Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7.0 Correspondence
Garfield County Commissioners 109 - 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 Buckley Arbaney Arnold Mackley Marian Smith 7040 Co. Rd. 214 New Castle, CO.81647 February 3, 1996 ; 1\1 j::: if 1;:, COUNTY GCW.;`hiOSIONERS The comments and observations in this letter are my own and do not necessarily reflect the wishes or goals of the Peach Valley Group opposing the Cedar Hills Subdivision. I am 68 years of age which, (in my opinion) gives me a "data base" from which to launch my statements, not available to those of fewer years and less experience. First, my philosophy on the matter of the subdivision: there are more and more people in this country (and world) every year - they must have a place to live, and they will have a place to live in areas like Peach Valley. To stop this influx would be equivalent to "Plowing The Ocean" - Futile. Another reason I am a unique and critical participant in this action - I am also one who is subdividing a parcel of land. There are significant differences, however: My subdiv- ision is in central Missouri, it is much smaller, it is served by a state highway and Rural Water Supply. In Howard County, MO. there is NO ZONING governing construction or land use. Although my area is apparently secure, it would be perfectly legal for an un- scrupulous developer to establish a trailer park, hog confinement or rendering plant on an adjacent parcel and I could watch my investment vaporize: "The other side of the coin"! The Peach Valley Group can take comfort that Garfield CO. does have a P&Z committee whether they believe that committee is functioning properly or not. The Crux of my letter is this: you County Commissioners have as much or more resp- onsibility than the opposition to act on the basis of Facts and not Hear -Say, Emotion nor Clever Legal Deception. An example in point would be to determine the output of a test well (and it's effect on the surrounding ground water level), at the most opportune time for the developer. My neighbor had a well which produced an abundance of water at the time of purchase (while the Roseman Ditch was running: Spring Time) but when the irrigation water was shut off, so too was the well water: he dug another well, closer to my well. I can document this incidence. I had no objection because he had to have water. My final and greatest concern in this matter is some advice to you, the Commissioners: Do Not Be Deceived By Clever Legal Maneuvering into the Trap Of: FAIT ACCOMPLI fill! Respectfully, William D. Richards (Owner of former Tarro Farm) /A\ Colorado Town & Country Realty, Inc. February 12, 1996 Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners, This letter is being written concerning new subdivisions in the Silt area. Almost two years ago, my husband and I moved to Silt from Carbondale. We purchased 40 acres four and a half miles up Dry Hollow Road. My husband commutes to Aspen to work, taking the bus from Glenwood. It's a long trip for him, however we feel the benefitsof living in this area are worth it.. I have lived in Garfield County for about 30 years and have had a chance to observe the changes that have affected us all during that time. It seems that the trend, starting in Aspen, and moving down to Carbondale and Glenwood, has been growth policies creating crowded conditions for moderate income families, at the same time making it impossible for those families to afford anything else. I'm not sure how this has come about, but most of it has been accompanied by "no growth" policies. Aspen, 30 years ago, was "no -growth". Now it is a combination of almost ghetto -like dwellings (called affordable housing) sprawling billionaire residences and in between homeowners, those who were able to stay, many of whom rent their homes short term to pay enormous taxes. The no -growth policy has become it's own worst enemy. By placing so many restrictions on subdivisions, only land developers can subdivide, and most go for as much density as they can get. With density comes increased social problems. My daughter and three other friends rent a 1,200 sq. ft. modular in Carbondale. They have no yard, the neighbors house is less than 20 feet away, and it works out to be 300 sq. ft. per person at $1,000 per month rent. An expensive ghetto. It's moving this way. Let's start making some sense to this progression. Instead of taking a no -growth stance that moves residents out of their own town, lets manage growth and put some control back into the hands of property owners other than big money developers. Lets plan open space to balance density. There are three subdivisions projects that come to mind as examples. First, the Lyon Subdivision adjacent to Silt. This seems to be a good place for that kind of density, and the lots are affordable. There is plenty of room for services close by along Highway 6 & 24. There are plans for two parks to balance multi -family units. 730 Main Street • Silt, Colorado 81652 (970) 876-5432 FAX (970) 876-2344 REALTOR The second is Cedar Hills in Peach Valley. Norm Classen has done his homework. He is in keeping with the density and character of the surrounding area, the parcels being between 2.5 and 5.7 acres. There is water on the property to meet the needs of the 17 homesites proposed. Three homesites are already there. He has approached this project with integrity toward the land, and the privacy of the residents of his subdivision and the surrounding neighbors. The third is Stillwater, the proposed golf course and residential area. Now we're getting out of proportion. This is a rural area across a bridge from services, schools, and thorofares to travel to work, etc. Let's take a hard look at this one. How is everyone going to get off the interstate at the end of a work day and across the bridge? What will be the impact of this type of density on the tiny town of Silt? What about the amount of water being requested by these developers? Are we prepared to dry up half of Divide Creek agricultural lands to accommodate them? I believe there can be a sensible solution to growth in this area. By planning growth and keeping density close to services and thorofares we can accommodate growth and keep the rural quality of our area as well. It's not just out-of-state people or out -of -county people that move here. Colorado residents move here. Garfield County residents move within Garfield County. In my work at Colorado Town & Country Realty in Silt, I can honestly say that not one individual has come in our office requesting a home on a 60 x 100 lot in a subdivision. Most are looking for 2 to 10 acres with some privacy and open space. Perhaps to raise some 4-H animals. I would like to see the subdivision process go back to accommodate some of this type of growth using a project such as Cedar Hills as a standard. I would like to be able to pass my property on to more than one of my children. Lets quit creating ghettos and bring some common sense back into the subdivision process. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Karen Trulove 6411 214 Road New Castle, CO 81647 (970) 984-3161 February 14, 1996 Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Cedar Hills Subdivision Dear Commissioners: FFu 1 u GARHELL LL COUNTY COMMISS;CNERS We want to thank you and commend you for your very thoughtful consideration of all the potential ramifications of the proposed Cedar Hills Subdivision, which many believed would easily gain your approval. The proposal is, admittedly, well thought-out and one after which we hope other proposed developments will be modeled once a comprehensive plan for growth in the County is in place. We also wish to express our alignment with our Peach Valley neighbors who believe that approval of this subdivision at this time is premature and will set a precedent for additional unplanned growth that could destroy the agricultural viability of the valley, the lifestyle of families who have lived here for years (some for generations), and the unquestionable specialness of the area --not to mention the potential for immediate impact on surrounding neighbors whose own water supply is already variable. We are also concerned about the safety of the Peach Valley Road, which has seen quite an increase in the volume and speed of traffic in recent years. Many of our neighbors have already written to you expressing their concerns. At your 2/12/96 meeting, Mr. Melton proposed that property owners should be he accountable and responsible for the financial impact of their actions on the surrounding area. What a wonderful idea! And we would add our concern not only with the financial impact, but also with the cost to the integrity of the lifestyle of other property owners who choose to live in any given area. This is, of course, a question not easily resolved within the current structure of approvals and denials, but certainly one which deserves much thought. 9 - Finally, we wish to specifically note our agreement with Ken Kuhns' communications with you, which are so complete and compelling. Again, thank you for your thorough examination of all the issues involved in this proposed development. We are encouraged that with such thoughtful consideration as this, we may yet be able to preserve the uniqueness of Peach Valley and Garfield County as a whole, with a comprehensive plan for controlled growth. Sincerely, 1��i�s �GC'CL�� Jim Chenoweth and Barbara. Needham -Chenoweth (300 9 A rArk L MARIAN SMITH Glenwood Springs 81601 ARNOLD MACKLEY Rifle 81650 BUCKEY ARBANEY Glenwood Springs, 81601 February 13, 1996 GARFIELD COUNTY Board of County Commissioners TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Lisa Cain RE: Citizen Comments on Cedar Hills Subdivision COUNTY COURTHOUSE 109 8th Street Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303 Telephone: (303) 945-9158 (303) 625-5571 CHUCK DESCHENES County Administrator Yesterday, after the public hearing on Cedar Hills began, I received a phone call from Fred Kuersten, who owns property adjacent to the subdivision. He has the following comments on the subdivision: 1. The developer, not taxpayers, should pay for widening CR 214 in five places: (a) at the irrigation ditch by Herbert Nelson's property; (b) at the ditch by the Diemozes; (c) at the ditch at the Snode-Chaplin property line; (d) at the narrow place near the entrance to Cedar Hills; and (e) at the ditch next to the Becker property. 2. The additional traffic on CR 214 will cause CR 214 (which is marginal now) to need to be resurfaced in a couple of years. Please take this additional cost into consideration, and please don't burden taxpayers with it. 3. Cedar Hills is not considered to be in a floodplain, but the residents know better. Road & Bridge has had to clear mud from the roads about every 3 years in the last 10. 4. The subdivision will change waterways in the area. What will be the impact of this on current residents? Shouldn't the developer get an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit? 5. There will not be adequate water for this development. The tests showing that there will be were done in wet years. Wells in the area go dry in most years. If you would like to speak with Mr. Kuersten, I have his unlisted telephone number. `0•111111111111111111111111111111mOIMIP"' FrP, i 2 COUNTY COM.MISOIOVI: id/AW irl/a7 "ef4/11i6L') (//1 aA Jt eAJ) 4t -0-21,e34 L42-4 4.& ,n1 -11/w -Ge4,6-e-ru (e_& s4i4.tbd) /211-ez-1 ,411/42olg --uAJ 0t /(6 g4el ,/L/ ti6-6z) W,6 AAA-Lte, 611A) z-uAJ deitv..41 po-te-mEAAL (iN/yz(tc pizyL 915--dA/6 ,a,6--a--/Ae &be.- iCe7eyvi_7(e CLLf' tz.ta d4/LOL Vt-,t,o) a/te.,2) 14/i/ce, cdi-ete.6t- se7'L 1()5UJi.. .4 ‘.1(/(--,61 jLt , G()a- c&JA-4 1aL 62-&4•/y2 cL1I'L a4I 4 2./ (j(Ja/(.C/ (24/Lee 74,14,& / / /.// apt) ,e7yt / oo :5 4 it_tvg.d& aitt, Azetzkei ytiu, 64-7/1_. 2!://L . itis , J 1 ,/jvt.tC'-1 Gem'lla C - AL& 1;2/1 e_etA.e6 wet, ete6,11-L641,e, — -� aq)1,4--6-6-)-1, A ' ✓13- / 'li K�C.� ./l/� 2- i te-t--. 4 (1Y (/ '&-Le-- n dt6, (4)-e "124-1-6.() dbt 2 pi-cent-1y_7'YI 0-11.4.4 -C (zeceitee-f/ -t/Le., 6/56,67u a.e ,w--/u;ch /71,eg-1J641, tiv ! /u/ -66e Z/12131 -t( -ed, AelrnL /62-eitYed Gt61/V-r�,- � � ,fit -�Gc�;u�v .e/() -(,6#D -10 -r‘4 -7,L) `: / / o A)-6 6-r/t/ ,(,t,e_ce, .44/Lee ..60 AA,L;,eL ,64t 4_tewgz giuet.6-,(gow iA) 014J �c�,�e .�, !tet � o-�, d, � -t!w 4.641, ietrek #4_,g4 -v 67-Av Cv`ACt-t- 1 da) ou44 JAie( 48/4(5, br cv�� REG FFA r^ i February 5. 1996 Commiss To the Garfield County i ARFI ip oNERS SSf u1 l COM WII In the coming week. on Monday. February 12, you will be asked to approve or deny the Cedar Hills subdivision in Peach Valley. Even after more than three months of planning commission hearings on the proposal, one denial and one approval, there continue to oe numerous questions that remain unanswered. Many residents of Peach Valley have spoken out at meetings, signed petitions, and written letters asking that their property rights, their community integrity, and their iiviihoods be protected from leapfrog development and urban sprawl. Questions continue to exist regarding adequacy of well water. wisdom of irrigation water use for lawn and landscape watering, poor percolation rates for septic systems above an existing irrigation ditch, narrow county roads leading to the site, lack of mitigation for district school impacts, incompatability with the proposed county (and town of Silt) comprehensive plans, and the failure to invest in and respect a valuable disappearing natural resource: productive agricultural lands. Peach Valley has a long history of productive agriculture. Apple, apricot, peach orchards and small truck farms, begun at the start of the century, exist today along side farms and ranches growing nay and grains and feeding cattle. With its gentle south facing slopes. fertile topsoil. access to markets. and excellent water rights. Peach Valley is a valuable asset better suited for regional agricultural production than for growing houses. Continuous approval of sprawling, poorly planned land divisions. burdens current landowners and forces prices upward. further eroding a once strong farm economy. There are ways to slow this trend. Many of those ideas are outlined in the proposed comprehensive pian and could keep agriculture accessible to suceeding generations. Farms, ranches. businesses. and families do not operate successfully without proper planning and foresight. This particular pian awaits your leadership and approval. Much has been said recently about the need for more funds to improve roads and services throughout the county. A possible sales tax is being discussed to this end. Personally, we will not support such a tax until such time as a plan is in place regarding how those monies will be used. how they fit into a foreward looking picture of the western end of this county, and an expiaination of why urban sprawl and its promoters are being subsidized by our tax dollars. Traffic, emergency services, and school impacts on neighboring towns of New Castle and Silt are being overlooked, as well as the effect this type of development will have on the integrity of the Peach Valley community. In the last several years, several larger acreage parcels in the Valley have been broken into smaller lots through "exemption laws" in the current codes. Many of these parcels are currently not built out. (Several have not even hit well water). This leaves the potential for even greater problems if new, larger subdivisions continue to be approved without stopping to take a look at the long term costs of such policy, along with the impacts of what has already been approved to this date. You are currently facing a huge dilemma up Four Mile Road because of inadequate long term planning by your predecessors. The very same issues exist in Peach Valley. The difference is that you now are on the front end, and have the opportunity to change the equation through informed decision making based on current facts and hindsight. If this subdivision is approved, many more in this Valley will soon be on your desks awaiting approval. The developers are waiting. Why create more costs to taxpayers, our children and the heirs to your commission seats? What will be your legacy? Our family iivlihood is 90o based in small-scale agriculture. We have seen increasingly strong production in the past ten years. We moved back to this Valley 18 years ago to pursue farming, and would like to continue. Reasonable taxes, adequate water supplies, strong farm support services, and strong markets will allow us to do that. Please don't undermine this possibility with poor choices. Lets take care of what we have now and put pians in place to structure the future before we add to the problems. You do have a choice. You CAN vote no. Thanks for your attention in this matter, *(9S Ken and Gail Kuhns'and family LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH CAROLYN M. STRAUTMAN CYNTHIA C. TESTER LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW December 7, 1995 Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Cedar Hills Ranch Preliminary Plat Dear Eric: 1011 GRAND AVENUE P.O. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261 FAX: (970) 945-7336 As I mentioned on the telephone, we have made some minor revisions to Sheets 2 and 3 of the preliminary plat submittal. Enclosed are 20 copies of the revised sheets (one of which is being sent directly to Don DeFord with his copy of this letter. The changes that were made are: 1. We clarified that the irrigation ditch shown on Sheet 2 is an easement for the benefit of downgradient owners of shares in the Roseman Ditch (see Plat Note 11). 2. We clarified the purpose of the easements shown on Lot 1 for utilities and well locations. 3. We clarified that the 20 -foot BLM access easement is for pedestrian and non- vehicular purposes only and, as set forth in Plat Note 12, that such access easement is solely for the benefit of the homeowners association and lot owners within the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision. BLM does not want this to be a public access permit. Also, the location of this easement, in the northern section, will be located off the lot line and will follow the location of the existing trail which will be surveyed prior to the time of final plat. 4. We clarified that the 15 -foot utility easement to the Fire Storage Pond located on Lot 16 is also for emergency access purposes. 5. We clarified that the easement across Lot 9 is an access easement for Lot 17. We will prepare a driveway maintenance agreement between Lot 9 and Lot 17 for approval by the County Attorney prior to or as part of the final plat process, unless you would like that document now. C: \ FILES \MCCAFFER.1 LT LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Mr. Eric McCafferty Page 2 December 7, 1995 6. We added Plat Note 13 to ensure that the utility easements can be utilized by the homeowners association for water lines. 