The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About750203.tiff_ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 27, 1975, in the chambers of the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado, for the purpose of hearing the petition of the Town of Eaton, Weld County, Colorado, requesting approval of site for an addition to existing wastewater treatment facility on the following described property, to-wit: A tract of land located in the Northeast Quarter (NE4) of Section 6, Township 6 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P. M. , Weld County, Colorado, being more particu- larly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest Corner (NWCor) of the exhisting Town of Eaton Sewage Disposal Plant property as platted and recorded in the Records of Weld County, Colorado; Thence Southerly along the West boundary of said Disposal Plant property, 450. 00 feet; Thence Easterly along the South boundary of said Disposal Plant property, 100. 00 feet to the Southeast Corner (SECor) of said Disposal Plant boundary; Thence Southerly on an extension of the East boundary of said Disposal Plant property, 62. 0 feet; Thence South 27°20' West, 184. 7 feet, more or less; Thence Westerly parallel to the South boundary of said Disposal Plant property, 215. 0 feet; Thence Northerly parallel to the West boundary of said Disposal Plant property, 676. 0 feet; Thence Easterly parallel to the North line of said Northeast Quarter (NE j) 200. 0 feet to the True Point of Beginning. The above described tract of land contains 3. 46 acres, more or less, and WHEREAS, the petitioner was present, being represented by Mr. Eugene Martin, representative for Dr. H. P. Christensen, Mayor of the Town of Eaton, and WHEREAS, there was no opposition to the request of the peti- tioner, and WHEREAS, the said requested addition to an existing waste- water treatment facility is to be located in an agricultural zone as set forth in the Weld County Zoning Resolution, and WHEREAS, according to Section 3. 3(2) of the Zoning Resolution of Weld County a wastewater treatment facility or any additions thereto may be permitted upon approval of site by the Board of County Commis- sioners, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all the testimony and statements of those present; has studied the request of the petitioner; and studied the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission, and WHEREAS, the said Board has carefully considered the petition, evidence, testimony, petitions and remonstrances and given the same PL0805 750203 such weight as it, in its discretion, deems proper, and is now fully advised in the premises; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners, that the application of the Town of Eaton, Weld County, Colorado, for site approval for an addition to an existing wastewater treatment facility on the premises indicated above, be, and it hereby is granted under the conditions following: 1. That any and all sewage treatment facilities to be installed shall be approved by the State Health Department. 2. That petitioner shall proceed with due diligence to construct said sewage treatment facility and shall have up to one year from date hereof to begin construction of same; otherwise, the Board may, for good cause shown, on its own motion, revoke the permit herein granted. 3. That all applicable subdivision regulations and zoning regu- lations shall be followed and complied with in accordance with the Zoning Resolutions of Weld County, Colorado. Dated this 29th day of January, A.D. , 1975. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO L " ATTEST.,!:-C4. t. Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the Board B 1 LS Ll, ; Deputy County Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J/ II . (.` j \A ( l e i . 1.7 • 1) County A ttdrney • -2- BEFORE THE WE__ COUNTY , COLORADO PLANNIN' JMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Case No . SUP # 268 Date 12/18/74 APPLICATION OF Town of Eaton ADDRESS 0/0 Dr. H. P. Christensen, Mayor, 223 First Street, Eaton, Co 80615 Moved by Glenn Anderson 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 application for site approval of sewage treatment facilities covering the following described property in Weld County , Colorado , to-wit : see attached be recommended ( favorably ) (ucmfrmxvrpcmgdixxh ) to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons : (1 ) Complies with Weld County Comprehensive Plan; (2) Complies with Weld County Zoning Resolution; (3) Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments recommends approval ; (4) Colorado Department of Health recommends approval ; and (5) Soil Conservation Service recommends approval . Motion seconded by Elmer Rothe Vote : For Passage J. Ben Nix Against Passage Glenn Anderson Marge Yost Elmer Rothe Bill Elliott 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 . q tract of land located i:i to Northeast Quarter (NE1/4►) of Section 6, Township 6 .forth, Fdnge 65 +pest of tho Sixth Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado, being more ,,articularly described as follows: Beginning 3t the Northwest Corner (NW Cor. ) of the existing Town of Eaton Sewage E posa: Part property as platted and recorded in the Reoords of Wald County, Colorado; Thence Southerly along the West boundary of said Disposal Plant property, 450.00 feet; Thence Easterly along the South boundary of said Disposal Plant property, 100.00 feet to the Southeast Corner (S': Cor. ) of said Disposal Plant boundary; Thence Southerly on an extension of the East boundary of said Disposal Plant property, 62. feet; 'hence " ,lth 2" 20' West , 1841.7 feet, more or less; : en :2 aester:y pirallei to t'.e South bounder/ of said Disposal Plant Property, 215.0 feet ; Thence Northerly parallel to the West boundary of said Disposal 'Plant Property, 676.0 feet ; Thence Easterly parallel to the North line of said Nortneast Quarter (NE1/4) 20(10 feet to the True Point of Beginning. The above describes tract of land contains 3.46 acres more or less. I do hereby certify t were prepared on Janu, • i r 1 . 01."-'1 C ty- ,,,, 1 CERTIFICATION OF COPY Linda Jose , 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 , Colorado , adopted on December 17, 1974 and re- corded in Book No . 4 of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission . Dated the 18th day of December 1 9 74 S retary , The Weld County Planning Commission held their regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday, December 17, 1974 at 2:30 P. M. in the County Commissioners' Hearing Room, Second Floor, new Public Health Building, Greeley, Colorado Roll call was as follows: J. Ben Nix, Chairman Present Glenn Anderson Present Y y, Mrs. Marge Yost Present J ,�(a Elmer Rothe Present �. Bill Elliott Present John Weigand Absent Ronald Heitman Absent Donald Clark Absent Dean Severin Absent Others Present: John Juntunen, Planning Director Gary Fortner, Planner Tom Honn, Zoning Administrator Richard Straub, County Engineer Glen Paul , Weld County Sanitarian As a quorum was present, the meeting proceeded as scheduled. SUBJECT: Minutes DISCUSSION: No minutes available APPLICANT: Town of Eaton Tape 560 CASE NUMBER: SUP #268 SUBJECT: Sewage Treatment Facilities LOCATION: Pt. NZ NE4 Sec. 6 T7 R65 APPEARANCE: Phil Voegtle, NHPQ DISCUSSION: Phil Voegtle stated that in February the sewage treatment facility had reached 91% of its capacity. According to the dis- charge permit, plans were to be initiated to enlarge the capacity at 80% and construction of the facility was to be initiated when the capacity had reached 95%. He explained that the expanded process will basically be the same, only doubled in size. The plant will be protected from flood of Eaton Draw. Glen Paul recommends approval of this request. The Planning Staff recommends approval for the following reasons: (1 ) It complies with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan; (2) it complies with Weld County Zoning resolutions; (3) Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments recommends approval ; (4) the Colorado Department of Health recommends approval ; and (5) the Soil Conservation recommends approval . The Soil Conservation questioned whether the oxidation ditch is a sealed structure. Mr. Voegtle stated that the ditch is concrete. RESOLUTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners subject to Planning staff recommendations. Motion by Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Rothe. A vote of "Aye" by Mr. Nix, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Yost, Mr. Rothe, and Mr. Elliott. Motion carried. 1101 APPLICANT: School District RE-4 Tape 560 CASE NUMBER: CUP #6 SUBJECT: School District Administrative Office LOCATION: Pt. SW4 SW4 Sec. 17 T6N R67W APPEARANCE: Merril Hinkle DISCUSSION: Mr. Hinkle stated that the building which is on this property is being used as an administrative office at the present time. Is requesting a conditional use permit in order to continue using the building for this purpose. Weld County Planning staff recommends approval of this request for the following reasons: (1 ) It complies with the Comprehensive Plan of Weld County inasmuch as the activity will occur in the Windsor Comprehensive Plan area; (2) it complies with the Weld County Zoning Resolution; (3) Windsor recommends approval ; and (4) the County Health Department recommends approval , subject to an agreement being reached with the State Highway Dept. regarding access onto Highway 392. Mr. Honn stated that he has talked with Jack Hale, Superintendent, and was informed that Mr. Hale is in the process of working out an access agreement with the State Highway Department. It was requested by the Planning staff that this agreement be received by the Planning Office prior to this request for conditional use permit being presented to the Board of County Commissioners. There was some confusion as to whether this office is on the city sewer system or if it has a septic tank. It does have a septic tank. RESOLUTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of this conditional use permit subject to recommendations by the Planning staff. Motion, by Mr. Anderson, seconded, Marge Yost. A vote of "Aye" by Mr. Nix, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Yost, Mr. Rothe, and Mr. Elliott. Motion Carried. APPLICANT: Howard Haley Tape 561 CASE NUMBER: SUP #269 SUBJECT: Dog Kennel LOCATION: Pt. N1/2 N1/2 N1/2 Sec. 13 Tl R68 APPEARANCE: Mr. Haley DISCUSSION: Mr. Haley stated that he purchased the property with the intent of raising greyhounds. Henry Johnson is the only neighbor who is located near Mr. Haley, but he has signed the petition to grant this request. The Weld County Planning staff recommends approval for the following reasons: (1 ) Complies with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan in that it does not adversely affect agricultural interests; (2) complies with the Weld County Zoning Resolution; (3) Town of Dacona approves; and (4) County Health Dept. recommends approval . Subject to: (1 ) Con- struction beginning within one years time of the Board of County Commissioners' approval ; (2) the permit to be issued to Mr. Howard Haley and that said permit will terminate at such time as Mr. Haley or his immediate family are no longer the operators of said kennel , and (3) maximum number of dogs to be no more than 40 dogs at any one time. RESOLUTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners subject to Planning staff recommendations. Motion by Marge Yost, seconded by Mr. Anderson. A vote of "Aye" by Mr. Nix, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Yost, Mr. Rothe, and Mr. Elliott. Motion Carried. 1102 APPLICANT: Don Elliott CASE PLUMBER: CUP #8 Tape 561 SUBJECT: Church LOCATION: Pt NWq Sec 17 T6 R67 APPEARANCE: Don Elliott DISCUSSION: Mr. Elliott stated that he had one acre of ground which had been donated to his church, and they would like to build a new church on this ground. This is just north of Windsor off of County Road 15. There is going to be parking space for about 65 cars. Seating capacity of the church is 144, building to be 30' x 60' . Average membership at present is only about 40 to 50. Church is only used about four or five hours total a week. Planning staff recommends denial for the following reasons: (1 ) Beyond existing service systems of the Windsor community; (2) Although it's within the Comprehensive Plan boundary, it's questionable development because growth is not orderly or se- quencial and creates disarray; (3) The County would be establishing a questionable precident by allowing development in this manner because: a) Not in accordance with growth policies established in the Comprehensive Plan of Weld County; and b) Contrary to good land use planning policy. Have letter from North Weld Water District to serve the church. Mr. Paul stated they would recommend approval . Mr. Don Elliott stated they had an engineer's design for septic tank to comply with standards. Mr. Straub stated they had requested addi- tional information which was placed in pencil on one of the blue- prints. Would like new prints made with the corrections. Determi- nation of site location was mainly because of the fact the land was donated. However, they have been looking for something to rent for quite some time, but so far haven't been able to come up with any- thing that is suitable. There is a possibility of future development just south of the Lingle's farm and possible annexation abutting this property. Mr. Juntunen stated that possibly, if the development to the south was to become fact, the staff comments could possibly be different. They would have to study it further. Mr. D. Elliott felt that enough time had already been spent on this. All labor for building the church ,, will be donated by congregation membership. Tom read letter from the Town of Windsor. "Windsor Planning Commission finds that both uses (CUP 6 and CUP 8) are not detrimental to the scope of our Comprehensive Plan, and ask that all appropriate regulations be considered and adhered too in any development. " Letter signed by Tom Rounds, Planner for the Town of Windsor. Mr. Rounds stated that the general feeling is that there is no place, other than possibly industrial , that a church isn't appropriate. Mr. Rothe could see nothing wrong with it since Windsor did not seem to care. Mrs. Yost concurred. Mr. Anderson stated that a church was allowed in an agricultural zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. He further stated that he had made a field inspection and this was prime agricultural land, however, did not feel it would take that much value from the land. Neighbors seem to be in favor. Mr. Nix felt that the granting of the application for the use of a church would establish a precedent in the rural area. Mr. Honn read some subject to's if the application were to be approved: (1 ) The revisions of the County Engineer to be placed on the original plat and copies submitted to the Planning Office prior to being placed on the County Commissioners' agenda; (2) Upon approval of the appli- cation, a recorded exemption would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners to separate this one acre parcel from the farm; (3) Construction beginning within one years time from date of approval 1103 • of the recorded exemption by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Nix asked if there were a water allotment contract on this property. The answer was no. RESOLUTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners subject to staff recommendations. Motion by Mr. Rothe, seconded by Mr. Anderson. A vote of "Aye" by Nix, Anderson, Yost, Rothe. Mr. Elliott abstained. DISCUSSION: Mr. Nix wanted it made perfectly clear that it wasn't very often the Board disagreed with the staff. Sometimes, however, exceptions were taken, depending on circumstances. Mr. Lingle' s attorney asked if there were some way out of having to survey the entire farm in order to apply for the recorded exemption. Legal counsel for the County stated that in some cases, there could be exceptions to the regulations that could be made by the Board of County Commissioners. SUBJECT: Brighton Comprehensive Plan - Roy Jost Tape 562' DISCUSSION: In the agricultural zone, green belt is functional for trails and parks. The industrial area would include light and heavy industry. In the estate zone, the low density residential area will include up to five units per acre. This estate area will be approached cautiously. The total area used for industrial purposes will rise moderately. The commercial use will increase. The residential areas will remain higher than normal because of the proximity of Denver. Flood plains will be kept open and free. There are no major conflicts on low density residential zones. Roy Jost would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan with the stipulation that a more detailed re- view of the plan be made available to the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners regarding economic and environmental impact statements of the proposed Weld County portion of their industrial zone, which justifies the sacrifice of irrigated agricultural land, or the Brighton plan be revised regarding the "I" zone, to conform with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Tom Honn pointed out that the industrial zoned area could create some problems because it creates a solid-mile strip development along Highway 85. He was concerned with how the actual design would be handled on this strip in regards to accesses, etc. RESOLUTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners the general concept of the Brighton Compre- hensive Plan. Motion, by Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Rothe. A vote of "Aye" by Mr. Nix, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Yost, and Mr. Rothe. Motion Carried. 