentration of the water also affects the hydraulic loading rate by clogging the soil. The rates discussed above must be considered maximum. There is also a "buffer area" requirement which increases the necessary amount of land. 11 The estimated cost of a land treatment system designed for a flowrate of 81,000 gpd is $333,000. Corresponding annual cost is about $31,000 per year. A crop revenue of $5 ,000 per year has been estimated based on alfalfa having a net profit of $25. 00 per ton and a yield of 4.5 tons per acre. The primary basis for this cost analysis is the Boulder , Colorado, Land Treatment Project which has similar climatic, geological, and soil characteristics. The cost of this system is about $258 ,000 more than the treatment and discharge cost (which will be shown later) . The revenue derived from crop production does not justify the cost. 5.2. 2 Treatment and Reuse Four factors prerequisite to wastewater reuse of treated wastewater are: 1) the availability of a wastewater reuser (industry or irrigation operation located in close proximity to source of treated wastewater) ; 2) storage facilities or alternate disposal site for wastewater during periods of non-reuse; 3) capability of producing treated wastewater effluent of required quality; and 4) legal ownership of the wastewater by the municipality. The State of Colorado currently does not have water quality standards for reuse of wastewater for irrigation purposes. Assuming that the applicable standards will be no less stringent than the existing recommended Federal standards , it will be necessary for the plant effluent to satisfy a 30-30 standard. Since this standard is identical with the quality requirements for discharge , no additional treatment facilities would be required for agricultural reuse than if the water were discharged directly as is the current practice. The identical discharge standard also eliminate the requirement for effluent storage during non-irrigation periods. If it is desired to maximize the amount of wastewater reuse, a reservoir would be required to store water seasonally. This alternative will be further discussed later in the report. 5 .2. 3 Treatment and Discharge There are many methods of treating municipal wastewater to a quality at which it can be discharged. Since the reuse of wastewater requires that water be treated to at least the same quality that a discharge would necessitate, treatment methods will be discussed in detail in Chapter 7 . 12 6. 0 BASIS OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT In subsequent chapters , specific treatment alternatives and costs will be discussed. A best alternative and recommended course of action will be derived from those discussions. The treatment processes discussed will be evaluated in accordance with the Colorado Health Department' s design criteria. The cost of constructing and maintaining the facilities required for each of the alternative plans considered in this report includes the capital outlay necessary for initial funding plus continued expenditures for operation throughout the lifetime of the project. The data presented in the following sections will provide sufficient information for comparison of alternative plans. 13 7.0 ALTERNATIVE PLANS FOR TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL This section includes a discussion of process selection criteria and a discussion of alternative treatment processes. 7. 1 PROCESS SELECTION CRITERIA The selection of the optimum process for an individual community should not be based exclusively on the economics of the individual processes capable of satisfying discharge requirements. Many of the technical and social factors should be considered in evaluation of viable alternatives . Community characteristics such as growth rate, land cost and availability, proximity of treatment facilities to residential or commercial areas, available operator capabilities, and treatment facility aesthetics affects (visual and odor) on the community, all have a bearing on the treatment facilities best suited for a given community. There are a great number of alternative treatment processes capable of satisfying BOD5 and suspended solids (SS) discharge requirements. The alternatives discussed in the following sections are those which have been found suitable for small communities. Processes requiring extremely sophisticated operator capabilities generally unavailable in small communities, such as continuous operator monitoring, are not considered in this report. There are two major treatment plant classifications: biological and physical/chemical. Both types of processes have the same objective--removal of dissolved and particulate organic material. Biological treatment processes, some of which have been used since the turn of the century, depend on microorganisms to convert putrescible substances to less noxious chemical forms which are compatible with the environment. Controlled biological processes are those such as activated sludge or biofilters in which the biological growth conditions are artificially controlled; stabilization ponds or aerated lagoons are considered uncontrolled biological processes. Although the biofiltration process will produce a relatively high degree of treatment, it is difficult to consistently produce biofilter effluent quality that meets the 30 mg/1 suspended solids limitation of the secondary treatment requirement. Therefore, the biofiltration process will not be considered further in this report. Physical/chemical treatment consists of the addition of various chemicals to aggregate and to aid settling particulate matter and to oxidize organic substances. 14 Depending on the particular effluent quality goals, physical/chemical plants may employ multimedia filtration, activated carbon adsorption, ozonation or any one of several other processes. While there are several small physical/chemical package plants currently on the market, none will be considered in view of their stringent operational requirements . At Severance, the wastewater treatment process chosen must have the flexibility of being operable at extremely low percentage loading rates . It must also be easily expandable. This capability is necessary as protection against an enormous but unexpected growth rate. 7. 2 ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROCESSES The treatment processes that will be considered as alternatives in this report are shown in Table 7. 2-A. Each is described below. TABLE 7. 2-A. ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROCESSES DESIGNATION PROCESS Pond Systems 1 Stabilization Ponds 2 Aerated Lagoons 3 Aerated Lagoons with Algae Removal 4 Total Evaporation System Mechanical Systems 5 Extended Aeration 6 Oxidation Ditch 7 Rotating Biological Contactor 8 Land Disposal 9 Septic Tank Systems 7. 2. 1 Pond Systems According to the EPA, 25 percent of the wastewater treatment plants in this country are lagoons (Fed. Reg. 10/2/76) . Nearly 90 percent of these wastewater treatment ponds serve communities of 5 ,000 population or less [ibid] . The reason they are so popular with small communities is because initial installation costs and operation and maintenance costs are relatively low. Because of the fairly long detention time in lagoons, they are less susceptible to slug shock loads or breakdown than are mechanical plants. 15 7. 2.1.1 Stabilization Ponds Stabilization ponds are lagoons with no mechanical aeration or mixing. These ponds generally range in depth from 3 to about 7 feet. Algae growing in the ponds supply dissolved oxygen. Because oxygen is only produced when algae is active, the ponds normally are anaerobic (no dissolved oxygen) at night and during the winter months . Odors are produced during anaerobic conditions. These odors can be especially bad in the spring right after the ice melts off the ponds. Unless the ponds are located quite a distance from inhabited buildings, the aesthetic effects make them undesirable. Further, it is stated in Colorado's manual of design criteria that "It is very doubtful that unaerated waste stabilization ponds can meet the effluent standards for discharge. " [Rozich, 1973] . 7. 2.1. 2 Aerated Lagoons Aerated lagoons are similar to stabilization ponds. The only difference is that one or more of these ponds are aerated and mixed mechanically. This virtually eliminates periods of zero dissolved oxygen, and therefore odors are controlled. Since the addition of energy is required, operation and maintenance (O & M) costs are higher than for stabilization ponds, but not as high as for mechanical plants. These plants are normally designed with two or more cells in series. The final cell must be a quiescent pond to settle heavy particles. The weight of algae is so close to the weight of water that it remains suspended in the water and will not settle. It is for this reason that EPA is considering changing the suspended solids standard for lagoons. 7. 2. 1. 3 Aerated Lagoons with Algae Removal Many processes have recently been tested which could be added to lagoons to remove algae. These include rapid sand filters, intermittent sand filters , rock filters , air flotation, and chemical addition which aids settling. Chemical costs and/or operational costs for several of these processes are so high that the advantages of using lagoons are eliminated. Rock filters showed a great deal of promise. Several have been installed in Colorado recently. Evaluation of these indicates that about 50 percent of the algae is removed. Unfortunately, suspended solids concentrations due to algae frequently exceeds 90 mg/1 in the summer, indicating the 30 mg/1 effluent standard cannot be consistently met. The other process which has low O & M costs is the intermittent sand filter. Sand beds are installed with underdrains. Lagoon effluent is poured on the beds intermittently, allowed to percolate, and dry out. Periodically the sand is scarified and eventually replaced after it becomes thoroughly plugged. 16 7. 2. 1. 4 Total Evaporation System In Colorado the evaporation rate exceeds the precipitation rate by about 33 inches per year. This phenomenon can be put to work by designing ponds large enough to store water during periods of low evaporation and to totally evaporate when the rate is high. Since no discharge occurs , the need to meet standards is nullified. 7. 2. 2 Mechanical Systems As previously stated, only biological mechanical plants will be evaluated. 7. 2. 2.1 Extended Aeration Extended aeration is a modified activated sludge process suitable for use by small communities. Basically, raw wastewater is aerated for 24 hours in a tank containing a high concentration of activated sludge microorganisms which break down the waste substances. The mixture of water and sludge is then sent to a clarifier or settling tank where the activated sludge organisms are separated from the liquid phase. The settled sludge is returned to the aeration tank and the clear wastewater is discharged. Depending on the discharge quality requirements, disinfection of the final outflow may be required. The major mechanical equipment required for an extended aeration plant are aerators (diffused or mechanical) and sludge return pumps. External separate sludge digestion facilities are not required since digestion occurs while the sludge is in the aeration circuit (internal digestion) . A relatively small aerated sludge holding tank enabling uniform wasting of sludge from the aeration circuit would be required in Colorado. Depending on local conditions , sludge is generally pumped to sludge drying beds for dewatering and subsequent trucking to sanitary landfills, disposed of by land treatment, or trucked as a liquid to an appropriate disposal site. The primary advantage of extended aeration over conventional activated sludge is that extended aeration is more stable biologically and thus requires less operation and maintenance. Proper operation will require the services of a relatively highly-trained operator for several hours each day. It has generally been found that a well-operated plant does not result in any odor prob1(.n. 17 7. 2. 2. 2 Oxidation Ditch The oxidation ditch is a modification of the extended aeration-activated sludge process which utilizes a closed loop channel as an aeration chamber. The process was originally intended to be a low-cost system requiring non-sophisticated construction methods and mechanical equipment. The process flow scheme consists of aeration of raw wastewater in the loop channel followed by the sedimentation of the activated sludge in a clarifier. The activated sludge (active microorganisms) is returned from the clarifier back to the aeration tank. Brush aerators are used to supply oxygen and to retain solids in suspension in the aeration channel. Internal sludge digestion occurs and eliminates the requirements for external sludge digestion facilities. Depending on land availability for sludge drying beds, it may be cost-effective to provide for external sludge digestion in plants having design flowrates greater than 0.5 mgd. Sludge also can be disposed of by other methods such as land treatment or liquid sanitary landfill. The biological stability of the oxidation ditch process causes it to have one of the lowest operation and maintenance requirements of any of the controlled biological treatment processes such as activated sludge or bio-filters. This is a significant advantage for small communities where highly-trained operators might not be readily available. Land requirements are typical of controlled biological processes. 7. 2. 2. 3 Rotating Biological Contactor A rotating biological contactor is similar in operation to a trickling filter plant. It is available in package form and can therefore be installed by a small community for much less money than can a trickling filter plant. This plant uses a rotating drum on which a biological slime layer grows . This slime layer is the BOD5 removal mechanism. Remaining solids are settled in a clarifier prior to discharge. 7. 2. 3 Land Disposal Land disposal can follow any of the previously mentioned alternatives. The most common land disposal technique is irrigation of a crop used as cattle feed, such as corn or alfalfa. Sufficient capacity to store the flow for 120 to 180 days is required for good irrigation systems. 18 Less storage capacity is required if the goal is merely to dispose of the water on land. There are many warm winter days when irrigation equipment can be used without fear of freezing. Colorado water laws must be given serious attention while evaluating this alternative. 7. 2.4 Septic Tank Systems More dwellings in this region use septic tanks for wastewater disposal than all of the rest of the processes combined. Wastewater goes through the tank, where solids are settled, to a leach field. Wastewater is leached, or filtered, through the soil where impurities are removed. 7. 3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The State of Colorado requires that all wastewater treatment plants be operated by a certified operator. Different degrees of skill are required for various sizes and complexities of treatment plants. At Severance, any of the lagoon alternatives would require a "D" operator, which is the lowest operator classification. Any mechanical plant would require a Class C operator, which is a more skilled class of operator. The Larimer-Weld Regional COG is presently considering applying for an EPA demonstration grant to establish an O & M agency for a short period of time. It is visualized that this agency would provide technical assistance to the town' s operator. The agency could also satisfy the certification requirements for the duration of the agency. Since this agency is still in the concept stage, 0 & M costs presented in Table 7. 3-A assume that no aid will come from outside the community. If Severance decides to keep using septic tanks , they could provide municipal 0 & M services by purchasing a pumping truck and contracting with a nearby community for permission to dump the wastes. The town could hire a part-time driver for the truck. In this manner, some of the detrimental health effects could be partially controlled, although some groundwater contamination would still occur. No certified plant operator would be required to perform this function. 19 7.4 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS The alternatives discussed above are presented in large part to give the reader a better understanding of the decisions involved in choosing a best alternative. Table 7. 3-A indicates the capital costs and the capital plus 0 & M costs for the applicable alternatives discussed. Some costs, such as for septic tanks , are not presented for reasons discussed below. Septic tanks are currently being used in Severance. In recent years many septic tank failures have occurred due to a high groundwater. The water table at Severance has risen because of the irrigation ditches. The Weld County Health Department has expressed serious concern for the health and safety of residents due to the septic tank failures. Any significant growth will not be allowed to occur as long as there is no municipal wastewater treatment plant. Because of the immenent health hazard, the continued use of septic tanks is not recommended. If a municipal sewage treatment plant is to be built in Severance, it is logical that it should be located topographically below the present and proposed residences. An interceptor sewer line costs $10. 00 per foot installed, so the plant should not be too far below these residences . The land immediately below the proposed subdivision is owned by the Felte Brothers. Mr. Felte indicates that if more than two or three acres of land are taken out of production, he could lose his water right. Because of this, no alternative should be chosen which requires more than two acres of land. The total evaporation system is very effective at many communities the size of Severance. At Severance, however, there is a problem with high groundwater. It is very difficult to effectively seal the lagoon so that groundwater cannot seep into the lagoon. In addition, area required for a total evaporation system is relatively high. Algae removal from a lagoon system appears to be an unneeded element in light of the proposed EPA regulations. It will not be further considered. The extended aeration treatment method was used extensively in Colorado until a few years ago. One of the advantages is that it can be delivered in package form. Another is that it is one of the more easily operated of the activated sludge processes. Unfortunately, activated sludge facilities require a great deal of skill and time to properly operate compared to other treatment techniques. 