7. We modified the dedication language in the Certificate of Dedication by the inclusion of specific dedication language regarding the various easements, etc. We also deleted the duplicitous Board of County Commissioners' certificate (there were two on the sheet previously provided). The typographical error in the spelling of dedication will be corrected prior to final plat. Also, in the drainage plan, on page 1, there is a typographical error which refers to 17 residential lots. As you know, there are 18 residential lots. Finally, we are enclosing a copy of the updated letter from the Division of Wildlife dated November 6, 1995. Inadvertently, the earlier letter dated March 30, 1995, was included in the preliminary plat submittal by High Country Engineering. For your convenience, I am also enclosing 20 copies of this letter so everyone who receives the revised Sheets 2 and 3 can receive the explanation of the changes. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. . Leavenworth LEL: rin Enclosures cc: Don DeFord, Esq. w/enc. Norm Clasen w/enc. Tom Zancanella w/enc. High Country Engineering C: \FILES\MCCAFFER.1 LT P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Z4NC4NELL4 4110 4550014TEs ENGINEERING CONSULT4NITS November 7, 1995 Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Eric: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax 110Y 1 3 ,1995 rf i"'ELD C7Y 11 As we have discussed previously, four Tots of the Cedar Hills Subdivision have frontage on County Road 214: Lots 1, 18, 19 and 20. Lot 1 has an existing residence that has been using an exempt domestic well ( permit # 175363 to serve the residence. The well was constructed in March, 1994 with an estimated production rate of12 gpm. Well #2 has historically served two existing residences located on Lots 18 and 19. Because of the distance from the central system, Mr. Clasen proposes to serve Lots 19 and 20 from the existing Well #2 and serve Lot 18 from the central system. Well #2 was constructed under well permit # 176514 and was decreed in water court case W-1203 with a priority date of April 21, 1967. An easement has been provided so that if necessary, at the owner's expense, a service connection could be made to the central water system. The proposed augmentation plan provides for all Tots in the subdivision. Table 1 lists the water quality test results from Well #3, the 180 foot deep test well that was constructed for use at the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision in Garfield County. The water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health regulates the maximum contaminant levels for inorganic chemicals (IOC's). As you can see, the Cedar Hills well passes all of these parameters. Table 1 Maximum Contaminant Levels for Inorganic Chemicals (IOC's) Contaminant MCL in mg\L Cedar Hills Well #3 mg\L Arsenic 0.05 0.003 Fluoride 4.0 2.71 Asbestos 7 million fibers\liter <2 million fibers\liter Table 1(cont) Maximum Contaminant Levels for Inorganic Chemicals (IOC's) Barium 2 0.04 Cadmium 0.005 0.0000 Chromium 0.1 0.003 Mercury 0.002 0.00000 Nitrate 10 (as Nitrogen) 0.02 Nitrite 1 (as Nitrogen) <0.01 Total Nitrate +Nitrite 10 (as Nitrogen) 0.02 Selenium 0.05 <0.002 Antimony 0.006 <0.001 Beryllium 0.004 <0.001 Cyanide (as free Cyanide) 0.2 <0.002 Nickel 0.1 <0.001 Thallium 0.002 <0.001 Water quality tests were also performed for Pesticides, Herbicides, and Radioactive Particles ( see attached ), all of which were within the levels that are regulated by the Colorado Department of Health. In addition, several other water quality parameters were tested; however these are only recommended standards. We have continued to monitor the water level in Well No.3 to determine its seasonal variability. The well was originally tested on June 16, 1995. At that time, the static water level in the well was 73.17 feet below the top of the well casing. During the period when the 20 hour pumping test was conducted between June 16 and June 17, 1995, the total drawdown in the well was 10.3 feet. The well was pumped at a rate of 23 gallons per minute, which is approximately three times the average annual daily demand of the subdivision (7.5 gpm). The well pump test drawdown curve appeared to stabilize at this rate. This would indicate that the well could be pumped long term at a rate of 23 gallons per minute. It is my opinion that this well is adequate to serve the proposed Cedar Hills subdivision. Figure 1 is a graphical representation of the water level in Well No.3 since June 16, 1995. From this graph, you can see that the available water in the well has steadily increased since the pumping test. It is our opinion that conducting a pump test at a water level higher than the one that was observed in the initial test would only serve to show that the well has greater capacity than was originally demonstrated. We propose to monitor the water level; if the water drops to a depth greater than 75 feet below ground level, then we would propose to perform additional testing. If not, then it is our opinion that this well is adequate to serve the needs of the 18 units. We recommended the second well to provide mechanical reliability to the water system. If you have any questions, please call our Glenwood Springs office at 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. /7:14 'ia , 4 7�3, vcc c .i F3 )14 Thomas A. Zancanella, P.E. President TAZ/maz/95213 Received from: G AI JOHN C KEPHART & CO. J \CT 435 NORTH AVENUE • �Aa PHONE 242-7618 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 ANALYTICAL REPORT Zancanella & Assoc,. T. Lance Glenwood Springs, CC, (970)949-5700 Customer No. Laboratory No 1 1 `? Sample 'rIn fi -r Date Received 6/20/95 Date Reported n/1:1::49 Lab number .Sample ID 3702 Clasen Well 3, Garfield Cty June 17, 1995 (.,11111tc: rc,r l)v lnislnq 1,1t1Trft* d r)'.r,l• (•lir, 1 t 1, Arsenic(As)0.003 mg/1 ++ (1`, moil n 04 mg .,.1 .i I 1 + �i � Barium(Ra) Cadmium('d1 0,:t(1Tog/.1 r,( ; try iChronium(C- F1uor1de(=) 2.71 mqi1 Lead (Pb) 0.0n1 rr / 1 (+ i..`. ►1.1 1 Mercury(Hg) 0.00000 mq/ 1 11 ill!; *7'..A114....T.•••-.7"1•5144A.•.-i..•.-- • -• ( ) / •10•16 JOHN C KEPHART & CO. G .A\J \CTI \'1A2EAT 435 NORTH AVENUE Received from: ...• • PHONE 242-7618 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 ANALYTICAL REPORT • Zancanella and Assoclates T. Lance PO Box 1908/1005 Cociner Ave. Glenwood Springs. 0.1 8j60 3702 CustomerNo. Laboratory No ample 6/20/95:-t Date Received Date Reported ,I • 4..l• • -Fam'Ole :3702 . I 1:1:1i nk,i4rirt • W.:ex. er'. t, iini iis Clasen Well Flet by Col,-). 0,-- . Of Garfield Count -f-, Health June 17. 1995 water HerbioddeFr:: 2.4-1) 2,4-5TP Pesticides: • Endrin Lindane • 1'iethoxych1or Toxaphene NOTE: 11,kiat ty• <0.0001 mq/1 <0.0002 tocsin <0.00001 md/1 <0.00002 mg/1 <0.(1001 mo/1 K0.001 miLl 11 1 IlI 1 Li Ill trio., 1 4-1 0(14 0.04 u floc. lilti htmits given are from the cid-1,1- Pe.1.10.1istionb, 1991; lqrart page 2 of 2 1i.ifiIiHi lid. nit! iwthe, Director: B. Bauer ice:' -- :COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH • INORGANIC CHEMISTRY LABORATORY ▪ .4210 E 11TH AVE. DENVER, CO 80220 (303)691-4726 y`Jxz SAMPLE NUMBER: 953041 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: GRAND JUNCTION LAE\ NANCY BAUER DATE: REPORTED BY: p\A/S I .Di ADDRESS : COLLECTED BY: WHERE: DATE SAMPLED: DATE RECEIVED: TYPE: CCMMENTS: 425 NORTH AVE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81E0 ZANC 3743 / / 07/06/95 250M 7 ANALYSIS RESULTS BETA SOLIDS, TOT. 65 14 1300 MCL = MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL MSL = MAXIMUM SUGGESTED LEVEL NLE = NO LIMITS ESTABLISHED EAL = EPA ACTION LEVEL pCi/L DCi/L mg/L 0°/09/95 JRS COUNTY: PHONE : 3032427618 EPA LIMITS MSL=50 pCi/L pCi/L HAZEN Zancanella & Associates Terri Lance P.O. Box 1908 Glergood Springs, CO 81602 Hazen Research, Inc. 4601 Indiana St • Golden, Colo. 80403 Tel: (303) 279-4501 • Telex 45-860 FAX: (303) 278-1528 REPORT OF A'L&! +SIS SAMPLE NO. I58/95-1 SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION: Clasen Well 3 in Garfield County 08/31/95 @ 1700 by Samuelson Pump Co. DATE September 28, 1995 HRI PROJECT 002-96D HRI SERIES NO. I58/95 DATE RECD. 09/05/95 CUST P.O.# None Recd PARAMETERDETEC T IC'1 ANALYSIS E LIMIT-ME}?UD DATE/TT M.: P.VLYST Gross Alpha(±Precision*),pCi/1 (T) 2N12) 3 Gross A1pha(±Precision*),pCi/1 (T)*** 5(±12) 3 EPA 900.0 EPA 900.0 09/20 09/20/95 LD Gross Beta(±Precision*).pCi/1 (T) 0(±14) 20 /95 LD Uranivin,rg/1 (T) _ EPA 900.0 09/20/95 LD 0.035 0.002 ASTM 02907 09/26/95 RP Uraniu;n,pCi/1 (T)** 24 , 1 ASTM D2907 09/26/95 RP CODES: (T)=Total (D)=Dissolved (S)=Suspended (R)=Recoverable (PD)=Potentially Dissolved <=Less Than By: Robert Rostad Laboratory Manager *Variability of the radioactive disintegration process (counting error) at the 95% confidence level, 1.96 x sigma. Certification Authority Lab ID's: US EPA Region VIII - CG; CT - PH -0152; KY - 90076; NH - 232895-A; NY ELAP - 11417. **Uranium results reported assuming the activity of natural uranium is 6.77 x 10'' Ci/g. ***Excluding Radon and Uranium. Received from: Customer No. Date Received Sample JOHN C KEPHART & CO. RAND JU 435 NORTH AVENUE Cil 10/18/95 AT • PHONE 242-7618 • GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 A`ALYTICAL REPORT Zancanella and Associates T. Lance PO Box 1908/1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Laboratory NO 0033 Sample water Date Reported 10/24/95 0033 Clasen Well 3 Garfield County Oct. 17. 1995 Method Date Tested Nitrate(N) 0.20 mg/1 D3867-908 10/23/95 Nitrite(N) <0.01 mg/1 D3867 -90B 10/18/95 Nitrate+Nitrite(N) 0.20 mg/1 D3867 -90B 10/23/95 Antimony(Sb) Selenium(Se) <0.001 mg/1 EPA 200.9 10/23/95 <0.002 mg/1 D3859 -93A 10/23/95 Beryllium(Be) <0.001 mg/1 EPA 200.9 10/23/95 Free Cyanide(CN) <0.002 mg/1 SM4500E 10/23/95 Nickel(Ni) Thallium(T1) <0.001 mg/1 EPA 200.9 10/23/95 <0.001 mg/1 EPA 200.9 10/23/95 ASBESTOS: <2 MFL* NIOSH 7400* 10/23/95 NOTES: "<:" Means "less than" (none was detected, lower limit of detection is given). References are: SM = "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," 19th Ed., 1995. EPA = "Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," 1983. "D" Methods from ASTM "Annual Nook of ASTM Standards." *Asbestos by phase contrast microscopy, modified NIOSH 7400 method; MFL = million fibers >10 microns per liter. Director: B. Bauer pS�M 1 YEAR BY DAYS X 150 DIVISIONS YY 00 KEUFFEL & ESSER CO. MADE IN u s A tl U1 ' n N I1III 111111 ISI 1NUUll 1 1111/111/ 0111111/ a liiiit :1 111 111 Fos, 1111 o 11111111= :Hill! 1 ;,i:111110111111111 N • 111111 1111111 1111111 • 111111 N � `n 111 1 11 • 11�1111111 42.0110 N 111101 I N 1111111 1HI1III ` 111111 1 hilililil -i 111111111 • 11111111_. NN lIlililIli11111 1 111111 1 1 11111111111 II u, ;)3';') 11 1111 NI 1 Ui r11II 01 1 1 N 111111,111-. 7',:f LHhI mu - nZ70 1',:f '. 11111111 r1 m mo P 0 1 11111 11 v 1 l.P n X21 Pr u 11011111 I- Oil 11111111: 1 lit., 1 I T1 011 III ■ BM OM 1 11111 1111111110 :1111-1110:1 11 MOM !HI 'I 1111 ill 1111 OE: 1111H1 1111101111111111ffilli i mg 1 min 11111111111 111 I 11 I 11 11 1111 I III 1 OM 11 1011 — VII I ; 1 1 111. I t l l. 1 U1 Ij V i 47 2813 0 ,V 0 1 11 0 01 1 • tit O tm N b l7 0 0I to ttr In anal -II CD CLC) C1$ IztW <.,J f 155 fr C. .+.4- •:., GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: 109 -8TH STREET, # 303 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO. 81601 RE: CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION PEACH VALLEY AS A CONCERNED RESIDENT, I AM ASKING YOU TO DENY THE CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION WHEN IT COMES BEFORE YOU FOR APPROVAL. THE REASONS FOR DENIAL ARE: 1. PROOF OF ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER 2. LACK OF YEAR AROUND IRRIGATION WATER TO SUPPLEMENT WATER TABLE 3. DENSITY OF PROPOSED HOUSING OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE AREA 4. SETS A PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE SUBDIVISIONS IN PEACH VALLEY 5. INADEQUATE AND DANGEROUS COUNTY ROADS IN THE AREA. (VISIBILITY VERY POOR IN SOME AREAS AND ROAD TOO NARROW FOR TWO VEHICLES TO PASS IN MANY PLACES.) 6. POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION OF NEIGHBORING WELLS BY SEWAGE 7. LOWERING OF WATER TABLE FOR NEIGHBORING DOMESTIC WELLS 8. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE (FENCING, DOGS, DISTURBANCE OF WINTER RANGE ) 9. WILDFIRE DANGER (INADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR 1ST PHASE OF THE PLANNED SUBDIVISION) 10. DIFFICULT ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES 11. INCREASED IMPACT ON SCHOOL ENROLLMENT COMMENTS: 7 _Z - GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: 109 -8TH STREET, # 303 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO. 81601 RE: CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION PEACH VALLEY AS A CONCERNED RESIDENT, I AM ASKING YOU TO DENY THE CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION WHEN IT COMES BEFORE YOU FOR APPROVAL. THE REASONS FOR DENIAL ARE: 1. PROOF OF ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER 2. LACK OF YEAR AROUND IRRIGATION WATER TO SUPPLEMENT WATER TABLE 3. DENSITY OF PROPOSED HOUSING OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE AREA 4. SETS A PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE SUBDIVISIONS IN PEACH VALLEY 5. INADEQUATE AND DANGEROUS COUNTY ROADS IN THE AREA. (VISIBILITY VERY POOR IN SOME AREAS AND ROAD TOO NARROW FOR TWO VEHICLES TO PASS IN MANY PLACES.) 6. POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION OF NEIGHBORING WELLS BY SEWAGE 7. LOWERING OF WATER TABLE FOR NEIGHBORING DOMESTIC WELLS 8. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE (FENCING, DOGS, DISTURBANCE OF WINTER RANGE) 9. WILDFIRE DANGER (INADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR 1ST PHASE OF THE PLANNED SUBDIVISION) 10. DIFFICULT ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES 11. INCREASED IMPACT ON SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 1 COMMENTS : C>2, -7, -.91? -t4 _ ._Joeeue2:-s v C7- �✓L sal (f y_-�' SINCERELY, v ead4) ,466t: ��, ce,..z,koetcca/F attathik //VexJ ler;i4L f � 1 � / 4° ZP %a`Cauml.CiJ 614. 6tvr�� /?alA.ee. c /4/ .tV4-c62v 1 ' .A�-� .get/ft &la-- ,aLeCt 0' :/Lb /04,0/2-64-a ' . - .4--& , JAU-4 /i'ib 44,0 e-11- 1/V-tC-et- Alete- 217tt--- ,', a f iAtd_e_ ,rd) di.e, po-4-egiryv a4,eaa- -ecec,cuQe, 0.7_ �. ( /aAL ed4i /l/ 1, ,// €4411 ilea/t9 J Xe1/21-& • / • ' / D2ci G44,4. - U- .?02 �;i -- . ,(4/6_4if .�Cc1J i • � ' ' � X75 � ' ' 02 ,A, ?.<.,*4 : do -tee,i,a4,Le, col-�. ,�,; / , i ‘ i iii, .41t,oAe, trclle' 4.Zkz ,cap 4r.6- tri �0-t G ��a� �O /-(/- fi,�ira h-a-cl � z�.L.,a4ter,eL-C, .4,,,t .,e,ca7t .P,/t& , 0 A " J 14-4,,a) /zr,t9-ete dAtete&,C1iLtJ LU a,t ict4 ded21-71J -/L6leek4J A-6-a.cP.�.a� i,LS7vif 6-tm e 6 �4 } ;f aAA4e ltd4,4z cLt ©maw 6b2A4A-eA ktAv e4A. 6a,,L i : / 3 M1,0-tei M4.,c(A-r e& .� qz& it& -g44-t(A_ ay/Ad .f/i.t • • /9 �7 � � c �� v • • PETITION TO GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: CEDAR HILLS RANCH SUBDIVISION LOCATION: PEACH VALLEY (2 MILES EAST OF SILT ON 214 ROAD) SECTIONS: 1 AND 6 TOWNSHIP= 6 SOUTH RANGE: 92 WEST NUMBER OF HOMES PROPOSED: 20 ON 77.396 ACRES WE THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DENY THE PROPOSAL FOR CEDAR HILLS RANCH SUBDIVISION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. SUCH DEVELOPMENT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF PEACH VALLEY AS A WHOLE COMMUNITY. 2. DENSITY PROPOSED IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND WHICH IS LARGELY AGRICULTURAL OR FRAGILE RANGELAND. 3. QUESTIONABLE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY TO FURNISH PROPOSED HOMES AND MAINTAIN WATER TABLE TO EXISTING WELLS IN THE AREA. 4. CONTAMINATION OF AQUIFERS AND DITCHES THROUGH EROSION AND EFFLUENT FROM SEWAGE SYSTEMS. S. UNRELIABILITY OF IRRIGATION WATER FROM THE ROSEMAN DITCH TO PROPOSED HOMES AS WELL AS ITS AFFECT ON DOWNSTREAM SHAREHOLDERS. 6. NO BOND IS REQUIRED OF THIS DEVELOPER. 7. INCURSION OF HOMESITES INTO WILDFIRE AREAS. 8. LACK OF ADEQUATE PARKLAND/OPENSPACE IN PROPOSAL. 9. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE WINTER RANGE. 10. LACK OF ADEQUATE IMPACT FEES 11. NEED FOR UPGRADING OF COUNTY ROADS LEADING TO SITE. NAME (PRINTED) ADDRESS DATE T. R •A tN P 3o 1- �n,� c��,-E 3o��n S�� 5 �i �S�ca Co. �s1G�50 f() -3 -`� (? r 3 (o. Rd,. 1 o""Z- /�SJ_ Ttl _E SI -RAH/ - �c.. aL 0313 /bz a /o�y'q Ie CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION PETITION, CONTINUED: SIGNATURE NAME (PRINTED) ir .i Am%..�-..► 1, ADDRESS DATE ‘,2e'Id / E k'2 1,t-' j S, (_( --� � 2 CDS f5a5 J ( ti C c�aQP — A t “4-4 Y Case 7 43,9 jss s r@4 g 5- wfr-44.--9;ey '!f 00 /of/0/ ,LY (2-0-71R-- 1 . ')i S' 7r4/*�� s natk. 193‘. 10010`- f C- c -RkQ. a-) • ` 44 1- ew f\P °Q'',' ` �` 111 d\s UJ:6-911* ftLf\Cv ai\CLO CVJ\AJ6k\A all)*KO-A_ ckj\J9--C U-C*41-a, %-CL 0 A'WLSAc.,�! VCWCJ 1./ 0\1\14_ (JY Y yv vim" "�-"/., \ A fb -t^ �-,�, am. et tlA Vt%9_ a ONNQJ ifW1-W C\git OkAk, \n r e 7\ti� 4N%{ r: .4N23\t-v- 3,1-ystraa- E - k RECF'FD OCT 0 5 1995 UMW COVMSKTheihc IC Art PETITION TO GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: CEDAR HILLS RANCH SUBDIVISION LOCATION: PEACH VALLEY (2 MILES EAST OF SILT ON 214 ROAD) SECTIONS: 1 AND 6 TOWNSHIP: 6 SOUTH RANGE: 92 WEST NUMBER OF HOMES PROPOSED: 20 ON 77.396 ACRES WE THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DENY THE PROPOSAL FOR CEDAR HILLS RANCH SUBDIVISION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. SUCH DEVELOPMENT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF PEACH VALLEY AS A WHOLE COMMUNITY. 2. DENSITY PROPOSED IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND WHICH IS LARGELY AGRICULTURAL OR FRAGILE RANGELAND. 3. QUESTIONABLE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY TO FURNISH PROPOSED HOMES AND MAINTAIN WATER TABLE TO EXISTING WELLS IN THE AREA. 4. CONTAMINATION OF AQUIFERS AND DITCHES THROUGH EROSION AND EFFLUENT FROM SEWAGE SYSTEMS. S. UNRELIABILITY OF IRRIGATION WATER FROM THE ROSEMAN DITCH TO PROPOSED HOMES AS WELL AS ITS AFFECT ON DOWNSTREAM SHAREHOLDERS. 6. NO BOND IS REQUIRED OF THIS DEVELOPER. 7. INCURSION OF HOMESITES INTO WILDFIRE AREAS. 8. LACK OF ADEQUATE PARKLAND/OPENSPACE IN PROPOSAL. 9. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE WINTER RANGE. 10. LACK OF ADEQUATE IMPACT FEES 11. NEED FOR UPGRADING OF COUNTY ROADS LEADING TO SITE. SIGNATURE NAME (PRINTED) ADDRESS DATE oxt keg .49,ff. Cgiii•Vo 3 6-('. inch e la i1/r mitt, it t,f f Zc) ��Gj /� /0/1/7_,5 / f. �. CEDAR FHILLS SUBDIVISION PETITION, CONTINUED: SIGNATURE NAME (PRINTED) ADDRESS DATE Atocziyi /lad .5u sari — �cssl er � �� C.C�„�,� �r�l � ��/�/Ps (Qt , tt&p/_ Moira. knper J763 -,2 i`� Rd, Si -11- 10 -44 -,IS/ i ; : A k /0- - 9,5 o r. 1-- /'9S- -(1-6 Sir r riej Le Mo i Ne gitoa Hu 3a 5 /1),Ge, 10 - Li - l5 Marg ie. (4a (1 109'1 C. Rd ,�9.1 x:-(10 f0-y.9s EI4i, At iiez.t'r(% z o/ //ACKga7;ey i ,iCl//i? - /0145- _______...../4.1v/P5- O 5 �`� .`� /.76;411) /= y //ie, Cpe.14 v r c e)-2_, 5”' _64 . 5. 