1104 SUBJECT: Amending By-Laws of the Weld County Planning Commission Tape 562 DISCUSSION: Need to change By-Laws to read: "The regular meetings of the Weld County Planning Commission shall be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 2:30 P. M. , at a location as may be designated from time to time by the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado." MOTION: Mr. Rothe, to approve the by-laws as amended. Seconded, Mrs. Yost. A vote of "Aye" by Mr. Nix, Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Yost, and Mr. Rothe. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Linda Jose, Secretary as transcribed by Janna Morrow APPLICANT: Vessels Gas Processing, LTD. FILE NUMBER: SUP #264 RESOLUTION: Be it therefore resolved by the Board of County Commissioners to grant location of a gas processing plant and supporting facilities subject to recommendations. Dated 12/24/74 APPLICANT: Mrs. George Hobbs FILE NUMBER: LSV-4 RESOLUTION: Be it therefore resolved by the Board of County Commissioners to deny the petition for a lot size variance under Section 9-4A(6) of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations. Dated 12/24/74 1105 - APPLICANT: Robert Green FILE NUMBER: sup #266 RESOLUTION: Be it therefore resolved by the Board of County Commissioners to grant site location of a dog kennel operation subject to conditions. Dated 1/29/75 APPLICANT: Town of Eaton FILE NUMBER: SUP #268 RESOLUTION: Be it therefore resolved by the Board of County Commissioners to grant site location for an addition to an existing wastewater treat- ment facility subject to conditions. Dated 1/29/75 APPLICANT: Howard Haley FILE NUMBER: SUP #269 RESOLUTION: Be it therefore resolved by the Board of County Commissioners to grant site location of a dog kennel operation subject to conditions. Dated 1/29/75 No impact staf tent planned on Eat ,1 sewer EATON — The U.S. EP. tals,in a statement Environmental Protection releat lis week, said they Agency(EPA)said this week it see n Trent environmental won't prepare an en- drawb& to the new plant and vironmental impact statement thus we I prepare a major on a proposed new Eaton inpact ,tcment. sewage treatment plant. Comm..is on the EPA's decision may be directed to the Eaton officials are seeking agency's Denver office. federal funding for the new Officals said a final decision plant, which will discharge on funding for the facility treated wastewater to the should be forthcoming within Eaton Draw. two or three weeks. _2/I/2 �- 1119 CASE NUMBER : ZONING USE CONDITION 1 . AREA REQUESTING CHANGE : 2 . ADJACENT AREA TO : NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST 3. EXISTING NONCONFORMING USES AS ZONED 4 . NONCONFORMING USES IF REZONED AS REQUESTED 5 . NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED AS SHOWN ON PLANS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 . REZONING CONFORMS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN YES NO 7 . HAVE OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY BEEN CONSULTED REGARDING THIS? YES NO 8 . DISTANCE AND DIRECTION FROM NEAREST COMMUNITY : 9. COMMUNITIES ACTION ON REQUEST : 10. WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE OF SUBJECT THERE ARE SQ . FT . OR ACRES OF ZONING . OR ACRES NOT BEING UTILIZED AS ZONED . 11 . TYPE OF OPERATION : 12. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OF DRAINAGE : 13 . STREAM OR WATER BODY RECEIVING DRAINAGE ( NAME , DISTANCE , AND DIRECTION ) : 14 . AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSIFICATION : 15 . PREVIOUS CASES : PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NUMBER : REQUEST : ACTION : 16 . HEALTH DEPARTMENT ACTION : 17 . SOILS REPORT : 18. COMMENTS : CASE NUMBER : SUP 268 LOCATION : Pt NE4 Sec 6 T6 R65 REQUEST : Sewage Treatment Facilities NAME : Town of Eaton 19 . THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : 1 . Complies with Weld County Comprehensive Plan. 2. Complies with Weld County Zoning Resolution. 3. Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments recommends approval . 4. Colorado Department of Health recommends approval . 5. Soil Conservation recommends approval . 20 . PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION : PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES : DATE : 21 . COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ' ACTION : COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ' MINUTES : DATE : 22 . DATE : /`',//i ;16` STAFF : DATE: Decem;,., ._ 20, 1974 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 27th of January, 10 : 00 A.M.. Town of Eaton SUP, Sewage Treatment Facilities • OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD • B /x�/, >.�f1T1�//p / Deputy The above mentioned hearing date and hearing time may be scheduled on the agenda as stated above : BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO , • f WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1516 Hodp-ctaJ Road • December 11 , 1974 CERTIFIED RAIL X? To Whom It May Concern: Your application for approval of a Sewage Treatment racility will be reviewed before the Weld County Planning Commission Tuesday, December 17. 1974 at 2:30 P.M. in th ntCommi ssionors' ndFlon,_Publ is Health Building, 1:: • Please be present or have a representative present. Thank you. Sincerely, John J. Juntunen Planning Director cc: Phil Voegtle, NHPQ - ot $I Be SUM to follow Intkodlonson other dd. PLEASE FURNISH SERVICE(S) INDICATED BY CHECKED BLOCK(S) (Additional charges required for these services) 061IY� ONLY • Show to whom.date and address ❑to addressee ❑where delivered RECEIPT Received the numbered article described below REGISTERED NO. SIGNATURE OR NAME OF ADDRESSEE(Must always be filled in) Man 110• / ' ✓,,r//,Y Q / SIGNATURE OF DR SSEE'S AGENT,IF ANY ts11)SURED NO. / �� '� •} SEWERS(Onitett molested,asetfachare ZiP Code) ` 410Y , /I / ) t T C i7 6vii ' ( u's post?.-350) n ��aa r y� nn (�Isu�pJ�� '�4 htl�l�i h L ®W I u L��' POSTMARK��v." OR DATE /1'6(-)YZ)-flS TO LO 7v T AN ISO. -9� � in p,p STATE TEAND ZIP CODE &OPTIONAL `a idle F,.. AnITICNAL rr S 1.5 I. St 73,,3 4o u.em sad dote Cohvcrcil 651 RETURN :Mil delwery to addressee only RECEPT 2. S!-ass to ui cn,da?c Lnd a%cre Cclivcrcd 35d SERVICES With delivery to ^ddressee only BSO DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY — - 6 SPECIAL DELIVERY (otttra fco required) fg_ (Soo caner sido) S 6'c; ,.., , ^ r.3T RIR I:h c' ..,Tl C,N (.-.'� . c:° 1072 O-460-743 Apt. 19'"A M A A-95 #74-08-08-p COMMENTS BY • LARIMER-WELD REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AGENCIES Col ment from Weld County Health Denari-mAnq- S f 1 ./ f� '.'fl: FR Fx Ny,./i LrJ 'il:t_tor\I lL C:OVI1f,F,IF 'irri-T F.3 1 R ter, _1 .oi <1ns;;<Et=r • ovr L/,NC,,COLOR LLD° :537 September 5, 1974 The Ponorable H. B. Christensen '•;ayor, Town of Eaton P. O. Box 186 Eaton, Colorado 80615 Mr. Philip J. Voegtle Haley, PatterUon and Quirk, Inc. 2021 Clubhouse Drive Greeley, Colo 7- do 80631 Gentlemen: r Re: A-9J 74-0S-08-01 I_pplicant: Town of Eaton Project: Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion Your Notice of Intent has received favorable review from various agencies in the Larime_r -Weld Region, and you are hereby notified that you should complete and file your final application with the az pro5priate federal agency. A copy of this letter and enclosed comments must be attached to your application. In addition, a letter from the Colorado Division of Local Planning (the State A-95 Clearinghouse) must also be attached to your appli- cation. If you have any questions , please do not hesi- tate to contact us . Sincerely yours, chard D. NacRavey Director RDM/cs Enc. cc: Mr. Richard Brown, Principal Planner, Colorado Division of Local Planning _ e,e,e tit 7 u I' t f'. bi LLi..Li-L4 . c ENGINEER ING—SN H NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON and QUIRK, INC. CONSULTANTS N 2021 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 303. 356-4444 September 12, 1974 Mr. Glen Paul Weld County Health Department 16th Street 6 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Paul: SUBJECT: EATON, COLORADO, APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES - EPA NO. CO 0023116, NHPQ No. 73 1 CIV 0280 Please find attached one original and one copy of the "Application for Approval of Sewage Treatment Facilities" for the Town of Eaton. The pro- ject for which this application is submitted only involves the expansion of the existing sewage treatment facilities within the present plant site. A prompt review of this application would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, I will try to answer them. When you have completed your review, would you please forward this application to the County Planning Commission for further processing as indicated on the back of the application. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter, I remain, Respectfully yours, NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON and QUIRK, INC. Philip J. Voegtle, P. E. PJV:Im Attachment cc: Town of Eaton Earl BalkumC Colorado Department of Health ' _ • .+y OFFICES IN GREELEY, DENVER, COLORADO SPRINGS, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO, RIVERTON, WYOMING ENGINEERING LL L- NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON and QUIRK, INC. ` CONSULTANTS 2021 CLUBHOUSE DRIVE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 303 356-4444 October 21, 1974 Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Courthouse Greeley, Colorado 80631 Gentlemen: SUBJECT: EATON, COLORADO - SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXPANSION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES, PROJECT NO. 73 1 CIV 0280 Please find attached the Special Use Permit Application for the expansion of the existing sewage treatment facilities for the Town of Eaton. This applica- tion was requested by Mr. Tom Honn of your staff as a necessary requirement for review of the Eaton Site Approval Application. In answer to each item listed on the procedural guide for the Special Use Permit, the following information is submitted: 1-a. Application is attached. 1-b. Attached is a legal description of the land purchased adjacent to the then existing sewage disposal plant property in 1968. The drawing accompanying the description describes the land on which the facilities will be built. The total number of acres involved is 4.49. 1-c. See 1-b. 1-d. Attached is Sheet 1 of 9 from the plans used to construct the facilities in 1968. Shown in the upper right hand corner is a test hole log of two soil borings made on the site at that time. 1-e. The operation is described in the Preliminary Report attached to the Site Approval Application. In summary, it will be an expansion of the existing process, the oxidation ditch. One man will be required to operate and maintain the facility under normal conditions. Besides improving the water quality in the receiving stream, no other effects, beneficial or detrimental, are anticipated. 1-f. The purpose of the facility is to properly treat the sewage for the Town of Eaton. 1-g. Water supply to the site will be the existing 2-inch connection to the Eaton water distribution system. 1-h. No roads will be disturbed and the existing plant entrance will be used. 1-i. See attached Exhibits No. 4 and No. 6 from the Preliminary Report. (10 copies attached) OFFICES IN GREELEY, DENVER, COLORADO SPRINGS, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO; RIVERTON, WYOMING Weld County Planning Commission Page 2 October 21, 1974 1-j. Petition is attached. 1-k. The Special Use Permit has been signed by the Mayor of Eaton. 1-1. Not applicable. 2. Completed. 3. Attached is a check in the amount of $25.00, application fee. 4. Advertisement to be handled by County Commissioner's Office. If there are any further questions, I will try to answer them. Respectfully, NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON and QUIRK, INC. A / �° Philip J. Voegtle, P. E. Senior Project Manager PJV:lm Enclosures: As listed cc: Town of Eaton I « NAME Town of Eaton FEE None SUP # 268:74:31 TYPE OF SPECIAL USE Sewage Treatment Facilities BY DATE APPLICATION CHECKED BY ZONING INSPECTOR FILE ASSEMBLED 10/24/74 ii -I LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECKED BY CO . ATTORNEY _ �� 1/71 V AIRPHOTO CPQ . 11/611-14 VICINITY MAP PREPARED CcrC 1'11114 i SURROUNDING OWNER' S NAMES C M I i4'I PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE SET -- 10/24/74 OTHER AGENCIES NOTIFIED __ P//r 74/ 3OILS REPORT __ WATER CONTRACT OR LETTER OF INTENT COPY OF APPLICATION TO COMMISSIONERS / 7' /;L- OFFICE FOR PUBLICATION 7/ COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HEARING DATE SET 1 FIELD CHECK •-___._ . STAFF REPORT i PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 4-��3-f�-4-Tentative PLANNING COMMISSION RFSOLUTION i"Od/�V COUNTY ATTORNEY CHECK RESOLUTION & LEGAL 1 I NOTIFICATION OF SURROUNDING OWNERS BY CERTIFIED MAIL _ � COUNTY COMMISSIONER' S HEARING �a7/7,_I COUNTY COMMISSIONER' S RESOLUTION IV Vaq/ 7(I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - -- �////7 C PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIrN (APPROVED DENIED - TABLED) COMMENTS AND ACTION TAKEN NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado, a public hearing will be held in the Office of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, 1516 Hospital Road, 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 Board of County Commissioners, 1516 Hospital Road, Greeley, Colorado. Docket No. 75-2 Town of Eaton • c/o Dr. H.P. Christensen, Mayor 223 First Street Eaton, Colorado 80615 Date: January 27, 1975 Time: 10 :00 A.M. Request: Special Use Permit - Sewage Treatment Facilities A tract of land located in the Northeast Quarter (NE4) of Section 6, Township: 6 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P. M. , Weld County , Colorado , being more particularly described as follows : Beginning at the Northwest Corner (NWCor) of the " exhisting Town of Eaton Sewage Disposal Plant property as platted and recorded in the Records of Weld County, Colorado ; Thence Southerly along the West boundary of said Disposal Plant property , 450. 00 feet ; Thence Easterly along the South boundary of said Disposal Plant property , 100. 00 feet to the Southeast Corner (SECor) of said Disposal Plant boundary : Thence Southerly on an extension of the East boundary of said Disposal Plant property, 62. 0 feet; Thence South 27°20 ' West, 184 . 7 feet, more or less; Thence Westerly parallel to the South r, boundary of said Disposal Plant property, 215. 0 feet; Thence Northerly parallel to the West boundary of said Disposal Plant property, 676 . 0 feet; Thence Easterly parallel to the North line of said Northeast Quarter (NE4) 200. 0 feet to the True Point of Beginning. The above described-tract of land contains 3. 46 acres more or less. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS F WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: S . LEE SHEHEE, JR. DATED: December 24, 1974 COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD PUBLISHED: December 27, 1974 and January 17, 1975 in the Greeley Journal i I NOTICE ` tee zoning la =of the State NOTE i7,'tt tr iibl c,ears nr).. 