20 Because of this, the communities using extended aeration treatment have not been consistently meeting effluent standards, and the Colorado Health Department has discouraged its use. The oxidation ditch has performed well in Colorado. However, the capital costs are prohibitively high, as they are with rotating biological contactors. Table 7-3A presents capital and annual costs for all alternatives considered in detail. TABLE 7-3-A. ESTIMATED COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS PROCESS CAPITAL COST CAPITAL & O & M COSTS ($/1000 Gal. ) Aerated Lagoon $ 75,000 0 . 60 Extended Aeration 114 ,000 1 . 05 Oxidation Ditch 145,000 1. 00 Rotating Biological Filter 214 ,000 1. 30 Aerated Lagoon with Intermittent Filter 166 ,000 1.10 NOTE: The capital cost figures are estimates based on today' s prices, and include 30 percent for engineering, legal fees , and contingencies. The land disposal alternative was discussed extensively with the Mayor of Severance, Mr. Richard Tallman. The use of the land in the area lends itself well to irrigation with effluent. In order to store 180 days supply and stay within a two-acre area, a lagoon would have to be built which is at least 25 feet deep. It was decided that Severance could pursue this alternative on their own with the Felte Brothers. If the Felte' s are interested in using this source of water, Severance would certainly have no objection. The aerated lagoon alternative meets all the requirements desired. The capital costs and O & M costs are low. It has the flexibility of being operational at very low influent flow rates , and capacity can be easily expanded. Its reliability makes it very attractive. This alternative will be further expanded. 21 8 . 0 BEST ALTERNATIVE PROJECT The health hazards associated with the existing septic tanks indicate that they should be eliminated by installation of a municipal wastewater treatment facility. The above analysis of treatment alternatives indicates that the best solution is treatment and discharge using an aerated lagoon system. 8.1 RECOMMENDED PLANT LOCATION The recommended site for a sewage treatment plant is immediately below the dam on Law Reservoir on the west side of Law Ditch. This location was chosen to keep the number of feet of interceptor sewer line at a minimum and to be able to serve all existing and proposed development by gravity. It is not anticipated that a lift station would be required at this site. 8. 2 RECOMMENDED FACILITIES DESCRIPTION All facilities must be designed and constructed such that they would meet minimum design criteria published by the Colorado Department of Health. A cost estimate of the recommended alternative is detailed in Table 8.2-A. 8. 2. 1 Collection and Interceptor Facilities Some of the minimum standards required by the Colorado Department of Health are as follows [Rozich, 1973) : 1. Average daily per capita flow = 100 gpd 2. Minimum per capita carrying capacity of collection sewers = 400 gpd 3. Minimum per capita carrying capacity of interceptor sewers = 250 gpd 4. Minimum diameter = 8 inches 5. Average sewage velocity = 2 ft. per second (fps) 6. Minimum slope of lines = 0.4 percent 7. Maximum distance between manholes = 400 feet. 8. Lines should be placed deep enough to drain basements. The cost of the sewer line in Table 8. 2-A assumes the use of 8 ,900 feet of vitrified clay pipe, 40 manholes, and miscellaneous items. Another type of sewer line may be recommended during design. 22 8. 2. 2 Treatment and Disposal Facilities A two-cell lagoon system is proposed. The first cell should be aerated and have a detention time of at least 15 days. It is proposed that two five-horsepower floating aerators be installed to supply sufficient dissolved oxygen and to provide adequate mixing. This cell should be lined to prevent groundwater contamination. The second cell should have a detention time of no more than 5 days. This pond should not be aerated as it is to be used as a settling pond. Disinfection is to be accomplished with chlorination equipment. A chlorine contact basin should be provided with a detention time of 30 minutes. Treated effluent will be discharged to Law Ditch. It is estimated that the annual 0 & M costs will be $3,700 per year at 1977 prices. The layout and location of project facilities is shown on Figure 8. 2. 2-A. TABLE 8. 2-A. COST ESTIMATE FOR BEST ALTERNATIVE PROJECT ITEM COST Lagoon Construction, including earth work, clay liner, rip-rap, piping, structures, and (2) 5 HP aerators $ 37 ,600 Land (2 acres at $4 ,000/acre) 8 ,000 Chlorination facilities 10 ,000 Fencing and dock 1,700 Subtotal - Treatment Facilities $ 57 ,300 Collection and interceptor sewers $114 ,700 Total Construction Cost $172 ,000 Construction Contingencies and Engineering Fees - 30 percent $ 52 ,000 Total Project Cost - 1976 Prices $224,000 Estimate Inflation - 11% per year $ 22,000 Total Project Cost - 1977 Prices $246 ,000 23 35 36 --LFVERANCE U Lu 2 Z LAW I -1 RESERVOIR W U W Z TREATMENT PLANT ARBITRARY PLANT / ELEVATION 4858 II / 12 N LOCATION MAP / SCALE. = 2000' INFLUENT / . TRUNK SEWER / POND POND # I #t2 LAW DITCH CHLORINATION TREATMENT FACILITIES FIGURE 8.2.2-A. LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITIES SEVERANCE TECH PLAN , 24 8. 3 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM The minimum practical timetable for the proposed project is presented in Table 8. 3-A. Many of the steps are dependent on the previous steps, so if any are delayed, the others should be set back accordingly. TABLE 8. 3-A. ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM PROJECT TASK IMPLEMENTATION DATE Site Application Submittal March - May, 1977 Investigate and Finalize Financial Program March - June, 1977 Prepare Engineering Plans and Specifications April - June, 1977 Apply for NPDES Permit April , 1977 Review and Approval of Plans and Specifications by Health Department July, 1977 Advertise for Bids and Award Contract August - September , 1977 Construction of Facilities September - December, 1977 Final Inspection by Health Department December, 1977 Start-up of Facilities December, 1977 25 9 . 0 FINANCIAL PROGRAM 9. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS IN SEVERANCE 9. 1. 1 Financial Capabilities The 1975 estimated population of Severance is 81. The community' s current (1977) financial picture can be summarized as follows : . Assessed Valuation: $117, 390 . Anticipated Town Revenue from Property Tax (1977) : $1, 760 . Combined Mill Levy on Severance Taxpayers : 66. 68 Mills Town 15. 00 Mills County 21. 13 Mills School District 30. 55 Mills . Total Sales Tax: 3% (State only) . Additional Sales Tax Capability (Town and County) : 4% . Town' s Bonded Indebtedness (January 1, 1977) : None . Town' s Unused General Obligation Bond Capacity (10% of Assessed Valuation) : $11,740 . Median Family Income : $3,429 Severance' s tax base is quite small, reflecting its small population. Even though the combined mill levy is low at roughly 67 mills , only $117. 40 per mill would be raised with its further use. No sales tax is levied. From State figures (which are high estimates due to State inclusion of sales made outside of Town) , a penny of Severance sales tax would raise less than $2 , 300. All in all, Severance is not in a position to generate public tax funds for major community projects. The median family income figure of $3,429 for Severance (according to the 1970 census) is extremely low, in comparison to medians of $8,000 - $10, 000 for other Larimer- Weld communities. This indicates a possible error in figure, or some special condition (such as a majority of elderly and/or residents living alone) which might make the figure of Questionable validity. Because median family income is a primary determinant of reasonable annual user fees, this figure may need to be investigated during the utility planning process. (See 9. 3. 1. 2) . 26 9. 1. 2 Sewage Handling Facilities and Proposed Improvements The Town of Severance has no central sewage facilities. All sewage disposal is on individual systems. According to the County Health Department, some of the septic systems are having problems and pose a potential health hazard. The technical analysis for Severance estimates a need for $246, 000 in capital investment to provide the minimum central treatment facility for wastewater. This facility would serve the Town and a proposed 115 unit subdivision, and will require an annual operations and maintenance cost of $3, 700. Inflation is expected to increase the operations and maintenance cost to $4 ,285 by 1981, a 5% annual increase from 1978, the base year used in this estimate. An alternative which excludes the proposed subdivision would require a capital investment of $145, 000; but opera- tions and maintenance costs for the smaller facility are estimated to be the same, $4 ,285, by 1981. There are a total of 50 existing units that could potentially hook up to a central system. 9. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEWER UTILITY MANAGEMENT The following are suggested general principles for a balanced utility program. This management process has proven successful in preventing construction and operation of sewer systems from posing an unreasonable burden on resi- dents of growing communities, and is the basis for determining optimum financing capabilities. 9. 2. 1 Utility Service Area The community should lead, not merely follow, develop- ment. The community should decide where it is most economical and efficient to provide services, and make known where it prefers growth to take place. By not annexing or extending utility lines outside the Town into areas it does not want to see grow, it can avoid having to serve those areas. Conversely, for those areas in which it wishes to encourage growth, it can build trunk lines into them and save potential developers that front end cost. This approach must be tied to other community goals, programs, and strategies in order to be successful. 9 .2 . 2 Financial Policies Utility financing for growing communities should be designed so that "he who benefits pays" . This approach may be tempered by other community policies, such as a desire to keep or attract an industry unable to pay its fair share, or to assist development of low income housing which could not be built if a full tap fee were required. 27 This philosophy can be implemented by applying the following policies : . Establish service fees based on all costs of operation including employees ' wages and benefits, maintenance, depreciation. Additional costs may be included, such as a reasonable fee paid into the General Fund for services or facilities, provided to the sewer utility by other municipal departments, such as office space and vehicles. . Establish plant investment or tap fees (PIF) for all new customers or expansions of service, proportionate to treatment plant and trunk capacities the customer is expected to use. (See 9. 3.1.1) ▪ Charge all direct costs of attaching to the system directly to the customer; e.g. , costs of tapping into the line, and laterals and pipe from the street to the building. 9. 2. 3 Service for New Developments Internal or lateral lines or pumps required to serve new developments should be provided by the developers. They may directly finance and build them, passing on costs to future occupants; or, where occupancy is relatively assured, the community may permit a special improvement district to be formed with the bonds paid back over an extended period of years through added mill levies on the properties benefiting. The cost of these localized facilities should not be borne by the community at large. All extensions of lines past undeveloped areas to a development should be financed by the development seeking the service. Some of these costs can be paid back as inter- vening property is developed and attached to the system. The community should not be committed to providing such lines on request. 9. 3 ANALYSIS OF SEVERANCE' S ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT A CENTRAL SEWAGE SYSTEM The major questions a community must ask itself when considering its capabilities to finance and operate a sewer utility are: . Can the community raise enough money to cover capital cost requirements? . Can the community support the system on a con- tinuing basis (operating and maintenance costs) ? . What are the utility financing implications of whether or not the population in the community increases? 28 In developing a financing program, sewer utility needs for financing should always be placed in the context of total community funding needs . Because locally generated funds all come from the same taxpayer or user, a more moderate commitment to sewer costs may be necessary in order to achieve other community goals. Considering that there are many ways to accomplish funding goals, financing strategy must be used to develop the most equitable system for the users with a minimum of future risk. Tables 9. 3-A and 9. 3-B illustrate the basic financial problem. The residents of Severance will have to pay an estimated $4 ,285 annually by 1981 to maintain the central system, plus some amount to retire whatever borrowing is required for the system' s construction. Table 9. 3-A shows how much cost for these two items would fall upon each system user (tap) annually under various assumptions about future growth, and required borrowing for construction, given that 25 hookups at $750 each would occur immediately. Table 9. 3-B shows the same information under the assumption of 50 immediate hookups. The remainder of this section addresses questions of how capital and operating funds for the system might be raised and, in particular, the implications of various population growth rates. 9. 3. 1 Financing the Proposed Capital Improvements Total capital investments of either $145, 000 or $246, 000 would be required to implement the improvements proposed in the engineering analysis . Major sources of capital funding are plant investment fees (PIF' s) , grants, and borrowing. 9. 3. 1. 1 Plant Investment Fees A plant investment fee is normally set by dividing the total capital cost of the system by its capacity, and determining the pro rata share. For example, a $100,000 system to serve 100 units would indicate a PIF of $1, 000 per unit. Where a community is large and wealthy enough to generate proportionate shares of the capital cost, PIF ' s could fully finance its system. In the case of Severance, it is unlikely that PIF revenue can be counted on as the sole source of capital fundings . For example, even if all 50 existing units in Severance chose to hook up to the smaller system, PIF' s of $2, 900 each would be required to fully finance capital costs. This is clearly an unreasonable amount. In fact, it is quite likely that not all existing units would hook up immediately should a significant PIF (or perhaps any PIF) be charged. Severance's experience with a central water system demonstrated that people are not likely to move to central service without an incentive. 29 * TABLE 9. 3-A TYPICAL ANNUAL COST FOR EACH UNIT ON THE SYSTEM* * ' Annual Growth Every Year Through 1996 Growth Rate Funds Borrowed by Town for Relative to New Popu- Sewer System Improvements 1975 Popu- lation New lation Each Year Taps 0 $50, 000 $100, 000 $150, 000 0% 0 $171 368 564 760 5 4 1 126 301 477 652 9 7 2 90 248 406 565 14 • 11 3 60 204 348 493 17 14 4 35 167 300 433 22 18 5 14 136 259 381 43 35 10 Surplus 31 120 209 65 53 15 Surplus 41 111 87 70 20 Surplus 47 ANNUAL COSTS: O & M 4,285 4,285 4 ,285 4 ,285 Old Debt 0 0 0 0 New Debt 0 4, 906 9,812 14 ,718 TOTAL 4 ,285 9,191 14, 097 19, 003 * See note on page 32. ** Based on 25 immediate (1978) hookups at $750 each. There4 - fore, $18 , 750 would be available as local funds that could be used to contribute to initial capital costs. Although these funds might also be used to reduce the annual charges, the figures shown above do not reflect such a policy. Source: Murray; Briscoe, Maphis, Murray & Lamont, Inc. March, 1977 30 TABLE 9 . 3-B * TYPICAL ANNUAL COST FOR EACH UNIT ON THE SYSTEM* * Annual Growth Every Year Through 1996 Growth Rate Funds Borrowed by Town for Relative to New Popu- Sewer System Improvements 1975 Popu- lation New lation Each Year Taps 0 $50 , 000 $100, 000 $150, 000 0% 0 $ 86 184 282 380 5 4 1 67 159 252 344 9 7 2 50 137 225 313 14 11 3 34 118 201 284 17 14 4 21 100 179 258 22 18 5 8 84 159 235 43 35 10 Surplus 21 82 144 65 53 15 Surplus 30 82 87 70 20 Surplus 36 ANNUAL COSTS: O & M 4 , 285 4 ,285 4, 285 4, 285 Old Debt 0 0 0 0 New Debt 0 4, 906 9,812 14,718 TOTAL 4, 285 9,191 14, 097 19, 003 * See note on page 32 . ** Based on 50 immediate hookups at $750 each. Therefore, $37, 500 would be available as local funds that could be used to contribute to initial capital costs. Although these funds might also be used to reduce the annual charges, the figures shown above do not reflect such a policy. Source: Murray; Briscoe, Maphis, Murray & Lamont, Inc. , March, 1977 31 NOTES ON TABLES 9. 3-A AND 9. 3-B . All costs are calculated for 1981, but nevertheless are close enough estimates of any year through 1996 . . The operation and maintenance (O & M) costs are inflated for price and wage increases to 1981. In 1978 dollars the total operations and maintenance cost would be $3,700. Inflated at 5% annually, this would rise to $4,285 by 1981. . New debt is figured at being retired in 20 years and paying an interest rate of 7-1/2%. Actual terms will be closely related to local financial conditions and bond market conditions upon issue. . Tap or Plant Investment Fees are used to retire as much new debt as possible. For instance, with the addition of 10 taps at $750 each, $7, 500 in new debt could be retired. In some cases where the growth rate is high and borrowing low, tap fees are applied to the cost of old debt and/or O & M costs. . The yearly growth rate necessary to achieve the annual costs shown on the chart would have to occur every year. For example, if $50, 000 were borrowed, 10 new taps would have to be added every year for the next five years (or a total of 50 new taps added to the system over the five- year period) for the annual cost to be $21 per unit by 1981. To maintain that annual charge ; the growth would have to continue by that rate beyond 1981. . The source of revenue to pay the annual costs is a local decision. The tables simply indicate the amount needed. . The tables may be adjusted as new information becomes available by using the following basic formula: Annual Cost __ Annual O&M + Annual Debt Service - Tap Fees Per Unit Number of Units on System . Note that the tables show the remaining cost, over and above that paid by tap fees, to be shouldered by system users. It may be determined that the maximum or "worst case" figure shown in the top row of the table is not un- reasonable in terms of user's ability to pay. This is the case if no growth occurs and only current residents are available to pay the full cost. If the figure is unreasonable * (and it would be considered so in Severance' s case unless all 50 units hook up) , funds from other sources should be sought to cover the total cost. An alternative would be initially to scale down the amount of borrowing, if possible. 