67 Gd 41 .2 ,-3 " f li /6 0 l/J, �"Nn 6Sq 1 W,S G C404, er 10 ► a, I it iv e '.KRt Z-11,/if, PETITION TO GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: CEDAR HILLS RANCH SUBDIVISION LOCATION: PEACH VALLEY (2 MILES EAST OF SILT ON 214 ROAD) SECTIONS: 1 AND 6 TOWNSHIP: 6 SOUTH RANGE: 92 WEST NUMBER OF HOMES PROPOSED: 20.0N 77.396 ACRES WE THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DENY THE PROPOSAL FOR CEDAR HILLS RANCH SUBDIVISION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1_ SUCH DEVELOPMENT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF PEACH VALLEY AS A WHOLE COMMUNITY. 2. DENSITY PROPOSED IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND WHICH IS LARGELY AGRICULTURAL OR FRAGILE RANGELAND. 3. QUESTIONABLE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY TO FURNISH PROPOSED HOMES AND MAINTAIN WATER TABLE TO EXISTING WELLS IN THE AREA. 4. CONTAMINATION OF AQUIFERS AND DITCHES THROUGH EROSION AND EFFLUENT FROM SEWAGE SYSTEMS. 5. UNRELIABILITY OF IRRIGATION WATER FROM THE ROSEMAN DITCH TSI PROPOSED HOMES AS WELL AS ITS AFFECT ON DOWNSTREAM SHAREHOLDERS. 6. NO BOND IS REQUIRED OF THIS DEVELOPER. 7. INCURSION OF HOMESITES INTO WILDFIRE AREAS. 8, LACK OF ADEQUATE PARKLAND/OPENSPACE IN PROPOSAL. 9. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE WINTER RANGE. 10. LACK OF ADEQUATE IMPACT FEES 11. NEED FOR UPGRADING OF COUNTY ROADS LEADING TO SITE. SIGNATURE NAME (PRINTED) ADDRESS DATE 6.1-1:11::{e111:11.4 CLI. v� .ClG�ad ( Say" 020 2 iC T c o 7/65'2 $/G 7e. w %4J`6 2 49_p9 q/(0/ c AL U f kfs 5- /v CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION PETITION, CONTINUED: NAME(PRINTED) ADDRESS DATE 3'id 'Stu Jt,w, I t ' 5TThJ C vc et5�e,� PorR,4ufgle 7 P:5 ,97rie _p/ZeeZ/V ,e76, efcff-if q5;a RD A, LI 97/9s .drys-co.�J�iy s./r � a prH 376).? Q S %- y-7 TD toy E./9% at ICA \-05c.k_n `1773 11 y 4 5, 1-k VC.4eveh L, �,es 1i n S 3YG?/ 1{ ,.(a S,•L1; c.; R/ 1:6,) G. / `1_ II �c tkC,.,c�64] 1* -4.s /� _ 5 alb 9,, 3087#4 6 f aV evrk. 9v497 � 5/9�s/ 57/2 Zy,?II s,415;2&) 9s ce. 1 1 Coo -5T- w_ I SEL CE; 37/ 214 5, L r C.o 8/4 crfr r✓ ���,,,� ociN . sk �o /✓ _ a i y s,' i 7" co P/6sa ,sirSj‘t1 • —beam in ox 0 S -a e,Q ; (�- Co ..-Tg.ei,sa ___K C �;►� __(o) - Q n p M6 EV �J .h fcj5� eect ` C/6 ROLL? 4 , ez CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION PETITION, CONTINUED: SIGNATURE NAME __LPRINTED) ADDRESS __ DATE - • 9a-7 W. / 6r�,d Znc+,•an 5 3 0 a ra 44/ fr d 5" /ii/ ? fa? / jf /0 6 75' "rcp•--: 'MLA.24 ‘t4 6-g R /7/8/ CO: f/ /Z1 //7 A' " de -7)6d fifin bee e 3icq /-2(4 /0 A.1.140 stio ,f2000. e- Thyy1 vi L7O'7 cQict.R.ct /o- 7- „Ly 7(7L:;2 2 /V 0. - 7-74- pe9oic, 7,7,-,,9/44/041.--7:6-- ketrrd 1 YeAml ti s 31IL 5" KA 2 IL/ GE -3, LtV c 7.51 Jb/1c(4S 1° 110 1 6fS 1-74-1 LA 2r • OCT 1 0 1995 GARFIELD COUNTY 1/55g. Ra-4-6 / 4/ L 8/l0.a_, Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse Suite 301 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO To the Commissioner;': Nov. 6, 1999 6765 County Rd. 21)4 New Castle, CO 81617 7S -'Lf -01-/c/ Nov a 7 1995 'Mir itLU onrauounowen The (Peach Valley) Cedar Hills Subdivision proposal comes to you on Nov. 13 with a ,c'r.conmend tion fpr dental from both the Planning and Zoning Commission and county planning staff. For good reason: water. The developer proposes to pump water from a single well to a holding tank that would supply at least 16 homes and lawns. This in an area where about half the wells are good and half not so good. Lots of 'homeowners north of the Peach. Valley (211) Itd. haul their grater, and they're worried they'll be hauling a lot more if this subdivision goes through. It's widely held that the Roseman Ditch re -supplies wells north of 214 Rd. The ditch is running right now -- not because we need it for ir- rigation -- but to recharge the aquifer. The Roseman Ditch at the proposed development is a relatively junior water right, and water generally doesn't make it dorm that far after July 1 or so. Yet the ditch was running that far down when the developer did his pump test below the ditch earlier this summer. Remember, too, that this test followed a wet winter followed by a wet spring followed by a wet first-half of the summer. In light of this, how significant are the results? Plus, the developer doesn't want just household use. He wants lawn irrigation from this well, too. He can buy Ruedi water to get the right, but that won't help the local water table. How can you predict the impact of pumping water to 18 -to -2L homes and lawns in this region of isolated water pockets? We know the area has water problems already, even in wet years. What will happen if we have a dry year -- or two -- or five? Please don't jeopardize the senior rights of neighboring wells by allowing large-scale development of this property. Vote "no" on the proposal before you. Sincerely, Ed Colby January 19, 1996 To: Garfield County P & Z and County Commissioners Re: Cedar Hills Subdivision in Peach Valley The above mentioned issues are of upmost concern to me (see attached), but the water issue remains paramount. I have lived in Peach Valley for almost eighteen years and have seen the number of dwellings here increase by almost 50% during that time. In conversations with neighbors. the question of water invariably crops up: "Do you have a good well? - enough water? - Is it drinkable? - Do you supplement with a cistern? " etc. The drilling log of our well that was dug in 1978 reported 20 GPM. The date tested was June 3. The following February our water supply was significantly reduced - as it has been every year since during the winter months. This usually happens between October and December and lasts until April or May. During these months we haul our water and must plan carefully for our household water use. Other residents in our area have similar situations. Some do not have enough water: others do not have potable water. With these things in mind. I think it is extremely important to conduct the drilling tests during the winter months since it appears that the irrigation water from the ditch affects the water levels of our wells. It is very strange that this year the ditch remained on until the middle of December. This has never happened before since I have have lived in Peach Valley. The ditch is usually off by the end of October. I doubt that an owner of a new $200,000 home would be willing to endure the inconveniences that we have experienced since our 20 GPM drilling test. Nor would the residents of Peach Valley. many who have lived here for decades, be willing to sacrifice their limited supplies of water to this development and the others that are soon to follow. Please don't approve the Cedar Hills Subdivision until all these issues are satisfactorly addressed. Sincerely, 22y) /' i Margo Stapleton 5097 Peach Valley Rd. January 19. 1996 To: Garfield County P & Z and County Commissioners Re: Cedar Hills Subdivision in Peach Valley The above mentioned issues are of upmost concern to me (see attached), but the water issue remains paramount. I have lived in Peach Valley for almost eighteen years and have seen the number of dwellings here increase by almost 50% during that time. In conversations with neighbors. the question of water invariably crops up: "Do You have a good well? - enough water? - Is it drinkable? - Do you supplement with a cistern? ".etc. The drilling log of our well that was dug in 1978 reported 20 GPM. The date tested was June 3. The following February our water supply was significantly reduced - as it has been every year since during the winter months. This usually happens between October and December and lasts until April or May. During these months we haul our water and must plan carefully for our household water use. Other residents in our area have similar situations. Some do not have enough water; others do not have potable water. With these things in mind. I think it is extremely important to conduct the drilling tests during the winter months since it appears that the irrigation water from the ditch affects the water levels of our wells. It is very strange that this year the ditch remained on until the middle of December. This has never happened before since I have have lived in Peach Valley. The ditch is usually off by the end of October. I doubt that an owner of a new $200,000 home would be willing to endure the inconveniences that we have experienced since our 20 GPM drilling test. Nor would the residents of Peach Valley, many who have lived here for decades, be willing to sacrifice their limited supplies of water to this development and the others that are soon to follow. Please don't approve the Cedar Hills Subdivision until all these issues are satisfactorly addressed. Sincerely, 22/a.iq6 TOS Margo Stapleton 5097 Peach Valley Rd. GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: 109 -8TH STREET, # 303 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLO. 81601 RE: CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION PEACH VALLEY ECE!FEJD NOV 1 31 5 MostPAW WWI OCktilkaWiti AS A CONCERNED RESIDENT, I AM ASKING YOU TO DENY THE CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION WHEN IT COMES BEFORE '(OU FOR APPROVAL.. THE REASONS FOR DENIAL ARE: 1_ PROOF OF ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER 2. LACK OF YEAR AROUND IRRIGATION WATER TO SUPPLEMENT WATER TABLE 3. DENSITY OF PROPOSED HOUSING OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE AREA 4. SETS A PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE SUBDIVISIONS IN PEACH VALLEY 5. INADEQUATE AND DANGEROUS COUNTY ROADS IN THE AREA. (VISIBILITY VERY POOR IN SOME AREAS AND ROAD TOO NARROW FOR TWO VEHICLES TO PASS IN MANY PLACES.) 6. POSSIBILITY OF CONTAMINATION OF NEIGHBORING WELLS BY SEWAGE 7. LOWERING OF WATER TABLE FOR NEIGHBORING DOMESTIC WELLS 8. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE (FENCING, DOGS, DISTURBANCE OF WINTER RANGE) 9. WILDFIRE DANGER (INADEQUATE FIRE PROTECTION PROVIDED FOR 1ST PHASE OF THE PLANNED SUBDIVISION) 10. DIFFICULT ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES 11. INCREASED IMPACT ON SCHOOL ENROLLMENT COMMENTS: r' Vii.-�—Gz/ -,?;*;677..e - e Ac. iLi c�lS� 2 -0 2�Zfi`C/I-crit i' Wd? SINCERELY, 7.2 ,y /ec, J S, 7— L_ • I .k--x±kiLz2.11a.N14,kuL..,,,6ALL, 44:\LN,AY\41=i,N,&)L- JAN u 86 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS l 1 l l i v f , ckJ i-NNia).Nbko IS2),tAicA___Ql_cl5S40,ts,k( v6: .3-ki-kc\) 7-"V-ediAgLe 12 JAN 08 LL1 6 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS c Ae.Ca4pe e"--G"-CY, 1?‘2-141 A-P-cA.411-e_7c(-0e*9, e-u-dex 77 -Le -4.6' ez,te-40 G. Ce-,..:7e-c ce -C'_d- Gr2- �Ja cc-A_ .-4e,124-- j?ate` . 2- /2 C. '2<-C>e( ZL -< � f . /! .� %Z e- 6e_-,_c_ ecLz,,,t-, c e c«, e3 c,,��� 7 .e_ -` Q6-7`cy /5 ‘,2 `ke ' ` - r9-2e2'-� .— f--/-e- Z,e2e , __ .Q . , -u L=am - - - l a.,,_140 1-v' eP-* ei t2,54a.a4._5_, _e-oLez_Ze_t,,e7-.. , yeez-(__ iiaa-,26 -/rek._,J--e _._„,___ i)._1_e,,,i,a16; c c�-P ,/s2� /- 4___Q -e- c -4_ e-Li 74 7 r ofd e i-li t Et... J/\J 09 196 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS xr- Ze33 c/ ,,e76 1/ U: AN 9 - GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIC::-ERS • ,,1 EC ! 1 ) GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (Le/ (M, ceA,„; 41J Gtid-6 -1T74 tiLe Zejuet-E6' `11zr:/ ataab €7'76/ iAele_, /2/t1,4 261-7Ge'• Ct.& de77,a IRECE o g A CARRELL, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS e‘,0(91/4c-C_ 76 rea6L A (-4.-- 6//4 Af I e04teia-ka ft ./ a_ ei-J.7-(a5/1e/ ,,,,,,,,./. FbCa-it L/ it-OM.e 7 CA_Zt_ /-at-IC /4_,f7/ ciZU os4-<44_ kawi (Afiz ke..6'76 4/- uc ce to/ la e -t( G{u4/ zt ( yc)/ aC.(1 /uLca-741 cl ckri f r/ e/ 4 f ter/ v0/2 Vict VA04-c v DV740 (}L/4/( yuatt 4aik a-&-eady De_auite1( c,l u)aA L74 rixe / W 9-r io/ Gva aa) ( ,tioal aJz.3 rum 4 AL60-0-eir 1/.1.4 ,r,o d-x-fx ateax,&2( 1-a 4.0) 1 :(1.41 i ' ` ' le i %� P G 2G sn . ! d2!7 ', k.,a(/UO o/ 7 'L cI 116 Vi(;4 '6* 1/4/LL/44_ ..&70-y;dvid 64( rx/iz- . tile/ 0 14)4 baa g Gu -( Vice _..PA&S$ a %eci carQcste/r- 0 77 ( VAluie' 1144 Oe>ra) 0.(A_7X-it-ZZL‘f-ateief.4 SEP -26-1995 13:51 FROM GARFIELD CO ROAD . BRIDGE TO 9457785 P.02 1. GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. BOX 2254 Glenwood Springs, Colorado B1602-2254 Phone 945-6 1 1 1 DATE: September 26, 1995 I O = Mark Bean FROM = Ki_nQr RE % Cedar Hills Ranch The drainacie plan doesn't t adequately address potential runoff orobl.ems and the t:rc:>t:.r ntial effect. on CR214. The ridge line running parallel to CR21 4 annually is subjeot. to flash flooding the roadway :intersection of CR214 & CR262. Just 3 weE ks e0.7) wa i n ndat d by a mud and di br'is flow and has annually for several summers. Tho road appears to hes funn•ila..ng all the runoff down to it$ in ter ecltion with CR21 4. With one of the pLpes on the upper end of the project being spec. at 36" diameter, it would appear tho onginoors tool at s.orno time thorn could bo siunificant water coming down the ditches. This part of CR214 is relatively fiat, has consideration boon given to the effect or further disposal of this runoff onto adjoining property. The boundary survey doesn't identify a R --0-W width. With the school_ district buying land in the area, development and future traffic could need an expanded R -O -W. This project directly accesses CR214 (average width 18 ft.) and is approximately halfway between CR235 (average width 19 feet) and CR262 (average width 20 feet) both of which access state Highway 6 & 24, T don't understand why thorn was not a traffic study done on 0R214 since it will get all of the traffic, whish could he children going to school at Silt elementary or Rifle high and Fdu.alt working at points east. Our traffic counts show that 60+0 of the traffic is driving faster than /40 MPH near tho ontranoc to the proposed subdivision. This entrance lies at the bottom of a. hill which limits the site distance for vehicles ;Dulling out onto CR2 1 6 , cedar TOTAL P.02 STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Perry D. Olson, Director 606 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 November 6, 1995 Mr. Eric McCafferty Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Eric: 0 1995 REFER TO For Wildlife — For People I have reviewed the proposed covenants for the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision and I have determined that they do meet Division of Wildlife regulations regarding subdivisions. In addition, the Covenants sufficiently address DOW concerns I noted in my letter of March 30, 1995. One minor change I recommend is the wording concerning the destruction or removal of nuisance wildlife in paragraph #7 on page 9. I would advise that homeowners consult with the DOW before any such action is taken due the complexity of state and federal laws pertaining to protected species. It has been a pleasure working with Norm Clasen and these Covenants demonstrate that private and public entities can share the same values. cc: Norm Clasen Respectfully, Don Crane District Wildlife Manager DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Swift, Vice -Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Secretary Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member William R. Hegberg, Member • Mark LeValley, Member Board Ross Talbott - Chairman William Montover Sean Mello Tom Voight Gordon Witzke Burning Mountains Fire Protection District Box 236 Silt, CO 81652 8Li' 1 17 Don Zordel - Chief Stu Cerise - Assist- Chie September 12, 1995 Rla; Cedar Hills Ranch To Whom It May Concern: After reviewing the plans, I see no sketches of the ponds or dry hydrants that were discussed for fire protection. If these ponds are not going to be upgraded and dry hydrants put in, along with truck access to them, the owner needs to put in fire hydrants on the domestic water system. This will require 6 inch mains and a hydrant so that no house is ever more than 500 feet from a hydrant. Thank you, oneW Donald L. Zordel, re Chief Burning Mountains FPD DLZ/ms Board Ross Talbott - Chairman William Montover Sean Mello Tom Voight Gordon Witzke Burning Mountains p(r‘lFire Protection District AUG 221995" Box 236 1/4--,1,7,= , E r: COOtITY silt, CO 81652 I)on Zordel - Chief Stu Cerise - Assist. Chief August 22, 1995 Subject: Ceder Hill Subdivision on 214 Road To Whom It May Concern: The two ponds within the subdivision should be up graded and one dry hydrant installed at each pond with a large enough turn around for fire trucks to have easy access to them. The first dry hydrant should be installed before housing construction starts and the second by the time half the lots have houses on them. Hydrants should be at least 2 1/2". Thank you, Don Zor 1 District Chief, BMVFD DZ/ms /G/-1 OUNTRY NG/NEER/NG November 8, 1995 Garfield County Planning Attn: Eric McCafferty 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Cedar Hills Ranch Preliminary Plat HCE Job No. 95020.02 Dear Eric: I would like to present this information to the Board of County Commissioners regarding traffic on County Road 214. Traffic counts were provided to us by Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept. (these counts have been enclosed with this letter). These counts were conducted on September 25 and 26 1995, for a period of 24 hours. Only the 1995 data between County Road 262 and County Road 235 (Davis Point) was used to determine existing and proposed level of service. A computer model for the proposed development was then generated within the following conditions: 1. 10% truck traffic (during construction). 2. 5% buses 3. 5% recreational vehicles 4. Design speed = 35 mph 5. Peak hour factor = 0.86 6. Directional Distribution = 90/10 7. 9' average lane width. This model indicated that Level of Service A, which is the best operational level defined by the "Highway Capacity Manual", would operate as such up to 129 vehicles per hour. The proposed peak hour traffic volume for 100% buildout of Cedar Hills Ranch would be 85 vehicles per hour. Enclosed with this letter are the traffic counts, computer printouts and hand calculations used to determine Level of Service. 923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Telephone: 303-945-8676 • FAX: 303-945-2555 3� Mr. Eric McCafferty November 8, 1995 Page 2 The above information indicates that the existing road is capable of carrying the proposed traffic. There are, however, approximately four ditch crossings at various locations along 214 and adjacent roads which are questionable for any two-way traffic conditions. One which is particularly narrow is located approximately midway on 235 road. The developer, at the request of Herb Nelson, has offered funding to Garfield County as part of the Phase 1 public improvements to help fix the ditch crossing on 235 road. This information, I hope, will append the information submitted with the Preliminary Plat in regard to County road 262. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Sincerely, HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. Roger Neal, P.E. Project Engineer RDN/tmc enc. cc: Norm Clasen Lee Leavenworth 31 .,. .—,..,..o.... ...,.• im►�'TIFFTns�aaoryir {�S TIS"•+FrFrnmm 7'"^i►mrAaR^tt".r..,,..