'behe-, r s�,mO++ of fait Board of County Cor S's_ "ursuant to the nllCng laws of the State- rs n+ W^lo County Colorado Ho pdal Road Ore °16 the Office o tee Board of County on nald in..'ci6co Al' pt,y onCo'•,rado at many mannerthe Office of the of County Commis- ^,ereste'tl in the Seer'i,tl Use Permit are re- stoners of Weld County Colorado 1516 OutBE,fed tPa attend and may be heard time specified a, Road Greeley Colorado at the ra+,� SO KNOWN that the text and time All persons In any mariner 9 Coo certified by the Weld County Plan_ interested in the Special Use Permit are re- ,ring On ma, �'c of the 8 be examined in the quested to attend and may be heard Plan- er, 151uHog card et Cou^ty Commission- BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and Hospital Road Greeley Colorado sing,Commssio by the Weld m ne;ning om ssion may Pk_exam Com in Inct Docket No 75-2 Office of the Board of County Commision- 7own of ens 1516 Hospital Road Greele/Colorado c o Dr H P Eaton hr,sten,en MayorDocket No 75-2 223 First Street Town of Eaton Colorado 806'5 c o Dr H P Christensen Date Eaton ary 27 1975 Tin,. to oe A M Mdyor 223 First Street fine st Special Use Permit- — Eaton,Colorado 80615 Sewage Treatment UsePer Facilities Date January 27 1975 RequeTime 1000AM A tract of land located in the Northeast Request Special Use Permit- Quarter INE'a)of Section 6 TownsMo 6 Sewage Treatment Facilities North Range 65 West of the 6th P M Weld County Colorado being more particularly A tract of land located Sectio in the Northeast described as`ollows North nNE'al of Section 6 Township 6 Beginning at the Corner North Range 65 West of the btn P M Vlarly NWCor)of tI a ethe Northwest Town of Eaton County Colorado,bang more particularly Sewage Disposal Plant property as platted described as follows and recorded in the Records of Weld Beginning at the Northwest Cor,,,,r County,Colorado,Thence Southe•I (N wage of the exh sting Town of Eaton tho West boundary of said Disposal Plant Sewage Disposal Plant property as pi ++e0 property 450 00 feet Thence Easterly and recorded m the Records c' ' id along the South boundary of Disposal County Colorado Tr erica Southerly along Plant property 10000 feettot said heast the West boundary of said Disposal Plant Corner (SECoi) of said DitheSol Plant property 45000 feet Thence Easterly bountary Thence Southerly on or exten- along the South boundary of said Disposal sion of the East boundary of said Disposal Plant property 100 00 feet to tin Southeast property 620 feet, Thence South Corner ISECori of said Disposal Plant 27'20 West, 184 7 feet more or less bountary Thence Southerly on an exten- Plant Thence Westerly parallel to the South sion of the East boundary of sad Disposal boundary of said Disposal Plant Plant property 620 feet Thence South 2150 feet,Thence Northerly p'opety, Then West 1847 feet more or less West boundary of said therly al Plant prope to - 215 Thence Westerly parallel to the South erty 676 0 feet,Thence Easterly boundary of said Disposal Plant property North line of said Northestt parallel to 215 0 feet Thence Northerly parallel to the (NE'a)200 0 feet to the True Point of Begin- the West boundary of said Disposal Plant prop- thenmg arty,676 0 feet,Thence Easterly parallel to The above described tract of land con- the North line of said Northeast Quarter tams 3 46 acres more or less (NE'a1200 0 feet to the True Po rtof Begin- mng THE BOARD OF The above described tract of land con- tains COMMISSIONERS twins 3 46 acres more or leas WE—D COUNTY COLCRDO THE BCAPD OF BY S LEE SHEHEE,JR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER WELD COUNTY COLORDO AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY S LEE SHEHEE JR COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER Da+_d December 24,1974 Pub,_ncd December 2' 197;a,d AND CLERK TO THE BOARD ill Pu b,i-, uanuary 17 1975 Datr0 D eJm4"r 24 '971 nail ,n The Gree'; ___�Jol,r'ta, Pub: ..1 r i7 .,: n ' �ry 1; 1'i`h Publch�d in.fhc C• ,I, r 3 NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado, a public hearing will be held in the Office of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, 1516 Hospital Road, 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 Board of County Commissioners, 1516 Hospital Road, Greeley, Colorado. Docket No. 75-2 Town of Eaton c/o Dr. H. P. Christensen, Mayor 223 First Street Eaton, Colorado 80615 Date: January 27, 1975 Time: 10: 00 A.M. Request: Special Use Permit - Sewage Treatment Facilities Approximately z mile East of the Eaton City limits on County Road #74 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: S. LEE SHEHEE, JR. COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD DATED: December 24, 1974 from the Office of 'eeley, Colorado } THE BOARD OF COUNTY CC..--ISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO December 27 , 1974 Publisher: Please insert the enclosed notice in your issue the week of January 13 , 1975 Dne 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, • 9 co • SENDER Complete items I and 2. 91 Add your address in the "RETURN TO'' space on ' reverse THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS s WELD COUNTY, COLORADO • tot 1. The following service is requested (check one .,. r Ei Show to whom and date delivered -15¢ Jr. z BY: S. Lee Shehee, < IllShow to whom, date, & address of delivery:.:35¢ ' ' O DELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESSEE anclj' .' County Clerk and Recorder W show to whom and date delivered 65¢ and Clerk to the Board ❑ DELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESSEE and . show to whom, date, and address of 'k.Z1 Qi� Yl?/ fv(_�( %��72v�e delivery -" sa..""__i 85¢ puty County ,`'.lerk 2 ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: ' xi C Eaton Herald z Box 5 , �__ u u-) Dvdi„IUI�=SU4' (phis postage) m Eaton, Coln- 80615 N SENT TO POSTMARK m 3 ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: Eaton I Herald u OR DATE 3 REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. S-REEi?E P•^" i m 83915 �� _Box 5 in (Always obtain signature of addresled Ok g li 1 P 0. SIATE AAu ZIP CODE m I have received the article describedlaoe� } " _ E aton Colo, 80615__-_-_ _ 12/27/74 A linl(:JAL EL itiiEkS F(?:1 Cll,lITIIMAL pi:Es m SIGNATURE CE- / - -- - -- - O ' i1L• 'w� A_" � r � Ili T�;iid \ t. SL'oti;4o vii::-..n end unto(3o9i0Crcd . Y5d e2� �L cLi_Ird > With dcllecry to tddres.ca only .. ...650 ' z y�+ p 9 Sr.1;-tc C_tc cld'.7`�7a Covered 350 to J �� gyli' tsT It. L'� r/.o cddressce only..... 35, in 4. `- t _s �,ICGS ✓ firth drinf,, , r - -- only-- XI DATE OF IVERY P T (g�K I[ C LIVER 7"0 ADDRESSEE ONLY _ .. _ SD@ ° C 2 31974 *'/1 a I S _CIAL DELIJCRY (c;ttra fco r_cq:;ircd) • • . • • " ZO' I — r�SFr u lt'r C ii"tflRN.. PROVIDED— (see other side) 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) J/�). I,., .- . . .,-. - I a GPO•1972 O-460-743 m Gi77 �� / -I m 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE' CCE 'S 0 INIT LS D_ 9/9 -a GPO 197-803 ' • ... Dock 75-2 l,. ,, '' - Jig! -.1 ^ - - • - AS'. .-•••-... - :::;.:0,...r.,,,-•_,-, _,,-, January 27, 1975 I hereby certify that a public hearing was held pursuant to a notice duly published December 27, 1974 and January 17, 1975 in the Greeley Journal, for a sewage treatment facility requested by the Town of Eaton, at the time and place specified in said notice. A motion was made by Commissioner Moser and seconded by Commissioner Jacobucci to approve said request. Motion carried unanimously. ATTEST4' �r COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER CHAIRMAN C AND CLERK TO(TH BOARD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO By: t r (=1,' L Deputy County Clerk ,OVP 5? PROOF OF IBLICATION THE EATON HERALD EATON, COLORADO STATE OF COLORADO, NOTICE County of Weld, �ss. I, F. E. Kummer, do solemnly swear that I am Pursuant to the zoning laws of publisher of the Eaton Herald; that the same is the State of Colorado, a pub- a weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part, iic hearing will be held in the and published in the County of Weld, State of Colo- Office of the Board of County rado, and has a general circulation therein; that Commissioners of Weld County, said newspaper has been published continuously Colorado, 1516 Hospital Road, and uninterruptedly in said County of Weld for a Greeley, Colorado, at the time period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks specified. All persons in any next prior to the first publication of the annexed manner interested in the Special legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper Use Permit are requested to at- has been admitted to the United States mails as tend and may be heard. second-class matter under the provisions of the Act BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the of March 3, 1879 or any amendments thereof, and text and maps so certified by that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly the Weld County Planning Corn- qualified for publishing legal notices and advertise- mission may be examined in ments within the meaning of the laws of the State the Office of the Board of of Colorado. County Commissioners, 1516 That the annexed legal notice or advertisement Hospital Road, Greeley, Colo- was published in the regular and entire issue of rado. every number of said weekly newspaper for the Docket No. 75-2 period of 1........ consecutive insertions; and that Town of Eaton the first publication of said notice was in the issue c/o Dr. H. P. Christensen, of said newspaper dated Mayor 223 First Street a + /6 A. D., 19 , Eaton, Colorado 80615 and that t last publication of said notice was in Date: January 27, 1975 the issue o said newspaper dated Time: 10:00 A.M. Request: Special Use Permit A. D., 19 — Sewage Treatment' Facili- In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this ties / Approximately 1/2 mile East 17 day of __ A. D., 197`5- of the Eaton City limits on County Road No. 74 THE BOARD OF COUNTY Publisher COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary BY: S. LEE SHEHEE, JR. public in and for the County of Weld, State of COUNTY CLERK AND �j , RECORDER AND CLERK , th Color ois - /7 /17e day of TO THE BOARD DATED: December 24, 1974 4/11LT161 4' ' itigi-,Le ......, A. D., 1.9.-.7.,.rPublished January 16, 1975 in the Eaton Herald. Notary Public i`,Iy(-r- _ , - „ . - _ _ My commission expires Affidavit of Publication STATE OF COLORADO, 1 1ss County of Weld, Richard L. Tatman of said County of Weld, being duly sworn, say that I am one of the publishers of THE GREELEY JOURNAL that the same is a weekly newspaper of general cir- culation, published in the city of Greeley, in said county and state, that the notice or advertisement, of which the annexed is a true copy, has been pub- NOTICE tU7O Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado a public hearing will be held in lashed in said weekly newspaper for the Office of the Board of County Commis- •eerreeou•N,wueeks, that the notice was published in stoners of Weld County Colorado, 1516 the regular and entire issue of every number of said Hospital Road, Greeley Colorado, at the newspaper during the period of time of publication time specified All persons in any manner of said notice, and in the newspaper proper and not interested in the Special Use Permit are re- quested to attend and may be heard in a supplement thereof,that the first publication of BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and' said notice was contained in the issue of said news- maps so certified by the Weld County Plan- ning Commission may be examined in the 27th Ofice of the Board of County Commission- ers 1516 Hospital Road Greeley Colorado paper bearing date the ----day of Docket No 75-2 Town of Eaton December 74 c o Dr H P Christensen ,A.D 19 and Mayor the last publication thereof in the issue of said 223 First Street Eaton,Colorado 80615 1 7th Date January 27 1975 Time 10 00 A M newspaper bearing date the day of Request Special Use Permit- Sewage Treatment Facilities January 75 A tract of land located in the Northeast , 19 , that the said Quarter (NE1/4) of Section 6, Townshi 6 The Greeley Journal has been published contmu- North Range 6 West of the 6th P M Veld ously and uninterruptedly during the period of at County,Colorado being more particularly described as follows least fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the- Beginning at the Northwest Corner first issue thereof containing said notice or adver- (NWCor)of the exhisting Town of Eaton tisement above referred to, that said newspaper has Sewage Disposal Plant property as platted been admitted to the United States mails as second- and recorded in the Records of Weld class matter under the provi6s ons of the Act •.f County Colorado,Thence Southerly along March 3, 1879, or any amendrtthnt thereof,and the West boundary of said Disposal Plant er is said newspaper weekly ne s aper duly••rfi) fled property, 450 00 feet Thence Easterly p p along the South boundary of said Disposal for publishing leg.' notices and dyer ertr t i - Plantproperty 10000 feet to the Southeast in,the meaning o the laws o eSfate o-C - - -- Corner (S of said ly on and Plant - J� Corner Thence Southerly on an extent Sion of the East boundary of said Disposal S I. Plant property, 62 0 feet Thence South 27°20 West 184 7 feet more or less, O e o e Thence Westerly parallel to the South boundary of said Disposal Plant propety, 215 0 feet Thence Northerly parallel to the +� West boundary of said Disposal Plant prop- Subscribed and sworn to before me this------ ---- arty,676 0 feet,Thence Easterly parallel to the North line of said Northeast Quarter (NE's)200 0 feet to the True Point of Begin- nmg day of ➢— ----, A D. 19-2- --- The above described tract of land con- tains 3 46 acres more or less - THE BOARD OF My commission expires l `� J COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY COLORDO BY S LEE SHEHEE,JR, --_ / �-t '/•I COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER Notary Public AND CLERK TO THE BOARD Dated December 24,1974 Published December 27 1974 and January 17 1975 Published in The Greeley Journal f//ter"•- I• SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION . Weld County Planning Commission Services Building , Greeley , Colo . FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY.: CASE NUMBER : St4 /9 26S PC HEARING DATE : L , - SEC : TWP ( RANGE : CC HEARING DATE : LAND CODE : T : S : -_-__-- 1 /4 : � KEY : SUB/DIV CODE : SUB : BLK : LOT : KEY : REFS TO : PERMIT FEE : k.)9Y!'. _ 1 , cuCCL,Z) DATE : 1\\ 5\-(tk APP . CHECKED Y : 4.�-�4:•,- ' ATE : RECEIPT NO . - - 3) lid —1 ./ DATE : \\ 2k1 LEGAL DESC . APPRVL : 4 ) DATE : (l 1 '( - ` J q!.;_, . jji I Cd'- i- , , a BE COMPLETED BY PPLI ANT IN ACCOE A!•iCE W H P. CEDIJRAL GUIDE _ QUIREMENTS : Print or type only , except for necessary signatures : I , (we ) the undersigned , hereby request a hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission concerning a proposed Special Use Permit for the foil + inq described unincorporated area of Weld County : LEGAL DESCRIPTION of contiguous propert_y owned upon which Special Use Permit is proposed : — See attached description. • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT AREA : Town of Eaton, Colorado 80615 . STREET LOCATION : 223 First Street ZONE_______ __ PROPOSED USE : Expansion of Sewage Treatment Facilities �� REASON : 2o provide the required facilities to meet State effluent requirements. ---- - FEE OWNERS OF AREA PROPOSED FOR SPECIAL USE : NAME : Town of Eaton ADDRESS :. 223 First Street TEL : 454-2876 NAME : ADDRESS : TEL NAME : ADDRESS : TEL : I hereby depose and state under the penalities of perjury that all statements , proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge . COUNTY OF WELD ) STATE OF COLORADO ) Dr. H. P. Christensen, Mayor Signature : Owner or Authorized Agent Subscrib-d and sworn to before me this 21 ay ofOctober 1974 ;,/Z-e-Y.-/ -," ' NOT�I,r i' PUN. C S C rat. My Commission e%pt,.- '�s_ December 19 , 1974 - -* -- I 4. d;)C20 iIii `, Date - C., - - Time __, "_,,2_6___ l! WHILE YOU WERE OUT • i ! Mr. � G , P II `� I of II r 7 '` Phone - -7-C/ 77,7�p -�__--_Area C„ae--_-_ ---- ---Nur_ — - —Extension fi - -- - — — I--1j Telephoned F'iease call _ir— II j. I! :I Called to see ou iI: I i y____i___ Wt I I call again \\ : :I Wants to see You---- --- --- - = - --- - _ -_- JMessage i's *___.Eeeazg /ms^-_/ II \ il (#- L,e,(2/-,z., _64L.)616,,,e. saczzefr____ 1 a.,_i__-_, ,;/_,,ort ,zeoz-t. --zeze .--7-_)c-e-e.,,„e..4. \ Y jl ��Q��C�r LG i -Cejh �`� I I /a-LEA-7 L/lrii 7 �'f I II ,I I I rI COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEAT" Water Quality Control Comm ion 4210 East 11 Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SEWAGE COLLECTION AND/OR TREATMENT FACILITIES • (Submit in Duplicate) (Complete only Parts A & B) (See Instructions) APPLICANT: Tom of Eaton, Colorado ADDRESS: Post Office Box 186, 223 First Street A. . INFORMATION REGARDING PROJECT SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW: 1. Size and type of treatment facility: Oxidation Ditch 2. Location of Facility: County Road No. 74 (See Exhibit it of attached report) 3, Type of discharge' Direct to watercourse _n__ _ (name watercourse) Eaton Draw: Subsurface and application Evaporation Continuation (indicate) 4. Location of effluent discharge: N 1/2 NE I /4, Sec-cion 6, T711, R65?i, of 6th 5. Describe and give distance downstream of eater plant raw water intake hares Eaton Draw (an irrigation ditch) emptIc in o th- this effluent discharge: Cache LaPoudre !puro,:inatel_v 7 miles down trea` 6. Sewer lines: Number of feet 25,000 Sizes 0,12,14,Wnere will sewage receive tic..:— At existing 15, 18 ment? pi --';. Does present treatment meet state standard:.? _Yes __ __ 7. Est. project cost$190,000 Est. bid opening date 6/75 Est. compl. date 6//O 8. Project layout and design criteria: (Attach separate sh:,ets or repert entire service area With respect to surrounding areas, habitable I aii-1_ni-.rs, location of potable eater wells within 1/4 mile, effiueat discharge point topography of area, population to be served. ) Sea attached report, 9. Additional information may be required, upon request of the Dist in EngTheer local health department officials. This m:?y include ( ) relationship of ths facility to area-wide plan, (b) flood plain data, (c) provision for and operation of the facility including cdoi control (d) legal st:"tus association, municipality) . See attached report. 10. Have you contacted local planning and building officials cr other county off L-:.nis regarding building permits, zoning matters, special use review pc'tm.L end similar matters : Yes Larimer Weld Regional Planning Co:::niss on No. 1 (Names of those contacted) Review scheduled for tf>1;. 2 , •_ =. 11. Has Regional Planning Office reviewed? No (Attach letter from agency) . 