32 One option open to the community is to try to require hook- up for health reasons, or should 100% financing assistance be obtained, to offer immediate hookup free to existing resi- dents. It appears evident that the smaller system cannot expect major financing support from payment of PIF ' s. Choosing the larger system alternative will give Severance the opportunity to raise at least some capital funds through PIF ' s prepaid by the developer. The amount can vary according to funding from other sources, the number of Town residents who choose to hook up (and the amount of PIF charged them) , and agreement by the Town and the developer as to a reasonable fee. 9. 3 . 1. 2 Grants and Subsidized Loans Grant funds are likely to be available to assist with the costs of capital construction. Because the availability of such funds will be important in figuring the remaining bur- den on the local residents, this source of funding should be investigated early in the process of deciding if and how the Town should proceed. Determine the approximate amount of grants (and/or subsidized loans) available from various government sources . For smaller communities such as Severance, these are the most likely sources at this time: . Farmers Home Administration . The Colorado Department of Local Affairs . HUD Community Development discretionary funds for service lines In order to gauge a community' s eligibility, these funding agencies typically evaluate the locality' s ability and efforts to finance its own system. For example, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs takes into consideration for each community requesting assistance the following: . Legal ability to tax . Assessed valuation . Median family income . Current bonded indebtedness . Total tax effort . Number of people on fixed incomes . Level of user charges The key element considered by the Department of Local Affairs and the Farmers Home Administration, other factors being equal, is the state guideline that a community' s annual user charge for sewer service should be at least 1-1/2% of the median family income. This guide is used to determine if a community is doing its fair share to pay for the system. The figure can be lowered for a number of reasons : for example, 33 if a town is in a weak financial condition, or has a large number of people on fixed incomes. But as a general guide, this tells a community how it will stand in potential aid levels from the various funding sources. The state guideline that 1-1/2% of a community' s median family income represents a reasonable annual user fee, indicates that Severance' s minimum fee level would be $51.43 per tap per year (1-1/2% of $3,429) . Comparing this figure with annual costs projected in Tables 9. 3-A and 9. 3-B on pages30 and 31 indicates that Severance would clearly qualify for some grant assistance. How much assistance might be re- ceived will depend on funding agencies ' priorities and fund availability. It is unlikely that a 100% grant would be received from any given agency. All potential sources should be checked for assistance. A summary of sources of financial aid can be found in Table 9. 3.1-A. Funding availability varies from month to month as new revenues are made available or previously obligated funds are returned for redistribution. 9. 3.1. 3 Town Borrowing To determine estimated borrowing needs, deduct anticipated grant amounts and any immediate local funds that might be allocated to the project from the capital cost estimates for the proposed system. Whenever possible, revenue bonds should be used to finance sewer system improvements. If a community must borrow to finance utility improvements, it is desirable to protect its general obligation bonding capacity (tied by state law to assessed valuation) for uses where revenue bonding is not feasible. This is because numerous community needs usually cannot be financed from revenue bonds (e.g. , parks, libraries, or police facilities) . Therefore, any revenue generating operation, such as a sewer system, should borrow on the direct ability of the system to retire the debt. There are limitations to this financing method; i.e. , cases where the cost of the system exceeds its ability to generate revenue, or where general obligation bonds are not limited by state statute (e.g. , bonds for water im- provements) . Even in these cases, the maximum reasonable revenues should be raised from PIF and user fees to retire at least a portion of the debt. Other sources must then supplement system revenues if the project is to occur. Severance's borrowing capacity for general obligation bonds is limited, due to its low assessed valuation. One mill raises only $117 .40, hardly enough to refund a sizeable loan without a major mill levy increase. 34 in sP. II � Ii:, - tr.m _N WI yg _ m_ , TA :12 m I s _ I g mm t99 �5, G s. _ A E 9. g - o m ' m o �-� Hand - >Yi ,� -- ` F. ' An ": 2i �5oF." - IF.; 2�" _ - r„" _ _ ",� ≥� 3sK-^� - ^mom I W. _ PU:5: of g E,i _ m_ �= m§m m - _ I11 -T i-'> _z I m5 a Iig A ;K! g! U) o _ esEgem j I 5: < ''' 2229 -- = _ I m`; ado I o> .u' - I I i'"" .i� > f7 gaol _ gm I - - _� ti z;�_ Imo - - i I - - � ' 1 m cn P - _ - = I - I "e ' F=m m NS " I I m =1 N i o f i Eli n O r I> fig. E� - I eil gip I I 1-3 Fo _ mm oo 2$ ; m _ _ ≥a > amp I$2 y r i'2 iF I - =€n s- rm I;a r r " 15-9' o_" ≥9a tri tii asp . I >00 sN m 1= _ s'^ mm IP_n Z , �r n ^9 1/4O 3�1 e - o mR' T mpa H I I E _ i ?' R u 2 Ir m"82f IF!.2 440T Er Er ' _ I g m r� H j o S-Mm I - _ a mD Z. �a=m P. Apo —i' a I 'n — rz 13`kVi_ =s' I Iil i ,`r mga=o� I I - =o ' a ,e 2 =Y F - ' I I - s5. t I e 3 1 f P U> Ek • 3 i� p -sNm I rpm ' ="=m 9m,= _' I �' I N4; �� gE :2C,',2 "gip s --o I =m �c.sA o g -N ma ii ir!' I ' ! P. ! i i'0! \s - ! I m , I I : ' i;.7r "m (' P '-.9'. 1 F, !HrigliMR. ill " i I 35 I I I I " ' ' ' I 9. 3. 2 Sources for Financing System Operating Costs Funds to pay annual operating costs can be obtained from a number of sources. Most typically, these sources are service or user rates, property taxes and sometimes other general fund revenues. Service or user rates can be the most equitable source of funds. The beneficiary pays in proportion to the amount of benefit received. Rates should be pegged to reflect the full cost of operation, maintenance, and depreciation, and perhaps some portion of debt service where borrowing to provide a plant for existing customers remains unpaid. Tap or plant investment fees can also be used if necessary, but this is not considered a desirable practice for paying operating costs, as it defeats the purpose of the tap fee. Rather, tap fees should be applied to re--)ay bonds issued to finance the added plant capacity serving the new taps. Because of historical precedent, many communities do not charge users in proportion to their use, but keep a low user rate by subsidizing costs with mill levies on property. This is particularly true in special districts where high user rates would discourage potential hookups. The argument against this use of property tax revenues is that it depletes an important source of funding general purpose, non-revenue producing facilities. A community can choose to subsidize rates from its general fund monies. These might be composed, for example, of revenue sharing funds, sales tax, fees or licenses, or cigarette taxes. The same drawback as with using property taxes applies. Most generally, however, operations and maintenance costs are covered by annual user rates. To determine if a community can generate sufficient user rate revenue to support the system, the state guideline of 1-1/2% of the median family income can be used as a general guide. While a community can certainly charge more than 1-1/2%, anticipated user fees far in excess of this figure may indicate that the residents of the community will find the sewer utility extremely difficult to support. $51.43 represents a reasonable annual user fee level, according to the state guidelines. This indicates that meeting annual maintenance and operations costs of $3,700 (as of 1978) would require 72 user fees in the first year of operation, should the guideline be followed. The equivalent 36 tap fee (ETF) is more precise as a measure of financial capa- bility, but for Severance this is insignificant. The ETF is used for large dischargers such as industry which is not a factor in Severance. It is simply the amount of discharge converted to the equivalent number of single family users; i.e. , one ETF for six single family taps. Severance' s 50 existing units--the service population for the smaller system proposed--fall significantly below the 72 user requirement above. However, the state guideline is not an absolute and a town may choose to charge a higher fee. For example, if all 50 units hook up and agree to pay $7.40 per month, or $88 . 80 annually, $3,700 could be generated. It may be a possibility that hookups could be assured by legally requiring them or charging no plant investment fee (a possibility if a 100% capital grant could be obtained) . An additional consideration is that the median family income figure for Severance may be incorrect, or that, due to Severance' s particular conditions, 1-1/2% of the median income is an inaccurate measure of what residents could actually pay without the fee becoming a burden. The larger system proposed will provide substantial assistance in carrying annual costs, both through initial developer payments and through increased population when the development is occupied. In lieu of the 72 user taps (an impossibility with the number of existing units) or a higher annual user fee, the community can require the developer to subsidize annual service fees until the units are actually on the system. How many will have to be subsidized will depend on the amount of the annual user fee (which can be higher than that for residents) and the number of existing units that hook up. An additional consideration is that as the development is occupied, Severance's median income will likely rise, so higher user rates can eventually be obtained. This could be a problem for the existing residents and should be care- fully considered before such action is taken. Neither property taxes or miscellaneous fees present a viable means of raising operating revenue, as Severance' s tax base is very small. 9. 3. 3 Effects of Population Growth Consider the implications of population growth. In- creased population can provide increased revenue through PIF ' s, user fees, and taxes, all of which can ease the bur- den of supporting the sewer utility on existing residents. 37 A realistic anticipation of growth might encourage the com- munity to borrow more money to finance its system, and will influence the size and/or type of system the community decides to use. However, bear in mind that increased population may also generate needs for system expansion (necessitating further borrowing) and that projected growth which does not occur on schedule may seriously burden existing residents with higher annual payments than had been planned. Recognizing the possibility for growth--without counting on it to carry the community's financing needs--is a necessary component of evaluating the community' s capabilities to support the sewer utility. Tables 9.3-A and 9. 3-B illustrate impacts for Severance of various combinations of borrowing levels, growth rates, and immediate hookups to the system. They can be used to evaluate risk and anticipated cost per user should the Town borrow money to develop a system. 9.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 9.4. 1 Conclusions A combination of funding sources will be required to finance costs identified by the engineering analysis as essential to create central collection and treatment facili- ties. The community should follow the process previously outlined in this chapter to decide if it can develop a financial program suited to Severance's capabilities and circumstances. Either engineering alternative is potentially feasible. But both are financially questionable. Severance should be assured of the necessary combination of grant assistance, developer participation (for the larger system) , and citizen commitment to the system (particularly for the smaller alternative) , before committing itself to such a costly item. Severance should seek a full grant to finance its system, whether the Town chooses to build the smaller or the larger system proposed by the engineers. As stated earlier, the key element in grant request evaluation is the state guideline that 1-1/2% of the median family income represents a reasonable level for annual user fees. Comparing Severance' s figure of $51.43 with the annual cost tables indicates that Severance is clearly in need of significant grant assistance to build its system. The smaller system alternative can probably be financed only by a 100% total grant from state and federal sources. A 100% grant would allow the Town to offer free hook up (no plant investment fee charged) to existing residents, a 38 significant factor because full participation by residents is essential to pay annual operations and maintenance costs. The Town may also be able to legally require residents to hook up. This would be a local decision and would depend on the strength of Severance's desire for a central system plus political considerations. Even with 100% hookups, supporting the smaller system on a continuing basis will require annual user fees higher than the state guideline. Choosing to charge higher user fees is a local decision. The Town should be sure of citizen support before adopting this mode of action, and should carefully consider residents' ability to pay for the system without suffering financial hardship. Full grant assistance should also be sought for the larger system. However, 100% government funding is very ususual and therefore, might need to be supplemented by assistance from the proposed development, through prepaid PIF's. In this event, the way the local financing package is developed becomes much more important. Longer term borrowing or ballooning the loan so there are smaller payments in the near term with larger pay- ments later so that growth will help to provide a base, become considerations. Tables 9. 3-A and 9 .3-B can show what to expect in this regard. For instance, if 50 immediate hookups at $750 each can be assured ($37,500) and a grant of $158,500 were available, the Town could build the $246,000 system by borrowing $50,000. If no growth occurs, the average system user would have to pay $184 annually (in rates, taxes, or some combination) in order to maintain the system and retire the $50,000 debt. With growth equal to 5 new taps annually, the average cost would be spread among a growing population and reduced to about $84. 9.4. 2 Summary of Major Problems The financial analysis has identified several problem areas for Severance in financing either system proposed. For the smaller system, problems break down as follows: . A 100% grant will have to be sought, and possibly participation by the developer in the case of the larger system. . All 50 existing units will be needed to support the system. Ensuring 100% hookup at the outset will be essential. . Annual user fees will have to be higher than the state guideline. This may place an excessive burden on resi- dents on fixed incomes, and may also lose residential support for a central system. 39 . Severance's small tax base limits the Town's borrowing power and its ability to generate sewer system funding through taxes. The larger system, based on working with a developer, will provide more immediate funding and a potentially larger service population. Major problems with this alternative are: . A significant grant will still be needed for capital financing. . The system' s financial stability relies on growth occurring. Should anticipated growth not occur on schedule, a significant financial burden may fall on the residents of the Town. 9. 4. 3 Recommendations It is recommended that Severance not build the smaller system proposed unless it is overwhelmingly desired by the community and 100 percent grant assistance and community participation are assured. The magnitude of risk involved in the smaller alternative appears to make correcting problems in the septic systems a more viable choice for the Town. In the case of the larger system, there clearly must be a substantial grant and a major commitment by the developer of the proposed subdivision if a central system is to be constructed. This includes an annual subsidy of user fees as well as prepaid PIF' s. A central system is a costly item per unit when the base is so small to begin with. If the purpose is primarily to accommodate growth, risk must be put on the proposed developments. Expected growth can be affected by many factors beyond local control so existing residents should be sheltered from an excessive financial burden in the event the rate or number of new units fails to occur as projected. 40 APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan-South Platte River Basin, Colorado, Engineering Consultants, Inc. , Toups Corporation, October, 1974. Colorado Department of Health, Criteria Used in the Review of Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Frank J. Rozich, June, 1973. Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk, Inc. , Sewerage Facilities Service Plan, Town of Severance, Colorado, E. G. Paterson and R. Grsaney, June, 1975. Paul, Glenn, Director of Envirionmental Health, Weld County Health Department, Personal Communication, October 4, 1976. U.S . Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-430/9-75-013 , Alternative Waste Management Techniques for Best Practicable Waste Treatment, Office of Water Program Operations , October, 1975. poppow REFERRAL LIST APPLICANT Town of Severance CASE # SUP-361:78: 13 REFERRALS SENT OUT ON: January 30, 1979 REFERRALS RECEIVED FEB 211979 County Attorney FEB 2 81979 County Health APR 2 0 jS;',3 County Engineer Colorado Geological Survey FEB 1 1979 Dave Shelton 1313 Sherman Street Room 703 Denver, Colorado 80203 Jim Gilbert Rural Route 2, Box 509 Eaton, Colorado 80615 Bill Earley • District Engineer Colorado Department of Health FEB 51979 Water Quality Control Division 363 Jefferson Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Micki Barnes Program Administrator Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Loup Reservoir Company JUN 151978 c/o Jack Stromberger Route 1, Box 66 Windsor, Colorado 80550 Soil Conservation Service MAY 171978 4302 West 9th Street Road Greeley, Colorado 80631 Windsor/Severance Fire District c/o Wayne Lutz Box 308 Windsor, Colorado 80550 4r A `i DErMATMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES WELD COUNTY CENTENNIAL CENTER 915 10th STREET t ' GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 " GARY Z. FORTNER N rr_! q DIRECTOR OF PLANNING aGt irc?' rz S PHONE 1303) 356-4000, EXT 400 'IV • COLORADO May 15, 1978 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Town of Severance for a Special Use Permit for a Wastewater Treatment Facility This item will be heard before the Weld County Planning Commission on May 16, 1978 and June 6, 1978 . If you have any comments or suggestions, may we please hear from you before May 29, 1978 . The loca- tion of the parcel of land for which this application has been submit- ted is Pt . SE4 Section 2, T6N, R67W Thank you. 1 , Assistant Zoning Administr t r Enclosures • WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GLENN K BILLINGS VICTOR JACOBUCCI ROY MOSER NORMAN CARLSON ItINI S1I INMAIIK • ,S DEPAR LMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES • Id WELD COUNTY CENTENNIAL CENTER ' 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 r'. GARY Z. FORTNER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING PHONE (303) 356-4000, EXT 400 COLORADO April 20, 1978 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Town of Severance for a Special Use Permit for a Wastewater Treatment . Facility This item will be heard before the Weld County Planning Commission on May 16 , 1973 . If you have any comments or suggestions, may we please hear from you before May 2 , 1978 . The loca- tion of the parcel of land for which this application has been submit- ted is Pt . SF;, Section 2 , T6N, R67W • Thank you. &VA,. Assistant Zoning Admnist Ltor Enclosures NC LU COJN-1Y CCIMMISSIONFRS GI LNN K 11111 INGS VICTOR JACOIIUCCI HOY MOSLH NOIIMAN CAHLSON itJrJ1 ,I1 Ii IlK NOV DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (3031 356-4000 EXT 404 915 10TH STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 riaiDa CASE NUMBER SUP-361 : 78 : 13 • COLORADO REFERRAL January 30 , 1979 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Town of Severance for a Special Use Permit for a Wastewater Treatment Facility The parcel of land is described as Pt . SE* , Sec . 2 , T6N, R67W • The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is Adjacent to the southern boundary of the Town of Severance This item is submitted to your office for review and recommendations. Any comments or recommendations you consider relevant to this item would be appreciated. If you find no conflicts with your interests, we would appreciate a written reply to include in our files, or check the box at the bottom of this page and return it to us. We would like to receive your comments by February 16 , 1979 so that we can complete our review before the scheduled Planning Commission meeting . Thank you very much for your help and cooperation in this dc's 234 56, matter. ` ; lam. 1:p,b.� „9,9 77.5 tin ,. Assistan ning Administrator /be., %), mac T Pc(rWe have reviewed the, pl-ans and find no conflic f h,PGitr interests. Signed /� -`, � � Date JVr/ Agency (r % A p1 d %i-t6 1 rImORAnDur Ii 111(1111k To Chuck Cunliffe Date April 24 , 1978 COLORADO From Drew Scheltinga Subject:SPecial Use Permit for Severance Wastewater Treatment Facility The Engineering Department has reviewed the submittal and anticipates no engineering problems concerning the County Roads , The engineering aspects of the proposed system and plant have not been reviewed by this office. \)14.,...,_\..",�1 .&_._ Drew L. Scheltinga Civil Engineer DLS : sar avo alp°s, cLca css 1 / / County OF HEALTH Y/I S e`d It ounty Health .department DAVID WERKING DDS, Greeley FRANKLIN D YODER, MD, MPH WILLIAM BLICK Roggen Director 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD DORIS DEFFKE, Greeley GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 A M DOMINGUEZ JR , J D , Greeley (303)353-0540 ANNETTE M LOPEZ Greeley FRANK MYERS, M P H, Windsor HERSCHEL PHELPS, JR, M D , Greeley February 28, 1979 KATHLEEN SHAUGHNESSY PHN, Ault ARTHUR G WATSON,Platteville Chuck Cunliffe Planning Services 915-10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: After reviewing the final plans for the Severance Wastewater Treatment Facility, the following comments are offered in lieu of our letter dated May 1, 1978: 1. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit from the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division. Also, the applicant will be responsbile for obtaining design approval from the above agency for the proposed facility. 2. By Colorado Air Pollution Regulation No. 3, all earthmoving, grading or site preparation activities of a total size of twenty-five (25) acres or less is now exempt from emission permit requirements. However, the site preparation activities must include proper fugitive dust control procedures to limit any blowing dirt or carry-out dirt. 3. Applicant shall be responsible for adhering to the provisions of the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission's Regulation No. 2. This reg- ulation states in part: A. No person, wherever located, shall cause or allow the emission of odorous air contaminants from any single source such as to result in detectable odors which are measured in excess of the following limits: (1) For areas used predominantly for residential or commercial purposes it is a violation if odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with seven (7) or more volumes of odor-free air. (2) In all other land use areas, it is a violation if odors are detected after the odorous air has been diluted with fifteen (15) or more volumes of odor-free air. 4. Our department requests the applicant provide a full explanation of the downstream use (from the point of discharge) of the Law Ditch. 5. Our department requests the applicant make some provisions for back-up aerators in the event of equipment failure. Also, some thought should be given to the possibility of power outages. Page 2 Chuck Cunliffe February 28, 1979 6. This department requests the applicant make some provision for monitor- ing groundwater quality in the immediate vacinity of the wastewater treat- ment facility. Our department's laboratory facilities could be available on a limited basis. Sincerely, iAti ' Ry �C� ri,c) Jo G. Hall, M.P.H. , Director Environmental Health Services JGH:dr �ti�2�l627�?9�' &:)> FEB 1979 ` ) RECEIVED Weld County w �Iareln g ComPlisslon J'- Weld I / BOARD OF HEALTH • W e`/(x County Health .,department DAVID WERKING, DDS,Greeley FRANKLIN D YODER, MD, MPH RALPH AAB, Greeley Director 1516 HOSPITAL ROAD WILLIAM BLICK, Roggen GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 DORIS DEFFKE,Greeley DONALD HERGERT, Windsor (303)353-0540 ANNETTE M LOPEZ, Greeley HERSCHEL PHELPS, JR, M D Greeley KATHLEEN SHAUGHNESSY,Ault May 1 , 1978 JOE STOCKTON, Gilcrest Gary Fortner, Director Planning Commission 915-10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Town of Severance, Special Use Permit, Wastewater Treatment Facility TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: After reviewing the plans for the wastewater treatment facility for the Town of Severance, we have these concerns which we think merit further engineering review and comment: We question the probability of ground water contamination depending on reliability and effectiveness of the bentonite seal that is to be used in the first cell . Also, we are concerned that the second cell has no seal proposed, again allowing for the possibility of ground water contamination. These are questions we feel need further clarification and explanation. Sincerely, n G. Hall , M.P.H. , Director Harry D. llier Environmental Health Services Environmen 1 Health Specialist HDC:dr 142:4 5-6> c(13� `S.MAY 1978 co RECEIVED o ts1 ' eli Do �v f� pan Cn®®iss1O" ,O64 c)°Z61SLI-V3v I • 111 .O'" � West Greeley Soil Conservation District son � '+ C0NSERY►iI0N DISTRICTS of►MERIC► P. 0. Box 86 e Greeley, Colorado 80631 c.vtu"# May 15, 1978 Gary Z. Fortner, Director of Planning Weld County Planning Department Weld County Centennial Center 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 The following comments are in relation to request for review of a Special Use Permit for a wastewater treatment facility, town of Severance. It is to be located in part of the SE4 of Sec. 2, Twp. 6N, Range 67W. We have reviewed all the material enclosed with the application, and all plan- ning seems consistent with the soil type. Recommendations that we made regard- ing soil type restrictions have been incorporated in the design. There are no drainage calculations or figures for the watershed above the site to determine if diking as proposed in the plan will be adequate to withstand flooding conditions. We suggest that investigative material be made part of the permit request so the adequacy of dike design can be reviewed. There was no vegetative plan submitted with the permit to evaluate, however, we would recommend that the area be revegetated as soon as practical to prevent erosion of dike and pond slopes. We would also recommend that cut slopes be constructed 3:1 or flatter to increase the ease of revegetation. In the pro- posed plan, cut slopes are shown to be 2:1 for the finished slope. Other than the above mentioned comments, we believe the special use permit should be given favorable consideration. Sincerely, Milton Baumgartner, President West Greeley Soil Conservation District MB/jb ,��,'�`�1�151�18�c'O 114QY 197 ��R rn 8�1� W Weld Corm o Ls) PlanRieg going ti� s�`��l 62gti�, lE 0Z Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th St. Greeley, Co. 80631 Attn: Chuck Cunliffe Gentlemen: We understand that the discharge from the wastewater treatment plant for the Town of Severance is required to meet all state water quality standards. This being the case, we have no objection to the special use permit being considered for Severance. /% ' Loop Reservoir Co. c / O'\\I" 14 1�4. �jT� JUN 1978 QC) 119 RECE11/E® ;" WWI Cow •v des ►li"Rif co, uias Lp�' � ��'QEsz�ZLti L 12 is 41 C5 S! ;O1-c• o �, FT N 9d RICHARD D LAMM JOHN W. ROLD GOVERNOR * ., LT r * Director 1gg6 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING-1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303)839-2611 i\ February 7, 1979 FEB 1979 (0) RECEIVED cc weld County ti Mr. Chuck Cunliffe rc9 Fl2n:Tg Commissbi Weld County Planning Department 915 10th Street V Greeley, CO 80631 e/ 1EU ' Dear Mr. Cunliffe: RE: SEVERANCE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY, WELD COUNTY We have reviewed the above referenced special use permit application and find that seasonally high ground-water levels may seriously affect the proposed facility. The subsurface soils report, prepared by Mr. A. L. Smith, indicates that the "lagoon will be constructed by first excavating the inplace soils to a specific depth and then placing an impervious layer osier the floor and banks." Depth of excavation shown on the plat is about 8 feet. If ground-water levels seasonally raise above this depth, the imprevious layer possibly could be damaged. Pollution of the ground water could result. We suggest that the ground water conditions of the subject area be determined and that the lagoons be designed to withstand any adverse conditions. If the above recommendation is followed, we have no objection to the approval of this application. Sincerely, Walter R. Junge Engineering Geologist WRJ/ds cc: Land Use Commission GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE 006A tilt A4 * N ( RICHARD D. LAMM * A! O JOHN W. ROLD � GOVERNOR 1� r" * Director * 1876 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING-1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303)839-2611 May 16, 1978 Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Cunliffe: RE: TOWN OF SEVERANCE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT We have reviewed the submitted material on this proposed plant and find that our original comments per attached letter still stand. If the possible problems as stated in our letter can be mitigated, then we have no objection to approval. An additional factor is that the Law Reservoir Dam meet state standards and have a current inspection certificate. Sincerely, / L. R. Ladwig Engineering Geologist LRL/vt cc: Land Use Commission N�1�4�79�p MAY 1978 , RECEIVED cn CD Weld Comity co oft, Plant*Com®issioa tiEe GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE ollel 101 4) STS . 1/4k1)O RIr'HARD D LAMM \ 1)A s. JOHN JOHN W ROLD GOVERNOR �� Director ti��S NE N JN`NE� COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER COLORADO 80203 PHONE 13031 R92-2611 March 3, 1977 Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Gentlemen: RE: APPLICATION FOR SITE APPROVAL OF NEW SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS/ TOWN OF SEVERENCE We have reviewed this application as to geology and geologic constraints and also discussed this project with Mr. Heller of Toups Corporation. There are a number of concerns with the site but with proper investigation and mitigation, these can be handled. 1) The flood plain below the Law Reservoir should be considered when the exact site is considered. 2) The site probably has a thin layer of soil over thick gravels. As discussed with Mr. Heller, percolation tests will be necessary and the lagoons may possibly need to be lined. Mr. Heller indicated funds for this were included in the budget. 3) There may be a high ground water table at this site, this condition will need to be considered in construction and operation. We see no problems with stability or other geologic hazards. If the above concerns are carefully considered and proper designs and operations are carried out , then we would have no objection to approval. Sincerely 7/1( ( L.R. Ladwig Engineering Geologist LRL: rh cc: W.B. Heller 'Soups Corporation 1166 West 15th St. Loveland, Colorado 80537 GEOL OI; Y �r I,� (it riit I P .r KID Ti I1I{ .T A4 -. F. Y '•tla...O • e Jere COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER,COLORADO 80220 PHONE 320-8333 Anthony Robbins, M.D., M.P.A. Executive Director DATE : March 5, 1979 SUBJECT: NON-STATE ASSISTANCE REVIEW AND COMMENTS TO : Mr. Chuck Cunliffe Assistant Zoning Administrator Department of Planning Services 915 Tenth Street Greeley, CO 80631 PROJECT TITLE : Special Use Permit for a Wastewater Treatment Facility - Town of Severance STATE IDENTIFIER : NA COMMENTS DUE BY : February 28, 1979 Yes n No I I Is this project consistent with the goals and objectives of this agency? Yesj I No (:] Is there evidence of overlapping of duplica- tion with other agencies ? Yes (�I No ►J Is meeting desired with applicant? Yes No Ll A 15-day extension is requested . Comments : Water Quality Control: The site application which was approved by the Water Quality Control Commission expired as of July 5, 1978. The application must be resubmitted for approval and, at that time, the Water Quality Control Division District Engineer will review the plans and make comments. NTO RS 11%\t v°n ssti°n 2 e9� o� Name Title Phone s2tzEzzz�� Micki Barnes, Program Administrator SOC-3 , Feb 77 ATTACHMENT B ,---41,f;----'' )6') i ( rt,.":( -ct/„.,.,)", 9c-ie ' L.2; ll eq./6 10(. , ) .cr-'Lim, /" - <-� - a ,�, -- i'G'1 !G'1� � pc,4 I ' 1 60 cc9___ / i \ i , 1 I 1 j' I C' 1 1 I Al------:1,,,' \ i I I " _� It il ' . 7.1.- L-:- i I 1 1 I // / ///))//i i I I / • R cs C �.. rJ U ) t ,a SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDING AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND 744 q _ THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 1/ day of la 197 by and between LAUREN FELTE and KENNETH FELTE, (hereafter "Owner') and the TOWN OF SEVERANCE, a duly constituted municipality in the State of Colorado (hereafter Town:) ; WITNESSET H: General Recitals 1. Owner is the owner of certain real property in Weld County, Colorado, generally described as that part of the Southeast Quarter (SE1 ) of Section 2, Township North, Reservoir) and EastPof.theoGread Southh of thee John Law Reservoir (Loup Western Railroad. 2. The Town, in exercise of its governmental authority, seeks to acquire a site for the proposed Severance sewage lagoons, together with necessary rights for pipelines, utilities and other matters. In the exercise of that function, the Town has determined that an eight-acre site in the Northwest corner of the Owner's property is a preferred location. Generally, that site is described as being bounded on the North by the John Law Reservoir, on the East by the John Law Ditch and on the West by the Great Western Railroad. 3. The Town has the authority to acquire the proposed site by means of eminent domain and has negotiated with Owner under threat of such condemnation. 4. As a result of those negotiations, the parties have mutually nt by ch he Town l agreed imateheight-acre sitetfromethe Ownerlandtsettle the ldamage l re e claim of approx eight-acre against the Town upon certain assumptions. Agreement 1. Generally: This is an Agreement for good consideration, including the mutual covenants herein contained, by which Owner agrees to convey an eight-acre site to the Town and by which Owner agrees to settle the foreseeable damage claim of Owner against the Town. 2. Description of Premises; Survey: The actual premises shall be determined by a survey performed by a registered land surveyor of the State of Colorado to determine the precise description of the approximately eight- acre site within the parameters as set forth above. Town shall obtain said survey and submit the same to Owner for approval within forty-five (45) days, but in any case, prior to closing. 3. Agreement to Convey: Upon compliance with all terms hereof by Town, Owner will convey to Town by general Warranty Deed fee simple title to the approximate eight-acre tract, pursuant to the survey, subject however to the reservations and other matters herein contained. 4. Reservations: Said conveyance shall be specifically subject to the following reservations for the benefit of Owner: A. Reservation of an existing ditch right-of-way (cement JAN 1979 RECE VED CO Nina* iterNiRg 4a ditch across the eight-acre tract, generally located across the western position thereof. b. Right to replace an irrigation well, together with pumping facilities on the northeast corner of the eight-acre tract as close as practicable to the edge of the subject property. c. Easement and right-of-way for an irrigation pipeline, generally extending from the northwest corner of the subject property and eastward across the same. d. Rights of ingress and egress for the installation, replacement, maintenance and repair of said ditch, pipeline and pumping plant. 