+-<r�Tiof-9Ttsr s 3te P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 /<\ Z4NC4INELL4 414D 4550CI4TE5 ENGINEERING CONSULT4NTS August 1 1 , 1995 Norm Clasen Cedar Hills Ranch P. O. Box 1155 Basalt, Co 81 621 Re: Water Quality Test Results Dear Norm: 1 (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax pyyp j -Aa � S 1994 Enclosed is a copy of the results of the water quality tests performed on Cedar Hills Ranch ,,Well #3 on June 17, 1995. The high concentrations of sodium and sulfate are not unusual for this area. These parameters exceed the State's recommended standards. We recommend that you notify the potential lot purchasers of the potential problem. An in house R.O. type water treatment system should adequately remove tho dissolvbed monerals in the water for drinking purposes. The high turbidity is typical of a new well that has not been pumped on a regular basis and will generally lessen as the well is used. The high turbidity can bo treated if necessary with a cartridge filter system. If you have any questions, please call our office at 970-945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. <,!-t-C 0 Terri L. Lance Geologist cc: Mark Bear TLL\96213 -39- 09 /28 95 06:4: Officers President 876-2821 Kelly Couey 4745 C.R. 315 Silt, CO 81652 Sipe President Samuel B. Potter 0598 C.R, 323 Rifle, CO 81650 Ireesurer Lovorne 5torlwck 3106 C. R. 342 Silt, CO 81652 LJ :7GNCGI'•JFL.LP OSS[iC I r'1TFS FCIX : 3Ci3-`:=J45-1253 WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT P. O. JJOX 1470 RXFLE, COLORADO 81650-1470 625-11387 Sacretgry/uat4r 11 !j f 625-1887 Russell George, Attorney Stuver & George, P.C. P. 0. Box 907 Rifle, CO 81650 August 14, 1995 1. Norm C sen P. O.' ox 1155 Bas t, CO U1621 Dear Mr. Clasen: PGGE Board of Directors Kelly Covey 4745 C. R. 315 Silt, CO 81652 William H. 211m 0090 Sunlight Dr. Glenwood 6pring4, CO 81601 1.M/erne Sterbuck 3106 C.R. 342 Silt, CO 81652 Gregory Durrett 926 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Samuel R. Potter 0598 C.R. 323 Rifle, CU 81650 On August 9, 1995, the Board reviewed your application for a water allotment contract and approved it contingent upon your providing the following: 1. Annexation into the district 2, Providing the District with the name and address of the central system owner 3. Preparation of an augmentation plan When the above requirements have been met your contract will be executed. Sincerely yours, Russell George Attorney/Water Manager AC✓rC Zancanel.la & Associates �/U O'_J /2`3 '95 06:46 I G : 21111041ELL( a (tS'90C 1 RTES FA*909-9i5-12'_>' ' JUL-24-1955 11:35 FRC ' i ULlER & GEORGE P.C. A. TO 5451253 P.02 ADDENDUM if CONTRACT ft RAI' ID 4 DATE DIVIDED ADDENDUll \Vest divide Water Consermoy District WoLer Allotment Com:runt. 1I1IS ADDENDUM Ity rend between tale underaiann(1 liurtie) hereto is intendad to bo nn int•tEr1,1 1,nt•L oi that curCulit Wc,tc.r AI1r.ttrn nt Cunrroct (hereinul.'l.ur culled "ConLructl") hotwut;n said putt:tuts; dated_�.� i.� LL to whwlt LItL:; Addendum +trhnll be attached tn1 become a part 67 iv fully aett forth in .eaid contract. IC i t:he intent: cif I:Itu otherwise d i vi do t:ltu loud!, pursuant to t:hcv contract. 4014cont: herein to 8ubrl1v1(lu for to be survu;I hy Lho wul.ur obtuinred 2. IL is Lltt, intent of Lltc: AppLlcanL heroin Lo divide the water and rights and ohlil;rrt.1ona derivod from t:hu Contract b6t.woun trod among the paresis so subdivided or dlvidud. 3. The Diarict scitoot.ledgag Cho foregoing 1nLenliunat of Alrlilit:llnt and apprnvrts and accuptt1 sante, bub.luCc to alto conditions sat forth Itort:'1n. Applicant shall baa room rod to t`.i.lc: on oppl'Lcut:iun in writicttl to District: for each subdivision or division heLt:inu forth the 1rrt1ul deocriplion of tho now purcct1, Lltn numrj and uddror;er of Lilo porr;on rcvponr;i bl c for complionco with Ltti s nDrnemanL with rt. ipecL to naw parcol , and the portion of the wat:or IrutnE; Lbu :Aulduul. IiutuuL trill li Is to bo �ttiail;rt(:d Lo ei0J.d new parcel. Said nppi.l r_at ion eha l.l. he 1:1 I (.,l c.0 tho the District. 6, Applicant oha.l.l frru roti,, I.rt:d by for divi.r ioo, (',rm prctvidod by oubnit1, with ooiti opt'.li::ut1 .u, t.lio r.urruc:L the 11ia;tt'ir.l: Ier pr(tk..eo in!1 the tlpirl.1 .uL.lntt 7. Drforo tho division shall Lo uppr:;vod by L.Itc IliNt.r.:i.c.t. said ,9pp.1 i cation must a Lao hoar the uiy.nuture of L•Itc: prupoeed succuusur to uphl 1Luul ct1(ct I..il( to as:ruwu crud Ira bound by 1h41 terms and conditions of t.hth Contract and thin Addendum. 11. Upon :cnt1 iV;tctory cumpl run(:( by Applicant' aril HA) s'uceosuor with Lhc fotulluing tu((uliomenl::, rlitst.ric1 shall approvo th i division and ultuil Oyu notic.c2 Lltercioi to both Applicant and said sucr_c;tttrur. (,).. Upon such uppruvul hy hit -alt irt, rhe (:contract shail hu (leveled to he divided. Al iC.unL t•Jh., t 1 1.ht vua1 L(:r hu r uspuncibl.0 4/ 0g/23 ' r0t5 06:46 1 Cl : ZONCC1P IELLiI c, (i000 1 fiTEs FIX : 30'3 -045-125: Pf1GE 4 JUt_-24-1995 11%36 FRI tUVEB & GEORGE P.C. Wetit Divide Water Conservancy 1)itat:riot Watec Allotment: Contract Addnnrlurn Pogt: 2 of 2 TO 9451253 P.03 ADJ1)I'NDI1l1 �+ CONTRACT B DATE DIVIDED for percformE{nc:e of thn Contract only as oamrl relates Lo the remalnln}) undivided portion, The ;:a'tcr_osot' :rhatll Chereaftar 1,c reuponsl blo for par(ut mauc:u u1 l.trLr G.tnt.r .n..t only ab .me relates to the c11.t'idod portion. A broach by ohu party to ri divided contract shall he doomed to be a brunch only of that port7.on of the cOntr'acr telt which t_hait puLrt;y Ja r(. Jr)oltllible and shall trot bo dantnod to be a brunch ctf the portions of thn Contract for which other non-dofaulting partite are rospuriEtibae.. 10. After oue or wort such divictlnna; have boon mode of the ConLrna and Liao wuter and t'lryl,t,e and respons.Ibi'llties rtilttting thereto, t:Iui Contruct shall be doomed to be enforcorab7.e and to extat in countet'pctrttt. Thar., s;hu l be wit many counter -- parts as there, arcs diviPi.ona (IV t.hn Contract!, Each count.car- part- Cnecatl ar with this Addendum and totinthnr with the abova-m ent:toned application and nasumpt;lon and taplrroval. docuwunts :hall conrl.ltnt:n the en tiro agreement bet:waon Di.t3t:rlct and trach party responelbin for ptartormattr:a of each counterpart and ultall. Int binding and enforceable soparetl:uly from athcrr counr.rtrperts. SIGNATURES or the Port,.ia& hereto: Appllcnnt: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) to s . COUNT( 01' GARFIELl) ) '111e foregoing Adduttdunt on Lin, 26 clay of Witness my hand as ta(:kttuw1erJl)rjd I * 1 ur e m4 1.a tlr:c P1:t r..'It r tartd officialofficialtso�tl , Hyi:uuwtl at.jratt r!xpI r uu t{ ) 99 .____.._.... _^..�_._.., I .. / Nott , y ltehubi is (1 ))EI: Atter n luiraring by Lila Bawd of I)itoc nr•ra r,f LI>r• 1) t I)i.viclu Watur Cuitekwyrartcy D1b,1:1.1.ct on U abet•[ Addendan, it is It rct,y l.Mtl)14i1) Olt' K -All AiIdrordal' Ix: ht'turterl nni accori:Q.t to part. of tJt, uribirrti 41.t&r All.otni& it C'cnbrtct t.:,f&rrrrt In by i1+e [1Lgttict. A1'i'EST: Sucrekcjry I)y: 1J:!1' fl1V1DE WA'l'EI: Cc)N5l RVAHCY 1)15'1'11 TCT President Deco: a 1') 2 r, f. 2 lz. 00/28 '05 06:47 1. 10:2fflOnMELLI) a fiSSOCHITES FnX:308-045-1253 Cont. roc I. No. 114N) 1 D 11o. 1),i I e /14:I 1 voI APPLICATTOP AHD DATA FORM IU LEASE WATER VPOM WH!;T DTVTDE WATER COWIENVAHCV OISTIZIcT A. APPLICANT Name Norm Clasen Address P.O. Box 1155 Hasa11, CM 10621 ... Telephone Humber 910_/ . Authorized Agent or Representative h. NATLR RIGHT OWNED HY APPLICAHT name of Right Co(Lic Wril Type of ;;LiNcl.hro or ItIghl Location of Point of Oivorhlon Water Court Co Ho. Wel 1. Po rm PACE 5 1.4?ell1.1x A OH.Hch4.!d C. INTENDED USE Or LEASED WATER, N2 NWi 01 Township 6 SouLh Location of Area or Use 11Wi...of_Town:4hip 6 South Doll;ariptioh or Ht;e: DomuGt i c Range 91 West Sex_ 6 06mf.)or()T-660511i16 uiLs . 2(1 Total Acreage _13_5 Proponed PoLnhle Tho Water system will serve up _ __twonty ningln family unitn from o con1In1 walor nykom. It otitl:H..11 ‘4,1:0 o -Wal Ti ill moot ;:y::l i Oi:ojected Monthly VoTomo oi }:;ed Water Heeded in Gallons: kl a )1. „67 Eel). J) , 11 r , 67 :1111 y....0_1) a. A ICI • 0 R7 Nov . Doc 0 Annual Total Ga11onll .1 111¼ InrAnnLimoonr. D( mond D. OTHER 1EMAR1<r3 ;Jul -y -26, -1995 , Ht!PLO..111 11,1Y_ 0 . 9.1.. 1)c 1 ) 3 Acrt! Ever (":,!.1 p fiui t• 1,,,1 • 't ‘1,1 .1 to 413 1 .J/28 '95 06:47 1 D : ZAhICAI •IELLA 8 !=1`_ SOC 11=1TES FAX:3O3-945-1253 PALE 6 Contract Map ID Date Activated wt;$T Div1IK WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Water Allotment Contract Marne of Applicant1 folia C). c7S(t Quantity of water in bore feet .9.23 Applicant, hereby appllee to the Woot Dlvido Water Conoervancy Dlutrlet, a political nubdlvlulon of the State of Colorado, organized pursuant to and existing by virtue of C.R.S. 1973, 37-45-101, et arq (hereinafter referred Lo oe the "District") for nn allotment contract to beneficially and perpetually ueo water or water rlghtrt owned, loaned, or hereafter acquired by the Dlatricl. fly execution of thlu application, and subsequent delivery and una of water, Applicant hereby agrees to the following Lerma and conditlonsr 1. Water I! jrhter Applicant shall own water rlgh1e at the point of crlvora`lon heroin lawfully entitling Applicant to divert water, which will bo supplemented by water lensod herein. If Applicant intends to divert through n woll, it mutat bo understood by Applicant that nn right to divert exists until A valid well permit is obtained from the State Engineer. 2 -Quantity Water applied for by the Applicant in the amount uet fortji above shall be diverted at Applicant's point of diversion from the Dletrict's direct flow water rights, and when water is unnvnilablo for dlverolon pursuant to administration .by the. Cnlnrodo State Engineer during periods when eald direct flow waLor right in not in priority, the District shall relonno for the use of Applicant up to said quantity in acre-feot per year of storage water owned or controlled by the District. It iS understood that any quantity allotted from direct flow, etarAge or otherwise, to tho Applicant by the Dlutrict will be limited by the priority of the District's decrees and by Lhe physical and legal availability of water from Dletrlct'u sources. Any quantity allotted will only be provided no lnng an water le available and the hpp1Lcont fully compliou w1ih all of Lho Lerma and condition° of this Contract. The Dlutrlet and tit,; Applicant recognize that some of Lho Distrlot•in decrees may he In the name of the Colorado Inver Water Conservation District, and the ability of the Dlutrict to allot direct flow rights to tho Applicant may bo dependent on the convent of the Colorado niver Water Coneorvatlon Dletrlot. It at any time the Applicant determines it requires lean water than the amount herein provided, it may eo notify the District in writing, and the amount of water allotted under this contract shall bo reduced permanently in accordance with such notice. Rated shall be adjunt:ed accordingly In following water yearn only. 3. Beneficial use and toention of tleneticlal Use: Any and n11 water ahiotted Appl-fonni• lig l[e iflitrlc[C-erpT1 Iia heed for the following beneficial use or usest Municipal, domentic and related usee, or irrigation and commercial (except to the extent that Rued( water may not be available for irrigation and COmmerclal as those terms are defined on pa9e•5 of Contract No. 2-07-70-W0547 between the united Staten and the Went Divide Water Conservancy District), App110al1t'a beneficial une of any and all water allotted shall ho within or through 1acillt1ea or upon land owned, leased, operated, or under Applicant's control. 4. Decrees and Delivery: Exchange releases made by the District out oi'ctoragn from Ilse -Il Reservoir, or other works or facilities of the District, or from other oourcen available to the District, shall be dolivered to tho Applicant at the outlot work. of said storage facilities or At the decreed point of 03'28 '95 06:48 1 I) : 2 NCAh.IELLl1 2 ASSUC I RTES FAY : 3O3-9115-1253 PAGE diversion for said other aource9, and rale/leo or delivory of water at ouch outlets or pointe shall constitute performance of the DietrlcL'e total obligation. Delivery of water by the District from Ruodi Reeervolr shall bo auhjoct to the Diatriot'o Inoue contract with the United States Dorado of Roolamotion. Releaaes from other fao111tioo available to Uiutrlct uha11 bo oubjoat to the oontracta, lawn, rules, and rogulatlons governing reloauoa tharefrom. Purthorrnore, tho Dlotrlct hereby axproaoly r000rven tho right to store water and to rooks exchange relcaeou from atruCturen that may be built or controlled by Lho Dlotrlct in the Futuro, 80 long as tho wator service to the Applicant pursuant to thio agroernent, is not lmpalrod by said action. Any quantity of the Applicant's allocation not delivered to or uaod by Applicant by tiro end of each water year (October 1). uhall revert to the water aupplioe of the District. such reversion shall not entitle Applicant to any rotund of payment made for such water. Water service provided by the Dlotrlct shall bo limited to the amount of WAIOC available In priority at the original point of diverolon of the Dlotrict'u applicable water right, and neither the Diotrlot, nor those entitled to utillzo the Dlatrict'e decrees, may call on any greater amount at now or altnrnatn polntn of divorulon, The Dlotrlct uhnll requoot the Colorado State Englneor to estimate any conveyance losoou botweon the original point and any Alternate point, and ouch outimato shall be deduoted from thin amount in each caae. The Dlotrlct, or anyone ueing the Dietrict'n decroea, may call on any additional sources of supply that may be available at an alternate point of diversion, (though not aL tho original point of dlvorsiun) only an ayainut wator rights which aro junior to the date of application for the alternate point of dlvoruion, 5. Alternate Point of Dlveruion and Plan of Augmontatloni [ecreed—For alternate po`3nta o Tverelori of the Diatrictle water rights or storage wntnr may be required in order for Applicant to nue the water service contemplated hereunder. Obtaining ouch docroo is the exclusive roeponulbill.ty of Applicant. Thu biutrict ruservun L'hu exclusive right 10 review and approve any condition° which may be attached to judicial approval of said alternate point of diversion au contemplated or necessary to eerve Applicant's facilities or lands. Applicant acknowledges and agreeo that it shall be solely responsible for the procedures and legal and engineering coots neceaeary for any changes in water righta contemplated herein, and further agneas to indemnify tho District from any costa or louoee related thereto. Applicant le solely roHponelblo for providing works and facilities neceeuary to obtain/dlvort tho watore at onid alternate point of diversion and dellvnr thorn to Appllcant'u intended hanufjClal U90. Irrofipactivo o@ the amount of wator actually traneforred to the Applicant's point of diversion, the Applicant shall make annual payments to the District bauucl upon the amount of water allotted under this agreement. In the ovont tho Applicant intend° to apply for an n1lornato point of divornlon and to dovolop an augmentation plan and inatituto legal proceedlncla for tho approval of ouch sugmontatlon plan to allow the Applicant to utilize the water allotted to Applicant horoundor, the Applicant shall give the District written notice of finch intent. In tho event the Applicant develol.o and adjudicates 'Le own augmentation plan to utilize the wator allotted horounder, Applloant °ha.11 not be obligated to pay any amount under paragraph 10 bolow. In any event, the District shall have the right to approvo or dInapprove the Applicant's augmentation plan and the Applicant shall provide the Dlotrlct copies of ouch p1An and of all ploadingn and other popern filed with the water court in tho adjudication Lheraof. 6. Contract Pumenti Non-rofundable, ono tlmu administrative cTi's'rgo, 1-1T—the amount determined by the Board of Direotore of tho bietriot from timo to time, shall bo submitted with this application for conoidoratlon by tho District. 1s 09/28. 'cIj 06:49 t. I [i : Zi 1F..IC(.1hdELLi 1 g i"1SSUC 11'1TES Annual payment Cor the water service described herein shall be determined by the Board of 011t Lars of the District at a per ecce -foot tate. The initial annual payment shall be mad°, In Lu11, within thirty (30) dayn after the slate cal notice to the Applicant that rho initial payment is due. Said notice will adVi1e the Applicant, among other things, of the water delivery year to which Lilo initial payment aha11 apply and the price which lu applicable Lo that year. Annual payments for each year thereafter 'ball be due 111td payable by the Apl'lleant on or before each .lauuury A. TC an annual payment: to not modu by L1,,; due ,.daiC, wtiLL0n notice thereof will be ue11t by the blutrlcl to Lho Applicant at each address n may bo designated by the Applicant In writing. (If no address has been no du0l9natcd In writing, then said notice shall be went to Applicant's arltlt'uos wet forts) heroin. Water use for any part of a water year shall require payment fur the entire water year. Nothing heroin nhr,l l ho nnnstrue,) en as to prevent the District from adjusting the annual rate in its solo dlecretihn for future years only. 1f payment in nut made within ton (1(1) days after the date of said written notion, Applicant uhall at 11lutr)et'u uu11t option have no further right, title n lntoronl undo)' this contract without further notice and delivery may be immediately curLallid; and t110 allotment of water, au herein made, may be transferred, leased, co OLhetwlue dlupuuud or at the dl°crotlon Of (.h,1 Board of Diru11Ore of the Platelet. 7. Security_ Asecurity to the District, the foregoing covenrAriant of 'annual paymenlu In advance of water delivery, will be fully mut by dnnual 11ud9ot and appropriation of funds from such sources of revenucec es may be legally available to the Applicant. An additional aecurily Lo the n11;Lric1, 1_ho Applicant will hold llarmlesu the District and any peraun, corporation, quasi -governmental entity, or other governmental entity, for discontinuance In service due Lo the failure of the @pplicant to maintain the payments hureln contemplatled on u current basis. Applicant agrees to defray any out-of-pocket. expellees incurred by the District in connection with Lhu allotment of water rights hereunder, including, but not limited lo, telnlburuumenL of legal and engineering costs lnt:erred in connection will, any water rights and ad jucllet,t ion noceanary to allow Apl,] Ic.,nt'u sou of anvil allotted water right6. R. Asalcgpment.__ Th15 agreement shall inure to the benefit of Lile lielre, ° Ieceoaor:: or assigns of the partlea hereto, except that nu assignment- uhu11 bo pctmllLetl in the event lhu water right allotted hereunder in to be uuud lar the benefit of land which w111 be subdivided or otherwise hold or owned In separate ownership irllereste by two (2) or more 'morn of the 0011:r right allotted hereoncler. 