12. Consulting Engineer: Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk Address: 2021 Clubhouse Drive, Greeley, Colorado Telephone: 356-- - "- CO- (Signature of t.pplicaat_) LP. H.B. Christensen, ilayor• B. SIGNATURE OF LOCAL GOB MENT OFFICIALS: The undersig * have reviewed the proposal for the locat i, construction, operation, an_ mint of effluent discharge of the above-described sewage treatment facility, and RECOMMEND APPROVAL or DIS- APPROVAL in space provided below: RECOMMEND RECOMMEND DATE APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Sig e for Lo al Health Aepar_tment Si ature for Local P anni g Representative 127- 9S 1 Ald-Z-4-140.) Signature for Board of County Commissioners ~ V— -- Signature for Mayor of City lisrugcr of —~ MunieipaJity _ - Signturefor Regional Planning Pepresc:ntative *Before this site application will be accepted for review, the applicant must show hereon the action taken on the project by the Local Health Official, reprcentative of the Planning Commission; representative of the Board of County CormIss:oners, the Mayor or City Manager of the municipality that might be affected by the discharE;€_ of this waste and the Regional Planning Agency. C. THE UOLLOWIIG rOi' STATE 11E'LTH DEPARTIH;NT USE: I, the undersigned District Engineer, have the following cor-3ents : 1. Is this plant located so that it can serve the needs of the present and(er future logical service area? 2. Is t je plant located where it is likely to create nuisance problems for eai_:ti_r g or now planned development? 3. Has a sufficient ='nount of suitable lend been Soi aside for eYpanrior? 4. Has the developer or owner of the facility made provision for adequate' furlir_g to buy, maintain, operate, and repair or replace in kind the facility? 5. Are there any community water supply intakes within 5 miles downstream of the effluent discharge points? D. RECOMMENDATIONS: Date: -- Signature: • A recommendation_ of disapproval must be accm.ipanicd by a st<atcm-ant of reason ac- companying this form. • WP-3 (Rev. 5-lit-20) . I L/ 1-';!'•• •[R El; v'irt-r-D !;f:(=•ION1/41- C(IUN1=•(I_ C'f= G(7Vf_I a'ir_-T1-5 i 201 EAST 4th ; ,1 •.OVCL-1,ND,COLOR4Do UC•b37 • September 5, 1974 . The Nonorable H. B. Christensen Mayor, Town of Eaton P. 0. Box 186 Eaton, Colorado 80615 Philip J. Voecrtle 7;e3 son , iia] ey, Patterson and Quirk, 2021 C] ubhc- se Drive • Greeley, Color -do 80631 Gentlemen: Re: A-95 74_08._08_01 Itpplicant: Town of Eaton Project: Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion Your Notice of Intent has received favorable review £ram various agencies in the T,ari --i'Iel-d Region, and cis are hereby notified that you should co:lplcte and file your final application with i-he a-,•pr_opriate federal agency. A copy of this letter and enclosed comments must be attached to your application. In addition, a letter from the Colorado Division of Local Planning (the State A--95 Clearinghouse) must also be attached to your appli - cation. If you have any questions , please do not hesi- tate to contact us. Sincerely yours, (/7.17/ Ipachard D. I;acRavey • Director RDM/c s Enc. cc: Mr. Richard Brown, Principal Planner, Colorado Division of Local Planning A-95 fi74-08-08-" - • COMMENTS BY • L RIMER-WELD REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AGENCIES Cos:.n ent from ;Weld County Health Department Staff: "We recommend Tz-95, t74-08-08-01/Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion, City of Eaton. The ex •:-nSion is a necessity for the City of Eaton Lo continue to grow. " /s/Glen E. Paul, Director, Environs;lente1 Health Services; 8/20/74 Cc/.:.T:cnt f:.&:i Co]or do Der)ar tment of Health Di strict Engineer :: "At this time the Eaton wastewatcr. ti eatinc nt plant is loaded to 90 to 95 percent of capacity; therefore, this expansion is nc-c:s- Sel_y. We have reviewed the pre] 5 ii nary engineering reports sub- mitted to the Town and find the p] ens for the proposed enlarge- ment to be quite good. Continuation of proper waste i:reat ;ent should be provided with this project. " /s/Ronald G. Schuyler, P. E. , District Engineer, Water Quality Control Division; 8/26/l4 Cr -rent from Weld County Planning Co.u;r r,ion staff : "The Weld County Planning staff has reviewed the application by the Town of Eaton for funds for expansion of their sewage treat- ment plant. We understand that flooding occurred at the existing site during an intense storm in 1973 , and also that this site is presently near capacity . We feel that this project is necessary, but that appropriate steps be taken to mi_n.�mi ze future flooding . We therefore recommend approval with this above stipulation. " /s/Roy Jost, Plunner; 8/21/74 Comment from I.arimer-Weld Regional Planning Committee: "The La'-)rimer-Weld Regional Planning Committee has reviewed the project and has found it to be in accordance with county planning goals and objectives and the proposed Lar imer-- Weld portion of the South Platte Water Quality Management Plan; and, therefore, recommends that the project be funded. " 8/29/74 WELL) COUNTY COLORADO .. For Action To M M Date Nov. 20, 1974 For Info To Gary Fortner Your Action Or Reply Is Required .• Subject: S.U.P. 268 Town of Eaton On Or Before ExpangjQn of Sewage Treatment Facilities I have reviewed the above application and have no commits. It appears that the proposed work is all on city property, and no County Road will be cted. edC)/(E`Z Richard L. Straub mfm /•41\ 1 4I \ vs-,i SWISS Minarm. mpsideamimmi N 41-t41. ` NLS ) I . corcuo\ Jf PETITIGid SUPPOWI ING SPEC ILL USE -F Aj T Baird of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado Court House Greeley, Colorado Gentlemen: We, the undersigned owners of property 1oca.ted within 500 feet of the property described in the application submitted by Ae 7®&r ®7' ton hereby petition you to grant this request for jito'�'en'ioverd Si nAture Mailing Address Description of Propperty, / /1/- • / Z/ �G S SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS SUP 268 Town of Eaton Great Western Sugar Co. Eaton, Colorado 80615 Jack B. Groves, etal . Rt. 2 Eaton, Co 80615 Haythorn Farms Rt. 2, Box 48W Eaton, Co 80615 \%‘\‘ ‘AL;C*. " (C4 eLki eme4 kk-e.A‘rf, EcAo'n C C . hack S. C.-IA(5W% , ehl Rye.. z 4y4-\\cor Foixrn Rke.2. Fax 48w E-eAor\ , Ct\O low &L .. ' 1 Le. 77 Nr.3 V,(0S u.-) 4401 co ° t cadir uo.es 4Ar v.% Si Co Ec e ,„„ +015 fi``'t' • Oak GG 0.r J Y‘b-ge Metr IS 1210Ya giVC. Z ECt ovs ,F o Sec, ( 1-r� t.� CZV5 � .341/60 713 1 135 ?) 611.4511.1 Firms CR4..z. $)k 4 b, eK-k• %., ,co 5 VAGwv. "Ezt\r•") I / / 4sg /"/ 737h < r° - 11 ��,� � � 12(1(--- t)c. { el. L)/i1.\ A\� 1)14.- . APri _ _ UNITED STATES IJEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 2017 9th Street SUBJECT: Soil Evaluation DATE. 12/17/74 Raton Sewer Treatment Plant Expansion TO Town of Eaton 223 First Street Eaton, Colorado 80615 This is in reply to your request for soil information for the area located approximately in Mgt NW: NA section 6 Township 6 North Range 65 West. Evaluation to determine suitability of sewer expansion. 153 - >1 and 33 - C are the mapping units for the area. These soils have loam and sandy loam textures respectively. the 53 - C especially should be lined for use in sewage treatment due to the high permeability. The present sewage treatment plant has suffered damage due to its location in a natural dradm. The steps outlined to minimise future flooding as outlined should alleviate this hazard. The soil survey is made on the basis of 50 tO 60 inch borings. This information should be used only for general planning and does not exclude the need for on-site investigation for specific engineering purposes. s L. Marron nge Conserve onist, Greeley cc Weld County Planning Department 4 .S-3-D S3-C r53-g XS -G Ea.top) Seu-$O.7e.. Yea.fvne.n71 P/an* .cxPansien I Ai PRELIMINARY REPORT SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES EVALUATION TOWN OF EATON, COLORADO NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON & QUIRK, INC. F NV,HONMENTAL_ CONSUL T A N T S , PRELIMINARY REPORT - SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES EVALUATION TOWN OF EATON, COLORADO ir a January 21 , 1974 Honorable Mayor and Board of Trustees Town of Eaton 223 First Street Post Office Box 186 Eaton, Colorado 80615 Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit our report concerning the evaluation of the sewage treatment facilities of the Town of Eaton. The purpose of this study was to determine the current and projected future wastewater loads on the treatment facilities, the maximum capacity of the existing treatment plant, and the best method of obtaining adequate sewage treatment capacity. We have considered a number of alternative solutions with the objective of identifying that alternate which would impose the least economic and environ- mental burden. Throughout the evaluation, we have addressed ourselves to the new requirements imposed by Federal and State legislation governing wastewater discharge quality. We want to express our appreciation for the assistance given to us in preparing this report by members of the Board of Trustees, by Mr. Herb Ledall , the acting Mayor, and by members of the Town staff, particularly Town Clerk, Agnes Sandstedt and Town Foreman, Vernon Brown. If you have any questions concerning this report, we will be happy to meet with you at any time. Sincerely yours, NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON and QUIRK, INC. Thomas E. Burnett, P.E. Project Manager Phe, 9Iie Philip J. Voegtle, P.E. Senior Project Manager TEB/PJV/jak I PRELIMINARY REPORT SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES EVALUATION TOWN OF EATON, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 73 1 CIV 0280 January, 1974 NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON and QUIRK, INC. Engineering Consultants Greeley, Colorado TOWN OF EATON, COLOI:ADO TOWN OFFICIALS Mayor Herbert Ledall Board of Trustees Reuben Bopp Dr. H. P. Christensen George Goodell Eugene Martin James Robertson William West Town Attorney Agnes Sandstedt Town Clerk Kathleen Waldron Town Treasurer Vernon Brown Town Foreman TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION I GENERAL Purpose and Scope I - 1 Town of Eaton I - 1 Population Trends I - 2 SECTION II PUBLIC LAW Federal Legislation II - 1 State Legislation II - 2 NPDES Permit II - 4 Regional Cooperation II - 5 SECTION III EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES Sewage Collection System III - 1 Infiltration-Inflow III - 2 Sewage Treatment Plant III - ' 4 SECTION IV SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION Alternative Solutions IV - 1 Oxidation Ditch Expansion IV - 6 Environmental Assessment IV - 9 Land IV - 9 Air IV - 10 Water IV - 10 Social IV - 11 Aesthetics IV - 11 SECTION V COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCING Cost Estimate V - 1 Financing V - 1 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY On July 9, 1973, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Eaton, Colorado authorized Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. , Engineering Consultants to evaluate the Town's existing sewage treatment facilities. The evaluation was to determine the existing plant's maximum capacity, the current and projected future loading on the plant, the alternative solutions available to provide adequate capacity, and the identification of that alternative deemed most feasible. Population trends for the Town of Eaton developed from United States Census Bureau data show a fairly constant increase in population from 1157 people in 1910 to 1389 in 1970. Projections of future growth based on previous studies conducted by Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. for the Town, on data contained in the City of Greeley Comprehensive Plan, and from information compiled by the Weld County Planning staff indicate an annual increase in population of about 2-1/2 percent. This projection results in a Town population of about 3000 people by the year 2000. In addition to this resident population, the Town's sewage treatment facilities must be capable of treating the wastes generated by a number of students and workers who reside outside the Town limits, but who commute dialy to facilities within Town. The population equivalent from these sources is estimated to be 230 people currently and about 400 people by the year 2000. Our evaluation of Eaton's sewage facilities is limited to the treatment plant itself. We have investigated the sewage collection system only briefly to determine the probable quantities of infiltration-inflow and to assess what, if any, operation and maintenance problems are associated with the collection system. Discussions with the mayor and the foreman of the Town of Eaton indicate that the sewage collection system and the storm sewer system are separate, that the cross connections between the two systems have been found and eliminated, that no roof drains are connected to the sanitary sewer system, and that the sanitary sewer system presents very few maintenance problems. No industrial wastes are discharged to the sanitary sewer systems and with the exception of the High School 's 25 meter swimming pool , the system is not subjected to "dumping" of large quantities of wastewater. We have reviewed the influent sewage flow records which have been maintained at the treatment plant since its initial operation. The analysis concludes that the average sewage flow during the past four years has amounted to about 90 gallons per capita per day. On only 10 days out of four years of record, has the flow exceeded 200,000 gpd or 125 gpcd. The design criteria to be used in expansion of the facilities will be an average daily flow of 100 gpcd and a peak hourly flow of 200 gpcd. The quantity of infiltration and/or inflow is apparently not excessive. The evaluation of the existing sewage treatment facilities has been performed to determine the hydraulic and the organic capacity of each unit of the plant. In addition, new wastewater discharge quality standards imposed by Federal and State legislation have been considered in determining the plant's efficiency and in evaluating the various alternatives which were studied. The existing 0<idation Ditch treatment plant, constructed in 1968, was designed by Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. to treat the domestic $ wastes of a town of 1700 people. We have reviewed the original design criteria, the "As-Built" plans of the plant, test results of the plant's influent and effluent sewage compiled by the Colorado Department of Health since 1970, influent sewage flow records maintained at the plant since 1970 and the results of a 24 hour composite sampling of the plant influent and effluent performed by Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. on December 11 and 12, 1973. Our evaluation indicates that, with the exception of the clarifier unit, the existing sewage treatment plant has adequate capacity to treat the domestic wastes of a population equivalent to 1900 people. The projections of Eaton's future growth show that the Total Equivalent Population to be served by the plant will exceed 1900 by the year 1977. The existing plant has on occasion demonstrated the ability to produce an effluent of sufficient quality to meet or exceed the Colorado 1978 discharge quality standards. Continual compliance with these standards should be attainable by expansion of the existing facilities, some modification in the unit processes, and an intensified effort at good operation of the plant. Five alternatives for expansion or regionalization of the wastewater treatment facilities have been considered. The economic and environmental effects of each alternate have been determined and compared. The evaluation indicates that one alternative, construction of a duplicate Oxidation Ditch, is the most feasible method of: 1 . Obtaining adequate wastewater treatment capacity for the projected growth of the Town of Eaton. 2. Minimizing the economic and environmental costs of the expansion. 3. Ensuring the continued compliance with new wastewater discharge quality standards imposed by law. 4. Allowing the future integration of advanced treatment units, if required. The cost of the proposed construction is estimated to be $190,000.00. Eaton's relatively high priority on the State's list of municipal wastewater treatment plant needs indicates a fairly good opportunity for obtaining an Environmental Protection Agency grant for 75 percent of the total project cost during fiscal year 1975. Vigorous pursuit of the project may allow the Town of Eaton to obtain EPA funds sooner than other municipalities with higher priority. Assuming that these funds were obtained, the total cost to the Town would be 25 percent of the estimated project cost of $190,000.00 or $47,500.00. CONCLUSIONS Our evaluation of the Town of Eaton's sewage treatment facilities has concluded that: 1 . Eaton's population will continue to increase at an annual rate of about 2.5 percent, resulting in a population of about 3000 people by the year 2000. 2. The Town provides sewage treatment service for a number of students and workers who reside outside the Town limits equivalent to 230 people now and equivalent to about 430 people by the year 2000. 3. The Town's sewage collection system is not subject to excessive -nfilt -ation of groundwater or inflow of storm water. 4. With the exception of one unit, the Town's existing sewage treatment facility has the capacity to treat the domestic wastes of about 1900 people. 5. The Total Equivalent Population to be served by the treatment facility will exceed 1900 by the year 1977. 6. Expansion of the existing plant can best be achieved by duplicating the existing Oxidation Ditch at the existing site. 7. Compliance with 1978 wastewater discharge quality standards imposed by State law can be achieved by expansion and modification of the existing facilities and by proper operation of the expanded Oxidation Ditch. I- 8. Future Federal discharge quality standards (1985) may require the addition of advanced treatment units, such as a multi-media filters. These units could be readily integrated into the proposed plant configuration. 