5. Terms of Payment: For the acquisition of said eight-acre site and settlementof damage claims, Town shall pay Owner Thirty-Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($34,250.00) as follows: Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) down payment upon the execution of this Agreement, with the balance of Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($31,250.00) to be paid at closing. If closing does not occur on or before March 1, 1979, the Town shall pay owner interest on Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) of the above amount still due from and after March 1, 1979, until closing at the rate of ten (10) percent per annum. 6. Closing and Possession: Closing shall be on or before May 1, 1979, or at such earlier date as may be practical for the parties at the time and place of mutual convenience of the parties, but if not otherwise agreed, at the offices of Owner's attorney, Walker Miller, in Greeley, Colorado. Possession shall be delivered at closing. 7. Title; Proof Thereof; Adjustments and Closing Costs: Owner shall convey marketable title to the Town and provide Town with a title insurance policy for the eight-acre tract, at Owner's cost, provided how- ever, Owner shall not be obligated to pay a premium in excess of $125.00 for the title insurance cost. Any additional title insurance coverage shall be paid by the Town. Title shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, except for the 1979 taxes, payable in 1980, which shall be the Town's responsibility. Town will cooperate with Owner in obtaining necessary releases of any existing security interest or deeds of trust. All closing costs and adjustment shall be accomplished in the manner customary in Weld County, Colorado. 8. Additional Obligations of Town: When Town constructs the contemplated sewage facilities, Town shall have the following obligations: a. At the time of construction, or immediately thereafter, Town shall construct and install fences and landscaping to buffer the sewage facility from the balance of the Owner's property. Landscaping shall be done in good taste and shall include trees. b. The facilities themselves shall be located within the three-acre site represented by the boundary survey prepared by Edward L. Berlier, Registered Land Surveyor, dated Fabruary 17, 1978, and designated as Job No. 6298-1-1. c. The actual facility constructed shall be of the two cell lagoon system represented to the Owner with the maximum capacity recommended by the Toups Corporation in its report to the Town dated May, 1977. This shall not, however, prevent the Town from making changes, additions, necessary repairs, alterations or expansions as may be needed either at the time of construction or in the future. The Town may expand the plant on the eight-acre tract of land to any extent necessary so long as the Owner does not incur additional damages as a result of the expansion. If the Owner incurrs additional damages as a result of such expansion, the Owner may have a new cause of action for damages. -2- f-. 1 , 0 9. Full Settlement of Present Claims Under the Circumstances: The payments herein provided shall be a full settlement for the claims of Owner for the value of the land taken and other claims of damages, including damages to the residue of Owner's land by reason of the installation of the sewage treatment facility above described. Accordingly, Owner accepts said payment as full settlement and waives any further damage claims against Town but only to the extent that the acutal use of the premises shall be consistent with the Town's representations to Owner. In particular, it is the Owner's express understanding as follows: a. No other part of the Owner's premises will be used, permanently or temporarily, by Town. b. The sewage treatment facility will be located as above provided. c. The sewage treatment facility will be of the capacity and type as above described. d. No obnoxious odor or noise will be emitted from the facility which would be an actionable nuisance under Colroado law, except those which are the direct result of a malfunction due to equipment failure or unintended overloads. e. No prohibited pollution of water or water courses (beyond those permitted by relevant health authorities) which occur on Owner's property. Should any of such understanding or assumptions actually fail or not occur, then this waiver and settlement shall not apply to any damage suffered by Owner as a result thereof. 10. Liquidated Damages: It is recognized that Town need not acquire the property and pay the balance due. It is also recognized, however, that Owner has incurred expenses, inconvenience and other related damages as the result of the Town's actions, including negotiations for acquisition of the property. Accordingly, if Town should fail to complete the acquisition of the Owner's property in accordance with the terms hereof, Owner shall be entitled to retain the Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) as liquidated damages in full settlement of all claims. 11. Crop damage: In recognition of the fact that the Owner may sustain additional damages, and in recognition of the fact that the Town has little or no control over when funds will be available from the funding agencies to close this matter, if closing is not completed during 1979, the Town will, at its' option, either permit the Owner to plant and harvest his crops on the property, or the Town will pay additional damages to the Owner in the amount of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per acre for a total of Sixteen Hundred Dollars ($1,600.00) damages for loss of crop. If the Owner plants, he will be permitted to harvest. The Town will advise the Owner on or before March 15, 1979, whether or not the Owner can plant. 12. Annexation: The Owner agrees that he will cooperate with the Town in annexing the property to the Town by executing petitions for annexation and whatever other cooperation may be needed by the Town to successfully annex the property. The Town agrees that the annexation pro- ceedings will not be completed until after closing. If the Town does not close during 1979, Town will withdraw the annexation so that the property is not annexed to the Town 13. Survival: Some terms of this Agreement are continuing, shall not be merged at closing and shall survive the same. -3- ./ 14. Binding Nature of Agreement: This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto, their assigns, successors in interest, representatives and heirs. IN WITNESS WHEREOF we have hereunto set our hands and seals the day and year first above written. LAUREN FELTE r( KKNNETH FELTE "Owner" TOWN OF SEVERANCE By p LLLL✓✓✓✓ Mayor "Town" ATTEST: QAL L91.1 j '( j-k(1..-u.Atal Clerk -4- A RESOLUTION TO PURCHASE OR TO PURCHASE BY USE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY OF WELD AND STATE OF COLORADO FOR USE AS A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT. WHEREAS, the Town of Severance has secured funding for the construction of a sewage treatment plant, and WHEREAS, the Town is in need of a sewage treatment plant, and WHEREAS, the Town does not own real property which is suitable for construction of such a plant, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF SEVERANCE, COLORADO, 1. The Town will attempt to purchase the following described real property and necessary easements thereto from the present owner: Legal Description: That portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 2, Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , County of Weld, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 2; thence along the South line of said Southeast Quarter West 1187.97 feet; thence North 06°29'40" East 1092.37 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, said point being on the Easterly right of way line of the Great Western Railroad and 40.00 feet Easterly from the centerline of said Railroad as measured at right angles thereto; thence along said Easterly right of way line North 06°29'40" East 373.00 feet; thence perpendicular to said right of way line South 83°30'20" East 320.00 feet; thence South 06°29'40" West 297.00 feet; thence South 17°24'30" West 155.82 feet; thence North 68°39'35" West 300.53 feet more or less to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel is subject to right of way along the Easterly side thereon for existing canals. The above described parcel contains a gross acreage of 3.0 acres more or less, along with an easement 12 feet wide running alongside the railroad right of way from the current South border of the Town to the proposed site. 2. If the Town is unable to purchase the above described land, it will seek to acquire the property through the use of its power of Eminent Domain. Passed and adopted this 12th day of April, 1978. yor Clerk THE GREATWESTERN RAILWAY[DMPANY GENERAL OFFICES SUGAR BUILDING BOX 5308 TERMINAL ANNEX DENVER, COLORADO 80217 November 6, 1978 Mayor Lowell D. Humiiels Town of Severance Colorado Dear Mr. Mayor: Enclosed herewith is an executed Agreement between The Great Western Railway Company and the Town of Severance dated October 11, 1978, regarding the use of a road along side the rails of our company. Very truly yours, TEE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY , v, ,v` , L L ti'CL 1 �L,�- . 141 B. P. Andrews / Exec. V. President & Gen. Mgr. Enclosure BFA:csh AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, made this //1 day of , 1978, between THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a Colorado corporation (herein- after referred to as "Licensor") , and THE TOWN OF SEVERANCE, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Licensee") ; WI T NESSETH: WHEREAS, Licensor is the holder of a right-of-way located in J-! Severance, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Licensee desires to use a portion of Licensor's right- of-way for purposes of ingress and egress to and from Licensee's _pump house located on adjacent property. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) , the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Licensor _ hereby grants to Licensee a license to use the following described right- of-way located in Weld County, Colorado: The easterly 12 feet of right-of-way being in the Southeast Quarter of Section 2, Township 6 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , more particularly de- scribed as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section; thence along the South line of said Southeast Quarter North 89G 51 ' 40" West 1431 .26 feet more or less to the Easterly right-of-way line of said Railroad; said point being the true point of beginning; thence along said right-of-way line the following three courses North 24° 01 ' East 493 feet more of less to the beginning of a curve concave to the Northwest, having a central angle of 17° 23' and a radius of 1950.08 feet; thence North- easterly along the arc of said curve 591 .65 feet; thence North 6° 38' East 1200.00 feet; thence North 83° 22' West 12.00 feet; thence South 6° 38' West 1200.00 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Northwest, having a central angle of 17° 23' and a radius of 1938.08 feet thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve 588.01 feet; thence South 24° 01 ' West 499 feet more or less to the South line of said Southeast Quarter, thence along said line South 89° 51 ' 40" East 13.12 feet more or less to the true point of beginning. The foregoing grant is subject to all outstanding superior rights and to the right of Licensor to renew and to extend the same, and subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Licensee shall use said right-of-way for the sole purpose of a roadway for ingress and egress to and from its pump house. 2. Licensee's use of the right-of-way shall not unreasonably interfere with the use thereof by Licensor or its designees. 3. Licensee shall indemnify and hold harmless the Licensor from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, claims , demands, costs, and expenses of whatsoever nature, including court costs and attorney's fees , which may result from injury to or death of persons whomsoever, or damage to or loss or destruction of property whatsoever (including damage to the roadbed, tracks, equipment or other property of the Licensor or property in its care or custody) , when such injury, death, loss , destruction or damage grows out of. or arises from the use of said right-of-way. 4. This license shall cease and terminate when Licensee, its successor and assigns, shall cease to use said right-cf-way for the purpose herein described. 5. The license granted herein may be terminated at any time at the discretion of Licensor by giving Licensee ninety days ' prior written notice of termination. 6. It is understood that any maintenance of said right-of-way which may be required for the use herein stated, shall be at the sole cost and expense of Licensee. 7. Licensee may not assign this Agreement without the written consent of the Licensor. Subject to the preceding sentence, the Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST THE GREAT WESTE J RAILWAY COMPANY c; /t'ill( , cam 4 By �� - r t= ;'Secretaoy / / ice President ATTEST: TOWN OF SEVERANCE, COLORADO -C-6 Clerk Mayor • STATE OF NEW JERSEY ) ) ss _ COUNTY OF BERGEN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 77th day of =OBER _ , 1978, by FRED H. BLUM as Vice -2- r L � President, and ; ::re , L. Goldberg—as - - Secretary of The Great Western Railway Company, a corporation. Witness my hand and offi ci: 1 Seal . ' TH T. PILE Z NOTARY PUBLIC OF 4 JE EY My commission expires C# "sue- - 21 1961 11 I-� Notary' bl i c • STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS COUNTY OF WELD The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this // day of --� y �� 471.4 , 1978, by e �( I T ��-, � , as Mayor, and ca,n h ,, (1_,D � � as Clerk of The Town of Severance, Colorado, a municipal Corporation. Witness my hand and official seal . �A 'r ` My commission expires expires ALT. � 1?7? Notary ubli • -3- DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE (303)356-4000 EXT 404 915 10TH STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 1 Ili a COLORADO February 1, 1979 To Whom It May Concern : You are receiving a copy of this notification because your name appears as a surrounding property owner owning property within 500 feet of the proposed use. The Weld County Planning Commission will review a request from Town of Severance for Special Use Permit for a Wastewater Treatment Facility on property described as follows : Pt . SEI, Section 2 , T6N, R67W The location of the parcel of land for which this application has been submitted is : Adjacent to the Southern boundary of the Town of Severance If you have any suggestions or objections, will you kindly notify us in writing before Feburary 16 , 1979 . The meeting by the Weld County Planning Commission is scheduled for March 6 , 1979 This meeting will take place in the County Commissioners Hearing Room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street , Greeley, Colorado, at 1: 30 p.m. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact the Department of Planning Services at 356-4000, Ext . 404. ssistant oning dministrator CC: sap - 9/13/78 y ,,. "', DEPARTMENT or PLANNING SERVICES '• ' .�.= j ,P' arm PHONE (303) 356 4000 EXT 400 4Witt , 915 10TH STREET '''"� v - ' ' "tr. GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 et O COLORADO April 28, 1078 To Whom It May Concern: You are receiving a copy of this notification because your name appears as a surrounding g property owner owning property within 500 feet of the proposed use. The Weld County Planning Commission will review a request from Town of Severance for a Special Use Permit for a wastewater treatment facility on property described as follows : Pt . SE 71 , Sec. 2 , T6N, R67W , location : Adjacent to the southern boundary of the Town of Severance If you have any suggestions or objections, will you kindly notify us in writing before May 2, 1978 . The meeting by the Weld County Planning Commission is scheduled for May 16, 1978 This meeting will take place in the County Commissioners Hearing Room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street , Greeley, Colorado, at 1 : 30 p.m. If you' have any questions concerning this matter or if you would like additional information , please contact the Department of Planning Services office at 356-4000, Ext . 4104 . AsslHliln , O1] I11g; A( f111n75 ra u ' • I , , , ; , ' I ' ... T. ._'i'YiC it F'1I . .I (JO;I 3b6.1000 EXT 40, J1b10IFiS1HEL1 Erb A q �1,:;;d —� GIcEE L1 ,COL(JFtl,��c) 80631 1 :J.m „,..„._, , wy,_ - liv i9 •,' ,,t174-4.A' rt :1 (1 ;.:.-). kl;.:1? C U iO.R A DC) May 30, 1978 NOTICE OF TIME CHANGE To Whom It May Concern : You are receiving a copy of this notification because your name appears as a surrounding property owner owning property within 500 feet of the proposed use. The Weld County Planning Commission will review a request from Town of Severance for Special Use Permit for a Wastewater Treatment Facility on property described as follows : Pt . SE-1, , Sec. 2 , T6N, R67W , location : Adjacent to the southern boundary of the Town of Severance The meeting by the Weld County Planning Commission is scheduled for June 6 , 1076. This meeting will take place in the County Commissioners Hearin; Room, first floor , Weld County Centennial Center , 915 10th Street , at 10 : 00 a.m. If you have any questions concerning this matter or if you would 1 i ke additional information , Please con l act the DepartmenI. of PIanninl; Services r, I Hee at 350-1000, 1'xt. . 10.1 . E i \ 1 1 ' I y • , tI ,71\ I '(' ti 1 , l ` r1;.•, i .;I ;I III ;;c IItI • AdmiIIi .,I I':IIc1I• �� t I it NI id i'L;\NNING SERVICES PHONE (303)356A000 EXT 404 915 10TH STREET d fWIffr,-2 ! GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 ,,,,,,,,ai., 55 .e.„, .r ., , i ke , ,,..., ,,„,,,.,.., v,,,, ,,,, ,,s,,„,COLORADO May 8 , 1978 ) NOTICE OF TIME CHANGE To Whom It May Concern : You are receiving a copy of this notification because your name appears as a surrounding property owner owning property within 500 feet of the proposed use. The Weld County Planning Commission will review a request from Town of Severance for a Special Use Permit for wastewater treatment facility on property described as follows : Pt . SEl , Sec. 2, T6N, R67W , location : Adjacent to the southern boundary of the 1 Town of Severance iThe meeting by the Weld County Planning Commission is scheduled for i 1 May 16 , 1978 . This meeting will take place in the County Commissioners Hearing Room, first floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street , at 10 : 00 a.m. If you have any questions concerning this i Imatter or if you would like additional information , please contact 1 the Department of Planning Services office at 356-4000, Ext . 404 . I .__6Lk ' A:;si :;L:tnI, '/,caniii Admini :-1 ; ( or 5/6 C,L y ( 1z _ c c � g, � c( 7 r-'''aR'r EN.) 7 Cr TL Jn/ a.'