1n no event ehnll the owner of a portion, but lose than all, of the Appllennt',, propurty to be served candor thin contract, have any rights hereentlor. Arty assignment of the Applicant's right() under thin contract 61((11 b° subject to, and must comply with, nuuh regulronl°stn an the District may hereafter adopt regarding asnignmont of contract tights and the assumption or Contract nb)19atlunu by assigneen and 0uccessors. Nothing herein shall prevent successors to n portion of Applicant's property from applying) to the 11Jutrldt for individual and separate allOtment cuntracln. 9• Other Rules; Applicant shall he bound by the provisions of Erie WoLer••i.`nn.eerveney ACt of Colorado) by the ruler, and regulations of the board of Directors of the nlntrict) and all amendments thereof and supplements thereto and by all other applicable law. 10. operation and Maintenance A9reement.1 Applicant oh111 enter inl_u art "OperiiE1oi oiid Maim-enai'ee Agreement" with the 1)101.r11`1 under. term`: Anil con.) 11-1min 4101orin1nod by 1-1,1• 0,1.Ird e1' Directors of the I)intrl.et, 11 asci whim, the hoard oC uu1t1 Platelet P(IGE S 'j:''28 '95 06:49 I D : ZCINCCII ELLA ASSOC I (TES FAri :303-945-1253 PAGE 9 detormince In its sole discretion that such an agreement In required. Said agreement may contain, but shall not be limited to, provisions for addiliohal annual monetary consideration for extehelun of Dletrlct delivery services and for additional administration, operation, and maintenance cuc;L:;l UL fur other coats to the District which may arise thcoegh services mode ovailahlo to the Applicant.. 11. ('Range of flue_ The Illat:rlc:L reuerveu the exclusive right to review,--i'ea)iprove or disapprove any prupoeed eltaliyo In use of the water allotted hereunder. Any use other than that set forth hureln or any lease or sale of the water or water rights allotted hereunder without the prlor written approval of the District shall be decrnod to be a material broach of Chiu contract. 12. Use_and Place_of 1IFc1 Applicant agrees to Oen Lho water in the manneront�rl Litt: liCopurty 1uucribed In the documents aubnnitLed to the District et the Lima lhie vyrcement is executed (ansa docuutento are incorporated herein by thio reference thereto), or in any operation and maintenance agreement provided by Applicant. Any uuu other than as sot forth hereon or any lease or Hale of the water nr water riglht:a herein, other than au permitted In paragraph 11 above, shall he deemed Lo be a material breach of this agreement. 13. '('11101 (1 in undcreined and agreed that nothing herein shall he -interpreted Lo give tate Applicant any ecnlLrahle nr loyal foe tit]e lulereat in or to any water Of water LiyhLL referred to heroin. 14. onsnrvat Iorl: Applicant nIn,11 orae commonly accepted connervat on praccicea with respect to the water and water rights herein, and heroby ayiues to be bound by any conservation plan adopted hereafter by the 1115lrtut for use of District owned or controlled water or water righLu. 15. Reotrlcllottu: Applicant shall rostrad: meta a0. follows (ultluau aj,oec w VFTaiv'era ore appended to tido agreement). Violation of Cheat: restrictions shall be deemed Lo be a material breach oC thio agroement. Use Household Deme3Llc (lncludon I,Ive::l:ock (caLLle) 1trlya1luu lawn) Annnn1 Maximum lnlunl Dlvorsion 1/3 acre foot 1 - 3 acro feet 1 act e fu,)L/] 00 head 2 -- 1 acre feet/acre 16. Well Permit: 11 Applicant Intends Ln divert through a well, Chen Applicant roust provide to District a copy of Applloant'(I valid well permit before hlatrlcL in obligated 10 deliver any water hereunder. 17. ne))rco_enLntlono; uy r.xecuting this agreomonl, Applicant agrees that he in not relying on any legal or engineering advice that he may believe he has received from the District. Applicant further acknowledges that he has obtained all neceouary legal and engineering advice from his own souses other than the Dietr1cL. Applicant further acknowledges that the UlaLrlct makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances whatsoever about the quantity or quality of water available puretaanL to (Alla agreement. /Mould the ninl.rlct he unable to provide the water contracted for herein, no damages may he assessed against the District, nor may Applicant obtain a refund frena the Dlut.rict . 111, Penh] of LJ.i1:,•1 Court 1'11 In• 'l11•111.1 1tv 111,111 Ie•t./, i11 1Ln own &Iiet al1011, c11uuuu . L0 lac l nde Al(t1 1 Ca01' u vn0l r.1C1. heroin in a water court filing for alternate point of Inversion or plan of augmentation, then Applicant hereby agrees to pay Lu the District, when aAHeoaed, an additional face representing the Dlatric.t:'e actual and relceonal>le 00510 and rues for Appl lcant'u uIare of the proceeding. 00/28 '05 06:50 1 P_ ZCNCCII.IELL(i 2 CISSOC I I"ITES FII,::303-945-1253 POOE 10 19, Binding :,greamentt Thin Agreement shall not be complete nor Dieing upon tFie brotrlct unloea attached hereto In the Eons entitled "Application for Purchase of Waters Brom the West Divide Water Conservancy blatrlct" fully completed by Applicant and approved by the District's engineer. Said attachments shall by thin reference thereto 1,0 lncurl,utntutl Into the terms oe this agreement, 20. APPLICANT TO oliri'N/4-}ZAvALID WELLIIFER�tiT OR UPIIEJR IWATEIII RI(:IIT'THE IN ORDER TO DIVERT WATEn, TtICLUnING THE WATER ACQUIRED UNDER Tort' CONTRACT. I'T IS THE; CON'1'INItrNc DUTY OF THE APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN TUE VALIDITY OF TIIE WELL PERMIT OR WATER RIGII'i' INCLUDING PILING FOR EXTENSIONS OF PERMITS, FILING WELL COMPLETION REPORT'S, FILING STATEMENTS OF f1 NEFIC1AL USE, OR OTHERWISE LAWFULLY APPLYING THE WATER TO DENEF CXAL USE ON A REGULAR 11Afi1S W,C rllllUT WASTE. • APPLICANT' „• 1 , ny APPLICANT ADDRESS; P.O. Ilex 1155 11,=I F.1 l., ('0 81621 STATE Of COLORADO ) ti J . e. COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The foregolny instrument was Acknowledged before mo on thin 26 deg of Ju.1 y , c 1 ��� Ly T.SLf._L l l,Ilnc:e Wlt:nens my hand and official anal_ My cortun1 niotl expires' MCO 1" •II F1 19(m Do.nry Pohl!`-: ORDER ACl-er u hearing by the Board or Dlrectoru or tho West Divide Water Connervnhcy District on the above Application, it Id hurchy ORDERED that said application be granted And title contract nitnll he and in accepted by lho District, WEST 01 V I DIi WAT'LIl CO;I: hltvANCy DISTRICT ny President --- -- --- ATTEST: TecreF.o,:y Dale This contract includon and in subject to the terms And condi Lions of the following documents which must accompany this contract; 1. Map showing location or point of. diversion (uao map provided) 2. Application ulgnetl 3. Other and i)t,tn form 1u11y uumlfloted And 09./28 '95 06:50 I D : ZAPICAPIELLA a ASSOCIATES FAX:303-9=15-1253 PAGE 11 APPENDIX A The Cedar Hills Ranch Wall 11 1 is located et a point whence the SE A of the NE %A of Section 1, Township 6 South, Ronge 92 West of tho Gth P.M. bears a distance of North 22° 58' East for a distance of 2635.34 feet. The Well can be approximately plotters 2310 feat from the North Section Lino and 1264 foot from 1110 East Suction Lino. The Cedar Hills Ranch Wall 11 2 is located al a point whenco the SE '/ of the NE ' of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. bears a distance of North 09° 02' 25" East for a distance of 2190.14 foot. Tho Woll can be approximately plotted 2161 feet from the North Section Line and 363 foot from the Cast Section Lino. Tho Coder Hilla Ranch Well 1/ 3 is Iocatod at o point whence the SE %, of tho NE % of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the Gth P.M. boars a distance of North 22° 18' 23" East for a distance of 2475.21 foot. The Wall can be approximately plotted 2283 feet from tho North Section Line and 961 foot from the East Section Line. The Cedar Hills Ranch backup well is Iocatod at a point whenon the SE Y of the NE Y of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 02 Wost of the 6th P.M. bears a distance of North 21° 18' 26" East for a distance) of 2563.01 foot. Thr, Well can be approximately plottod 2381 feet from the North Section Lino anti 942 foot from the East S©etion Lino. 179 `OCT -11 ;95„WED. 11:59 AM WESTERN EHTEPRISES INC. 303 876 2896 P.02 • OCTOBER 11, 1995 PLANNING AND ZONING E3OARD OF GARFIELD COUNTY: WE HAVE BEEN REQUESTED TO FURNISH A STATEMENT BY YOUR OFFICE TO SHOW OWNERSHIP OF MINERAL RIGHTS ON THE CLASSEN PROPERTY TO GO F3EFORL YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF SULDIVISION STATUS. ATTACHED YOU WILL FIND A COPY OF THE QUIT CLAIM DEED FILED ' IN GARFIELD COUNTY. WE DID NOT RECEIVE OFFICIAL. NOTICE FRAM MR_ CLASSEN AS TO HIS INTENTIONS ON THIS APPLICATION. LINDA AND FRED KUERSTEN OCT -11-95 WELD 12:00 FM WESTERN ENTERRI=:E5 INC. 303 876 2896 482846 B-952 P-515 09/08/95 02:24P PG 1 OF 1 BEC DOC NOT MILDRED AL DO F GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER 6.00 QUITCLAIM DEED P.03 Mary Conto, individually and as surviving spouse and sole heir at law ofJoseph Conto, deceased, Seller, whose address is 109 E. 12th, City of Rifle, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, for the consideration of $325.00, in hand paid, hereby sells and quitclaims to Fred P. Kuevsten and Linda Lee Kuersten, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, whose address is P.O. Box 62, Town of New Castle, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, the following described real property in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to -wit: All of the oil, gas and other minerals on, in and under the following described lands, together with any appurtenant rights, which were reserved by Joseph Conto in: PARCEL 1 The SE'/, NE '/, and E '/2 SE r/; of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 W of the 6th P.M_, as more fully described in Deed recorded Book 357 Page 591, Garfield County records. PAI CEL.2 Twelve acres above the old county road off the West 21 and '/z acres of the SE 'A NE ' Section 1, Township 6 S., Range 92 W. of the 6th P.M., as more fully described in iced recorded Book 362 Page 582, Garfield County records. Mailing address of grantees: P.O, Box 62 New Castle, Colorado 81647 with all its appurtenances. .Signed this 7th day of September, 1995. STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) ss. Mary Conto, Self >r The foregoing instrument was I acknowledged d before me this r by I1Iary Conto. _ day of September, 1995, WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. Myco rtu��istion.0,xPires: 7.3 •-qB Source:§38-50-116, CR S JoR Notary Public pd ,r& V7 9 �. i, Ck li�g ' $-- 7) L a, 1 L P L k. 9 ( Q n in, (L ---. , r c c---- 6 ,--_, r ti :mac s= t1 g 0� LtaA) /Jcz, '/ ocT gc; 1993 ?'s iA/u ,g7Ar a-ze/ C Oc PETITION TO GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: CEDAR HILLS RANCH SUBDIVISION LOCATION: PEACH VALLEY (2 MILES EAST OF SILT ON 214 ROAD) SECTIONS: 1 AND 6 TOWNSHIP: 6 SOUTH RANGE: 92 WEST NUMBER OF HOMES PROPOSED: 20 ON 77.396 ACRES WE THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DENY THE PROPOSAL FOR CEDAR HILLS RANCH SUBDIVISION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. SUCH DEVELOPMENT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF PEACH VALLEY AS A WHOLE COMMUNITY. 2. DENSITY PROPOSED IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND WHICH IS LARGELY AGRICULTURAL OR FRAGILE RANGELAND. 3. QUESTIONABLE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY TO FURNISH PROPOSED HOMES AND MAINTAIN WATER TABLE TO EXISTING WELLS IN THE AREA_ 4. CONTAMINATION OF AQUIFERS AND DITCHES THROUGH EROSION AND EFFLUENT FROM SEWAGE SYSTEMS. 5. UNRELIABILITY OF IRRIGATION WATER FROM THE ROSEMAN DITCH TO PROPOSED HOMES AS WELL AS ITS AFFECT ON DOWNSTREAM SHAREHOLDERS_ 6. NO BOND IS REQUIRED OF THIS DEVELOPER. 7. INCURSION OF HOMESITES INTO WILDFIRE AREAS. 8. LACK OF ADEQUATE PARKLAND/OPENSPACE IN PROPOSAL. 9. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE WINTER RANGE. 10. LACK OF ADEQUATE IMPACT FEES 11. NEED FOR UPGRADING OF COUNTY ROADS LEADING TO SITE. SIGNATURE NAME (PRINTED) ADDRESS DATE CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION PETITION, CONTINUED: SIGNATURE NAME (PRINTED) ADDRESS DATE 1 014 2,-2-<„,4co y 2,`' ,4 e/(J 33 � i �sv ,L' yr ffc) V' t rel- 3 ?o - gl ,- Ad . ICt"•-1;A S`/(s AA }klid .1 z)./ cx)JLy ctry Las e r,P/c is 5o , [Am \i«VVJ c 2 / ''o�y,. v I �� 0 %qS sei) 16)1 tr IS 2c.�1 7.t73 4.6p. 1 40. PETITION TO G RFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: CEDAR HILLS RANCH SUBDIVISION 'LOCATION: PEACH VALLEY (2 MILES EAST OF SILT ON 211; ROAD) SECTIONS: 1 AND TOWNSHIP: 6 SOUTH RANGE: 92 WEST NUMBER OF HOMES PROPOSED: 20 ON 77..96 ACRES WE THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST 1 H ( ARF I EL D COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DENY -THE PROPOSAL FOR CEDAR HILLS RAIdciI SUBDIVISION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. SUCH DEVELOPMENT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF PEACH VALLEY AS A WHOLE COMMUNITY. 2. DENSITY PROPOSED IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND WHICH IS LARGELY AGRICULTURAL OR FRAGILE RANGELAND. QUESTIONABLE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY TO FURNISH PROPOSED HOMES AND MAINTAIN WATER TABLE TO EXISTING WELLS IN THE AREA. T. CONTAMINATION OF AQUIFERS AND DITCHES THROUGH EROSION AND EFFLUENT FROM SEWAGE SYSTEMS. 5_ UNRELIABILITY OF IRRIGATION WATER FROM THE ROSEMAN DI1CH TO PROPOSED HOMES AS WELL AS ITS AFFECT ON DOWNSTREAM SHAREHOLDERS. 6. NO BOND IS REQUIRED OF THIS DEVELOPER. 7_ INCURSION OF HOMESITES INTO WILDFIRE AREAS. 8. LACK OF ADEQUATE PARKLAND/OPENSPACE IN PROPOSAL. 9. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE WINTER RANGE. 10. LACK OF ADEQUATE IMPACT FEES 11. NEED FOR UPGRADING OF COUNTY ROADS LEADING TO SITE_ SIGNATURE NAME (PRINTED) ADDRESS DATE alt -ego / 67, CC �► opK�te2s n1 '/S5- Co.r 9/(9 9s J- 22 957 m 7'Rzry 9`6"f.5- c I /L�(,e. A- Vr6.0 k' f O4 I TE ni s m r1 c Q a /4-5'7 2 f /f:<ci y 6 _ 62/1"--e.LI �/�/Lo,L///tig c/G r, z o9 n_37 -;Zs CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION PETITION, CONTINUED NAME (PRINTED) ADDRESS DATE 390 � • -5711 JcN� U_ekSTI►Fi-c- 400 ee -- 4Ay ',f - "--7- 7S '0 4( ..t/ ad/ '' ' n 94" 9-c 2,.. d Ig___& k_f_n <-/5d- 0 fin at 111_______79( 7 91.<- V Q (-6N -3). we,L+f 11i.ci-tC��_r__! LIl e/7B1o2m-_____y-s/9.5- e2 u ' zap iiaNDi L . I,Jii,; n)3. oN 5721 e�f vo, (,, , C 0L L. C G ki (e3c� lo_,..► -2„. o? 7-S-75 ,L �. S{ lyziaL___, Yoh r 4-1-(233 RS, iI____4XLSII-S t zG��'.�a- ,„,4 -- 4.6 HLAL/;' ssIy d /t L ,Ltys' co . Rd. „qty S,"/,` f -s -Pa' or ee/2 (g_d )0 e_k-t Tro prk, 770- /9 // / It 7-7 7 95- B. ,O�a,s ij63.3 - �l�l cif 9/9/9,5' J(,L1�7 �S MrC fvTe, tog�_,ate' ',1''% ( 5 , \- f vo, L CON n s •3 'y(, ?i 111,1y l-? c , l /6,ks'z09'z-gs Wk tlewC t�Cn.,Cllock1 cIts,,w&i-iLiio-k-i4cts fr .1AL af://4/d_p_4 30,87/// 6 al/ WecY_41c1;7:Y7, f772- / /A / S .17; Cc, is SELL AC.F 37/(0 21(( 51, r CD $1(,5cf/a l e�'✓���✓ �, �o nl J 7/c, P2 y 5111~ Co 2 4sck gWjr (14 Ns -1,0 l Tz , 9//6 PETITION TO GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: CEDAR HILLS RANCH SUBDIVISION LOCATION- PEACH VALLEY (2 MILES EAST OF SILT ON 214 ROAD) SECTIONS: 1 AND 6 TOWNSHIP: 6 SOUTH RANGE: 92 WEST NUMBER OF HOMES PROPOSED: 20 ON 77.396 ACRES WE THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DENY THE PROPOSAL FOR CEDAR HILLS RANCH SUBDIVISION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. SUCH DEVELOPMENT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENCE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF PEACH VALLEY AS A WHOLE COMMUNITY. 2. DENSITY PROPOSED IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND WHICH IS LARGELY AGRICULTURAL OR FRAGILE RANGELAND. 3. QUESTIONABLE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY TO FURNISH PROPOSED HOMES AND MAINTAIN WATER TABLE TO EXISTING WELLS IN THE AREA. 4. CONTAMINATION OF AQUIFERS AND DITCHES THROUGH EROSION AND EFFLUENT FROM SEWAGE SYSTEMS. 5. UNRELIABILITY OF IRRIGATION WATER FROM THE ROSEMAN DITCH TO PROPOSED HOMES AS WELL AS ITS AFFECT ON DOWNSTREAM SHAREHOLDERS. 6. NO BOND IS REQUIRED OF THIS DEVELOPER. 7. INCURSION OF HOMESITES INTO WILDFIRE AREAS. 8. LACK OF ADEQUATE PARKLAND/OPENSPACE IN PROPOSAL. 9. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE WINTER RANGE. 10. LACK OF ADEQUATE IMPACT FEES 11. NEED FOR UPGRADING OF COUNTY ROADS LEADING TO SITE. NAME (PRINTED) ADDRESS DATE �. C,V1'►P 301- IS \A! es -k- o�� S �i 3�P y C0 sw„sc) j -S -cL Oa -43 CoP6(• 1 o -Z- /4/7/' 0 J� Ka THLE EN S- STRaNL-- /',/-2)61-14')/9L_ C . < r) / 06 1-1- ST /ell/tic, o3/3 /r�L a /o/y/ (A/0 /e (C) 0'4 z 3 CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION PETITION, CONTINUED: SIGNATURE NAME (PRINTED) ADDRESS DATE Jeloa,v 624 -4t -d ..(A an Fci.45I et' 311.2 CI t1L k);of i /i9/1/7s ivy or►a. Knee► JICYS -a c� �3 75' r.5/-/a-y-gs- b is 31 a r--: s- a SA; id el Le Mo Ne `l4Da {/y351 1,1)2.). to - `-! -75- a 95a 9 I e. (-LIM 1044 Rd N " fi9s Fact, /V Odsi 'a//c Z- / me'Ka. ef m (4tef/u,z- /0145 ///� D. ��v Srir w /94,b5-6/ bS .brive "kat (')i,rft4 C�7o�;II CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION PETITION, CONTINUED: SIGNATURE Xa.-/f1 %) ( . NAME (PRINTED ) ADDRESS DATE c - 16 c.r- A: A►Z L. uv /// /S Ca /� 2 /'-I /r/7 /i( - /1 e V2 7 D i)c'eSivieArc)) ,)/`-/ /214 /0 -/7-1S j/c7,,`j-{ly�bii�i ('70? cQict h/0-- 7-�I.S J c - icCilc.o. (. 7(.'q 1/yX�4 Lcvrutva e- 1 t CZE.