9. The Town of Eaton has been assigned a relatively high priority by the State of Colorado for attaining compliance with the new wastewater discharge quality standards. This priority rating ensures Eaton a reasonable chance of securing EPA grant money for the proposed construction. 10. Assuming that Federal funds were obtained, the increased cost per sewer connection for the amortization of the proposed capital cost and the additional annual operation and maintenance costs would be about S1 .25 per month. RECOMMENDATIONS To ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity for the projected growth of the Town of Eaton, and to achieve compliance with the wastewater discharge quality standaras now established by Federal and State legislation, we recommend that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Eaton: 1 . Resolve to vigorously pursue the recommended construction of a parallel Oxidation Ditch at the existing treatment plant site. 2. Authorize Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. to prepare the necessary applications for an EPA grant and a State of Colorado grant for 80 percent of the proposed project cost in accordance with Section 1 , D, 6 of our contract. 3. Instruct the Town's fiscal agent and the Town's attorney to make the necessary preparations for the issuing of bonds to generate the Town's share of the cost of the proposed project. , 4. Authorize Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of the recommended expansion in accordance with Section 1 , B of our contract. 5. Upon completion of the financial arrangements, authorize Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc, to proceed to the Construction phase of the project in accordance with Section 1 , C of our contract. SECTION I GENERAL PURPOSE AND SCIPE Recognizing the; the Town of Eaton must provide adequate sewage treatment facilities if it is to continue to grow, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Eaton, Colorado authorized Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. , Engineering Consultants by contract dated July 9, 1973, to evaluate the Town's existing sewage treatment plant capacity. The evaluation and subse- quent report was to consider the current Town population, the probable growth of the Town and the impact of this growth on the Town's sewage treat- ment facilities. In addition, new Federal and State legislation governing the quality of wastewater treatment plant discharges was to be taken into account in the evaluation of the existing facility,. Alternative methods of providing adequate treatment capacity were to be considered and recommendations concerning the most feasible solution made to the Town. It is the purpose of this report to present the results of our investigation and evaluation of the Town's existing sewage treatment plant, the alternative methods of expansion studied, and our recommendations concerning the alterna- tive considered most feasible. The report is limited to a discussion of the sewage treatment facilities only. We have investigated Eaton's sewage collectic,n system only briefly to evaluate maintenance problems associated with the sewer system and to estimate the probable degree of infiltration of groundwater and the inflow of storm water into the sewer system. TOWN OF EATON Eaton, Colorado is located in Weld County, seven miles north of Greeley and 65 miles northeast of Denver on U. S. Highway 85 as shown on Exhibit No. 1 I - 1 at the end of this report. The Town lies in the South Platte River Basin. Eaton Draw prcvides drainage for the 30 square mile basin above Eaton. The Draw discharges into the Cache La Poudre River at Greeley which in turn discharges into the South Platte River a few miles further downstream. The climate of the area is typical of the high plains of Colorado with about 13 inches of rainfall annually and a mean annual temperature of about 49 degrees. Transportation is provided for the Town by the Union Pacific Railroad, the Great Western Railroad, Amtrak passenger rail service, and the four lane U. S. Highway 85. Airport services are available at the Weld County Municipal Airport, east of Greeley. Eaton is located in one of the most agriculturally productive counties in the United States. Hence the Town's industry and trade are closely related to its function as an agricultural service center. A number of agriculturally related industries are located in Town, primarily in a de facto "industrial park" on the east side of U. S. Highway 85, In terms of population effects, some of these industries are stable while others project desired growth in number of employees of 10 percent annually. Obviously, any one fairly large company with such ambitious growth plans can have considerable impact on the growth of the Town. POPULATION TRENDS The "Water System Study Preliminary Report" presented to the Town of Eaton by Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. in February, 1973 contained an I - 2 • exhibit entitled "Eaton Growth Trends". This exhibit is reproduced here as Exhibit No. 2 at the end of this report. This chart shows the population of the Town of Eaton from 1910 through 1970, as reported by the United States Census Bureau. Projections of future growth of the Town were based on general growth trends of the County and the Greeley Trade Area. This projection indicates that the Town of Eaton will have a population of just under 3000 people by the year 2000, an annual growth rate of approximately — 2.5 percent. The current population is estimated by Town officials to be approximately 1500, which agrees very closely with the population projection curve plotted on Exhibit No. 2. The development of this projected growth rate has been based on the City of Greeley Comprehensive plan. Members of the Weld County Planning Staff and elected officials of the Town of Eaton have expressed agreement with the projected population. In addition to the curve showing the Town population, Exhibit No. 2 contains a curve showing the total equivalent population. This total is composed of the Town population and an estimated number of students and workers who reside outside the Town limits, but who commute daily to facilities within the Town. Adjustments have been made in the number of students and workers to reflect the estimated daily sewage contribution from these sources. I - 3 SECTION II . PUBLIC LAW , FEDERAL LEGISLETION On October 18, '972, the United States Congress voted into law the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972" as Public Law 92-500. This far reaching legislation declared, as national policy, that by 1985 there will be no discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters. In addition, interim water quality standards were established and the Environmental Pro- tection Agency was charged with defining these standards more precisely. In April , 1973, the EPA defined secondary treatment which all municipal treatment plants must achieve by July 1 , 1977, as removal of 85 percent of the Biochemical Oxygen Demand* of the raw sewage. Further requirements are that the monthly mean value for the effluent BOD and Suspended Solids** shall not exceed 30 ppm (parts per million). These criteria are to achieve the interim goal set by the Congress. The goal of zero discharge of pollu- tants by 1985 will require greater effort. Specific standards of discharge quality have not been set for 1985 - Congress instead has called for the use of the "best available technology" in wastewater treatment plants in order to achieve the elimination of all pollutants. In addition to establishing national priorities and objectives and charging EPA with monitoring and enforcing them (sizable finEs and imprisonment are provided for violators) , the Congress also authorized funds for construc- tion grants in fiscal years 1973 through 1975. The President's use of impoundment has clouded the question of fund availability, but the intent of Congress is apparent. Grants of 75 percent of the total project cost * BOD is a measure of the organic content of the sewage. ** SS are those solids in the sewage which are not dissolved and can generally be seen with the naked eye. II - 1 n - I have been authorized. Before becoming eligible for these funds however, certain requirerents are now placed on the grant applicant. A few of these requirements are: - Demonstrate that infiltration-inflow into the sewer system is not excessive - - Adopt an equitable sewer service charge system - Prepare an environmental impact assessment, including public hearings - Demonstrate the use of "best practicable technology" in plant design STATE LEGISLATION In addition to Federal legislation, the State of Colorado Mater Quality Control Commission has established standards for sewage treatment plant discharges. Classification of Colorado streams with respect to their primary uses has been accomplished. Water quality standards for each stream classification have been defined and Colorado regulations prescribe that the treatment plant discharge must be at least equal in quality to the stream classification quality. There are, then, three principal criteria that the quality of the sewage treatment plant discharge must meet: 1 . Discharge quality Pt least equal to stream quality designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. 2. Discharge quality at least equal to the minimum discharge standards established by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. 3. Discharge quality at least equal to Federal requirements. II - 2 Examination of these standards indicates tha : the Colorado discharge standards are the most restrictive and, therefore, must be used as the controlling stan- dards in evaluating the treatment facilities. Wastewater treatment plant discharge quality standards adopted January 15, 1973, by the State of Colorado are as follows: BOD Suspended Solids Color Turbidity Date Required (mg/1 ) (mg/1 ) (Units) (Jackson Units) January 15, 1973 30 30 30 30 July 1 , 1974 25 25 25 25 July 1 , 1978 20 20 20 20 In addition, the following State discharge requirements also became effective on January 15, 1973: 1 . pH between 6.0 and 9.0 or within stream classification requirements 2. Dissolved oxygen (D.0. ) at least equal to 2.0 mg/liter 3. Chlorine residual must be greater than 0.1 mg/liter and must be less than 0.5 mg/liter 4. Total oil and grease shall not exceed 10 mg/liter 5. The fecal coliform count (a common type of bacteria found in sanitary sewage) in the discharge shall not exceed 5000 per 100 milliliters As with Federal legislation, the State of Colorado has also provided funds to be used for the construction of sewage treatment facilities. State grants, however, are limited to a maximum of 5 percent of project cost, if EPA funds are also secured, and a maximum of 25 percent if no EPA grants are obtained. II - 3 NPDES PERMIT NPDES is the aLbreviation for the system created to achieve Congress' stated objective of eliminating all pollutant discharges to the nation's waters. The letters stand for the "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" - essentially a permit system. Every treatment plant and every industrial or commercial discharger, in short every point source of wastewater discharge, must have an NPDES permit by December 31 , 1974. Currently, the EPA is handling the issuing of this permit. In the near future, probably during 1974, the Colorado Department of Health will assume this task. The Town of Eaton has applied for this permit and has been notified that the EPA will review the treatment plant and issue a permit soon. Every municipal treatment plant in the state will receive a permit. However, if the issuing agency finds that the plant's discharge does not meet the new criteria discussed previously, the owner of the plant will be given a "compliance schedule". This will be some period of time in which to correct the plant discharge quality problem. In addition, the Colorado legislature provided in legislation passed during 1973, that the State permit system, which will be an extension of the NPDES, will require that each permit holder: 1 . Initiate engineering and financial planning for expansion of the sewage treatment works whenever actual sewage loads reach eighty percent of the design capacity. 2. Commence construction when ninety-five percent of design capacity is reached or, for a municipality, cease issuing any building permits for construction which would have the effect of increasing the sewage load on the sewage treatment plant. II - 4 c!'NrMr t0 10 t0 N N N N N CU+- Cr) d V) .O CL C1.O o CI-..0 0-D-O.CL CL I-. >1 CIJ cO E E ro /a E C) E E E E E I--I- S- o o S- L o - o o o O o C.7 U L)CD W U CD U U U UL) Cl. I N EU 1 CO ct N.co NCI'r • r-.. CUo I rNrr • 1 I . CU ••V1.- .- 1-- C)\ 01 r O -S- E . r _ CD S. N 0 4-, . C r-.c- O 0 Iss.ccccccLC)OLf) r- 0= N N.r Cy)N N CO CO N r LO0C CCOLID LC)NIt0000to O\ C^ O CT. O MN4.000--CArcoNI en I�P9 cc E N r-I-. rCOMrN r i1 )1 * * to E I- i E o c c c c c o c o c c o J 4-1 r O C C C C C C C c c O C cc 0 = C CO CO 4-c C N C CO N C C O rSI'OCT V) 0J U•r r C W 7 CU r C N.4.CO N C CO r N.N r r CG W 0 S- in N r r r 4- CJ 4J I— 4- V) W W ~ C -0 i S CO CU 01 J O. C-CI r to M c0 to Q CU•r\ W }) ^ 1.11 N .—0) O LO•t-.— C)N r 1.O RI'L CO M h = C V1 0 E rLO NNrN to COMr N r Lt. E to O +) IrS = i CO W I . r .L] V) I— CU CCS-Or I r--r--r--r-- 1 I OOrrrr O' O: 4.O .-•r-- I 1 1 Q r 10 r r 1 00 C O I I LO r0 C CD CD C1 s 4-) O E W CU +-1 V) CJ V) U V) O a O O - Q 4-) CC (0 a 0 w +1 J , o v= cl-occ00Lt.r c.) to -F- - 7 d-cc to In Lf)1.0 co N Ln CU S-— C N GI"N •O r O N S_ •a F- go (0 C • o I Ca 4-)r r 4-) C r C) LC) N 7 of 7 r • 0 N•0-._ C rr- rr _ >,E E .4- •r 01 I • • • • 4-3 sts O ' U 01 E r COc000CCD •r E U • r•fl..- c4 O IC) N x O S. cO CY•r E J -0 CU Cr CU CJ CV S- > C i1 S- cO • r CU r c0 +) O 01\ O C011.001.4-000 i E r C M V) CJ) • • • • U J r J V1 x E N 0)co MM C')co c4.d- V1 E 0 •r0 •e- C U CD c C CC •E o o -n s_ o 0) to I tO co.4-N.10 0) C) In.C 4- N S I • 1 S-•r+) •r CD- 10 N. I N I.Ns n N.N r0 1,1 LO 0 O U U C C N N N M M M M M M M M E E r f1 n N.N.N.N.N Ns N.N.N.N.N CO 3 = (0 CU CO IIIIIIIIIIII n r r- 4-) ✓ +) Ns 10 CV N.LID r r N.LC)CT 01 t0 G4. 01 0 0 0 CCf 0) r r N CV N N N N N N ' r C.)U I— cc r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO r-.C' LO CV MMcrtO CO CTO •1C 41 r it III - 10 r REGIONAL COOPEVATION As expressed in Public Law 92-500, one of the principal objectives of the United States Congress is to encourage the development of a regional approach to the problem of wastewater treatment. This is an attempt to avoid patchwork solutions to the problem of dealing with man's waste. In heavily developed areas, it is a logical and feasible approach. However, in more sparsely populated areas of the country, distance often preludes cost-effective region- alization of wastewater treatment. The State of Colorado is currently in the process of developing a South Platte River Basin water quality management plan as required by Federal law. This Basin plan will in turn allow area-wide water quality management plans to be drafted. The Larimer-Weld Regional Planning Commission anticipates execution of such a regional plan within one or two years. Discussions with representatives of both the State of Colorado Department of Health and the Regional Planning Commission indicate that at present, there are no basin, regional , or area wastewater management plans in existence which would affect the Town of Eaton. We have given some consideration to a local "regionalization" of wastewater treatment facilities using two different approaches. One system would serve the Town of Ault, four miles north of Eaton by transporting wastewater from Ault to the existing Eaton treatment plant site. The other "regional" solu- tion which we have considered, would consist of the abandonment of Eaton's sewage treatment facility and the transporting of wastewater from Eaton seven miles south to an expanded City of Greeley sewage treatment plant, Both of these cooperative regional alternatives are developed in more detail in Section IV of this report. II - 5 I SECTION III EVALUATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES . , SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM An analysis of the Town's sewer system is beyond the scope of this report. However, some understanding of the existing collection system is necessary to an evaluation of the sewage treatment facilities. To this end, we have endeavored to learn as much as possible about the sewer system within the constraints of our contract. The sewer system is composed of approximately 25,000 lineal feet of 8, 12, 14, 15, and 18 inch diameter vitrified clay pipe as shown on Exhibit No. 3 at the end of this report. The data used to compile the sewer system map was taken from a map of the Town prepared by Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. in 1964. New construction since that date is not included. Apparently, no updated map of the sewer system is available to the Town. The sewer system is a separate system - that is, storm water drainage is • provided by a storm sewer system. Cross connections between the two sewer systems have been eliminated. Discussions with the acting Mayor and the Town Foreman indicate that little maintenance difficulty is experienced with the sanitary sewer system. Line sizes are certainly adequate and the construction of the system was reported by the Mayor to have