/ tic S1':( i. C�_ 9 I 5 /c rya L.7-- ) (�' LU , S' 6' C s AJ 7 L_ E AA.E. ti A.; C F Ajcp ; ('f L /t./r,1 r F .f1-T/ ca �l. �� F A c.'t.c4 -^� i L- &J U E rz_A N C C= /`c n ,g L E R.,zk c, ` 4 12./ r`L c-< - 7-,t4:_ 7r , 7 P,;(1 /1 / r7 C A) /mil'o/'r/� 1,U /f / L// /i S , i V ni i� T U i 7—c i Ht[_ Air i!� o- /?F U ,y c> r /-/.-E 7-72 A r/VI i 'u i e L ,— . 4 r- 7c /n, t .. ,t),„r_ it% C_ _ I ffC GC' /9 T , O 'L,' / S /ti .4i F4 C' lD Pe /iv . - .4 % /t I G H /4. s r-i C /+ 7./6 ti: /¢ rte, C( r I,' L-F F c CTS f+ AJ c / M P C_ ,4 rte r-/1 riZE-/F % /VIE N FAC / L / wci c_ O /7/Avt 4 /!'<' .:1 C.<J (` Pe_ pr,-_,2_7--Lt../ r S /1! L A-c2`C f C_f-, /2- F L/ � �c t<C• P\M cos g rk - v F V' �; FEB `F•i'9 T'.--' . '� ( / RRCEP4 E . ,� Weld Gouutj / i ' ......evc,"14.-- ____-4-e-74--3., c79 i Z. '.&.4'-::::7!., 72 3' ..j..._- - tLe:%--14.-L,C, te-1-1.-}L.,- ..._,-74-2( 4---1-- -)L47 ‘.1-72--J i-r--( / I // 4/ &-' ----/z11 --1,--- 2-- 4--(7,1- 'L---C- --7-t_AL- ,Q. ___.,. .,. ...,_„. c.-.X/-e ..-) z_c !iz -s- - — ��^Z_ --d--i pc ----'.2-7-7- ---1"1- -1.'_,----c--2-1. 7 Gr.----i---C4e.1*---/ — ti _ '--,--'t {mac- t-' �Z:`- -4_.jL1 -�.r�t,:,,-2.., et--e.,..--y-t,_,<-7) ,-;` __,e,-6,---E1----7-[..- ZL-1:2--L�L. ---:,LPL �t-E ��._./L,.� Z�e, C� -�, At, if4.-Ai/e-,t,...t4 iciA to,---t-t,--3-1_-, z..--- —V---C' ICC p..4--t-_c_ _ ---1;1, Y L zc 'Z' L --L-s- 4.L cyYf j L __../Cr "L - ..------ -L ---f '4-i"- / V k / C.- 7---1-1_-� ./..<r,--4 2 -2-'-�� rf'1 / 1 / /i-. C.t� (7.17 ' -t.�c s'e - C-- --�'c-- (�rz-t! /j'C___. --_ in (#4-4-a_- el -----,-,--z_Art- — c:„..\+- Ct ----- --e--3-1-c,--i214 c-�-6) _.---7--Z - Z 4-—ca /-Lt, HZ z„. r� d,(,t ...____.,4 .s,.-4_,_ ) ._-__,-,-L.,,0 _„,- -6' -,-_tt e"*---g��(C - ---e,::-----c... 2 >,,�,,.rt _-6.L,`_'�-`r.(c / (/ ..is' ` • '',, A//.----<}-7 JJ� -- nn 1 A / G J'.' r / .d l-c ._.�C-.-�_—L-�� t' Z- �L i Zit'->�C-E '••1_L^ J �• • (:” / /-? &. /o.5 IA /,r7 t�-��c% in *'/,9-c.c.) e1L-�Q� L.Z 2t. Ai q_G�C s t, DL�a4LJ fi C�2-�i?G, �c =rC 9%�-do X-e-otta_.ke , le.e-.tc at,Leistr24/t-(-c___ aziaeL 6A- -)7•2 a}t_k_{_ivriet ka_AL rn L_,a) a$317 ask � �"� . � (_./7-z.td c.eyrLf e7261_,L4-t 9,6-t.,y15c 1/471. 6O.__yyLki_Lu\ c� i ___ActH place' 0_14„ece 23456-. c:-' ( " ki o 01191$ Eg, ` �t®UQ!! ,v y • aafia_./v ; cc, (. 612.76d- r tO Lt/ (41 CL-,J 7u4.4 (24:_4.cL,;44c_ • ....41J2. (A • t ,4-v • 7j / 1 G / --t--� q -4! / _t( - Gie—L4_4)_,e •• la-t,e2tpit i ca„:, „ 1 - J ti • 1 a....m-7w C coc � -6k.el. ..e_l a_fi- tz -c. &ife 4:t..cd_ bet.. 2. ...,,..../ z.4.4.4 ‘, -1 „......„...L.L..(.....d...i.-- -^'(..,.ELI-�!., i p rte` ii u cPya --t ---a-- — ex-4(-LI. cc- J c z, --t--14-0:- ---6 - c._,E_ A-4. — ,_9, .-t____,4_,..,//,i_e../u ---t-- - -$14__e_L Q.ja,,c..../Ly --t J L. . --<---►z ---ILL Y C' . 1544. ,— CA.4-1—C —AIL_ Vti -. • czvizeti .e_t_.1_ cc, MAY 1978 no C Ruth Felte ` RECEIVED Box 123 - Severance, Colo. 80546 �; Weld Comity � • r, Planning Commisslnn ti l LL I --.mot 2, /17 4 . Ya��«dd ILL/e;..t,„4. 6-?,„yy;‘.a.a 4,k,* Aiudiy/( ,, ,O0 ‘zaro, zli-ft-if)-741-in /f7i, 7-`arto -te( A,4*741111;46.0k as /(44-- /1 /47-6 74-71 e-4tetV4104 .4.-;_z,_1,-(t (6= t(Lte yin_tv--7/-1)-t-tverll 7‘974-7-7- -A71-1. 7- 4 ci,a,e›11 41caiaLity-rw-telA fv-ely CL) . _ 761)-7 % i-tr,do_ftrus4 421-- 40644 --/4redd./lfd� 4rV , ,e,'(012.•I Wit2k.' -' ' .. i,„?..,e, /...0,„ , , w. s - rirlei--z, . . , s ...42,Htedi*Z-, ,4- do tA .-e5(74-1-1 ,24,_e R.„-c.,,z4 , 4.„3„.e Ai-e._ 4,-e-ii ,, _ _.,...4.,... 3, '[..--;/. ,?,,,--e--,„EX„,..t..r.",...74---ii,e...1.—_74. . . d . e _... Yom. l 7/ rL i LZ..mac -;, fa-t2z! :---12‘14,Wt J �/./1,11-;tW. lit:7/-- -- 'VutCk IlLe,fr"t' er-- V 7tf' G!"K 4/ a -z Vim- ' / • t,--t--y-In.-0-e V '72Mw. Aii/L -;(' A 7-5 e;L'E I"'I "--/-- —z-454- --e-')-7s 2Zit ef-'7•12-vt- 0 ---1.-e,-7--- -/1 .( 14./611.-v- i<I,C.,--3.".'‘', dC/11•-aerIP‘Ani7t.'. tf-*/ 1:1,,TI/L4A/716C-7'7 '�'`;G� 447- v i .4-1A4...41 4- M ‘ --7-h,rL Ly4 e.,4„;14d2.4145) (.. °1/4'41(<)71:,e14 FRED FELTE REALTY "*-;0, BOX 387 ' WINDSOR, COLO, 80550 • . Ti TION `.UFP'.`RT i'; County t_;or'm.l. sioner; of County, ( cloracio • ,n_or3Cit) ,ers of prone r' • _ `CO feet of the rr-.perty , �hv mar this request f r /,o�i-)7,'ri iLasol,ey '.Jse. iurr P.a'_li�.^ .ti z� Descrirtion of Fropert•; � �_ Oa/ Town of Severance SUP-361 : 78 : 13 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS February 1, 1979 Loup Reservoir Company Windsor, Colorado 80550 Henery, Kethneth1Lauren Felte P.O. Box 123 Severance, Colorado 80546 Noffsinger Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 488 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Carl and Elizabeth Felte Route 1, Box 98 Windsor, Colorado 80550 Gerald Mize and Myles Lunstrom c/o Scott Realty Company 1212 8th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Ruth Felte P .O. Box 123 Severance, Colorado 80546 Helmut , Bonnie and Mary Simon Route 1, Box 77 Windsor, Colorado 80550 Fred and Margery Felte Box 387 Windsor, Colorado 80550 Ernest and Helen Ross Route 1, Box 79 Windsor, Colorado 80550 William Scheid 10027 Weld County Road 70 Windsor, Colorado 80550 -,1 Town of Severance SUP-361: 78 : 13 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS April 28, 1978 William and Pauline Scheid 10027 Weld County Road 70 Windsor, Colorado 80550 Helmut G. , Bonnie L. , and Mary Simon 10946 Weld County .Road 72 Windsor, Colorado 80550 Fred and Margery E. Felte 219 10th Street Windsor, Colorado 80550 John Law Reservoir Company `-Np\N;, 33247 Highway 35_ W`v�SO� CAS , %O%Vo Lucerne, Colorado 8064-6- Ed Lind 10750 Weld County Road 74 Windsor, Colorado -80550 Carl and Elizabeth Felte 9969 Weld County Road 74 Windsor, Colorado ' 80550 Gerald D. Mize and Myles E. Lundstrom 1720 37th Avenue " Greeley, Colorado 80631 Kenneth L. Henry and Lauren J. Felte Q•O �O � Vy Windsor, Colorado 80550 Ruth Frances Felte 35316 Weld County Road 23 Severance, Colorado 80546 Ernest C. and Helen M. Ross c/o Veterans administration Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 )56Lep J2L(>o-cam.,' Oc ( WL5O1 ) E;0556 De' ) ALW?c?c1 L4.s21 Po 50-v `-1'10(15x)c r ' k 1 `/) _ru p(' tkee C . PO al& (166 Cebee 6- M‘f ,c-d-X-t4. Letneacik_ i . c -)ge_i2a& Zz/-) / vea, 12e•Ql.) (/6 / 2. S�h.�c.�_, ,e(76_ /? r CC e-C)/LCZ/)CC1,) r k(Ci/)2Lt , /.372121-e , � L-: e--17?()/Z., /2Lrk 77 01 ZV9 VS('-66 &e7 (ar2CLiCi2j 4 4 ` '/U ') ( y ) ( (_ / ) X )-J _J, L 1-- //< -'( (71/L-'17-77-2-- ( 77 ,�'L'. /-1/ ./i. ,, ,/, k.-t--'77 --- ;_-,-1/- Or-/To--4_)---2- (,, , / ,r(Je:4_) ,, x--2--,i . - &(--,fc2 „,.---,---- cc `i /( < C << <�i' . Z . L5()/ )� i (L': /(( i' 7 (€ (f, , %(.- ' ,2 4) // /rJC,c _/ L(J 7 L)i 7, 37, tau or \S LE 4r Jecr 2_ pf sg Cvz-- oe,07 -0z Q—/.3 — 74/ 723 /&V x(52 ?CD \Iv /'W Q/evc./) 0e4 A'x,q &I). /t SE¢ 0210 /--/O-- 75 -73O /lt 17%/ z-t-ID // /? ?3/i /4 J 7 --2L-t 2I )QL ) Vs.e_._ Po 27 /23 &Se tke2CL/7«1, f 2 LP Z -- 0807 - oz-/ Cxxo qL.20/? 1ia-ty . 2 von /z- 79 ,1s9 - /77e7 / 7 c6.2) h . LTA . 17 ZCU Octe.e,e y2 Ca 3a€€ c-9 /owl- s - Z- 6.l, /4/Q3 40D WD 0, 72L- c //Z/ 8�7 / -r- R l E 95 £e)ci?cLco,e `l.Jeer C0Z 78 Ze/ /74/6-5- 77 c-oD GeR, - /4/z F 7)//y4S l-1--),uosr-/2a/ ScO (T-RRkiL7y CO . 1zlz - /So a_ 62éLfy a/o. a/C/ - 75 732 /&,57 7Q c' Z-02) 0 2eit) / /-))7(e7-1-7/ FL Li-E- TD ,c (Fct SDE'^€1 C SC-01- Z- /3 -- 7.3 Zo e' /(o D7 2 , Z LLD -?0-r1-1 Fe c_Te_. / 2 3 ? EL.. LA l /L Po /O b z7 70 SE-CT ) l c 7- (j)/1U _SOf2_ M UT S) I�101v kA))e Mi Zy ( g 77 roDso T )Z E LI N Mpe, e,ey Bo--k 367 (,t)/Au lsnf __, e� AD,t'u,4 oV�7-e o≤ v A-Et-) kV-6 2_. 5(')?75- . 5- 0 i - .3-& / Sec . // 6507 - t(- O - co - C- - -) CO / Gc:-/-1 g l O; (J0411 . &7 paaL_Le___ ,thi,ort,lia)Is/0,,e/pc t , t, ...x -77 ..,- 7 '550 i _I c c`Q n , ^ r'` ,2(14a/J ) i-E ilr,,_• ./. ,✓�v-n�vu� , Q ,�o. Pt tli5 `f 60) Jz_ e etiD>i_ 4` 5(m / )) G cr, � . �. ,d '1-- (--66/ /4X57133 CO q < < - 77 sec , r 05-C7 - /a -O - oc - C- - -) 094 36,6 o pi_-7- - ?.--'4-edi Z12 ,(7-,e) ) 1--Q'Y c- , JCL ,,, AilL :5Q'7 itgg310 4 I GOP - 5-7G, Sec, 3 '3 C ()eV -61 3.2 or9 Cod 066 YeL- 33 7 S cog 9. 3x5 /-/A) e0 -96 - 73 l AR R' Fg3O 8®550 c , O507 -0l- o - cc - C� - - -) QU a_r A lz ted Le/w) .-2 Teoawl, 5;74)&0 + e- --SGO 4' 1,e7zydo_ E al-f--76/1524A 7-ross 27 eL/D O(0 T / /-e2.6(A4 7_,757 7-7, AFE:;42e) 7 G if)eti- c)atio, (4 Plet A_3 3 53/6 PI /20.66 I�� 61 (6/6 . 5t) P .:"&/ " 1,, .C ,e-e.„-afz_ ..... 7-- ---7 Pil- ' , ":1 �' i 9br • I • 114 I? -- "1.16i. _4_,‘w6,9 —s-7,L... a a L. U'/u S / P0f1 L. ---• ! . q3 x61-, - 1 • . . % . , 01 t i1111 rt-u-r /10 . 00,m/di . • , illiffi O(/U,,, kifiRTi 6. O 16 7 1 . . !' - . _ . SECTION FEET 660 1320 1980 2640 3300 3960 4620 5280 4 .r QUARTER FEET 330 660 990 1320 1650 1980 2310 2640 1 1 80 SCALE 40 SCALE I t1 i r , cOP -5, J if,tied , &, , i • ftl,(2)-,a_ el • • • 4 /-,L711 frY; z.' ,96,24-4/4 J, • . . . • . . I • • ) Q. PG-rti evi, a- . ri__:-(-1.=_k.,29-0 - ! 0 l CJ Y , . . . ,7___.. ,_...„...„............_........_. • • 1 SECTION FEET 660 1320 1980 2640 3300 3960 4620 5280 1 j QUARTER FEET 330 660 990 1320 1650 1980 2310 2640 80 SCALE 1 40 SCALE 1 1 I 1 ys' 83 P „Qoprk-rr ) Rs ce(m) , v /Uc/ j C'P - 36/ /),6g247- AAla tCZ?7 a),d 6, / C 7D AA442-6,-2, S'6 56o Al.geaud- 19&27,1-L2_,1 ,, 4 it99.4 6 We61/ 6, 66,(//4621-2, c-eo O °i:172,,,d oe,e,&/-; •Fc 5 G (/0144-692 Sc -33.25-a___ t(i/ es dit&v7A-z-e, (Jelt it4J , 07,5-D � 7 � � < s <�L,6;21A1A91-- TO,c3S0 z e2e;f cfe-& ( d A, z -3-6 -5O leAAPi 2:4 6), L4 ti ‘ ,f2.-i/ di ) , /S7 ii76 //7 74 1-6 L� 3.5-= / -) / 2 J2-- 0 16.�2� e 5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 4302 W. 9th St. Road, Greeley, Co. 80631 March 3, 1978 W. B. Heller 2020 Airway Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 The following is in answer to your request for soil survey and interpre- tation information for a wastewater stabilization pond for the town of Severance to be located in the SE4SE4 of Section 2, Twp. 6N, Range 67W. As indicated by your location map, the pond site is comprised of the soil type Colombo clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is a deep, well drained soil on flood plains and terraces that formed in strati- fied calcareous alluvium. Typically the surface layer is dark grayish brown clay loam about 14 inches thick. The upper underlying material is pale brown stratified clay loam and loam about 7 inches thick. The lower underlying material, to a depth of 60 inches, is a loam stratified with thin lenses of fine sand, medium sand and clay loam. The area is limited for sewage lagoon construction due to the slope and seepage. The slope indicated the need for dikes and embankments, for which this soil exhibits low strength and compressibility. To preclude seepage loss, sealing the pond bottom will be necessary. An on site soil engineering evaluation should be made to provide necessary design information. I am enclosing a copy of the soil map and the general soil description for the area in question. If any further assistance is needed, please feel free to contact this office. r R ald D. I iller District Conservationist cc: Weld County Planning Commission RDM/jb v ✓ \\. go acs �� --- \ „- , ,\ Q -s, I t.) 0 ,/;' ( / )/4 ii tiN.. ..\ ' \\\..S --...., , ( , .\\)/41.".""1-4 :4,447:e.,.I:s'' i 7_, P-£35 / �B I -vsf I % . \ 1 -Esfi \I : i0 I 4:: ,,N \ i urt t X4-1 as f •w 0 oft x:\,i',0, y , r1 6' Nt.,. �iK, _ p 1 .. ,., .......ar.it„-N, / . sz C,It X ------ ---"T 1:T s \\\‘' '""... - L, cr1.17'.-:^r7fk Wel ,T I, i'l ''''' fir \ ' , ., at*. I ') ' \\\ ?4, '.',, irl""fi. f , ' I K-.2,-, ci, ,--'" --r.,,,t '• el• ---'4 , 4 i \I. \ \J-04x ar' f f�`" r J .e, r I \ L "7.1 %-.\,..;I moI ; I -' 7,7ftiMilk ' i !l's-:-./12 1 lyJ ".a—.n \ �y ,'' Via w '' "l;$ y: • / �"i t'•4• • ' II , 1 • 4• tl' :'+mil' ,` 7 4 \ t 1�., a �F u \ s \ 1 ' SAX 1 .= ,II it b 0� 1 r ` - `°•fl ''',1.a r� �, 4� . ar,MdIN 3,,t, r x30 - B f, zo - co loam, -1 to 3 n aiiut sl,•re : This is a deep, well drained soil (,ii fleodplaias and Leraaces at ele- vations of 4600 and 4/80 feet. It formed in stratified calcareous alluvium. Included in this unit are some soils that have loam surface layers. Some small levelcd -.. e as were also included in 'capping. Typically the : uc cace layer is dark grayish hr• un clay loam about 14 �wwwwr inches thick. The i,l por underlying n ts_eria1 is pale brown stratified clay loam and loam -ai,out 1 inches thick. The lower underlying material, to a depth of 60 inches , is a loam stratified with thin lenses of fine sand , m,dium sand and clay loam. WOW Perm—ability is rtcderate. Available water capacity is high. Effective rooting depth is CO inches or ,core. Surface runoff is medium and-erosion 7 ha:ard is low. Where irrigated this soil is suited to all crops adapted to this area, including corn, sugar beets , beans , alfalfa , `;r;d-all grains , potatoes - and anions. An example of a suitable cropping system is alfalfa 3 to 4 years followed by corn, corn for si lage, sugar beets , stall grain, beaus and back to alfalfa. Some conservation practices such as land leveling, ditch lining and pipelines may he needed for proper water application. All methods of irrigation are suitable with furrow irrigation the most biro, co.ianon type used. Barnyard manaure and come reial fertilizers are needed � •1 •sa . Lim for top yields al, 1g with maintaining good otganik_ natter content. In nonirrigated areas this soil is well suited to winter wlle :ct, barley and sorghum. with alternate years being in summer fallow. Winter wheat, is the principle crop. If the crop of winter 1-heat should fail due to Wei winter kill, spring wheat may he seeded. Normally, precipitation is a'= too low to make beneficial use of fertilizers . (Cud cultural pr:cticc-s such ns •.tc,hhle ,nileh ;.lams, strip cropping and minimum tillage are nee,'ed to i',' 'bat wind ,nil water elusion. Terracing may a]ro nec-tcd to rat col water cro�ien. The potential native vegetation on this soil is dominated by western wheatgr?ss. Blue grama, switchgr:iss , sand ' erlgrnss , big bluestem, sle,uicr wheatgrnr,s , Indiangrnss and green necdlc'grass .ate also present. Potential production ranges from 1000 pounds per acre in favorable years to 600 peulds per acre in unfavorable years. When range condition dterioratrs , the tall grasses decrease , blue grama and buffalograss increase and production drops . Undesirable weeds 'and annual invade and erosion can occur as range condition becomes poorer. - $..c • ,i1i lge,,1,'11t of vegP( atieu on this ,c,i 1 :Ahould be based on t.�i,ing half and leaving half of the total annual p, O(luction. Secw!cng is advisable if ral,ge is in poor condition. West u,.n wheatgrass , switchgrass, sandreed grass , sideoats grama, pubescent wheatgrass , intermediate wheatgrass and blue grama are suitable for seeding. The grass selected should meet the sersonal requirements of livestock. For successful seeding, a firm pre- pared seedbed and grass drill should be used. Early spring seeding has pro,-en most successful. is Windbae.ilcs and environmental pl.a,at tugs are gcueaally well suited on this soil. Generally all trees aa,d shrubs adapted to this area will grow. Continued cultivation to control competing vegetation should be practiced for as many years as possible following planting. Trees that - = are best suited and have good survival are Rocky Mt. juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa pile , Si bel i an e l ,a, iZu s i nn olive and l'acicberry. Shrubs best suited ale . knnl.a.n•-h • ,t • ac , lilac , ;berinn peashrub and American plum. r' Wildlife is an i . earl. nt s,_LO:,d.iuy n c' , with ilia" e ofis 1e.,t suited awe for openland and rangeland wildlife. In cropland areas , habitat favo- rable for ring-necked pheasants , mourning doves and many non-game species can be developed by establishing wildlife areas for nesting and escape rm cover. For pheasants , the inclusion of undisturbed nesting cover is � - ..... vital and should be included in plans for habitat development. This is 046" especially especially tine in areas of intensive agriculture. Rangeland wildlife , exemplified by the pronghorn antelope, can be n�;.isled and encouraged by development of livestock watering facilities , proper livestock grazing ,Ti tF: management and range reseeding where needed . 1iiere this Colombo soil is on floodplains and is susceptible to flooding it ll:S poor potential ,r url'an and luc re.at:toalal development. On the limber terraces it has fair potential. Dwelling and road designs may iced to be '• gdi 1 i cd to offset the soils inherent limited ability to support a load , and for protection ngalnst frost action. Capability subclass IIe irrigated IIIe nonirrigated Clayey plains range site A. LEONARD SMITH, P.E. SOILS ENGINEER 11359 WEST 59TH PLACE ARVADA, COLORADO 80004 TELEPHONE 303-421-8295 % .1 SUBSURFACE SOILS EXAMINATION PROPOSED SEWAGE SYSTEM SEVERANCE, COLORADO a JUN 1978 N RECEIVED Weld Cooly Prepared for . Planning Commission ` O CV Mr. W. B. Heller, P.E. �<9 JC 2\` Toups Corporation 1966 West Fifteenth Street Loveland, Colorado ALS No. 122 March 29, 1978 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Samples of subsurface soils taken along the proposed sewer were loose to medium dense, silty, clayey, fine sands and very soft to stiff, fine sandy, silty, lean clays, underlain by well graded sands. Natural moisture contents of the overlying sands and clays ranged from damp to wet. Appreciable consolidation may occur with increasing moisture contents unde4loading, but bearing capacities can be improved by a thick bedding of well graded sand or silty sand. Trench walls should be well shored and braced as a precaution against sliding and caving. • Backfill should be compacted to 90 percent of Proctor maximum dry densities. Details of the subsurface conditions as well as additional design and construction criteria have been described in the report. INTRODUCTION A subsurface soils examination has been made to ascertain the engineering and construction properties of bearing and backfill materials along a proposed system for the disposal of sewage in the town of Severance, Colorado. The results of field and laboratory testing have been presented in this report as well as recommendations for improving the bearing capacities, compacting backfill, and excava- ting trenches. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Sewage will flow through a proposed system of sewers to a lagoon shown as the treatment plant on Figure 1. The proposed invert levels of the sewer have been shown on Figure 2. The lagoon will be constructed by first excavating the inplace soils to a specified depth and then placing -an impervious layer over the floor and banks. That layer will be a mixture of local soils and bentonite acting as an inhibitor to seepage. SITE CONDITIONS The town and the sewage system are situated on a relatively flat . F terrain and in a vast farming area. A natural and shallow drainage ALS No. 122 Page 1 of 3 channel runs generally south easterly approximately midway between the settled area of the town and the sewage treatment facility. The waters from this channel flow into a small reservoir adjacent to the treatment plant. There were no outcrops of rock visible from the site. SUBSURFACE FINDINGS Test holes were drilled at the ten positions shown on Figure 1. The logs of the borings and penetration test samples from each of the test holes have been depicted on Figure 2. Except for some well graded sands found at depths ranging from 7 to 22.5 feet, the over- burden soils were mixtures of calcareous silts, lean clays, and fine sands in varying proportions such that the soils would be classified as ML, CL, SM, and SC. The relative densities of the sandier materials ranged between loose and medium dense based on the penetration resis- tance test, while the consistencies of the more silty or clayey soils ranged from very soft to stiff. Moisture contents of samples within the town were below the plastic limit whereas those near the drainage channel and southward were well above the plastic limit. Such con- ditions are influenced by ground water levels, as also shown on Figure 2, and such levels may vary from one period of time to another. Representative specimens of both disturbed and undisturbed samples of the borings were tested in the laboratory. Consolidation characteristics, compaction values, Atterberg limits, natural moisture contents, and gradation were determined by the tests. As shown on Figures 3 and 4, the specimens consolidated during wetting under constant loading. Gradations and natural moisture contents have been shown on Figures 5 through 8. The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents for representative backfill have been shown on the compaction curves on Figures 9 and 10. SEWER LINE Considering the proposed construction and the subsurface findings, the design and construction criteria should include the following recommendations: (1) Excavate trenches to a minimum of 12 inches below sewer invert level; (2) Shore and brace trench walls as a safety precaution against sliding or caving; ALS No. 122 Page 2 of 3 (3) Backfill the trench to invert level with a bedding of well graded sand or slightly silty sand as described on Figure 11; (4) Moisten and compact bedding material to 90 percent of Proctor maximum dry density; (5) Shape bedding so that loads will be transmitted to bearing soil by the pipe rather than at the joints such as flanges or bell and spigot; (6) Seal all joints to prevent leakage of effluent; (7) Backfill to grade with 8 inch loose and horizontal layers above the bedding with on site soils, that have been moistened to within 2 percent of the optimum moistures and compacted to more than 90 percent of the maximum dry densities shown on Figures 9 and 10. As a precaution against potential settlement of the sewer pipe, particularly in the area of test holes 7, 8, 9 and 10, the soils should be kept dry during and after construction. Along the line of test holes 3,4,5 and 6, the thickness of the bedding should be increased by doubling or tripling the depth of excavation recommended above as a means of distributing the pipe loads in the wetter soils. MISCELLANEOUS The analyses and recommendations of this report were based on findings from test hole borings as shown herein. Variations of subsurface conditions may exist between or beyond the extent of the test hole drilling, but cannot be presumed. The nature and extent of such variations will become evident only after excavation of the soils, whereupon a reevaluation of the recommendations of this report may be necessary after observing the characteristics of the variations at the site. •,�`�� 1,E�nr(!rJ S1419 '8,Y•y-R7irs-;' •.t t• .• `Leonard Smith ALS No. 122 Page 3 of 3 TH-8 e Line F Line C TH_n Town of O TH-10 ne E Line D Severance TH- Line B NORTH L A i n Scales 1" = 600' e A TH-5 • TH-6 TH-8 = Test hole 8 TH-4 11 d� TH-3 SITE PLAN Ii and j POSITIONS OF EXPLORATORY 1 1i TEST HOLES ►1I [ t TH-2 TH= - --Treatment Plant ALS No. 122 FIGURE 1 A • Test Mi/e A0• 8 9 /O 7 6 . o _ �� - • I : ' • - . I' — 4 ` . i ` • ! 5 '• _ •,°1 7/12 • 1 /0/12 • _ ' 1 9/12 / 13//2 • 1 /112 ' /6/J2 's` • • I 1 22/12 s . • I 402 .. 'k. • /O . r O - /s 1 9//2 — /4- . 1 9//2 'L Tesf h'o/e A . 5 4 3 2 / . Oleti - 0 NI 1 .5/12 6//2 1. F -4 j /6//2 ' ♦ 1 L — /O vi I _ ♦ ,Q_.- L 1 Q E-%5 N _ 0 1 .- E 6h2 t /7//2 20 c E 24 • ° /7/12 •, � • 1 16/12 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY TEST HOLES (Explanation of symbols , shown on Figure 2A) a .ALS No. 122 FIGURE 2 LEGEND: 75 TOPSOIL, sands, silty and clayey, damp to moist, tan and brown. SAND, loose and medium dense, silty, calcareous, fine sand, •� moist, and wet, tan and buff. (SM - SC). CLAY, medium stiff, fine sand, calcareous, / moist, brown. —(CL). E- - CLAY, soft, fine sand, calcareous, damp, moist, and wet, • • • tan, buff, brown. (CL) . \ CLAY, soft, sandy, wet, calcareous, •`e brown. (CL). . ' SAND, medium dense, well graded, wet, light brown. (SW) . SYMBOLS: Indicates that 9 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches 9/12 drove a sampling tool 12 inches. Indicates the invert level of the proposed pipe line. 1 Indicates the level of free water measured at the time of drilling. NOTES: 1. Test holes were drilled on March 1 and 15, 1978 with a 4 inch diameter, helical, truck mounted, power auger. 2. Invert levels were supplied by the engineer. 3. Drill logs shown on figure 2 of this report are subject to the limitations, explanations, and conclusions of the report. LEGEND AND NOTES OF THE LOGS OF EXPLOARATORY TEST HOLES SHOWN ON FIGURE 2 ALS No. 122 FIGURE 2A -, A. LEONARD SMITH, P.E. • A 4 Natural Dry Unit Weight = ?6' 2 pc f • Natural Moisture Content * 5 •5 percent O ' • 2 ,Spemimen consolidated luring watting under constant loading. o -¢ V v mL 6 O U) 0 8 U /0 /2 T H- 7, /2 '— /3 9//2 P ,7 er r/;'/G/7 5%/T/, 7f//7e) /o se, o/(7.,,o) 747/7 - SM, r ' 0.1 10 10 100 A 2 Natural Dry Unit Weight = 88- 6 pcf Natural Mwsture Content = 5.4 percent 0 ' - -- w 2 .y Specimen conaolidated during we-Airg N under 2onstcnt loading. 41- 6 4-. 0 v 0 N C O /Q • /2 • Tip-/- 8, 6'- 7' 9/ //2 e 0•-f/7C7r /oil. .5-19/VD, very si/75/) line, ca/corecuc- /00,5c, o/c ,ifi 7(72/2f/7 - „ m/rat_ 0.1 / 1.0 10 100 PRESSURE In ksf 4LS No. /22 Swell - Consolidation Test A76(./.€,E- 3 A. LEONARD SMITH, P.E. Natural Dry Unit Weight = /03'3 pcf • Natural Moisture Content = g•/ percent • Specimen consolidated very slightly 2 � & ring getting under constant Oss loading, o 4 a 6 a U) 0 4E3 U /D /2 77-/-/D �= 6 ' /O//2 Ai.../eri 7./O/-1 SieiNO, Very S;J 7/7e) Ca/cosec✓1, /77 eO//1.717 dense dam, /on--SM//✓1L r 0.1 10 10 1O0 ANatural Dry Unit Weight _ pct Natural Mo.asture Content = percent 3t (l) • C 0 0 • N . C V U 0.1 10 10 100 PRESSU ZE In kef AILS A/O, /22 Swell - Consolidation Test F/GU.PF ;' A. LEONARD SMITH, P.t.. SOILS ENGINEER HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 25IHR 7 HR TIME READINGS U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS I U S STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS 45 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN 0200 *100 0 50 040D30 016 *13U8 04 )13" 3/4" I 1/2" 3" 6" 90 100' — i 1 90 i . . I 10 i,vsL 1 eon —I—20 I t I 70 1 I 1 30 0 O _ ' ' I I I 1 W . I z z h 60 1 I 1 40 In __ i- 4 P `- T--' I I---- a 50 I 1 I 50 I_ 1 —. I I I z z --- 1 --r. I W • u 40 — I I 60 u I R -T I 1 W a 30 - t [ 70 a' I-- 1 —F I 1 80 20 I I — I 1 1 1 10 1 I I 90 1 1 1 I I I I '00'9 I II 1-.03I7 1 I I I III I Lit III I_� 1 I I I I I 1711 I I I I i [1I I I 100 0001 002 005 009 019 £37 074 149 297042 590 119 210238 4 76 9 52 19 I 38 I 76 12 7 2 00 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 1 SILT OR CLAY1 SAND I GRAVEL !COBBLES FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE FINE 1 COARSE GRAVEL D % SAND 22 % SILT 1 78 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX 0/0 SAMPLE OF 77E-.5 f-do,CE / FROM .5/— 6 / HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR 7 MR TIME READINGS U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS I U S STANDARD�" SIEVE OPENINGS ' I O45 MIN I5 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN *200 *100 1750 x40030 016 010 r8 04 3/E 74.. I%2 3 5"6" 8�0 00 1 • 1 90 -- -- 10 1 t 80 I 1--20 I 70 1 I— 30 0 0 1 w v, 60 I 40 a (n I W 4 a 50 f —^ ^50 o- 1- I Z z W 40 t 60 0 0 - ____i_-— cr z I I - w a 30 ��— i 1 70 a —} — 1 20 --~ 1 _r— - -- I 80 -- I - I- _ I 10 I 1 _ I 90 -- I — 1 -- I - - 0 1 I -TTY I I j I I I I_I I I 1 IT i 1 III �-�-TTTTI i R—T-'1-TT11 1 l I 100 001 002 005 009 019 037 074 149 297042 590 1 19 12 38 4 716-1-T19 52 19 I 38 I 762 12 7 200 I 20 152 L DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS1 I SILT OR CLAY I FINE I SAND MEDIUM I COARSE I FINE GRIV ECOARSE !COBBLES GRAVEL Q % SAND , SILT ctC r=f 761 % LIQUID LIMIT / % PLASTICITY INDEX % SA MPLE OF T€Sr wozE ._ F R 0 M -5'- 6 , G RADATION TEST RESULTS XL No• /2 ? 7 67 are F' 5 A. LEONARD SMITH, P.-. SOILS ENGINEER HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 25IHR 7 HR TIME READINGS I U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS I U S STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS 45 MIN IS MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN O2OO •100 C50 040030 °t6 0008 44 3b" 3/4" 11/2.. 3- 5 6 EE 100 �- - - -- —IO 7 �_; i /, f ---r- 1- -f 80 I -4- .�r7 20 70 Lif �- - I -30 0 -_-�- W0 I 1 I W Z Z I- I I N 80 — — I 1 -- —40 a .."_-, ..f W a 50 I — 1 �1 ¢ I f / r 1 50 _ ` / y �ii�lt"�r //-;; U- -5'A I I W r wer 40 I f /J1• / fp I �6 W , I W I a. ` a 30 - I _70 I L I20 t r - i i BO _ { 10 _________.-----___I— . I 1 90 I I - I 0 I I 11 1 I t ] I I I ;;7 1�I 1 1 I II I t III I I I I I I I-�i i 1 r I I I_II I 100 .001 002 005 009 019 .O37 074 149 297O42 590 1-9 1238 4 76 9 52 19 I 38 I 76 2 127 2 00 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS IS2I SILT OR CLAY SAND I GRAVEL 1 FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE] FINE COARSE 'COBBLES GRAVEL % SAND 0/0 SILT AND CLAY 0/0 LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX 1 '0 SAMPLE OF TH 3 FROM / '/2/ -- 4//> /23, ,¢,/ I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS I U S STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS ' 105 MIN I5 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN 8200 'RICO 050 x40°30 046 010 3/e'. 3'4• 1%z 3 5"6" 60 0 { —__ I I I 90 _ —'l Al I I 10 7 4T•_ —�_ 80 I I -----E- 20 ` I I ___‘___- 7 0 —I— —r — 30 0 z 1 1 _ —_ -+ � z ! -- —___74.1.___ f—'— w60 I I - _--- .-.40 a _ I a50 -- —f—" __ —- -- I - ¢ I I- 1 I z — _____I I 50 to 4O - — ---I- — I_ 60 c _I W a 30 1 I I— I 70 a. 20 —i -- -- I BO -- I - - - I - 10 I 90 0 --Ti-I TTT 1 T---T- 1-I-TT1 fl 1- T"�ZZ1- —- I --T-I-S1 1.71 TT- T---r I TT1f 1 I I 100 001 002 005 009 019 037 074 149 29 2590 119 1238 476 952 191 381 762 I27 200 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS IS2I SILT OR CLAY I SAND I GRAVEL 'COBBLES FINE I MEDIUM (COARSE FINE I COARSE GRAVEL 0 % SAND .30 % SILT AND CLAY 70 % LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX 0/0 SAMPLE OF 77-/- 6 FROM ! Q - " 6 /) GRADATION TEST RESULTS 4L5 r�Yor /22 F-A ve,E 5 • A. LEONARD SMITH, P.L. SOILS ENGINEER HYDROMETER ANALYSIS , SIEVE ANALYSIS 25IHR 7 HR TIME READINGS U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS I U S STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS 45 MIN I5 MIN 60 MIN 19M1N 4 MIN I MIN 0200 •100 050040030 016 Q0448 04 38" 314" II/" 3" 5°6" 100 — - __- 0 I _" 90 r —r— 1 10 r- 1 80 J I I 1{ 20 70 V?r/tit?r//,'I.'1S-1 tt I i '--r-- 1 30 0 0 _ .—Ji —L. I la z ------= I — — h 60 1______________/ i 40 4 4 rc o 50 I 50 z z 1 oµ I W • W 40 1 �- r' 1 r 0 K 1 I I W a 30 11 1 70 1 t 20 I ` �80 t I I 1 10 I I I 90 I I I _ II II 1 I I _11111M- I III 1111 I 1 I I I I 1"I I I I l 1 1 III! 1 100 .001 002 005 009 .019 .037 074 149 297042 590 119 1 238 4 76 9 52 19 I 38 I 76 2 127 2 00 20 i5.2I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SILT OR CLAY FIRE AMEDIUM COARSE IN( COARSE COBBLES GRAVEL on, SAND 0 SILT AND CLAY LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF TH- 7 FROM • 1 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS I U S STANDARD;" SIEVE OPENINGS 4 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN °200 *100 050 R40030 016 0108 04 3/!. 3i'4• 11/2 3" 5" 6. 8.. 100 I I 0 1 I 90 1 1 -I--10 I 80 , L_20 70 —1 ---3-1q-7,-;•1. I 30 0 O — t /1 t I W z I 1 -—r- z_ ,0 60 I L_ ` 40 a cn I— ___—I W as S0 /:----' 1 - 1- -1-- ..... I � -5O r -1--- + ,-- I - 1 i.. p. I z z - I I W 0 40 - ----F--- 1 1 60 a z -- I 1 _I I a W a 30 I L T 70 20 I_ ' I 80 10 , I �--,_ I 90 rt 0 -f-Tfl'—T 'I—I—r 1-'1- l-TTI—"T"�T-r III ----I-I-1-1 '7 TT1TT—F—T` TT"I- 1'L I I I 100 •' • 001 002 005 009 019 037 074 149 2970 2 590 1 19 1 2 38 476 9 52 19 I 38 I 762 12 7 200 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 1521 SILT OR CLAY I FINE MEDIUM 1COARSE FINE GR7IVECOARSE }COBBLES GRAVEL /0 SAND 0 SILT AND CLAY 0/0 LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX c Yo SAMPLE OF Ty-(Sp FROM 8 /- 7/ GRADATION TEST RESULTS f4y 4Z.S. gO. /22 76-U•PE 7 1,A. LEONARD SMITH, P.E. SOILS ENGINEER HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 251HR 7 H TIME READINGS U $ STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS I U S STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS 100 5 MIN I5 MIN 60 MIN I9 PAIN 4 MIN I MIN a2OO •100 C50 040030 016 SUB 04 %" N" I I/2" 3* 56" 80 —1 _ 1 — 90 • l - , —7---.10 I 80 —s5 - , ` � 8 1 I 20 70 �I 7X-rr�-u 4 I o I 30 o o I -Jf Di 1 W z I � 6 I z 1, 60 I 1 40 U, a r---- �^ W s a S0 I —f I '50 I- I I I z sr u 4 0 — ____r_ f 60 u ¢ 1 ¢ W _ I . I W a 30 — -�, _L_ 70 a — I { 20 _l__ I , { 80 I a I 10 I 1 I 90 1 — _ _ t I1 I I l 1 1 I I I I I I I I F 11 I III 1 -T-T-ITIZI_I I I I I I I I I I I 100 0.001 .002 .005 009 019 037 074 149 2971 590 1 19 1238 4 76 9 52 19 I 38 I 76 12 7 2 00 112 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 1 SILT OR CLAY 1 FINE SANOEDIUNI GRAVEL {COBBLES { I COARSE FINE 1 COARSE GRAVEL % SAND % SILT AND CLAY 0/0 LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX ok SAMPLE OF ]''f-J / FROM ,9.s shoe 17 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS I U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS I U S STANDARD�" SIEVE OPENINGS 1045 MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN •200 *100 050 x40030 CI6 010 ell 3'04 . 3/4" I I/2 3" 5"6' 8'O 0 — I 90 I '.'".----I I 10 - -t— I 80 - I I —_` —I 20 1 70 i 1— 30 o 0 1 1 I W z - - I z U, 60 G_G,/..� -�. _ — i_^40 F 4 -- — —r—I 50 -- '/__± -{_ /�-I I -S0 ¢ z W 40 - -- ---t- elL'... � `'J I 60 W U _{-_.- I u cc a 30 I I f I a. W __ L — . I 70 —1— 20 l ;-- I _ 1 80 10 I 1 . I 90 1 I _ I • • O I-rri--1-` I I .I 1 I T-tF _T---r-`i I I 1 III I 100 001 002 005 009 019 037 074 149 290£2590 119 1238 476 952 19I 38 I 762 127 200 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 1521 ` SILT OR CLAY I FINE TEDIUM (COARSE FINE GRV ECOA RSE }COBBLES GRAVEL % SAND % SILT AND CLAY LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX 0/0 SAMPLE OF TA/-/O FROM ,9j u^/4oW'7 GRADATION TEST RESULTS ,4LS/v . /22 F 6L/,PE o ,, 7 A. LEONARD SMITH, P.E. SOILS ENGINEER HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U S STANDARD SIEvE NUMBERS I u S STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS 4S MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN *MIN 4 YIN I MIN *200 *100 ~50"40430 "I6 410 8 »4 3/4. 1 IR" 5 5"6" 8" I 1 - _--1_-7-- -I- 20 70 1 ---__4_____--- 1 i-, - - - _ -__I �-- - Ir^ 30 Z M Sp I -4 - 1 1 ♦O t •• I _ I ' W • Sp - I 1 50 r Z - 1 _ - 1i i u 40 I -- r1 - 60 u Z 1 I If a 30 1T I 1 70 11. I 1 : - I 20 - I t �- I 80 10 1 Ir 4 90 I t I 1 p 1 F I I I I �I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I IIIII II I I I 1 1 1 1,1 _I 1 1 1 I I-I I I I 100 COI 002 005 009 019 037 074 149 297012 590 1 19 2I 238 4 76 9 52 19 1 36 I 762 12 7 200 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 152 SILT OR CLAY I R COBBLES FINE MCDIUM COARSE FIN OARS GRADATION TEST RESULTS GRAVEL O % SAND .2O % SILT AND CLAY 8O % 0 LIQUID LIMIT 40 % PLASTICITY INDEX 2/ MOISTURE CONTENT -PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT 1406 IO IS 20 25 30 MOISTURE -DRY DENSITY CURVES • MAX DRY DENSITY (P C F 1/829 4 -- --- OPTIMUM MOIST C0NT mot?, SPECIFICATION 130 I -` -" DENSITY (P C F ) 1 I � I-' ( �i— I — —' 25: 7-0-- �7- CTI A�1�• -1 NLIII N/rt` J 1 IA e J ii Elillb _ I I M ` W 100 o 90 1 80 - COMPACTION TEST RESULTS COMPACTION TEST PROCEDURE AASfj7 T- 79 1 /r SAMPLE OF CL�y s/, //, •rnr/c-iv L.j,-,-,2,-c=_`.✓S�� 00/2?O�'64° - Cl FROM 77/-3 DEPTH �2/_ .. / t9 Z S /i/o• /22 /76 /i E 9 A. LEONARD SMITH, P.E. 601L8 ENGINEER HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 2'55 MR 7 HR TIME READINGS U S STANDAk0 SIEVE NUMBERS I U 5 SIANDAR0 SIEVE 0PENINGS 140 MIN IS MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN 8200 •100 650 R40.30 816 4IOIR8 R4 /4 3V_ I I/5_ 3" 5'6- 00 �-- • - ---- - ---_--+ ___ - - --- _- _ -- _ _ I -- 90� _ --T-- - -- 1 I i • 1- __ -� IO •O 1 I I --- -- - —T-- 20 - �— --- . — I 1 70 - 1 __t �— I ----- --1 - 1 I 30 0 - _ -1- .-_ 1 r- - - ki _ a60 /.____,_ 1 - 4------ — —{'— -- I — --i1i_. I 40 .g 4 — I 1 -- -�I So If 50 --I -- —I-- — _ — i I 1-- I z u 40 --L� T-7~ -- 1 60 u or I La 30 f —T -- 1 Iti I t I —I- I 70 I I _ I 20 I 1 - 10 I I' I - 90 I I .1 11 1 1 1 1 I T 111111 1 1 L11 I 1111 I 11 I11111 1 7 1 1 1 111 I '100 0001 002 005 009 019 037 074 149 2970122 590 I 19 I_,2 38 4 76 9 52 19 I 38I 76 2 12 7 200 0 152f DIAMETER OF PARTICLC IH MILLIM[TER3 1 SILT OR CLAY I FINE I SAN() ICOARSE I MINE CRgVELOAAlf 'COBBLES GRADATION TEST RESULTS `` EE GRAVEL % SAND % SILT AND CLAY 0/0 LIQUID LIMIT 25 % PLASTICITY INDEX 10 0/0 MOISTURE CONTENT -PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT 1406 10 15 20 25 30 MOISTURE -DRY DENSITY CURVES Q MAX DRY DENSITY (P C F 1 118 0 `Q I - -- - -- (%112•0OPTIMUM MOIST CONT (%112. A SPECIFICATION 1 ISO _ - DENSITY (P C f I — 1 I . re—:in-voids-c ry- ;ears ia—g -zF3 • it �r�► _ a. �� MINI .�� — — - u 120 — z al a. opi n0 \ ■�- o- r z z I,1 100 o ic a it ■90 __ _, 80 . COMPACTION TEST RESULTS COMPACTION TEST PROCEDURE AASHTO T-99 SAMPLE OF SAND, very silty, fine, calcareous, brown, SM/SC. FROM Test Hole 7 DEPTH 0.5' - 12' ALS NO. 122 'FIGURE /0 �__, ' H. LEONARD SMITH, P.E. • 601L9 ENGINEER I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR 7 HR TIME READINGS U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS I U S STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS 45 MIN IS MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN 0200 •100 C50 40°30 016 0006 U4 %.. 3'4" I`I/t" 3" 5"6'80 t 90 I 10 r SO -- __ } — 1 1 L2o 1-4 Y- i ---T 70 -— r 30 a i t LI-ra...1 I I W z „ 60 --� I 40 6. 