\vhr. � J FCl W rcd E - taezPc (-1-`2et Sts 7 5 u- �. / . /4(1 � (/1//'iti%1sY/k - Yl / Of/616/ e /-la v pet- fo_. &--/'Z ci 10..)0 -FIs 3Y�r i 2i S r. 2c1 2'`I Willis cey eke('�Crd (J/6Y% ' ; I -:15 34(4 ait rte. '' 11, r.cni 3f? (Pd d -"-)L4/7//1 o/S� �6 1160/ /67675 P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Z4NC414ELL4 4110 4S5OC14TE5 ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS` September 28, 1995 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Eric McCafferty (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax Dear Eric: Zancanella & Associates, Inc. would like to clear up the confusion regarding the water system used for Cedar Hills Ranch. Enclosed is a diagram of the lots in question. The four lots that have road frontage are numbered west to east as Lot 1, 18, 19 and 20 (Figure 1) Lot 1 has historically used well 1 located on that lot. Lot 1 is the location of well 3 and the pump system. Lot 18 and 19 have historically shared well #2. Because of the distance from the central system, Zancanella & Associates, Inc. proposes to put Lot 19 and 20 on a shared existing well and to put Lot 18 on the central system. The proposed augmentation plan provides for all lots in the subdivision to be placed on the central system if the individual wells prove to be inadequate. We have also included a copy of the approved west Divide contract for the proposed Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision. As per your discussions with Tom Zancanella the water level in the proposed well have increased since the Test dated June 16, 1995. We will continue to monitor the water level in the well. If you have any questions, please call our office at (970)945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. Terri L. Lance Geologist cc: Roger Neal Norm Clasen TLL/MAZ/95213 ,Z4P4C4t4ELL4 4N0 4SSOCI4TES ENGINEERING CONSULT4NTY P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 near Silt, Colorado Garfield County P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Z4 C4NELL4 4141) 455OCI4 TE5 ENGINEERING CONSULT414T5 September 21, 1995 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Eric McCafferty Dear Eric: (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax SEP 2 71995 GARFIELD COUNTY Zancanella & Associates, Inc. would like to clear up the confusion regarding the water system used for Cedar Hills Ranch. Enclosed is a diagram of the lots in question. The four lots that have road frontage are numbered west to east as Lot 1, 18, 19 and 20 (Figure 1) Lot 1 has historically used well 1 located on that lot. Lot 18 is the location of well 3 and the pump system. Lot 18 and 19 have historically shared well #2. Because of the distance from the central system, Zancanella & Associates, Inc. proposes to put Lot 19 and 20 on a shared existing well and to put Lot 18 on the central system. The proposed augmentation plan provides for all Tots in the subdivision to be placed on the central system if the individual well prove to be inadequate. We have also included a copy of the approved west Divide contract for the proposed Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision. As per your discussions with Tom Zancanella the water level in the proposed well have increased since the Test dated June 16, 1995. We will continue to monitor the water level in the well. If you have any questions, please call our office at (970)945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. Terri L. Lance Geologist cc: Roger Neal Norm Clasen TLL/MAZ/95213 1 Lot 1 1 i• O Z(''�1 Z000 .. O yam( • O 0 g axm 0 FtnIA 73 �2n O .� iZ4NC4NELL4 ANf) 4S3004TES ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS' P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Cedar Hills Ranch near Silt, Colorado Garfield County DAVID W. ROBBINS ROBERT F. HILL DENNIS M. MONTGOMERY KAREN A. TOMB RONALD L. WILCOX JOHN H. EVANS MARK J. WAGNER JEFFREY M. HALL ANNE K. LAPORTA HILL & ROBBINS, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 BLAKE STREET BUILDING 1441 EIGH 1'EENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80202.1256 July 26, 1995 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 109 - 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners: TELEPHONE 303 296-8100 TELECOPIER 303 296-2388 '1'Y Re: Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision Water Supply Based on conversations this date with Mr. Tom Zancanella, I understand that the referenced subdivision is going to be proposed for twenty (20) single-family dwellings. My letter of July 20, 1995, refers to 18 dwellings, but Mr. Zancanella now informs me that twenty dwellings is correct. I also understand that there is no change in the technical feasibility of the project water supply, and my opinion stated in my July 20, 1995 letter remains the same. DWR:ncr cc: Norm Clasen Tom Zancanella (6-200) Very truly yours, David W. Robbins DAVID W. ROBBINS ROBERT F. HILL DENNIS M. MONTGOMERY KAREN A. TOMB RONALD L. WILCOX JOHN H. EVANS MARK J. WAGNER JEFFREY M. HALL ANNE K. LAPORTA • . HILL & ROBBINS, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 100 BLAKE STREET BUILDING 1441 EIGHTEENTH STREET DENVER, COLORADO 802021256 July 20, 1995 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 109 - 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners: 199J MACY TELEPHONE 303 296-8100 TELECOPIER 303 296-2388 Re: Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision Water Supply I have reviewed the development plans and engineering for the proposed subdivision referenced above. I have also discussed the water supply plans with the developer, Mr. Norm Clasen, and his engineer, Mr. Tom Zancanella. Among the information I reviewed from Mr. Zancanella was a pump test on an existing well on the property which allowed him to conclude that there was already sufficient physical water available for the planned 18 single- family dwellings. Of course, that well is not an adequate legal water supply during certain times of the year when there is a senior call for water on the Colorado River. As a result, it is necessary to replace, from other sources, any depletions that the well might cause. The Water Court for Water Division 5 has regularly accepted contract water from the West Divide Water Conservancy District to replace out -of -priority depletions. As a result, I believe that depletions resulting from the existence of the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision water supply could be similarly replaced. Mr. Clasen has employed my firm, together with Zancanella & Associates, to prepare and prosecute an application for a plan for augmentation in the Water Court for Water Division 5, utilizing West Divide contract water. In addition, Mr. Clasen has requested that we prepare and submit a temporary plan of substitution pursuant to C.R.S. §37-80-120 to the State Engineer. Utilizing the West Divide contract water and a temporary substitute supply plan approved by the State Engineer will provide the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision with a legal water supply. The substitute supply plan can be relied upon during the course of the legal proceedings leading to a formal and permanent water supply under a plan for augmentation. Upon approval of the West Divide Water Conservancy District contract, Mr. Clasen will have a legal replacement supply available for his proposed subdivision and it is my opinion that a • temporary substitute supply plan and, ultimately, an augmentation plan can and will be approved confirming the legality of the water supply. Please call if you have questions. Very tru ours, DWR:ncr cc: Norm Clasen Tom Zancanella (6-200) a•id W. Ro•bi s P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Z4NC4NELL4 4N1) 453004TES ENGINEERING CONSULT4NTs October 2, 1995 Mr. Norm Clasen Cedar Hills Ranch P.O. Box 115 Basalt, CO 81621 Dear Norm (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax Attached is a complete water quality analysis of the complete test results for Well 3. This copy provides the results of the radioactive particle tests which were not complete at the time of our last correspondence. As you can see the test pass the requirements for Alpha and Beta particles. Also enclosed is a copy of the lab bill, this bill accurately reflects the work that was done to date, and has been approved for payment. If you have any questions, please call our office at 945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. Terri L. Lance Geologist cc: Garfield County file TLL/maz/95213.tstrslt Spring Creek Land Co. LLC Post Office Box 1155 Basalt, Colorado 81621 k, (970) 927-4418 ��:��' Garfield Board of County Commissioners 109 8th St. Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 October 30, 1995 Dear County Commissioners, Kt 3 1 1995 Enhi 1 E. LU GOildgiseWbaC I am writing to help clarify some concerns regarding the upcoming presentation on Cedar Hills Ranch. At the last meeting with planning and zoning, we spent over 4 hours discussing the Cedar Hills Ranch project which included a great deal of public comment. I feel we answered every question presented to us by P and Z and hopefully clarified many of the concerns of the general public. It was interesting to note that one of the P and Z members asked the county attorney if he could help him find anything, other than his own personal feelings, to deny the project. When Dan informed him that it was not his position to do so, and nothing could be found, he voted against the project on personal grounds anyway. While this is a choice that one can make it may not be the proper way to judge a project going through your process. As you know, all applicants are put under sever scrutiny to use certified consultants to answer the numerous and important technical questions raised in the subdivision process. We certainly have been thoroughly questioned by your staff as well as P and Z. We have complied or agreed with everything required by them. Additionally, we have voluntarily increased the average size of the lots from the existing 2 acre zoning to an average of 4.3 acres. We have provided open space, protected view planes, instituted pre -determined solar home sites and envelopes, limited lawns, shown more than adequate water supply, volunteered chip seal roads, provided underground utilities, maintained the irrigated pastures and offered to work with Garfield County in repairing one of the culverts on 235 Road (and off-site road) to mention a few. Where I feel the process is questionable is that some members of the P and Z appear to have based their decision more on a personal level rather than the technical merits of the project. When reputable professional consultants address the process with information gathered at great expense and effort, that should be taken into consideration rather than ignored. If certain information is not sufficient, recommendations should be made to resolve those issues. It is my opinion that Cedar Hills Ranch is a fine project that sets a good precedent for the area. It was judged not on its planning or zoning but on personal feelings. Most importantly, I believe only one P and Z member has actually visited the site. Without a site visit it is very difficult to understand what is being presented. During the meeting it became obvious that many things could have been discussed more expediently and been better resolved with the knowledge of how this project actually integrates with the topography, the engineering involved and the various sites considered. To avoid the same problem, I would like to invite the commissioners to an on-site visit of this project. Tom Zancanella, Roger Neal and I will be pleased to walk it with you and answer any questions you have. Not only would this allow for more informed decisions, it would allow Cedar Hills Ranch to be judged on it's own merits and help answer your questions ahead of the meeting. If you can meet, please call me and I will make the necessary arrangements. Respectfully y Norm Clasen cc: Lee Leavenworth Roger Neal Tom Zancanella HAZEN Zancanella & Associates Terri Lance P.O. Box 1908 Glenwood Springs CO 81602 Hazen Research, Inc. 4601 Indiana St. • Golden, Colo. 80403 Tel: (303) 279-4501 • Telex 45-860 FAX: (303) 278-1528 REPORT OF ANALYSIS SAMPLE NO. I58/95-1 SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION: Clasen Well 3 in Garfield County 08/31/95 @ 1700 by Samuelson Pump Co. DATE September 28, 1995 HRI PROJECT 002-96D HRI SERIES NO. I58/95 DATE RECD. 09/05/95 CUST P.O.# None Rec'd PARAMETER r', RESULT Gross Alpha(±precision*),pC1/1 (T) '29(+12) Gross Alpha(+precision*),pCi/1 (T)*** 5(+12) Gross Beta(±precision*),pCi/1 (T) 0(±14) Uranium,mg/1 (T) 0.035 Uranium,pCi/1 (T)** 24 DETECTION LIMIT MEM Q_D 3 EPA 900.0 3 EPA 900.0 20 EPA 900.0 0.002 ASTM D2907 1 ASTM D2907 ! e(4.. /0 phi/ L of 1CZ-1" 65-4 CODES: (T)=Total (D)=Dissolved (S)=Suspended (R)=Recoverable (PD)=Potentially Dissolved <=Less Than By: ANALYSIS DATE/TIME 09/20/95 09/20/95 09/20/95 09/26/95 09/26/95 ANALYST LD LD LD RP RP Robert Rostad Laboratory Manager .1 *Variability of the radioactive disintegration process (counting error) at the 95% confidence level, 1.96 x sigma. Certification Authority Lab ID's: US EPA Region VIII - CG; CT - PH -0152; KY - 90076; NH - 232895-A; NY ELAP - 11417. **Uranium results reported assuming the activity of natural uranium is 6.77 x 10'' Ci/g. ***Excluding Radon and Uranium. • STATE OF COLOMDO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 August 17, 1995 Mr. Mark Bean, Planner Garfield County Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 80601 Roy Romer Governor James S. Lochhead Executive Director Ida' D. Simpson State Engineer RE: Cedar Hills Ranch, Preliminary Plat E1/2 NE1/4 Sec. 1, T. 6 S, R. 92 W, and W1/4 NW1/4 Sec. 6, T. 6 S, R. 91 W, 6th P.M. Water Division 5, Water District 39 Dear Mr. Bean: We are in receipt of your subdivision referral to subdivide approximately 77+ acres into 20 residential lots, located about three miles east of Rifle, Colorado. The proposed water supply is either central well and/or individual wells on the lots which wells are to be included in the West Divide Water Conservancy District's substitute supply plan until a permanent plan for augmentation is approved by the Water Court. Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(I), C.R.S., the State Engineers Office offers the following opinion for your consideration regarding material injury to decreed water rights and the adequacy of the proposed water supply of the subject subdivision. 1. Our records show that the ground water in the subject area is tributary to the Colorado River System, which is over -appropriated. The substitute water supply plan issued to the West Divide Water Conservancy District (District) is reviewed and renewed by our office annually. If the applicant obtains West Divide contracts or a decreed plan for augmentation for the proposed uses and well permit(s) are issued from our office, it is unlikely that injury will occur to decreed water rights. 2. We are unable to comment on the adequacy of the water supply without an engineering or geotechnical study documenting the physical availability of ground water for the proposed uses. As outlined in the statutes, Section 30-28-133(3)(d), C.R.S., the applicant is required to submit adequate evidence that a water supply that is sufficient in terms of Mr. Mark Bean Page 2 August 17, 1995 quality, quantity, and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of water. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office or Mr. Orlyn Bell of our Division office in Glenwood Springs at 945-5665. Sincerely, P74 Mr. Kris Murthy Professional Engineer KM/km cedarhills.sub cc: Orlyn Bell, Div. Engineer James R. Lemon, Water Commissioner SEP -26-1995 13:51 FROM GARFIELD CO ROAD a BRIDGE TO 9457725 P.02 • • GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE P.O. BOX 2254 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-2254 Phone 945-6111 DATE: September 26, 1995 TO: Mark Bean FROM: King RE Cedar Hills Ranch The drainage plan doesn't adeouately address potential runoff problems andthe potential effect on CR214. The ridge line running parallel to CR214 annually is subject to flash flooding the roadway intersection of CR214 & CR262. Just 3 weeks eoo wes inundated by a mud and debris flow rd h annually for several summers. The road appears to be funneling all the runoff down to its intersection with CR214. With one of the pipes on the upper end of the project being spec. et 35- diameter, it would aPPear the engineers feel at some time there could bo significant. water coming down the ditches. This Dart of CR214 is relatively flat. has consideration been given to the effect or- further disposal of this runoff onto adjoining property, The boundary survey doesn't identify a R -O -W width. With the school district buying land in the area, development and future traffic could need an expanded R -o -w. This project directly accesses CR214 (average width 18 ft.) and is approximately halfway between CR235 (average width 19 feat) and CR262 (average width 20 feet) both of which access state Highway 6 & 24. I don't understand why there was not a traffio study done on CR214 since it will get all of the traffic, which could be children going to school at Silt elementary or Rifle high and aci.ults working at points east. Our traffic counts show that 6070 of the traffic is driving faster than 40 MPH near the cntranoc to the propopod sUbdivision. This entrance lies at the bottom of a hill which limits the site distance for vehicles pulling out onto CR214. cedar TOTAL P.02 • STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Perry D. Olson, Director 606 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 March 30, 1995 0584 216 Road Rifle, CO 81650 Mr. Dave Michaelson Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Dave: REFER TO For Wildlife - For People I have reviewed the Cedar Hills Subdivision sketch plan that you sent me. This is a low elevation site with a southern exposure and thus important to wildlife, especially during the winters. This is critical deer winter range and up to one hundred and sixty elk also frequent this property. The plan did not address wildlife and the associated impacts from the development, nor did it specify the covenants. The Division of Wildlife requests the following: 1) Property owners required to kennel dogs 2) Wire fences for pastures be constructed according to DOW specifications 3) Property owners be required to provide their own fencing to protect haystacks 4) Prospective property buyers be advised that the DOW is not liable for game damage to gardens and ornamental flowers, shrubs, and trees Thank you for requesting our input. Respectfully, Don Crane District Wildlife Manager DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Swift, Vice -Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Secretary Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member William R. Hegberg, Member • Mark LeValley, Member • • MEMO TO: DAVE MICHAELSON, PLANNER FROM: DON K. DEFORD, COUNTY ATTORNEY RE: DATE: March 28, 1995 CEDAR HILLS SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN I have had an opportunity to review the plat and associated documents relative to the Cedar Hills Subdivision sketch plan. I have the following comments: 1. It is impossible to determine the type of domestic water system proposed for this subdivision. The introductory letter indicates wells will be serving clusters or groups of homes. That type of arrangement would create many central water systems subject to County standards. The text of the proposal indicates that each house will have its own well and water storage. That proposal would result in 26 individual wells with 26 storage tanks. Fire Department review of either proposal is critical. 2. As submitted, the proposal sets forth a single culdesac road of almost 2/3 of a mile in length. That clearly exceeds County regulations and will need specific approval of the fire district. 3. As drafted, the proposal sets forth a lot denominated as Tract A. That tract is less than the minimum size permitted by zoning in this district and must be eliminated from further proposals. 4. As submitted, this proposal would result in access to a County road by the subdivision, as well as additional individual lots. While legally permitted, the Planning Commissioners should be aware of the multiple traffic entrances to County Road 214. 