been of good quality. All of the Town is served by the sewer system. Newly developing growth areas to the west of the Town are building sewer interceptors and collectors as required and the Town is accepting and treating wastewater from this area. The East Side Addition, known as East Eaton, is outside the Town limits and does not have water and sewer service. The Town has agreed to accept and III - 1 treat wastewatEr from this area, if the necessary sewer system can be constructed by he residents. The residents' engineer is currently pursuing methods of financing both water and sewer improvements for the area. INFILTRATION-INFLOW The infiltration of groundwater through leaking pipe joints or cracks in the pipe itself and/or the inflow of storm water through illegal or inadver- tent connections to a sanitary sewer system can be the source of a considerable volume of water flowing through the sewer system to the sewage treatment plant. This obviously requires excess capacity in the treatment plant simply to accomodate the inflated hydraulic load on the plant. An absolutely bottle-tight sanitary sewer system would allow efficient and economic sizing of treatment plants. This ideal goal was recognized by Congress in the legislation discussed in Section II. The law encourages repair or replacement of sewer systems which are subject to "excessive" infiltration-inflow by denying Federal grant money for construction of sewage treatment facilities until the "excessive" infiltration-inflow is corrected. "Excessive" infiltration-inflow has been defined by EPA as being of such a quantity that it is more economical to repair or replace the sewer system than to build enough plant capacity to treat the infiltration-inflow water. The Town of Eaton has maintained excellent records of the quantity of raw sewage influent to the treatment plant since its initial operation in 1969. Analysis of the daily flow records from February, 1970 through November, 1973 shows the following: ; III - 2 Year Avg. Daily Estimated Daily Flotc Max. Day No. of days Flow Population per Capita Flow Flow > (gpd) Equivalent (gpcd) (gpd) 0.2 mgd 1970* 142,000 1590 89 284,000 4 1971 143,800 1620 89 194,000 0 1972 151 ,900 1670 91 284,000 3 1973** 152,000 1730 89 272,000 3 * Records exclude January and part of July. ** Records exclude part of June and all of July, August and December. Annual average daily flow estimated for 1973 based on available records. The average daily contribution of sewage is about 90 gallons per person. Sewage treatment facilities are usually designed 6n the basis of about 100 gallons per capita per day of domestic sewage which includes a "reasonable" allowance for infiltration. It would appear then, that the quantity of groundwater infiltration into the Town's sanitary sewer system is not excessive. Inflow of storm water or "dumping" of wastewater into the sanitary sewer system has been noted in the past by members of this firm and by Town officials. However, discussions with the Mayor and the Town Foreman indicate that cross col nections between the storm sewer and the sanitary sewer have been found and eliminated and that roof drains from commercial establishments are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. The major industries served by the sanitary sewer system discharge only domestic wastes to the system. However, the High School swimming pool , which is normally drained every other summer is connected to the sanitary sewer system. This is a 25 meter pool and contains approximately 116,000 gallons. III - 3 School district. officials estimate that draining the pool requires about 24 hours. The hydraulic load on the sewage treatment plant, assuming an average day flow, would then be about 270,000 gallons. Draining of the pool undoubtedly accounts for some of the observed maximum daily flows. Sewage flows greater than 200,000 gpd (approximately 120 gpcd) have been recorded on only ten days out of the previous four years or about 0.7 percent of the time of record. These maximum flows demonstrate no apparent pattern, having been recorded in February, May, June, August and nctober. The August, 1970 and August, 1972 maximum flows are probably attributable to the draining of the School swimming pool . The average sewage flow of 90 gpcd and the apparent absence of any evidence of storm water inflow indicates that the Town of Eaton's sanitary sewer system is not subject to excessive loads of infiltration or inflow water. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT Until 1968, Eaton's sewage treatment facilities consisted of a large septic tank, 4 sand filter beds, and a sludge disposal pit. (The location of the plant site is shown on Exhibit No. 4 at the end of this report. ) In 1968 and early 1969, an Oxidation Ditch, a modified version of the activated sludge sewage treatment process, was constructed at the same site. A portion of the old septic tank and two of the sand filter beds were incorporated in the new plant. In 1971 , two new sludge drying beds were added to the plant facilities. The design of the Oxidation Ditch and the new sludge drying beds was performed by Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. , beginning with an initial report III - 4 in 1963, a subsequent report in 1966 and design in 1968. Exhibit No. 5, included at the end of this report, shows the configuration of the existin'_i sewage treatment facilities. We have reviewed the "As-Built" drawings of the plant and the design crite►ia used in the original design to evaluate the maximum population which this facility could serve. This evaluation consists of defining the hydraulic and the organic capacity of each unit of the treatment facility. In 1966, it was assumed that Eaton's population would reach 1700 people by 1980. Based on this population projection and on measurements of the quantity and strength of the raw sewage, the following design assumptions were made: Population Equivalent 1 ,700 Per Capita Sewage Contribution 100 gal ./day Per Capita BOD5 Contribution 0.20 lbs./day • Infiltration 50,000 gal ./day From these assumptions, design criteria were developed as follows: Hydraulic loads - Avg. day: 1700 P.E. x 100 gpcd +•50,000 gpd = 220,000 gpd Peak hour: (assumed) = 400,000 gpd Organic load - i i700 P.E. x 0.20 lbs. BOD5/capita/day = 340 lbs. BOD5/day These are the hydraulic and organic loading conditions for which the existing Oxidation Ditch treatment facility was designed and constructed. During the last five years, considerable additional data concerning the quantity and strength of Eaton's wastewater has become available. III - 5 Flow records discussed previously have been m'tintained on a continuous recording device installed at the plant intake structure. The Colorado Department of Health has conducted twelve sampling tests of the plant's effluent and four of the influent raw sewage. The influent sewage tests yielded the following results: Date Type Suspended BOD Solids (mg/1 ) (mg/1 ) 8- 6-71 Grab 89 155 1-12-72 Comp. 6 335 222 2- 7-72 Comp. 6 272 196 5-16-72 Grab 217 130 Personnel from Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk's Wastewater Lab conducted an extensive 24 hour sampling program at the Eaton sewage treatment plant on December 11 and 12, 1973. Partial results of the testing conducted by Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. are as follows: Influent Sewage Date Type Suspended BOD Color Turbidity Solids (mg/1 ) (mg/1 ) (Units) (JTU) 12-11-73 24 Comp. 122 • 157 42 91 A review of the data from these sources allows some refinement in the original design criteria as fol"rows: BOD Concentration = 200 mg/1 Average Flow = 100 gpcd (includes infiltration allowance) Current Population = 1730 P.E. Then the current loading parameters are: Hydraulic loads: Avg. day: 1730 P.E. x 100 gpcd = 173,000 gpd Peak hour: (@ 200% of average= 346,000 gpd Organic load: .173 mgd x 200 mg/1 x 8.34 lbs./gal = 289 lbs. BOD5/day (289 lbs./day 1730 = 0.167 lbs. BOD5/capita/day) III - 6 • Y Assuming that the future population of Eaton will contribute much the same , hydraulic and otiganic sewage loads (specifically exlud'ing any future indus- trial waste loads which must be evaluated on an individual basis) , design criteria for the assumed design population are developed in the same manner. Year 2000 Population Equivalent 3400 Per Capita Sewage Contribution 100 gal ./day Per Capita BOD5 Contribution 0.17 lbs./day Design Criteria: Hydraulic loads Average Cay: 3400 P.E. x 100 gpcd = 340,000 gal ./day Peak Hour: @ 200% of average = 680,000 gal ./day Organic load 3400 P.E. x 0.17 lbs. BOD5/c/d = 578 lbs. BOD5/day The following table summarizes the design criteria used in the original design, our current evaluation, and the projected future loads on the plant: Design Criteria Date Population Avg. Day Peak Hour BOD5 (Year) Equivalent Flow (gpd) Flow (gpd) Lbs./day Original design 1966 1700 220,000 400,000 340 Current evaluation 1974 1730 173,000 346,000 289 Projected loads 2000 3400 340,000 680,000 578 Based on the actual dimensions of the treatment facilities and the sewage hydraulic and organic loading developed above, we have evaluated the capacity of the existing plant. The following table summarizes the capacity of each unit of the plant in terms of the maximum population equivalent each unit can serve. III - 7 Eaton Sewage Treatment Plant Capacity (In Population Equivalents)* Hydraulic Organic Unit Capacity Capacity Bar Screen > 20,000 Parshall Flume & Recorder > 10,000 - Oxidation Ditch 24 hour detention 1 ,900 5000 mg/1 MLSS - 4 lbs. BOD5/100 lbs. MLSS 1 ,900 74 cu. ft. volume per lb. BOD5 2,000 Rotor Aerator 02 Transfer 2,300 Clarifier - 30% Recirculation Surface Loading Rate - 600 gal ./sf/day 1 ,700 Detention Time - 3 Hours 1 ,700 Chlorinator 7,500 Chlorine Contact Basin ** 2,400 Sludge Pump 3,500 Sludge Drying Beds 4,800 1 Sq. Ft. per Capita * Assumed loads = 100 gpcd and 0.17 lbs. BOD5 pcd ** 30 min. detention at peak hourly flow = 200% of average It is apparent that, with the exception of the clarifier unit, the existing sewage treatment plant has adequate capacity for a population equivalent of about 1900 people. Based on the current population equivalent of 1730 people, the plant is operating at 91 percent of capacity. The capacity of the clarifier unit, with a maximum 30 percent recirculation of flow, has been reached by the current population. Exhibit No. 2 of this report shows that the total equivalent population of Eaton should reach 1900 by the year 1977. Expansion of the existing sewage III - 8 treatment facilities would probably take between one and two years to compete. Assuming completion by 1976, the plant at that time, will be operating at 37 percent of maximum capacity. In addition to the necessity of providing adequate hydraulic and organic capacity in the sewage treatment facility, design and operation of the plant must be adequate to ensure compliance with the new discharge quality standards discussed previously. A review of the Colorado Department of Health tests of the plant's effluent indicates that Eaton's existing sewage treatment facility is occasionally capable of meeting all of the Colorado 1978 discharge standards. Achieving continual compliance with these standards may require the addition of advanced treatment units and will certainly require more refined and exact operation of the plant than has been necessary in the past. 1 The results of the Colorado Department of Health sampling of the plant's effluent are included in the following table. Also shown are the 1978 Colorado discharge quality requirements. ill III '- 9 1.0 l0 CO C4 CV CV CV CV a)+) Cr) C1 U) -0 C1 0-0-0 0-0 0 C1 C1 C1 0 ✓ F—F— S_ O O S- S_ O i 0 0 O O O CD U U CD C�U CD U L)L)L.)CJ 0- 1 CV E U 1 co d•N.M CV d-r • r C)O 1 r CV i—r • — I-- . CU w y r• r rt)\ 01 rn- (1.1 07O . o S_ E r r CD S.- U) 0•1•) C r-•r- O O N.C O O LC)C)LI) r U0 C CV h..-Cr)CV NMMN r LC)0 C 0 CO LO LC)M CO CO O CO 0\ C CI E 01 N M-a---LO O�rCCOOC)r OD CV N^.- (/) E E •c # -3c -lc I- 5- oocoCC000CCC) J 4-) r O C' o C C C C C CD 0C)C 0 0 ' ' = C CO tU 4-C C CV C CC CV C O O T ct•O C)St V) a) U•r r C w w a a W 7 0r O CV ct Cr)CV CM r n CV r r C C LL 0 S- LI) N r r•••• 4•- CJ CU F- 4- V) W W F- 4-) "o 2 LO a) l- r -0 U) - _I I1 C C r LC)M CO CO W -I.) N. C2— C) O d-LI)Cl-r d•LC)CV r n O CO Cr) 2 C U) 0 E CV r LI)CV CV r-CJ CO CO M r-- .3.1 7V) r-- Li- E U) O4-) . a ) F— as Z S- C) L.i I— , r .0 N ce CT. �-O\ rrrr I OOrrrr d (U 1•••••,--•E I 0000 11 LO aCC00 , •s' Li) CU •1••)V) C) V) C{) N co C 0 O d 4-) ce rts A 'fir --I LaJ 4-) • J •r.•, , O '0= d•OOCOOCI)(U- U LC) •r F- .O'7 CI-Lb LI)LI)LI')CO Cr)CV C9 U ' S-•----- 0 CV d•CV 'C a— = CV S- -CI Ca al C • o ' rts 4-)r r +J Cr Lo LC) Ln 7 co • 7 r 0 CV-0 . C r r r i— >1 E E C7 r•r 0) I Ca Li) E r Coco0CICC E CLJ r-'CI 9.- CC O di CU X 75- CU L7'•r E J -0 CJ 0-U CU 0)CU S•- > C i S- al • CU r O 01\ O C CI LC)01 d•O C)O .C Er C M U) > 0) • • • • • • • • • U 7 r 7 L/1 X E CV CT Cr,C')Cr)Cr)M d-d- NE o r O -r•r t U 0 0 C CT O E O i -0 S- 0 01 LI) 1 CO co d•1-t0 CT rtS N.C 4 • - CV 2 1 • 1 i•r 4-) r C1 CO N. 1 N.N.N.N.N.N. 0.—M117 0 O U U C C rCV CV C`)MM MMMMMM E E a-- * N.N.nL ..N.N.N.h N.n^n CO 7 7 ca a) CO 1 L 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N.r-r 4.) r MS 0) C r CV^U r)CVCV CV CV CV CV CV CV r--010 0 0 UU I-• C) a— III • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 COr-NLC CJ Cr)Cr)d•LI)OO CT •K III - 10 P ' The results of the tests conducted by Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk, Inc. personnel at the plant site on December 11 and 12, 1973, are summarized in the table which follows. It should be noted that the plant operation was upset, the sludge was bulking, and the results of the tests are indica- tive of this. Samples of the flow in Eaton Draw were obtained both upstream and downstream of Eaton's sewage treatment plant discharge pipe to determine what effect the Town's wastewater has on the waters of Eaton Draw. It is apparent from the results in the following table that the waters of Eaton Draw upstream of the plant discharge are carrying a considerable load in terms of turbidity, total solids, suspended solids, and sulfates. The plant's discharge apparently does have an impact on the B0D5 in Eaton Draw, but has only a slight effect on these other parameters. III - 11 ^ i LC?- C\ CD rn Lf) 'O r 44- CO E r- v N 4-O\ Lf) d- 00 01 — V) N CY N M 1� d' Ol (CO^ G` r- •r Z r- CV 01 LC) LC) C \ •• 0 C/) Q) r O r N E CO E r ✓ C� Z I ✓ {-) ✓ res ,. CI- CC 0- \ CY CO CO O R) E CI LC) O O � � v W 0_0_ U W 0 I +3 CU N^ C -0r N (ZS C•r\ CM r O F- r O r O N Cr) CO r J Cl. 0. 0 E r N LC) CO C/) -N CC a, V) I— +-3 V) as N^ W N r"O r CO tO CO N �--- S- 2)•r\ Cl r LC) CV F— r (.0 Ol C0 n • 0 0 E r r e— r U CL1 F-V) Z � r-+ CC in N O CO 3-- IC V) S • • • C4 O. CO 1- CO CO H C 0 Cr 4-) Cs a W +3 C •r + • H 101 01 CO CO .r07 r C') M O i • V) O W F— F— Q ^ O • •� r•r- N ^ 1\ >- O C d C\J W U J � i Q i n • l0 O LC) Z 0^ r r Rd' O EU 1 1 1 V) N O r l0 to + Z 4-3 4-3 C C N CU C O O p r r E •r 4- 4- CC 1-r C 4- Ea) co t--4 W cC S- C� 0 i-3 0 -F-) 4-3 S- Cl) C C +3 C Cd Cd C) 3 r 0- 0 0 0. C) III - 12 • SECTION IV SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION . ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS . The evaluation of the existing sewage treatment facilities presented in the - preceding section indicated that the existing plant's capacity will be exceeded by 1977, that one unit of the plant is currently operating at capacity, and that the plant's discharge quality is highly variable. To provide adequate sewage treatment capacity for the projected growth of Eaton and to ensure that the Town's wastewater discharge will meet the quality standards imposed by new legislation, we have investigated a number of alterna- tives. The alternatives considered are: 1 . Regionalization of treatment facilities between the Towns of Ault and Eaton. 2. Regionalization of treatment facilities between the Town of Eaton and the City of Greeley. 3. Modification of the existing Oxidation Ditch process to a Contact Stabilization process. 4. Construction of a "package" sewage treatment plant to operate in parallel with the existing Oxidation Ditch. 