50 I 50 W 40 /r_ { W C ._-� I 60 0 I r - 1 1 r l i I I W d JO rf —r ______/ 1 I ' 70 20 fJ-‘ ...i.40.mil —t I - I 80 I 1 10 - 1 I 90 t I ITT'1 -TTY'TTT—'-T E.J _ _ 100 -- 100 0.001 002 005 007--.171T-T-10-;17 074 149 29-7- 1- )p142 591 119 238 4 76 9 52 19 I 38 I 76 12 00 20 152 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS I SILT OR CLAY ` FINE I SAND uED1uM 1COAR3E1 FINE GR9XECO•all 'COBBLES GRAVEL 0 - 30 % SAND 62 - 82 % SILT AND CLAY 8 -18 % LIQUID LIMIT 30 % PLASTICITY INDEX 10 0/0 Recommended bedding material • I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR 7HR TIME READINGS U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS I U S STANDARD SIEVE OPENINGS IpS MIN 15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN I MIN •200 "100 050 "40°30 016010 t18 04 S/$" 3/4 I%i 3 5.'6" 8" 0 1 I 1iI I , 0 I 1 4 90 _ t 7 1 10 _ - I -+ — 1 I 80 J— - —;--- I }�20 — - ---------f- t-- --- i 70 --._�— IT 30 o o ---- I -- 1 I W z — _ - — __ n 60 I —1- I { 40 . H so --1 -_.-_1 -_ I 50 r ►- — _ _ __ -� - t ___----- ► u --- __ ^—f -- 1 I 60 u a 30 f—� -- — I _-1 -- ---I-- f a I I 70 - -4-----J-- — -- I 80 - e 0 -- TT- -T I I.T--1-1- I--T-T1 I iT— T- -7-11i: 11 I I ---I 1-1 I T 7 1 Il -- T T Tl--1 I Tl -r-t '—" 100 001 002 005 009 019 037 074 149 2970 2 590 119 1238 476 952 19 I 38 I 762 127 200 l DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 1521 • A5D CR9VEL (COBBLES . SILT OR CLAY FINE MLDIOM ' COARSE FINE 1 COARSE GRAVEL 0/ SAND 0/ SILT AND CLAY 04 LIQUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX 0/ SAMPLE OF FROM • GRADATION TEST RESULTS ALS No. 122 FIGURE 11 c ATTENDANCE RECORD APPLICANT : TOWN OF SEVERAN TIME : 2 : P.M. D0CKET# 79_8 DATE : April 4, 1979 REQUEST : SUP - Wastewater Treatment Facility Site NAME ADDRESS /7/4_ X0,20 � --a („1: /� 1 CO ,..4€.1,,. 1" e I e I e I e < I I I m, 61I . 00 I 0 m a ail H , LL 8 L go I I . v�l • SENDER Complete item; 1,2,and i r J Q W o I o Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on OD LL ra ¢ U o= 3 reverse. O-1 H r tni (4 �' I N - m 1. The following service is requested (check one). v w w zz o x w Q J o f >≥ di " Show to whom and date delivered 250 Et w w o p �I W o o —o =- i z Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 45 OO O N I N LYl W ❑ 1-• o o W L- F242',3 a s RESTRICTED DELIVERY. C\I LL a® OIL Iz N LL a Q Naow'ooh r� °f Show to whom and dare delivered 850 m- ❑ I a W j w W I W `� i_ 0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY. a tc4® '<I IF O O) L a w 30IA113S 1dI3331I l`l1Il138 6 o a a FI n _ o ¢ Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 ® U o` ' ,w0 • < W SMIA113s 1tll'WIldO a LL F (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other W z O ' a v, — -- r- in fees). to El u o_ 2 SBA VOA 113lStl'liSOd ilflsm o a 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: , 9L6T IdV OO 4 um2o.: i Town of Severance co z c/0 Lowell Hummel, Mayor J_ m In'"I"' v I H ', H I H A P. O. Box 122, -Severance, CO Q I I I m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: 80546 w J cA I REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. 0 ®cr cn c> ts> I I o> LU �L �°, in i f ' m 280498 V) � ra W o H sag N N. © ¢ o a I -. a, (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) O-1 CC o oy >,- w rn I have received the article described above. III rRr�G �; p Iw O ¢ J a �= J— W m SIGNATURE ❑ Addressee _ O Authorized agent cp 0 g"' ¢ x' ra ev j ≥ o o o =_ 0 O CO O may` N 43 �' ^ o w wo 0 w o� o� .1.--...,=, -.,e,oN� a Z ,^ ' , ��r. LL ® .a1O ❑ 0O w ¢ U oW swE 2 O c )DATE,OF U i' ''' J O I Q to o O ¢ - : -- ---1-- F 0 m DELIVERY POSTMA�Ij -- ® o 0,� a G w F ci) 351A1J3S lda393�i L', 1fl13L1 a a '.. ; ' .74:,. ® (� t�.;-_Z ;w ¢ FE s3alAll]S 1 0lido a y 0 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) vi �u~i a °a I SBA 11O 1 1131StlGd1SOd 1111SI O3 O- 0.. m F,- • 9L6T .dy'00Im£mSO4 'a T 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: 'QLERK'S t;," O INITIALS • _, 4.1 I` I cr I,,- is rr 4.,- I m y ). n `-,A . I` lI-a N I I {. GOP 1976-0-203-456 W 0 ®-Q cr(fl I .1U1�L c^ I --- - u J `° � ~ u® N � cc > oo a= a� `� > ≥ _ ow oN oWL- w a°i SENDER Complete item; 1,2,and i sa a1 ^l 1 O ¢ J — `0 w -n Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on U o s If c� V o x 'oz o ai a u- > g reverse OO M w m w w �.� �t oNo a 0 1. The following service is requested (check one). 0 (\I LL a® -oz.) W a ¢ • oo I of ooh x ' ¢how to whom and date delivered 250 ❑ tn¢� O Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 450 8 ct., N w I L W . 33IA113S 1dD33311 1111/1130 8 ¢ Lit o w a ., RESTRICTED DELIVERY. ® IU c z�'Qv , W S30In1I3S 1tlf�OV1dO a m Show to whom and dare delivered 850 W uii 0a 2 SBA VOA1131SVCd1SOd 11fISl',103 1- RESTRICTED DEd a . Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 9L6T add'00x8 mSO4 (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other fees). 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: l-f'. .' d d i d l d < I- q Fred and Margery Felte I u I m Box 387 n Ea m Windsor, CO 80550 79-8 L- rn F� o m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: F. �a I _ o� oi H �® y >¢ I o6 a� REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. w a > c" cc > > oyw w 280494 m� w ` -J� 0 c r-I ❑ O`I w w l o o E o Lii u. 0 (Always obtain signature CC c®s b m X o� n J I❑o Q . o =Q =oo z w of addressee or agent) O �� cn ,—I o N , w o o= o �wW 213 a a m I have received the article described above. w 1� LL a e o 006 ❑ w - rJ - e, TQ o'er o 0 ° m SIGNATURE ❑ Addressee acci l�z z ❑ 0 , ¢ !norm ce,Qce Q rc p O Authorized agent n- e 8 G.,O r w F ¢ 33IA�73S Ld0333ll1 minim; 2 g z J - • U o or Iii, ' a w SM IIAO3S TALMUD w a. a c 4. L � ® LO z R'+'¢Pa o _- _- N m DATE OF DELIVERY POSTMARK W m a 2 S33i IlOd I131SVL;11SOd 111IN11O3 o a o f 9L61 .TdV'00SC mS0,1 G 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) O m z _1 a k,- H t.> ,. I e I e -71 o I C 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: La.., to ; . 0 52'¢ O C4> I F �, ® 11") I I i --- 0, LI..a c. Lr1 W - I �o * GOP 1976- 203-456 IC� / - tr�a N. cc I - I� LA® N 4J N DD I Q o - - I `SrCC `S °1 'Hi rn w _ �N `n I I El Nw ^ mr -� �= ..? w �� 0 cow - o 00 0 > o b I EA LA �o_ 0 I cc as. co I0 J = -r - -�2 -, oOOwea1 Aa u,' ,E oI o ' 22-. 2 t5 `Q ~ I a �I .x 4J.z '�0 0O ILL 4 m c o I O''''''''' o La'"6 ,5-g.,7,' mL s I ❑ s o¢ F H =o° 0i N Q co w, w ow I �¢ � N o f Nod o a- o 0H,..< -1 F O LI Q W ¢ 331AU3S 1dI30311 NuflJ.3] a a I ® (� ®` x W W I S33In113S 1tlf�DI1dO a At I W W ,_i 0n 2 SBA VOA�31S iISOd 1�PISfIO9 n 9L6T Idy'OO6,£,urio,I Sd it I Ie1 1 P.P. a d I < I 1 n ®a w o to rfl lU F,-_E a • SENDER Complete items 1,2,and i II- 0-¢ in co o Wo o� -, Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on F— �® N CO rn } W o� a reverse. '- a is P5 00 N. w a `= oy y m 1. The following service is requested (check one). > $4 o f o�- U ® a) o O w w •= __ •-W� W " ID Show to whom and date delivered 250 CD FT! cC °U > ❑ ;�o z cc I-- aa) a r w o W o,, o., !— o.W a . Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 450 Cej U- a'g °101 o �' LL J 0 J oo ' oo1 w c .�, O RESTRICTED DELIVERY. ar td IzoO z O 0 - cc yo =a moo I mat a o O1 Show to whom and date delivered 850 F- oa ❑M w b LL a w 33IAL73S 14333111 min p ¢ RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Lit `r® o ai' k < G L `� ¢ a a Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 U ®` Fw W�° S331A193S�tlN011d0 a P 0 w z ¢ in i- y (Fees shown are in addition "to postage charges and other 7/ w 1_ ° ° S333 1101ll31Stl�J1SOd moon ° a fees). G---i cn u) a a 9L6T .rdV'OO8E W.o3 I 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: • c Helmut, Bonnie and Mary Simon r --- — m Route 1, Box 77 _J CU l€,- .0)-1,,,. a a a m Windsor, CO 80550 79-8 m cd 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: • a 'L--e I-1 % I REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. w\gL G o m 280493 CO "tea co co �_ } o '-z-,T. N (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) CO H cs y cr w o � WY -I �c m w o RW oN -�� m I have received the article described above. �My U ® 1v c) n V 0• w o 0 00 0= o C SIGNATURE ❑ Addressee 0 Authorized agent m ro > - 'oW 1.dy O �` ry) !v kNlll w p w o-` �` o�? o � Q C N i Y t9!' C LL ® ''�' Co() w Q U o- o'o o-� oo,�i, W O C 4. • - - �m faro w W �� N< moo ya= F o m DATE OF DELIVERY /PST4 W en® oS�a CQN w wci a Y O �`. 1 331A113S 1413330 N8n13O o �1 ® ULij ® w a S331A113S 1tlN011dO a a 5. ADDRESS (Complete only it requested) ,t '74 a wx C �Q.an ° S333 UCH U31Stl[,J1S0d 11nSNO3 ° 2 A '. z 9L6T -dV'DOSE W.rod S 'l =1 6 UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: C4ER)F'S p , - INITIALS J r 1.mil.0,-1.d. v v cs e Q I " I CO . II I * GOP 1976-0-203-456 • 6 G rn f 6,1 d RI N. V_4u.'._i 0 I.rl O c U L) o O m. 00 _we, 000 ¢ o c oy ---7- L:.: - > .,� } > a o� w,-- rn v; • SENDER Complete items 1.2,and 'I. U �& 0 o wo IL 7 as w - Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on CD OW > O O I > o =� 2= ��o 11 reverse. Qr? 0 co ^ N w o ww I- o� .2 .�� 52nU et a o 1. The following service is requested (check one). C\! LI- ® o ❑ LL , J - oW c'm == ,T.7,....,-E' w Show to whom and date delivered 250 � ��o O w' v r �o �a �a� c o c e- °_® ly t,b [L- LIP F W w 33MUS 1dI33311 N11n138 p ¢ Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 450 • W e 0 F a i, I a s Z3 RESTRIC Th1)DELIVERY. ® lU ® CC z p ¢.� N 0 S33IA113S 1VHOLIdO 4 F Show to whom and date delivered 850 CC wa u~i3 a S333>10d 031StlCJ1SOd 11nSN03 ° n°. RESTRICILi)DELIVERY. w - I Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 9L6T idV`DOSE Wao3 Sc (Fees shown are in addition to postage charges and other fees). A 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: J I 'd "I" " Ruth Felte -.1 0 o Z P. 0. Box 123 a 'a o �, ta m Severance, CO 80546 79-8 ®E.; I Lm 0 m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: CD L` R.'d � � w .b } tv a o _ REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. ix o U w 0 ,- wood � I ' a �� a� W m 280492 CD O U J ❑ o L,o z: go• d ao 0 1 (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) co O ui I N • N. W o W o o I e�� ----,e, a F m A I have received the article described above. (� LL 0 ro!o ❑ p LL -' 0 - oo I y�� 'PF w o m SIGNATURE 0 Addressee a =� = W t7 �}Authorized agent l— cdu- .r,z „zz d ❑ ° ¢ cto ya oo I�a� 71 Cc • Ct 010 '�°z nw 'b w a w t~n 0 i r ▪ w s o CIF o� p ¢ �, ¢ 331A83S 14133311 Nbn138 °a a c 4. 1`- - ''s" • ® 0 ®` H�IW r u F S33IAO3S 5tlNOI1dO a P m DATE OF DELIVERY ' POS ;) F!e !r w lit.) a a S331 110 1 1131Stl1 1SOd 110SNO3 ° a 4/c; / v 9L6T AV bOSE W.tod Sd O 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requ t ) .'i m Jt•'_ -I 7:\ _I i t'I,:..I., - `. '3 t' m 6. UNABLE TO DELIV: BECAUSE: -k...��'S O naMALS P._••=-3c N O ce to LLI •� F7.4 (71 * GOP 1976-0-203-456 w Q". 1U a 61 n w o o- oy w it9 0) cd X 0 I 5 J :w ._ :,,,2,,,- W CD U MCC N 0 0 O J o '2 s =oQ w CC 0 � o w'-'-' 0 a C ^'w w❑ ww ,et o 9-L .- L a „:,,l- CD,,,d CO W N W J U o� urc >» .:v r BI O Q� Z,-I z }'1 ❑ a EE v=ie s2, v2 -' R¢.' Q Q H ,.ly❑ a w wF. ~ tl 0_ c® a < w F w cc w 33IMI3S 1dI33311 N1in138 a s ® U ®` o W o 0 I I S33IA83S 1tlNOI1d0 w a: :nUlv~)FE �'la a i Si3:1 um ti31SW1SOd unman ° El o 9L6T .tdV'OUSE W.to3 Sd cc C -C} I.) -U V1 " I O C UM UM UM Q v v N 'I. Co ,y uh. O. • fR O z v Y ow a •• C O ,—I o .., rq a W I- O • t. N P M w d v F - VZ N H �-.I d a V qvp U] O O rt •N 4p1 _ w4 O w i GO z o > O - a V T, A 0 v o n v ti o " D, v m a •I w - •D o ^o N v ra G O N ,,, . _ E4 v ,, v a 99 N U E v nn « 7-5 't7 P, g Z ■ V J l'a ° Q W v t:4-0 �fD'oU J' W ri ° rj ITt cn v aS .,• rn ° er IN..,o r) /1, y .0 c ..-o a y•o O C o « ^ >, w t� Ad Lt SJ J 6'° ' 'b ,a w'TI w ca •D 2 C a . e03 8 8 -e A ,9 A'b b o I~ 0 : O w co 6 v o F't� �EIPT FOR C - ,I_„�_ lL • a U N a eE.�y s .J� « w r o w o o AoAE c y N r o f ° ¢ Y > o > LaIZ UnANCECU._.'^ F-_ - - ��; c c F G 'v N 2 ..� ,�, J a W ,�QT ®l2 iWTL: I�,' o-.P PD a U a „ 0 •,� aJ M o a '0 w I ° o (See Revcrse) u< 1 ogopgoN °a 4J '- wZ m .6) 0 d o o o o a W b CEO w w W • w \ ' o U (y� W sENoffsi ner Manufacturing wA O .L' .a w.4 W.r~ o J ,--I up J = 3 yv, o= ��w w w Noffsigner . . v] W' W cn y F rtl N OH F 1c; S v i- NIL' o m ST p{V51,q✓ i~,1❑❑ ❑ vh• a ai cI o > z o , ' o z _ u. 11 ox 488 • .-� 4,e, N U U ,--I a w x O a O P O,STATE AND ZIP CODE "i IX D« (7) aari 46 Greeley, CO 80632 • PS Form 3811,Nov.1976 RETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL POSTAGE 79.-8 $ ERTIWED FEE 4 wI SPECIAL DELIVERY 4 RESTRICTED DELIVERY 4 cm' o ,n ,n v'i , v < r>: r0 6J SHOW TO WHO',1 AND DATE u N 'G' Co '• o O ., y M, oI— DELIVERED cis.b co Z h CC _a AN ¢ I W • [ I o « a t ' SHOW TO WHO'1,DATE AND 0 t y o 'V r , l- U? , a y, Q ADDRESS OF DELIVERY 4 Z o v 'n > o 2 ,, t I° I SHOW TO WH0'1 AND DATE w+ o a v C z O C'!` -'I a.I = DELIVERED WITH RESTRICTED 4 v d o v 0 cct o iz ® DELIVERY— — — — v v o v H !,,tu, 'O v a 1 I E SHOW TO WHO'1,DATE AND h " v a cs' 6.4 ADDRESS OF DELIVERY WITH 4 v > 'b 8 O •.0 C -J c RESTRICTED DELIVERY -2-Z �, a� 'TI N >"' cad r'L' (yO-, O Z ;°. u '\ Q CA cn .'a Q'v g W v c0 a $ to 0 Lc-) o .ti v o a7 TOTAL POSTAGE AND FEES - y 4 •y y I--1-0 a v o O d� O c`' -1• « - ,"• W a POSTMARK OR DATE .. I- ,-I n co ~ O w u CO v0 a -o Aa0-ov o v p w CO 5 -Lv" r ce 2,t .� 2O o cc 8- A.C A x C w -O Pa UU it U N C x Q , > , a - % E'd to a s a a E o „ y o a b D . M -. E c�' u< a o o c ono ro 00 H W Z a > 0 v o w o a a F a [- a s +� 0 0 • a, '0 w -. M ~ rn W • O O o ' o a W 01 4) co W W ,0 V W 0 M W C-, A w x .C 04 3 ,.,4, 'OvOi V N 4—I '0 U w ` E ce 4- J u v• La m --- -_�-_ _--_ — V) VI CG cn h W- a Gil CYi 3 a a .C c7) a O .4 PS Form 3811,Nov.1976 RETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL 1 U, C -C? -u,, -o? in N N o ,n ,n ,n O VIM N co ,-- 0 CC O aO, Y Y J ,t: I Z I� M Ce a v o M •C . t' N'^ �1c, ' N. W G 'O f uZ ,. O v V v, 'T;., o:, as M = I. o V -" 0 vv o ^ °° ca o w v^o p O h ' b IA "a ¢ v ' . E ar ri tico cn .e '�7 c'ba R.'b w''b O �,LC/ 0 01 0 .j - O - a v w S W Q 4J LP') W �• ` V a - ay. , `� ro w d 0 O 4 O 7 v H W • 'v v..00 .v a o ti a W O ^o a .'d OHO w 5 z'd o r r 2 m V. cy o A ^Cl W W U U m'U C ° W �i F. A 8 A FI-. M .O OI 0~. a W Q W O > v o v O O W O O C w U 'O UI- .J~ - > a .j i E-at � a a �aUa 0 0) ', O a 'OO w c o U<` - o o o O m o E 3 p W Z o a) , O Cv 0 x s a g al m a a W •rH n UA W W 0 .V W O cn M w ^ ,� .C .C U ,--I N '-0 U w 3 w W Wa, m ::2-44' vv] v] v] v] h rl O F „-E vF. ~ o a n -116❑❑ ❑ N . ~ O H 1 M � a as z W v cz r' ,� rl ,s a a _ Fri a < m • ri Fi4 8 �i ai ., M a\\\"IILL ui cc PS Form 3811,Nov 1976 RETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL V- William B Heller P.E , r, 303/221-3760 xx: f Ns engineering pro fe iona IS inc. 2020 Airway Ave , Fol Collins, Colorado 80521 C V 'C) 'C1 v, 1;•; CO o v\ v1 vl O 11 C ex cc u N 'Cr cc r-1 1 Co G & I o 4 . -0 0i Ol z CO a W%1 (SI W Y b I- Jz 1LL Ca. ~ 11Y�„ O t. C.) y O —N... N V t ~ O \ C) 0 aJ " L) Z O > .y \ `, *- 0 U x e) 'bO .a {l L. v 'b 4-4 LI 00 bD a A O ~ {y v'O p -0 ,n 0M 0. i 0p -0 4 H 2 u ri E N • -0 v > o ' .C❑ `s"! y y > 0 3-I O o Iii Cr 0 C O v fd WI v W 0 o u r-I W O\ `a "0 o ,., Q oc3 9ry9ed C cd cn y, CO C. a y W y y .ti ck a.* .a r— O W •Qo F i « ^ '" C CO Ev •-' c M W0Wo 'b 0 G CO _O w oo " • t-0 �i;o m .u,m u m 'd Q 0 arty 'O W U 60 ld'D I '« W u0 • 'L E Q A ui . aD ~a cV ~ v< W O > • o.. a) O O W O ILI O . W co o E C aE W Bv,u, to a a L) L) a .O o w �t U 0 •o .0 -0 — W 0 o C'O 0 0 O '" O 0 0 O W Z 0 v f ° U O v< •a ... g .-. a � a on 5C 0 ° 0 .. r tau y I- C4 D W O W�Ix� O Q .W.1 W N J C ; �O„ \ W N W I) w �'' In 0.i cn P'i CI) y U fA ,L-I' d v y N CC CO Q Q w H ❑❑ ❑ v2 a i4-, c) aw .(42 c0 ° Q • ¢ .4 rn �ci td ,--, w N Z P-I (,..7 PS Form 3811,Nov 1976 RETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL l C -C� � 'G v1 4 P, o tr, v1 kr, Q u N 'C CO ,.4 ' ro • us O CO O y x ow o •• . 'o I Z t. a w a iN O aJ u 0 0 d ,O 2 U z a1 0 It N 0 y N1:4 m " > 0 0.0 WJ ..w -6 -O , z �O a _b O c) CU Y 0 a' il t=i b 0 N I"I a .b< , •0 a a) ig a) 'C G v « 2 b y 't7 >4•v m a {�' Z " H 0 Iii g� . 41 . "CI"0 m W'0 W m FO 'CO(C\ O Z CC a .ti C CO u,,, e ro v Q ° Q"° 77) m CO, CO O W E t.b y o a N — U O b W apt, aai .0 .0 Q.0 44 0 A .q yr� o O e «< I o ≥ o-�o P. c a a U a l,: Q W W U c.> G i -0❑ w E o o u< a 0 0 � 0 o4 o M Q d ., Q Z m .> ° V 0 a O O O a W cd O W W W CO) W 0 in ~ r Q O .C .Cci) .C k]L O J N co -) 0: ; d' y W ci) cn W W J Z cu12,91u ❑ v" Q CO o IQ m �+ a <Aa 0 z • .. W on U R+ v W .-o 52 U) sr J "' N I m � n.1 N of 111 tD PS Form 3811,Nov 1976 RETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL c -Ca -v v v'C I o u\ v1 v1 p a L'' N `C' O O y Y Y J N td Q m co 0 c v 2 JF 0 v t" U O1 CC O I- U? O N D V N Ri 0 .• �, -el , ^ O o N _b O V 0 0O '.� W • N 0 N 4iy0 In ww 'fl < c t''.' v 't7 >-27,-;>.74. a a. Z a 'C❑ 7 iii "c Q, v m P-4 t7 F4-0 o 0 O ° n .. U Cr of Cr ;; awq 0 L W Co v �_ a —:' E M 3S 0 '0 o a U Ir1 i` -. ` Wtr, m E$ •v c, n W G w „ :.b p oo Z Cr Co " i. C m ,e U m v Q Q-o -o 0 •H O W �oo o Iz W{ U N ca CO'-0, > m W .+ J t,j< .a O O o o m < 9) U w z o ,o❑ w U r cc o a a E. aE, a N ° ° IL O o x c° Fe�yy CO z 3 a�i D w W v co co co •a co y c.) a'b O W v ,. ' z m h 1- ®❑❑ ❑ aJ H Q 0 ''•I Q C7 cd Z p ° Z ��GG w v �l W .c c)�� Q W PS Forn 3811,Nov 1976 RETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL Lk. /I /"� \\\\\\`""�v"��nn�JJJJJJ�rrrr Is y • SENDER Complete items 1.2,and i O o Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on 3 reverse. N031. The following service is requested (check one). iT ca-Z--'‘ z Show to whom and date delivered 254 Show to whom,date,&address of delivery 45¢ LI O RESTRICT rED DELIVERY. O1 Show to whom and date delivered 85$ O O RESTRICTED DELIVERY. k •t+ O Show to whom,date,and address of delivery ..$1.05 0 I• LID (Fees shown are in additi:ioa to postage charges and other cd to;-•q "CS O fees). - Cd C0 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: O N3 c Henry, Kenneth, and Lauren Felte , O z P. 0. Box 123 ›, m Severance, CO 80546 79-8 O m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: 4) O O REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. W U st m 280488 ) a O N --I (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) $-, rn I have received the article described above. as '. O rno SIGNATURE O Addressee ❑ Authorized agent OO 'Zi U) e - _ CJ CJ .—ri •ri z 4. W mo ,DATE O DELIVERY /� FOSTMO +(� M �f > r 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requsstel Z Z /1P,N 73 7 � : 1 ., 71 Z 6` — •r0 m 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: kT CLERK'S J , cc., INITIALS a. L.L. r " O 1 }fl� J {y GOP 1976203-456 H W 0 1'1 c- , - .Is H _ beU9 w Iiiiiip,, , ,,,,,,wia_, fy�� • i 0" t , a'® aCtktx it,(O, ri- #90 qq -II 1, .1 ' LC908 OCVUOIOO'A3"133EID-133lHLS t 5OL SL6 1 J L .. vV . vN .4.,. O• CD cd 71+ • 0 O co U L 0 LO 'd r > 00 cd <e- N a O U) cd r-I ti0 ti cd cd xl O 4 0 0 d+ N Cl) -if N U U 1/4<‘) IJ cY•) 5 w cn C7 Z Q ,,-.^::``'.".,,-.^::``'.".; I\iII _, : i 2 4 w R .1,, Q I. . -.1 w , (. O • O .,._. - \,. r ,,_aPt. , ,_ , _ ,t). . ... Nro,,, , e#,eO .. __ , ,a) _ _, _.. -47 LC908OOvHO100'A3'133d0-133d15 -019L6 Hello