5. As with other County roads, we have no road impact fee system in place to mitigate the effects of this subdivision. Therefore, at this juncture, the 26 lots would come into existence without payment of their proportionate share for eventual improvements to County Road 214. At some point, such improvements will be required, if further development occurs along this County road. Unless a system is put in place at this time, the County will encounter the same difficulties currently existing in the eastern end of the County concerning collection of impact fees for roads deteriorating and subjected to excessive use. • • DAVE MICHAELSON PAGE TWO MARCH 28, 1995 6. As proposed, the subdivision would create 26 individual sewage disposal systems. In spite of the position of the Department of Health, this proposal must be submitted to that Department at the time of preliminary plan. For the foregoing reasons, comments from the State Engineer and the State Department of Health are critical in evaluating this subdivision proposal. Additionally, strict compliance with the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations should be expected regarding water storage, fire department approval and road system improvements. DKD:mls • April 5, 1995 Dave Michaelson Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 FOREST SERVICE State Services Building 222 S. 6th Street, Room 416 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Telephone (303) 248-7325 Re: Cedar Hills Subdivision Wildfire Hazard Review Dear Mr. Michaelson, I have reviewed the Sketch Plan Report for the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision, submitted by the Spring Creek Land Company, and visited the site on April 4th. When evaluating a site for wildfire hazard, I concentrate on vegetation, topography, water supply, and access. These points are addressed in the following comments. Vegetation in the proposed subdivision ranges from irrigated pasture to a mature pinyon -juniper woodland, interspersed with small openings of sagebrush and grass. Cottonwoods line an irrigation ditch and some of the drainages above the pasture. Topography consists of a gently sloping sidehill cut by a series of shallow drainages flowing roughly southwest. Slopes range from nearly level to 3046. Several rock outcrops within the proposed area would act as effective fuelbreaks, as well as the proposed road system. The proposed subdivision is in an area that has been mapped as low, medium, and high hazard for wildfire. The pasture area is low hazard (lots 1, 2, 13, 14, and parts of lots 16 and 17). Medium hazard exists in the sagebrush and sparsely forested areas. The high rating is limited to the steeper ground of this parcel, where the pinyon -juniper is more dense. Although fires in the pinyon -juniper type are common, they are usually confined to single trees or small groups of trees, and are generally easy to control. In sagebrush, fires are usually of low to moderate intensity and are likewise fairly easily controlled. Of primary concern in this proposed subdivision are any areas over 3046 slope and the more densely vegetated drainages. Under favorable burning conditions, a fire occurring in one of the steep gullies would intensify due to the "chimney" effect of the topography and slope. Structures located in or at the head of such drainages would be especially vulnerable to damage from wildfire. The applicant has stated that water supply for firefighting will be provided by two ponds on the property that are fed from both the seasonal irrigation ditch and springs. The ponds appear to have a fairly dependable supply of between 20,000 and 50,000 gallons each, and have good access for fire department vehicles. The applicant has also stated that one or more cisterns will be s � located on the upper reaches of the property (lots 16-21) for use in firefighting. In regard to access, CSFS standards are for subdivisions to have dual ingress/egress points, which is not provided for in this proposal. Dual ingress/egress can be an important factor in providing safe evacuation in case of wildfire; however, this access is not always practical. To help alleviate this problem, it is recommended that turnouts be located every 750 feet along roadways to provide adequate emergency vehicle access. My specific recommendations to further mitigate wildfire hazard for this proposed subdivision are: - Structures should not be located in or at the head of drainages. -Remove all vegetation within ten feet of all structures. This area should be maintained in the future as low groundcover such as mowed grass. - Brush or trees within 30 feet of homes should be thinned, if necessary, so that remaining clumps are no more than 10 feet wide. Down dead material and small, brushy trees that would act as "ladder fuels" should be removed to reduce the chances of a crown fire. -All lots located above the irrigation ditch should have a water storage facility accessible to fire department vehicles, with a minimum storage capacity of 1,000 gallons per structure. -Roof coverings should be of non-combustible materials. Shake -shingle roofs are a documented source of ignition in a wildland fire situation, and should be avoided. The above recommendations are covered in more detail in the CSFS publication "Wildfire Protection in the Wildland Urban Interface" which was provided to Norm Clasen at the time of the site visit. Thanks for the opportunity to review this proposal. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please call me at 248-7325. Sincerely, 7 -.e -f-1; i7yr-- Kelly Rogers Asst. District Forester cc: Burning Mountain FPD Norm Clasen r COMMUNICATIONS April4, 1995 TO: Dave Michaelson FROM: Carson Bell - US WEST - LNO - Engineer RE: Cedars Pud Sketch Plan After review of the master sketch plan it was determined that facilities will feed off of CR 245. The existing facilities are presently full. However US WEST has scheduled a major up grading project for 1995. The new facilities are designed to remove all party lines and provide one - party service to the New Castle exchange. Please advise the developers that when the final plat is approved a copy should be sent to our LDA (Land Developers Agreement) Group in Denver. The telephone number is 1-800-526-3557 and the mailing address is: Land Development Agreement Group 12999 Deer Creek Canyon Road Room 3B322 Littleton, CO 80127 The phone number for this group is 1-800-526-3557. If you have any questions please call on 244-4916 • STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-2611 FAX (303) 866-2461 September 6, 1995 i,„ , SEP.! i 1995 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 GA -96-0002 orrii DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Roy Romer Governor lames S. Lochhead Exec utive Director Michael B. Lon Division Director Vicki Cowart State Geologist and Director Re: Proposed Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision -- West of Newcastle and North of Peach Valley Road (C.R. 214), Garfield County Dear Mr. Bean: At your request and in accordance with S.B. 35, we have reviewed the materials submitted for and made a field inspection of the site of the proposed residential subdivision indicated above. The following comments summarize our findings. (1) The general geology of this site consists of older alluvial (stream -deposited), colluvial (mass wasted down slope by gravity), and loess (wind -deposited) deposits which overlie predominantly sand and shale bedrock of the Wasatch Formation. The area is on the south side of the Grand Hogback and drainages originating on it have downcut through these materials and form small ravines and drainageways which dissect the parcel. These drainages can carry relatively heavy flood and debris flows during infrequent heavy rainstorms that occur in the area. (2) The geologic constraints to development of this parcel as planned are moderate to severe, but will be easily surmountable if taken seriously in road -construction plans, structural designs, and locations for structures and other improvements. We strrongly recommend that only the most nearly (naturally) level parts of the proposed lots be used as building sites. The proposed road layout as shown on the submitted topographic map is reasonable considering overall terrain conditions, but the kinds of materials that it will traverse will almost undoubtedly contribute to abnormally high maintenance costs for it. Extreme care should be taken to adequately maintain all drainage -control structures, roads, and driveways in the subdivision. (3) The irrigation ditch which crosses the parcel should be adequately lined so that slopes • • Mr. Mark Bean September 6, 1995 Page 2 below it are not destabilized by excessive infiltration of surface moisture. The same precaution should be taken with respect to landscaping irrigation. (4) Because of the variable "soils" conditions indicated in (1), we recommend that each building site be investigated by a qualified soils and foundation engineer. It is reasonable to anticipate that specialized foundation designs will be necessary for many, if not all, of the lots. If the recommendations made above are followed and made conditions of approval of this subdivision, then we have no geology -related objection to it. Si cerely, pies M Soule ngineering Geologist '3 / Board Ross Talbott - Chairman William Montover Sean Mello Tom Voight Gordon Witzke • • Burning Mountains Fire Protection District Box 236 Silt, CO 81652 R Fer SEP 1 1995 Don Zordel - Chief Stu Cerise - Assist. Chie September 12, 1995 RE: Cedar Hills Ranch To Whom It May Concern: After reviewing the plans, I see no sketches of the ponds or dry hydrants that were discussed for fire protection. If these ponds are not going to be upgraded and dry hydrants put in, along with truck access to them, the owner needs to put in fire hydrants on the domestic water system. This will require 6 inch mains and a hydrant so that no house is ever more than 500 feet from a hydrant. Thank you, Ipnet0 Donald L. Zordel, re Chief Burning Mountains FPD DLZ/ms Board Ross Talbott - Chairman William Montover Sean Mello Tom Voight Gordon Witzke Burning Mountains Fire Protection District Box 236 Silt, CO 81652 Jr)/ tFq J— AUG 2 219 _a ,r =-) LD COUNTY Don Zordel - Chief Stu Cerise - Assist. Chief August 22, 1995 Subject: Ceder Hill Subdivision on 214 Road To Whom It May Concern: The two ponds within the subdivision should be up graded and one dry hydrant installed at each pond with a large enough turn around for fire trucks to have easy access to them. The first dry hydrant should be installed before housing construction starts and the second by the time half the lots have houses on them. Hydrants should be at least 2 1/2". Thank you, c -y! Don Zor. -1 District Chief, BMVFD DZ/ms X4r111v9 trust Nati e cat.C fl . . Ei0 rk 12 37 aktut,codi SL-n-trAis C 4-44,0 9 ;1)02 • 1 1,0' otiP 4 LO (X.-AONTY' A ug ot 20, 1991 Mark Been Ga rfiel d Courit.0 Pi a n m ng Co mm 33i 1 th street, Suite 303 Gle wood S p n ng , COlOr ado 81602 Dear Mr. ReFin: ifitr.f.b1.1`le:5.e.?"07i The proposed Cedar Hill sub -division 10e8ted just north of county road 214 in the NW 1/4, Sec. #6 of T. #6 S., R. 91 W of the 6 p.m. NE1/4 of Sec. 1 T.63., R. 92 W. of the 6 p.m., in Garfield Countu in the State of Colorado. A surface resource inventory and Native American con:sultati On for the prOject W83 CO nducted bij Ke riri t.! Frost, Native Amen Ca n consul t8 nt and a member of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. The purpose i3 to aid in the identification of ;any Native An sacred sites and/or any archaeological sites. The proposed Cedar Hill 3ub-div13ion area 3urvey is located iut north of C.R. 214 with an approximate] i 5700 feet in elevation. This parcel of land totals approximatel i 77.5 acres and privately ow ed by Mr. Clasen. A3 there are no newly constructed road or trails 'N./MA n the 5UrVeg area, ;On ma r y di 3t. u r hence i fl the area are gaine3 trails made by a nil -11813 This 81€.!8 in and around the proposed Cedar Hill 3tib-diVi31011 i3 Within the heart of Ute Territory and .v,..as used as camping area by the Utes- in the spring and winter months as they traveled across the Flat Tops in the Summer. Farming were some of the activities that took 018C:8 I Ft the late 0 0 '3 to pr es e The field survey %,a5 conducted by myself, Beth Giles, an archaeologist, and Mr. Norm Clasen. The terrain has mall hills, plants 3 tie h a: 1 Li niper., native grass and 3age brush Ca Fi be fo u nd on the 31.1rVetj 31 te • • The 8bove the ground 3urveg, Native American and cultural clearance has been given for approval on the Cedar Hill sub -division 83 no 3ites were found. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at rhe number listed above on the fir3t. page of the report. 5incerel YO r3; Ki:•! ft ay 0.3t., Native American Consultant IN REPLY REFER TO: F. United States Department of the Interio ' `=t) 2 1995 ... 1785g BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Glenwood Springs Resource Area 50629 Highway 6 and 24 P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 September 22, 1995 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: ;. (7-880* In response to comments regarding the Public Hearing on October 11, 1995, for the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision, I refer you to my statements presented in my enclosed letter of March 28, 1995 to your office. Although the proposed subdivision has been reduced in area from 120 to 77.398 acres, the recommendations and concerns presented in my earlier letter remain valid. In a recent conversation with Jim Byers of this office, Mr. Clasen has agreed to construct a livestock fence, where needed, along the private/BLM boundary to address our livestock fencing concerns. Mr. Clasen has also agreed to field review the proposed 50 foot "non -wheeled vehicle" easement he proposes between Lots 6 and 7 with my staff. It is my understanding that the proposed users of the trail would be restricted to subdivision owners. I am generally hesitant to consider any easement (road or trail) that provides access to public lands for a select group of users. However, understanding that horseback access from the proposed subdivision east along County Road 214 and north up County Road 238 to BLM is circuitous and somewhat unsafe given the travel counts and narrow roadway along Road 214, I am willing at this stage to field review the proposed easement and its possible impacts to the adjacent public land with Mr. Clasen. Sincerely, 1.14 -4, -14 -771W -e i'iicha.el b. Mottice Area i!lai.iager Enclosure STATE OF COLORADO • • Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Perry D. Olson, Director 606 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 March 30, 1995 0584 216 Road Rifle, CO 81650 Mr. Dave Michaelson Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Dave: REFER TO For Wildlife — For People I have reviewed the Cedar Hills Subdivision sketch plan that you sent me. This is a low elevation site with a southern exposure and thus important to wildlife, especially during the winters. This is critical deer winter range and up to one hundred and sixty elk also frequent this property. The plan did not address wildlife and the associated impacts from the development, nor did it specify the covenants. The Division of Wildlife requests the following: 1) Property owners required to kennel dogs 2) Wire fences for pastures be constructed according to DOW specifications 3) Property owners be required to provide their own fencing to protect haystacks 4) Prospective property buyers be advised that the DOW is not liable for game damage to gardens and ornamental flowers, shrubs, and trees Thank you for requesting our input. Respectfully, Don Crane District Wildlife Manager DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Swift, Vice -Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Secretary Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member William R. Hegberg, Member • Mark LeValley, Member • • United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Glenwood Springs Resource Area 50629 Highway 6 and 24 P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 March 28, Mr. Dave Michaelson Garfield County Planning Commission 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Michaelson: 1995 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1785g (7-880) In response to your request for comments regarding the proposed Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision, I offer the following statements for your scheduled April 12, 1995, Planning Commission review of the sketch plan. The entire northern edge of the 120 acre tract is adjacent to public lands administered by this office. Current uses on the BLM include livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreation such as hunting, horseback riding, and hiking. 1. Ownership of land adjacent to BLM-administered public land does not grant the adjacent landowner(s) any special rights or privileges for the use of the public lands. 2. During staff review, it was noted that the proponents propose a 50 foot access easement between lots 3 and 4 that would "provide permanent riding and hiking trails ... to the BLM". The proposed 50' easement would likely attract or encourage recreational use, mainly from subdivision residents, and there could be negative impacts from such use. Such an easement could result in the unauthorized proliferation of trails by both nonmotorized and motorized users, trash dumping, disturbance of wildlife and firewood cutting. Public access to the affected public lands is already available from existing county roads in the vicinity and the need for additional public access is not apparent. Any developed trail system from the subdivision onto adjacent public land would require prior approval from this office, and such approval is uncertain at this time. 3. I am concerned with increased OHV use on public lands from subdivision residents and the effects such use could have on the landscape (erodible soils, visual quality, vegetation) and any archeological or paleontological resources that may exist in the area. The proponents should be aware of the location of property boundaries to ensure no encroachment occurs on public land. To help control such impacts on the adjacent public land, I recommend the construction of a boundary fence along the proponent's north boundary as a condition of approval. Such a fence would ensure no encroachment occurs on public land, and help control livestock. The fence should be constructed to allow for easy passage by big game, i.e. less than 42" in height with a 10" kick space between the top 2 wires. 4. The owners should be advised that the adjacent public land has current permits for livestock grazing. Under Colorado statutes, it is the owners' responsibility to construct, and maintain in good condition, a lawful fence protecting their property in order to recover any damages from trespass livestock. Again, a continuous fence built to the above standards along the subdivision/BLM boundary is recommended to resolve the potential use conflicts. 