5. Duplication of the existing Oxidation Ditch. d In conjunction with altznates 3, 4, and 5 construction of advanced treatment unit processes have been considered. Each of these alternative solutions will be discussed in this section. Alternate 1 : Regionalization - Ault to Eaton The concept of regional cooperation in the construction and operation of wastewater treatment facilities has been considered in an effort to determine IV - 1 if it would be economically feasible to construct a regional wastewater treatment facility at Eaton to treat the wastes of the Towns of Eaton, Ault, Pierce, and Nunn. These towns are located approximately 4, 8, and 13 miles north of Eaton on U. S. Highway 85, respectively. The evaluation consists of an approximate cost comparison between the construc- tion of outfall sewers to transport the wastewater and the construction of individual community treatment facilities. Cost estimates for these two alternatives for the Town of Ault are as follows: Town of Ault Year 1970 Population (Census Bureau) = 841 Year 2000 Population (assumed 2-1/2% growth) = 1520 Outfall sewer for 250 gpcd = 12" diameter Vitrified Clay Pipe No lift stations required Assumed treatment plant cost = $125/P.E. Outfall Sewer Cost Estimate 4 Miles of 12 inch sewer and appurtenances = $300,000 Sewage Treatment Plant Cost Estimate 1520 people x $125/P.E. = $190,000 MP Since transportation of the wastewater from the Town of Ault to a regional plant at Eaton would require Ault to share in capital costs and operation eration q P P and maintenance expenses of the regional plant, it is apparent that this alternative is not economically feasible. Hence the inclusion of Pierce and Nunn, in this regional concept cannot be considered. Alternate 2: Regionalization - Eaton to City of Greeley Similar considerations for regional wastewater treatment have been developed for this alternative, visualizing an enlarged treatment facility at Greeley and an outfall sewer transporting wastewater from Eaton to the Greeley facility. IV - 2 A 12 inch diameter vitrified clay pipe outfall sewer seven miles in length would be required and no lift stations would he needed. Cost comparisons are as follows: Outfall Sewer Cost Estimate 7 miles of 12 inch sewer and appurtenances = $531 ,000 Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion Cost Estimate for additional 1700 people at $125/P.E. = $212,500 Transportation of Eaton's wastewater to a regional plant located at Greeley would entail additional capital amortization and operation and maintenance llcosts for Eaton. Obviously, this alternative is not economically feasible. Alternate 3: Modification of Process Consideration has been given to altering the existing Oxidation Ditch process to a Contact Stabilization process, using the existing units. Construction of dividing walls in the ditch, replacement of the two rotor aerators with diffused air equipment, and extensive changes in plant piping, including I more pumping, would be required. The alternate has been eliminated for a number of reasons: 1 . Uncertainty of adequate treatment by such a massive alteration of the i Oxidation Ditch concept. 2. Lack of provision of duplicate facilities as required by Colorado Department of Health standards. 3. More difficult and complicated operation involved. 4. Complete interruption of the treatment plant for an extended period of time during construction. IV - 3 5. Constructiir.n of modifications to the existing Ditch are estimated to cost about ;3000.00 more than the construction of the parallel ditch itself. Annual operation and maintenance costs would be higher than either Alternate 4 or 5. Costs of providing bypass facilities during construction may add another $20,000.00 to the cost of this alternate. Alternate 4: Construction of "package" plant parallel to Oxidation Ditch This alternate involves the installation of a prefabricated sewage treat- ment plant parallel to the existing Oxidation Ditch. The major elements of such a plant are prefabricated in a manufacturer's facility, shipped to the job site in large units, and field erected within a previously construc- ted concrete tank or, if the package plant is in a steel tank, field erected on a previously placed foundation. All piping, foundation, and site work must be performed by another contractor. • The estimated total project cost of installing a prefabricated Contact Stabilization sewage treatment plant parallel to the existing Oxidation Ditch is approximately $235,000.00. The package plant would not be readily interconnected with the existing Oxidation Ditch. Therefore, operation of the facility would be essentially as two separate plants except for common use of the intake structure, the chlorine contact chamber and the sludge drying beds. Additional operation and maintenance expenses (discussed in more detail under Alternate 5) would probably be about $13,000.00 per year at full utilization of the plant's expanded capacity. ; IV - 4 Alternate 5: Du'licate Existing Oxidation Di':ch This alternate consists of constructing another Oxidation Ditch parallel to and connected with the existing Oxidation Ditch. Construction of two new clarifiers and an aerobic sludge digester (larger than the one required for Alternate 4) is included. The estimated total project cost for this Alternate is $190,000.00. The new Oxidation Ditch would be constructed with the necessary piping to allow parallel or series operation with the existing plant. This would allow a maximum degree of flexibility in operation. Besides being more attractive economically than Alternate 4, the duplication of the existing Oxidation Ditch plant has a number of other advantages: 1 . Greatest degree of flexibility of operation. 2. Complete duplication of facilities. 3. Demonstrated efficiency of treatment. 4. Relatively simple operation and maintenance. 5. Familiarity of staff with this process operation. 6. Most importantly the design lends itself to future expansion most economically. For these reasons, we believe the construction of a parallel Oxidation Ditch is the most feasible method of obtaining adequate sewage treatment capacity for the Town of Eaton. The operation of the plant is currently performed by the Town Foreman, who checks the plant in the mornings and an assistant who maintains the plant in the afternoons. IV - 5 Expansion of thr' plant capacity and the effc,rt required to achieve compliance with new wastewater discharge quality standards will place more importance on continual effective operation of the plant. This should require the attention of one full-time certified sewage treatment plant operator. We have assumed that the current expense for the part time operator is about $3100.00 per year. The additional annual cost to secure full-time operation at a reasonable salary would be about $5200.00. ' The increase in utilities cost for the operation of the new Oxidation Ditch should be roughly equal to the utilities cost in previous years for the existing plant. The Town audit for the year ended March 31 , 1973, shows a utility cost item in the Sewer Fund of $1979.06. Our calculation of the electricity consumption indicates that an annual utility cost of about $3000.00 should be expected for the existing equipment operating at full capacity continually. Based on the additional salary requirements, the increase in utility costs and an increasing chlorine gas use, we believe the additional annual operation and maintenance expense should be about $7500.00 initially and should increase at an annual rate of about 5 percent. OXIDATION DITCH EXPANSION The proposed construction required to duplicate the existing facility is shown on Exhibit No. 6 at the end of this report. The following items are included in the proposed construction: 1. An influent sewage division box at the end of the existing intake structure. IV - 6 2. A comminutor (grinder) installed in the existing intake structure. The structure was originally designed for the installation of a grinder and should not require any modifications. 3. A new Oxidation Ditch parallel to the existing ditch and equipped with two rotor aerators. 4. Two new clarifier units - each 33 feet in diameter. 5. Conversion of the existing clarifier unit to function as a Chlorine Contact Basin. The existing Chlorine Contact Basin consists of one cell of the old septic tank. The tank is not capable of preventing short circuiting of the effluent. Consequently, the fecal coliform count in the effluent can and has exceeded the allowable limits. 6. Construction of a new pump house located as shown between the two proposed clarifier units. 7. Construction of an aerobic sludge digester. This unit is required by EPA and State guidelines to stabilize waste sludge prior to drying and i disposal . It will also serve as a sludge thickener, reducing the load on the sludge drying beds by reducing the water content of the sludge. 8. Disconnect the yard hosing system from the Town's potable water supply system. Install a small pump, pressure tank, and the piping required to utilize the plant effluent as the hosing system source. 9. Pave a portion of the two existing sludge beds to allow the use of mechanical equipment in removing dried sludge. 10. Remove the existing fencing and replace with new six foot chain link fencing as required to enclose the entire 3.5 acre site now owned by the Town. , IV - 7 11 . Construct a compacted-earth dike around tte perimeter of the plant sii' to provide adequate flood protection for the plant. 12. Construct an addition to the Control Building to house lavatory and shower. Future construction, which may be required to meet the increasingly stringent discharge quality requirements, could consist of sand filters or mixed media filters. These could be constructed at the south end of the plant within the property limits of the existing site. Effluent from the new Chlorine Contact Basin could be pumped to the filters using the existing pumping facilities with only some minor changes in piping. Filtrate would be collected below the filters and discharged to Eaton Draw. Because in the past the existing Oxidation Ditch has demonstrated that it is capable of producing a discharge which meets the 1978 Colorado Standards, we believe that construction of advanced treatment units should be delayed. Completion of the proposed plant expansion and an intensive effort directed towards optimizing operation of the plant may eliminate the apparent need for advanced treatment units. Should it become clear that the plant simply cannot produce a discharge of sufficient quality or should it be deemed necessary in order to meet the 1983 and 1985 Federal law requirements, the currently proposed construction is readily adaptable for the addition of advanced treatment units. The cost of a mixed media filter system sized for a population of 3400 is estimated to be $35,000.00 at 1974 construction prices. IV - 8 .r y Project cost estimates for Alternate 5 are contained in Section V of this report. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT As prescribed by Federal law, EPA regulations, and good planning, the environmental effects of any proposed wastewater treatment facilities construction must be assessed and analyzed. The assessment must consider and attempt to predict the effects of the proposed construction on the local natural resources of land, air and water and the effect on the local social , economic and aesthetic values. We have previously discussed in some detail the economic and technical considerations of five alternative solutions for providing adequate waste- water treatment facilities for the Town of Eaton. In this section of the report, we will summarize our evaluation of the environmental effects of that alternate considered most feasible economically, the Duplication of the Oxidation Ditch. Land. The Town of Eaton owns 3.46 acres of land at the existing sewage treatment plant site. This is adequate area for the construction of a duplicate Oxidation Ditch wastewater treatment plant. However, approximately 2 of these acres are currently being farmed and the construction would require the removal of these 2 acres from productive agricultural use. Expansion of the wastewater treatment facilities will allow future growth in the Town of Eaton. This growth would further encroach on agricultural lands. IV - 9 The land in the immediate vicinity of the existing treatment facility is currently being utilized for agriculture and agricultural industries. Expansion of the sewage treatment plant would probably limit the future use of the surrounding land to agricultural , industrial or commercial purposes only. Waste sludge, after digestion and drying, will be disposed of in sanitary 6�,�� land fills. Continued growth will increase the quantity of waste sludge to be disposed of and will , of course, place more demand on sanitary land fill areas. Air. The use of aerobic bacteria in the treatment process and proper operation of the plant should reduce odors to an inoffensive level . Dust created by construction of the expansions at the plant site would be a temporary negative effect associated with the construction. Water. The construction of the Oxidation Ditch expansions is intended to provide adequate treatment capacity for the Town of Eaton as well as improved quality of effluent. Hence, an improvement in the quality of the water of Eaton Draw would be expected. The availability of adequate sewage treatment capacity would favor continued growth in and near Eaton with a consequent increase in water consumption. The Town currently derives its domestic water from groundwater sources. Growth would increase the demand on these sources. Flooding potential in Eaton Draw downstream of the Eaton sewage treatment plant site should not be affected by any expansion of the Eaton plant since IV - 10 additional quantity of flow being considered is on the order of 0.17 mgd average daily flow. Social . No relocation of people or disruption of community life would be necessitated by construction of the treatment plant expansion. The projected growth of the Town of Eaton, which would be allowed by the construction of an expanded plant is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, growth of the community would be a boon to the local economy. Yet uncon- trolled growth would threaten the very community fabric of this "small town". Aesthetics. There are no apparent archaelogical , cultural , or historical values threatened by construction of the expanded wastewater treatment plant at the existing site. While a sewage treatment plant is aesthetically pleasing to only a few, the construction of the expanded plant would employ a "low profile" concept enhanced by attractive landscaping and partially obscured by a flood protec- tion dike around the property. The preceding discussion of the anticipated environmental effects was developed for Alternate No. 5, construction of a duplicate oxidation ditch. However, all of the alternates considered, with the possible exception of Alternate No. 2, would be anticipated to have much the same or slightly worse environmental effect. While Alternate No. 2 would reduce the environmental impact of wastewater treatment in Eaton, it would generate considerable impact at the regional plant near Greeley. IV - 11 As explained in Section II, an environmental assessment of the proposed project is required of all EPA grant applicants. The foregoing discussion may satisfy the assessment requirements. A public hearing to discuss the proposed project would have to be conducted and the results of the meeting summarized prior to applying for an EPA grant. - IV - 12 • SECTION V COST ESTIMATE AND FINANCING COST ESTIMATE The estimated project cost for Alternate No. 5 is based on construction costs for similar projects in this area and on current equipment price estimates by manufacturers. Construction costs have been increasing at a rate of about 10 percent per year and delay in construction of the project will increase costs accordingly. OXIDATION DITCH DUPLICATION - PROJECT COST ESTIMATE 1 . Construct Oxidation Ditch $ 30,500 2. Construct two clarifiers 46,200 3. Construct Pump House 17,600 4. Pipe and Fittings in place 11 ,000 5. Convert existing Clarifier to Chlorine Contact Basin 1 ,000 6. Extend yard hosing system - disconnect from potable source 2,000 7. Construct Aerobic Sludge Digester 15,300 8. Construct Flood Protection Dike 4,100 9. Construct 6 foot chain link fence (2000 L.F.) 10,000 10. Construct addition to Control Building 3,000 11 . Miscellaneous - Comminutor, Flow Division Box, Sludge Bed Renovation 7,000 $147,700 10% Construction Contingency 14,800 Total Construction Cost $162,500 Engr. , Legal , Admin. (17%) 27,600 Total Project Cost $190,100 Say $190,000 FINANCING As discussed in Section II of this report, both Federal and State funds have been authorized for use as grants for the construction of sewage treatment facilities. Federal grants, through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are authorized for a maximum of 75 percent of the project cost. However, before an EPA grant for construction of sewage treatment facilities V - 1 can be obtained, the grant applicant must satisfactorily complete the requirements mertioned in Section II and must also obtain State certifi- cation of the proposed project. The Colorado Department of Health is guided in making the decision to certify a project by a "priority" list which has been developed to rank each municipality in the State in order of need, pollution problem intensity, and local stream quality. For fiscal year 1975, Colorado will receive about 31 million dollars through the EPA to be granted to projects certified by the State and approved by the EPA. Since not more than 50 percent of the State allocation can be received by one applicant, the Denver Metro area will probably receive not more than 15 million dollars. The balance will be granted in the order of the priority list to those municipalities who have demonstrated their readiness to proceed and their compliance with all published requirements. Discussions with the Colorado Department of Health personnel involved in certifying grant applicants indicate that they intend to dispense with all of the EPA allocation as rapidly as possible. They will approach each municipality in order of priority until one'who is ready to go to construction is found. State grants are limittJ to a maximum of 5 percent of the project cost if an EPA grant is obtained and 25 percent if no EPA funds are secured. State grant money is presently available for the remainder of fiscal year 1974. Authorizations for fiscal year 1975 have not yet been made. Other government agencies which have made funds available for construction of sewage collection and treatment facilities either as grants or as low V - 2 interest loans are: The Economic Development Administration (EDA) , the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Farmers Home Administration (FHA) . An appraisal of Eaton's chances for securing financial aid from these various sources based on discussions with the EPA and the Colorado Depart- ment of Health are as follows: 1 . Environmental Protection Agency. About 31 million dollars will be available in Colorado as EPA grants during fiscal year 1975. This is more than three times the amount available during fiscal year 1974. Eaton ranks 39th on the State's priority list. Depending on the dispatch with which the Town of Eaton pursues the project and the readiness of communities ranking higher in priority, Eaton may be in a very favorable position for obtaining maximum aid through an EPA grant. 2. Economic Development Administration. This agency has little money available and will be replaced by the Rural Development Act administered by the FHA. 3. Department of Housing and Urban Development. No money is available this year nor next ;fear. 4. Farmers Home Administration. Money is available for fiscal year 1975 in long term, low interest loans for water and sewer projects. Loans are for 40 years at 5 percent interest, but can be made only if no other reasonable sources of financing for the project can be found. 5. State of Colorado, Department of Health. Monies are presently available for 25 percent of the project cost for construction of sewage treatment V - 3 plants or t'eplacement of collection systems that are at least 20 years old. Money may be appropriated for fiscE.l year 1975. In addition to these sources of revenue, municipal bonds can be used to secure necessary funds. Eaton's bond indebtedness as of March 31 , 1973 consisted of a single sewer revenue bond issue with an outstanding principal of $36,000.00. Payment since then has reduced this debt to $32,000.00. Colorado law establishes a maximum limit of general obligation indebtedness which a non-home rule city can incur of 3 percent of actual value as determined by the assessor, except that there is no limit on general obligation bonds issued for supplying water. Eaton's 1973 assessed valua- tion was $2,277,850.00. Assessed value is 30 percent of actual value. Therefore, Eaton's actual valuation at the end of 1973 was $7,593,000.00. The maximum general obligation indebtedness which the Town can incur for any purpose except water supply is 3 percent of $7,593,000.00 or $227,790.00. Since it has no outstanding general obligation debt, the Town could issue general obligation bonds for $227,000.00 for use in constructing sewage treatment plant improvements. In addition to general obligation bonds, the Town of Eaton could issue sewer revenue bonds to finance the proposed sewage treatment facilities improve- ments. The maximum limit on the amount of revenue bond indebtedness which a town can incur is established by the bond market rather than by state law. V - 4 •c. , We have inves'-gated in a very preliminary manner possible alternative financing programs for the proposed construction. The Town's fiscal agent must assist the Town in defining an actual financing schedule when the Town is prepared to proceed with the proposed construction. Our objective was to determine the approximate additional cost of the proposed construction to each owner of a sewer connection. We have based our analysis on three alternates: 1 . The Town will obtain an EPA grant for 75 percent of the project cost. The Town's share will be $47,500.00. 2. The Town will obtain a State of Colorado grant for 25 percent of the proposed construction. The Town's share will be $142,500.00. 3. The Town will fund the entire project cost of $190,000.00. We have assumed that the Town will issue sewer revenue bonds at 7 percent interest with maturities of 10, 15, and 20 years for Alternates 1 , 2, and 3 respectively. We have assumed the current number of sewer connections to be 659 with an annual growth rate of 2.5 percent, or 16 connections per year. An additional operation and maintenance expense of 7500.00 per year, increasing by 5 percent annually, was included. The current connection fee of $300 was used for each new connection. In addition to the expense of retiring the bond debt and annual operation and maintenance costs, we have attempted to generate a reasonable surplus of V - 5 funds for use in future sewage collection and treatment system expansion and repl acemem . The results of our financial analysis are as follows: Additional Additional Bond Service Mill Alternate Issue Maturity Charge _ Levy 1 $ 47,500 10 yrs. $1 .25/month 0 2 $142,500 15 yrs. $2.30/month 0 3 $190,000 20 yrs. $2.50/month 0 An alternative method of generating all or part of the required funds would be to levy an additional tax. Each additional 1 mill of tax would increase the monthly service charge required by about $0.25. The Town's current tax levy is 21 .84 mills, while the monthly service charge is only $2.00. In any case, the additional cost per sewer connection would be approximately $28.80 per year, assuming that neither State nor Federal grant money can be obtained and would be about $14.40 per year if a 75 percent EPA grant was secured. V - 6 • - v �d W 14 W U t + FORT s s PIERCE COLLINS ' 14 AULT } EATON LOVELAND 4 i REELEY f +' 6G _. PLATTEVILLE 'mss ,. LONGMONT FORT 0 a LUPTO BOULDER � BRIG! TON f,. METRO DENVER . :., _ 7 CASTLE ROCK • 0 15 10 5 O 15 00 SCALE IN MILES c� TOWN OF EATON, COLORADO LOCATION MAP NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON, and QUIRK ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT NO. I 1O Om� ®0_cm Z<L-B 0 N. t--- IN,,,,\N,, r® a�MO F--5-I PLUMz. O I ( -,k.„ a. is.0Cii� LU® � � �p De- (O'O �� '�9 �aa 0 LU!II w co O Lti WO 0 1 CO 1W ,U _J caw—JAW z ILL' i = c� W o 0Z d Er - NZ_J�� O' ®' CO0 N a_ a_ w Cry+ N w>- d = O cfjw®J Oi tr i EfiXi- pl >-I 0CC17—L IX j0i _ c.1 0 waCw i U �o r b c.) ()ODUU U z 4 >7 V7 LU < w al._. \\t a I- Z Q B a. i1 0 N C) 0 O 0 0 00 00 0 M N N 2 POPULATION F owv IZAWL n•,--.-- - f I1 P I w t I- O V) F` 8 m 1 I a 6 II w ou U (n r w I 1- W Q J 3 (90_ Z ww 1 N� CC w� g O cr rn F Q W zw z l- - 0 d m • CC t, f- QO cZ I J I O F-o wo 1-1-1 CC Z waa 0. Q d 1 I-- W.2¢- - l- 4s }Z G¢99aINL1 1£ 035 3 rj_ W a_ 0 TN �1 U, fl lil -±.* W \\\ 1S Hatl10 ••••-..,0,.., .,y' ; � N W _1S ,...!„,3„,,,,.!.;;„...„.„13;::,,; '; I �a • a „By, • ' 1141 0....-� .} IlV l re 11 J 1 0 I / %"��•• r 133a1S - r I F (m,) 013 I �.H NOy.:,,,..�'.; Irr.1I II- W W W•il ' I W - ✓ 13 I I' .,tp 9 N N N I O y 17 IIal QI T� v7 I I-2 CO ln ` / l ' -- - 133815 I I Ell- 31dtlW ' 9 • -•- w4 I '8 I ❑J I �tUn 1H ' � III . i "9 II? -•y s 3rIN3Atl o I 3.N3A3H7 ZI LeN I� „e g J r ¢ 3f1N3Atl I Ow Matld `.1,,;� I Z NO • • •�a.X O „8 wl'S 11 I ne I N,s � � O I N w �Jr_ 3f1N3Atl I ±au 000 90110 ` , a , I _ • 8 I1 a- 1S HOHIB - I I �I'l • ��`� lO • HStl f"•'�a,�,•- 1S HStl` I W - I atl030 I V N I •D - I - - - - - - - � - M 998'NL1 9S 39S 3 - g - In s . -1• • o I I /,! ° I / r\ --- -- 4863 �f686< _ 3. Packtlra <9/J 8H 41 i / / Gal C ursE4• ii- ./ . � l i tti \r 7 2 ,,.es 0 = 9Q-1 (I 1 I2 \ .:‘1 -----5= === =7L---_\-)I (----) • _ \ m n I \ 0 I \ x 'i ` 4856 '-'o 4865 i \ 0.`1' 4873•- 3 .01 1/ I \ \ • I „ ',y I ..,. �, ,L,/ __=_ ° Imo, f I . 0 `,� E TO6� 3 ( 14) i GREAT .WESTERN 6 / , \5 t•.',' (IIM• 48 ` ° <as6 I - -/ }.11 4,10.etiist,3 a ..i �w�tii�a \ I•High&5, 0 /r: qj Y, ` T -1 I = 'd,... -K .4--il ,.. A-1.1 jy. V.. - 4\ . 1 \ . 'A; \:;;;/-----______/- .iii y • Nki • \ (/��!/j) ) PL'f.NI SFr\ il- -i A z X71‘. \ ° 1 I 60 0 I ; \ 1-' i 0.4% \\f\\\ __, l / 48/6 . i •\ikr) 1 { k:- I nw7 '(► i . la% \ \I :il • 0 I ': -j ' Il i _ • \_ 4607 o wru. \ I/ �5 826 �� —_ — _�— --� A r TOWN OF EATON, COLORADO SITE MAP NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON, and QUIRK ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS EXHIBIT NO.4 __. -* ......7�is...i r 2 kJ H LQ m t,J � DF w wW .tea Q W / O I / c C' X I (/ cc O d cn Q I--� I— . UW Z W O F- Q U �x x K O a 0 A.. Q r r c W _j 111 Q W c —I t$ 1 cc } O0. -W III • C LJ~L1�/� x O C r0 w r. N it I es m om t (n U I O C I f.0 o CO o n I« o — i 2 . . I \ t LT- ,f W Q� l CI • C U t r t: m 2 = d I I\ I, OC-41I—i‘i. I 4 I I CU 10 2 I c (1 c c E r ,o0£ / ir I ,51Z— a tI' a-rw Y CC 0 Q H VOd da o O I, r, 0d a }z a III g r w Jw li g Ell _ -0: <I W I a a '°Im Q 3 I I'H o` z z I� l Z O LI ,- ll Id C° o % F. z M I % x m $ II v ! U m \ /� w -LS III I yla lo W I N Ti I I , y v I II ' f60 t Q o v ti I! t o 2 - o c 3 U ll v o II ]r c I N o I o H n 3 I =II - o w I I z • cN I I. o c1 (n O \\'\ rn m �a o c c • \‘1\ -1Q U yy u+ tk I \ — -- 1 I I J I0 OI 1I '`` orn iI . I J— `/ I f \J '1 I, + Io II nN i 1 I ^ �L I \o4 w � b w '.O17'- m- 1 :_gctou3tc:i 1 ao: f �Z o \::V) 3 o p U N x U I c� c 5m 1 ----- 1--- --�- - /- ,00E I------_-_� _ -bL-oN pooa_iuno� - --—- - - — A T ENDANCE R E C D R Applicant : Town of Eaton Time ; 10:00 A.M. Docket #75-2 c/o Dr. H. P. Christensen, Mayor Date: January 27, 1975 Request ; SUP, Sewage Treatment Facilities NAME ADDRESS NOTICE uursriant to the zoning laws of thr Idt of Colorado a public hearing wit'be hr idm the Off ce of the Board of County Commr,- sioners of Weld County Colorado 1516 Hospita Road, Greeley Colorado,at the time specified All persons in any manner interested in the Special Use Permit are re- quested to BE IT ALSO KNOWN than the text and map-so certified by the Weld County Plan- ning Commission may be examined in the Office of the Board of County Commision- crs 1516 Hospital Road Greeley,Colorado Docket No 75-2 Town of Eaton c o Dr H P Chnstenser, Mayor 223 First Street Eaton Colorado 80615 Date January 27 1975 Time 1000AM Request Special Use Permit- Sewage Treatment Facilities A tract of land located in the Northeast Dealer iNE'4) of Section 6 Township 6 North Range 65 West of the 6th P M,Weld County Colorado,being more particularly described as follows Beginning at the Northwest Corner 1NWCor1 of the exhistino Town of Eaton Sewage Disposal Plant property as platted and recorded in the Records of Weld County.Colorado Thence South rlyalong the West boundary of said Disposal Plant property 450 00 feet Thence Easterly along the South boundary of sac Disposal Plant property 100 00 feet to the Southeast Corner (SECor) of said Disposal Plant bountary Thence Southerly on an exten- sion of the East boundary of said Disposal Plant property 62 0 feet Thence South 27 20 West 184 7 feet more or less Thence Westerly parallel to the South boundary of said Disposal Plant property, 215 0 feet Thence Northerly parcllel to the West boundary of said Disposal Plant prop- erty 676 0 feet Thence Easterly parallel to the North line of said Northeas' Quarter (NE'ai 200 0 feet to the True Point of Begin- ning The above described tract of land con- tains 3 46 acres more or less THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY,COLORDO BY S LEE SHEHEE JR COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD Datn1 December 24 1974 P i bhched December 27 1974 and January 17 19'5 ir, the rna n u,,,,,,,g- il u-.6i GIs d to ua l:4i MAIL-30c (pros postage) I Town of Eaton POSTMARK SEW' TOOR DATE c/o Dr. H. P. Christensen 1223 1st St. P.O. STATE AND ZIP CODE ` 75 E Eaton, Colo. 8061.5 130_ ____-- / / OPTIC:JAL SE.RV.L.a G'n Av'11TEUNDL FEES__ _ • RG40Ri7 1. Shows to rc:c:3 c'id d.to dahvered . . 150 With dein cry to addressee only. .65¢ REC1kT 2. Shiws to when',date and where delivered . 35¢ SEC ACES nth d^udcrj to addressee only___.85d__ OrLIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY .. 50d • SPFCIAL DELIVERY (entre fear retivired)•• C� , , ,'^ °R,^'7"'''7 FgJi"RAGU PROVIDED— (See other side) . „ ,. ...--- - 1, L'1!-IL *GPO 1072 O-460-743 C(C 2-- V ''...' , i''/ ',.-' /- e .._(6".,Z .z -Z.Z z C 2e, „(1 1,1_‘414_: "Z---7-,- ..-_ _( , ,„ - ,,, ("-- , v/17?;,,.. Cf • 3 • SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2. I Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on reverse. N 1. The following service is requested (check one). 2 Show to whom and date delivered 150 gO Show to whom,date,&address of delivery.. 350 DELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESSEE and v show to whom and date delivered 650 w O DELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESSEE and show to whom,, date, and address of delivery 850 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: Town of Eaton c/o Christensen. „ 223 1st St. m Eaton, Colo. 80615 m m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. z 83044 I (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) I have received the article described above. SIGNATURE `� --0C'4 _ . .-1" SPY i g ¢' NJ LAM — ST171 O 5. ADDRESS (Complete only If requeste epePcj•/ 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: .717:;;I: LS g F Eaton 1/29/75 *GPO:1914 0-527-803 aSENDER Complete items 1 and 2. • SENDER Complete items 1 and 2. o Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on ' e Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on reverse. i reverse. co CO 1. The following service is requested (check one). �" 1. The following service is requested (check one). r a Show to whom and date delivered 150 [ Show to whom and date delivered 154 2 2 Show to whom,date,& address of delivery 350 o Show to whom, date, & address of delivery.. 350 DELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESSEE and .. DELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESSEE and w show to whom and date delivered 650 w show to whom,and date delivered 650 DELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESSEE and O DELIVER ONLY TO ADDRESSEE and show to whom, date, and address of --_show to whom, date, and address of delivery 850 delivery 850 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: A A 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: Haythorn Farms M Jack B. Groves C Rt. 2, Box 48W z Rt. 2 m Eaton, Colo. 80615 m Eaton, Colo. 80615 m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO. 83878 A 183877 I m o O (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) 1 (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) N m • I have received the article described above. m I have received the article described above. CSIGNAT RE 0 SIGNATURE /// c /DATOF c a 4./..xl DELIVERY_ /� ` Sy �J K G D E OF DELIVERY POSTMARK t U 'IJ7 ` >0-- -i C 5. ADDRESS (Complete only if reque d) �t"r•n z 5. ADDRESS (Complete onl if requested) rn xi rti 71 G 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: �IALS O 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: \ CLERK'S INITIALS D D e GPO•1974 G-527-803 Dock 7 5``2 1 *GPO:1974 O-527-803 Dock 75-2 , r RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-304, (plus postage) SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE __ Haythorn Farms SIREE, AND NO, CAD Rt-.---2_,__Box--4'8W I' P,O, STATE AND ZIP CODE (X) (( 7l ^• ) — �-t� IONAC Itl RES Feniitl dN . FEES -150- RETURN RETURN 1. Shows ith delivery o addressee delivered- 650 12/27/74 RECEIPT 2. Shows to whom•date and where delivered , 35e SERVICES With deln.:ry to addressee only_ 850_ DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 50d o SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)• Z '. 7Yr„ NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) Apr. 1971 � NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL o GPO•1072 O-469-743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED IVIAIL-304; (plus postage) SEN1 TO POSTMARK Jack B B. Groves OR DATE I c-REET AND NO. IN'''.- ! Rt. 2 I-,.. P.0, STATE AND ZIP CODE ( ) I Eaton, Colo. 80615 (3-) OPTIONAL SGIVICLS VCR ADDITIONAL FEES ',..(,) mown1. Shoe,o to whoa cod late delivered . ... 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only . 650 2. Shows to whom date and where delivered . 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only.. . . 850 12/27/74 ® DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 50d ® SDEClAL DELIVERY (extra fee required)• - - �� " (See other side) � Apr. 1971 '�'�� €;� ;:,�CcrplE_ COVERAGE PROVIDED-- NOT GO:1 WEFINATION L MAIL *G"O.1072 O-460-743 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-304, (plus postage) r SENT TO POSTMARK OR DATE , Great Western Sugar Co. S E EE- ,1ND NO CO Eaton _ _—_ I� • IP O., SThiE AND ZIP CODE n✓ RR(n� r� Cr., I ' C°191-4PTI033ACSYe kE5 {-OIi ADDITIONAL FEES — 12/27/74 1 Shows to v,dc❑and D-to delivered 150 CO RETt;ue,1 Wit-i deluery to addressee only 650 I RECEIPT 2, Shows to whom,date and where delivered:. 350 SERVICES With deliver,/to addressee only .. .._850_ D I DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY _- . _ _ - 50d 1 '_, • !-,---e•fee required) ; P5 T^" s,,, . 13 INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other sido) ;_:, P-u FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-304, (plus postage) 1 SErti TO POSTMARK Town of Eaton OR DATE • ' STREET.ND NO. 0-) 223 1st St. i - P O., STATE AND ZIP CODE 07 _ Eaton, Colorado 80615 12/27/74 ;) _OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES C.--(...--)C.--(...--) RETURN 1. Shorts to (*theca _ihea and Date delivered 150 RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 650 2, Shows to whom date and where delivered . 350 • SERVICES With den_very to_addresseo_o_nly...,. ._. 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY . 50d_ ® I SDECIA! 'a'•r IV (R,'ra fie rr'q,i-ad) I , Z PS Farm - ';{CI?P'NCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See other side) i1 :,,'''J Apr. 1971 NOT VG:i I:,ITERNATIONAL MAIL *GPO 1972 O-460-743 Hello