5. Adjacent public land is open to hunting and other dispersed recreation activities. The proponents should be aware that hunting and other recreation uses are allowed on BLM-administered land. OP • i 2 6. The County and the subdivision proponents should be made aware that coal minerals underlying all of the proposed subdivision that lies within Section 6, (T6S, R92W, Sixth P.M.) are reserved to the United States. This subsurface ownership underlies portions of proposed lots 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10, and all lots proposed in the Option Parcel. According to the records available at this office, no leases have been applied for or issued for coal within the federal coal reserve. 7. Any roads, trails, paths, or utilities (water, electric, phone or otherwise) crossing BLM would require right-of-way (ROW) permits from this office. An environmental assessment report would be completed as a part of the ROW permitting process. 8. The proposed subdivision lies within crucial deer winter range. Encroachment of homesites and people on big game winter ranges can have a profound effect on game herd populations and health. In closing I ask for your consideration in these matters in regards to the pending Sketch Plan for the Cedar Hills Ranch Subdivision. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, please contact Jim Byers of this office at 945-2341. Sincerely, pt_ v Michael S. Mottice Area Manager 1 GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning March 15, 1995 Norm Clasen Project Manager CEDAR HILLS RANCH Box 1155 Basalt, CO 81621 Dear Mr. Clasen: RE: CEDAR HILLS RANCH Sketch Plan Your application for a Sketch Plan has been scheduled for a public meeting before the Garfield County Planning Commission April 12th, 1995 at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting will held in Suite 301, Garfield County Courthouse, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. It is suggested that you be in attendance at this meeting. There are no formal noticing requirements for a sketch plan review. If you have further questions or concerns regarding the public meeting, please contact this office. Sincerely, Dave Michaelson Garfield County Planner DHM/dhm 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601 • MEMORANDUM TO: SUBDIVISION REVIEW AGENCIES FROM: MARK BEAN DATE: JULY 31, 1995 RE: CEDARS HILLS RANCH PRELIMINARY PLAN RIVERBEND FILING #5 (Pt .ICA.Tritli AUG 0 3 1995 'll li +! �. GAF Fi&D CG YtT i( Enclosed is a copy of the CEDAR HILLS RANCH AND RIVERBEND FILING #5 PRELIMINARY PLAN submittals. Per the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations of 1984 and C.R.S. 30-28-136, 1986, as amended, these documents are provided to you for your review and comment. The Preliminary Plan will be reviewed by the Garfield County Planning Commission on September 13, 1995. In order to have your comments meet the statutory requirements your comments need to be received by this office no later than 21 days after your receive this packet. I appreciate your help. If you have any questions or concerns about this submittal, please feel free to give me a call. rA r:drrss To lsc]� L4.Yr /7- 0 D1 U1 T brit i TY ,ias- ,iT �u 1).kiiAiti — caair-.S ( TJ 014.41r SD L.r rA, n.3S- CAA -I C P r c M s crus TOIL -CTAS c j )4c 131:1/L43 uiJ Ji i7-C/J AO A Cir= IAT J1LiJA y i i261k-( A,[jXjo Irta_ __1L),nir 71LtAlG�! `LiC i�.177 SI t..41-1" Fxo iri4sr Ehs-gtia3iv7S Cv c:)) Cv) P.O. Box 1908 1005 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 • • Z4NC4tIELL4 4140 4SSOCI4TES ENGINEERING CONSULT4NT5 August 11, 1995 Norm Clasen Cedar Hills Ranch P. O. Box 1155 Basalt, Co 81621 Re: Water Quality Test Results Dear Norm: 1 (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax Mtn 5,99it 5 Enclosed is a copy of the results of the water quality tests performed on Cedar Hills Ranch Well #3 on June 17, 1995. The high concentrations of sodium and sulfate are not unusual for this area. These parameters exceed the State's recommended standards. We recommend that you notify the potential lot purchasers of the potential problem. An in house R.O. type water treatment system should adequately remove the dissolvbed monerals in the water for drinking purposes. The high turbidity is typical of a new well that has not been pumped on a regular basis and will generally lessen as the well is used. The high turbidity can be treated if necessary with a cartridge filter system. If you have any questions, please call our office at 970-945-5700. Very truly yours, Zancanella and Associates, Inc. / Terri L. Lance Geologist cc: Mark Bean TLL\95213 09:28 '95 06:45 ID:ZANCNFLLA g Assoc IRTES • Fo :S0: -945-1253 • WEFT DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT P. O. BOX 1478 RIFLE, COLORADO 51650-1478 625-1887 Officers President 876-2821 Kelly Couey 4745 C.R. 315 Silt, CO 81652 yige Presidgnt Samuel B. Potter 0598 C.R. 323 Rifle, CO 81650 1j'easurer LaVerne Sterbuck 3106 C. P. 342 Silt, CO 81652 Secrf Wat r er 625-1887 Russell George, Attorney stuver & George, P.C. P. 0. Box 907 Rifle, CO 81650 Norm C sen P. 0, ox 1155 Bas t, CO 81621 August 14, 1995 Board of Directors Kelly Couey 4745 C. R. 315 Silt, CO 81652 William M. 2ilm 0090 Sunlight Dr. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 LaVerne Starbuck 3106 C.R. 342 Silt, CO 81652 Gregory Durrett 926 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 SAm&1e1 9. Potter 0598 C.R. 323 Rifle, G0 81650 Dear Mr. Clasen: On August 9, 1995, the Board reviewed your application for a water allotment contract and approved it contingent upon your providing the following: 1. Annexation into the district 2, Providing the District with the name and address of the central system owner 3. Preparation of an augmentation plan When the above requirements have been met your executed. Sincerely yours, Russell George Attorney/Water Manager 12G: jm r%c Zancanella & Associates contract will be 09`L8 '95 06:46 ID:ZANCANELLA a ASSOCIATES JLM_--24-1955 11!35 FRC ' SJLJER 8 GEOFRGE F', C. FAX:202-945-1252 PAGE 3 Tp • 5451253 P.02 ADDENDUM ,i CONTkACT # HAP ID 4 DATE DIVIDED ADDENDUM West Divine Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contrt c t: THIS ADDENDUM by end between tho tis►derei ,nrad pertieS hereto is intended to ba nn 3.ntesral part oC t<hat. curt:lii Water AliatmGnt Cautr4I t (hereinafter called "Contract") ttraf:wrrc:n said parl.lc:ui dated 1, 2 b Go wti.Li;:Jh Ltei.; hdde dusu ahts11 be attached end become a part co if fully oct forth in said contract. 1, rt 14 the i.ntnnt- of the App1.4caett; herein to aubdivlde oe otherwise di virin t;hu land,: to be aervtxl by Hu) watur obtained pursuant to the contract. 2. It: is thti intent of the Applicant herein to divide the ~later and rights and obiigat:ions derived from thu Contract between and among Che parcels so subdivided or divided. 3. The District eteknow edgas t;ro foregoing 1nLent.iuttaa of Applicant and approves and accepts sante, suL_jcactr tc, t:trC1 conditions set: forth herein. Applicant shall hey required to fila: on 6pplicat:ian in writing to District for each subdivision or division be (ging forth the loga1 description of the new pat -col, the name and address or the parson responsible for comfit i atttco with this aDrectmurrt: with r'c:ripect to said now parcel, and LIIU portion of the water being the .subject. huruat ►rtiieh is to h4 debit, u d to said new parcel. 4, 5. Laid application +shall 130 fila,,i :.0 Lha form i,Y•oviricrd by the District. 6. Attpliceul: shall iubtttt.' t I sait:h laid op �.l:l::ut:2ntt l,lsc . c;nl•t•uc;L feu required hyo the Ii.ist.r.ir:t: for t,rtrc_et:thing the application for divi,cicn. 7. Before the division shall Lo opprovod by L1,c- sad application must also bear the signature of efie 1erc:pciaed I;utireswor to applicant aticeeluti Le a.lauwta uud hu Witold by tha tunas and conditions of tat.. Contract and this Addendum. i. Upon +at'41Cnctory cumpllttrtc:e try Applicant diet 1.t62 sutrautsar with the forogoing requiiemeut:;, biat.cict shell approve the division and rsltulj givi notice Lherti.ai to Loss Appllc,cint and Said auccesuor. 9. Upon such upprcavrei It,y D.1:-,Cr.it't., tt,A Contract: shell be deemad Lo be divided. Applicant. tciu,t1. t;tcurr:.ctLar Uu responsible of 2 09/°2 '95 06:46 I D : ZANCi NELLN u ASSOC I E TES 5 <- t-_ JUt_-24--1995 11;Z6 FRi UVEB & GEORGE P.C. TO West Divide Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Cont'r'act Addendum Page 2 of 2 SIGNATURES • 9451253 P.03 ADDENDUM CONTRACT ,fk DATE DIVIDED for pttrformanc:e of the Cantr:u:t only a;i sumo relates to the remginina undivided portion. Tic auccoaLlot .slsssij [hereafter no resporaal bko Ler pur Cot usdia:u uL Ltsu Cont.4 i14..L ucil.y Qb same relates to the divIdad portion. A breach by ono party to a divided contract shall be duuutud Co be a broach only of that portion of the contract for which that party Is rt iponaible and shall hot be donmad to be a broach of the portions of the Contract for which other non-du.faulti.ub parties are responsible. 10. After one or more such divittion.; have bean made of the Cont:rncl: and that water etrd rt lstb and responsibilities relating thereto, thn Contract nhsll be dcanmad to be enLorcoabje and to exist in counterparC14. Mary rihuil be as Many counter -- parts as there arc: d.vi.wions of iho Contract, Each counter- part tcCr3ther with thi5a Addettctuw end totlafher with tha above-mentioned Application and assumption and ipproval dec.uwents shall const:itul.rt the entire agreement bet:wnnn Dietr.ict and nada party responaitalct for performance of each counterpart and *dual be Lind,iug and enforceable sapsrtlt;ely from other counterparts. of the Parties hereto; Applic it: STATE (.W COLORADO) ), ) tai. MINH' OF GARFIELI) ) 'Orta foregoing Addarulunt was ttc:knualodauci 1,s;:tui-e ma on ttuu 26 day cif Ju].Y _t 199 'Yt Icirri Lance Wi.tse;;a my hand and official esEtal. My Cu mIie4Jutl uxptcrut.; r`torc..ls ft 1402 Not -?y Republic OR DE,h Aft_nr .z hiiwaring by Lite Wore of I i tc'i:t..tiut; ;if Lh L' C DIV kk Water Oa it/441'44r3cy “:11 .2t ort t.ke kr.)ve Adrta dtL-s, it: is h relay i)C;1]E]a &ct saki AildoeJtttt Iso Bt uit:ed and a`.ctvteii eta put of din orijin-ii GLter Jt1.lotmccit Ccntnnzk r*frrrpri to t1*.i in by Ile CkiittiCL. WRST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT By: ATTEST: Secretary Dats: 2 of 2 Prc:el.c)en t It)'Ifll. P.U3 09/28 '95 06:47 ID:ZANCANELLA & ASSOCIATES • A FAX:303-945-1252 PGE 5 410 Contract No... Mop 11) No. Da! e Act i va Led APPLICATION AND DATA FORM 'YC) LEASE WATER FROM WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY 1)1NTU1cT A. APPhiCAUT NaMe _ Norm Clasen Address P.O. Box 1155 J.a;zJ t. co 81621 Telephone Number 970_/ Authorized Agent or 1epresen1:at1ve H. WATER MONT OWNED IIY APPLICANT Name of Picjht (.7o1a r 11111K R4111(.11 Wi` 1'y Et. 01 StrUcture or Riqht Wolfs Location o1' Point of Diversion Water Court Case No. Well PerMit No. .!.WOH4.1jx A Ot.t.aChed C. INTENDED USE OF LEASED WATER, Location of Area of Use E2Ni or Town$hip 6 ,South dianqp_Al.2_Wa8t_Snotion_l_and_14 NW:l_of_Township 6 South Range 91 Description oP • Domef3ti (t. wot;-L Number of Dwellinq Units 20 Total /Wroaqo 77 Proposed Potable Hater Syntem Tho Water ys Lem wi 1 1 serve up to _twenty •single family units from a central waLor sy81:em. Propo:tod W.nttoWalor Tv..atmc.n1 :ty:At'm floplir Projected Monthly VoluMe of Leaned Wli Needed in Gallons: Jai 11 „67 r . 0 ,f5 7. Ap ••.lIyQ 93 June a_16.1111y_l_aa Ang.(1,87 sopf1 Nov ....A:1_6.4 Doc Annual Total Gallons ._ Acre ILet.0,23 Maximum Instantaneous Domand n. OTHER REMARKS !". 1(111.11 t of Aqnnt or Ropro:tont,11 ivo U:i/2 95 06:47 ID : ZANi= ANELLA & ASSOCIATES FA '; ::30:3-945-125 S PAGE 6 411 • Contract 1 Map ID Date Activated wEST DIV1p1. WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Water Allotment Contract Name of Applicants Norm C]_agC?i7 Quantity of water in acre feet .9.23 Applicant, hereby applies to the Wast Divide Water Conservancy District, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, organized pursuant to and existing by virtue of C.R.S. 1973, 37-45-101, et szn,. (hereinafter referred to District') for an a lot tment contract ae thally e perpetually use water or water rights owned, leased, ori hereafter acquired by the District. By execution of thin appllcatiOn, and subsequent delivery and use of water, Applicant hereby agrees to the following terms and coflditionst 1. Water Riichtsr Applicant shall own water rights at the point of cflvarillUn heroin lawfully entitling Applicant to divert water, which will bo supplemented by water leased herein. If Applicant intendrf to divert through a well, it must be understood by Applicant that no right to divert exists until a valid well permit is obtained from the State Engineer. 2. uantit t Water applied for by the Applicant in the amount set ort above shall be diverted at Applicant's point of diversion from the District's direct flow water rights, and when water is unavailable for diversion pursuant to administration by the Colorado State Engineer during periods when said direct flow water right is not in priority, the ]lietrict shall release ;for the use of Applicant up to said quantity in acre-feet per year of storage water owned or controlled by the Dieltrlct. It ie understood that any quantity allotted from direct flow, storage or otherwise, to the Applicant by the District will be limited by the priority of the District's decrees and by the physical and legal availability of water from District's sources. Any quantity allotted will only be provided so long as wilier is available and the Applicant fully complies with all of Lhu Leans and conditions of this contract. The District and the Applicant recognize that some of the District's decrees may be In the name of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, and the ability of the District to allot direct flow rights to the Applicant may bo dependent on the consent of the Colorado River Water Conservation District. If at any time the Applicant determines it requires lees water than the amount herein provided, it may so notify the District in writing, and the amount of water allotted under this contract ehol] be reduced Permanently in aCCOrdnnee with such notice. Rates shall be adjusted accordingly in Eollowlne water yearn only. 3. Beneficial Use enc] Location of Beneficial Use: Any and all water allotted Appl'fcent ►by tFe Uis[ricE"gFi iTI--e-� used for the following beneficial use or uses: Municipal, domestic and thatteRu did s,w teror irmayation t for andcommercial cavailable (e!?irrigatio Bend commercial as those terms are defined en page 5 of Contract No. 2-07-70-W0547 between the United States and the West Divide Water Conuervancy District). Applicant's beneficial use of any and all water allotted shall he within or through facilities or upon land owned, leasee), operated, or under Applic;,nt'et control. 4. Decrees and Delivery: Exchange releases made by the District out of storage from >?uedi Reservoir, or other works or facilities of the District, of from other sources available to the District, shall be delivered to the Applicant of the outlet warka of geld storage t"aoilitieo or at the decreed point of -1- 09/28 '95 06:48 I D : 2 NCANELLN & SSUC I NTES • FAX; : ,S'.S—c945-1'253 i PPGE ?iversion for aai,,/ other sources, an1 release or delivery of water at such outlets or points shall constitute performance of the District's total obligation. Delivery of waiter by the District from Ruedi Reservoir ahall be subject to the Dietriat's lease contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Releasee from other facilities available to Dietrlct ehall be eubjoct to the contracts, law©, rules, and regulations governing releasee therefrom. Furthorrnore, tho District hereby expreaely reaervea the right to store water and to mako exchange releases from structures that may be built or controlled by the District in the future, so long as the water service to the Applicant pursuant to this agreement, is not impaired by said action. Any quantity of the Applicant's allocation not delivered to or used by Applicant by the end of each water year (October 1), shall revert to the water supplies of the District. Such reversion shall not entitle Applicant to any refund of payment made for such water. to the dmoW ter sewater avail rvice provided os d in the District shall be limited oint Of diversion of the District's applicableiwater rightt,rty at theLandal neither the District, nor those entitled to utilize the District's decrees, may call on any greater amount at new or alternate points of diveroion, The District shall request the Colorado State Engineer to estimate any conveyance losses between the original point and any alternate point, and ouch eetlmate ahall be deducted from this amount in each cage. The District, or anyone using the Dietrict'a decrees, may call on any additional sources of supply that may be available at an alternate point of diversion, (though not at the original point of diversion) only ea against water rights which are junior to the date of application for the alternate point of diversion, 5, Alternate Point of Diversion and Plan of _Augmentations Decrees or ternata poers o ints o cTvof the District's waiter righta or storage water may be required in order Cor Applicant to uee the water service contemplated hereunder. Obtaining such decree ie the exclusive reeponeibLllty of Applicant. The District reserves the exclusive right to review and approve any conditions which may be attached to judicial approval of said alternate point of diversion as contemplated or necessary to serve Applicant's facilities or lands. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be solely responsible for the procedures and legal and engineering costa necessary for any changes in water rights contemplated herein, and further agrees to indemnify the District from any costa or loesee related thereto. Applicant is solely responelblo for providing works and facilities necessary to obtain/divert the waters at said alternate point of diversion and deliver them to Applicant's intended beneficial uee. Irrespective of the amount of water actuallytransferred to the Applicant's point of diversion, the Applicat shall make annual payments to the District based upon the amount of water allotted under this agreement. In the event the Applicant intends to apply for an alternate point of diversion and to develop an augmentation plan and inatitute3 legal proceeding° for the approval of such augmentation plan to allow the Applicant to utilize the water allotted to Applicant hereunder, the Applicant shall give the District written notice of ouch intent. In the event the Applicant develops and adjudicates its own augmentation plan to utilize the water allotted hereunder, Applicant shall not be obligated to pay any amount under paragraph 1B below. In any event, the District shall have the right to approve or disapprove the Applicant's augmentation plan and the Applicant shall provide the biotrlct copies of ouch plan and of all pleadings and other papers filed with the water our in the adjudication thereof. 6. _Contract Payment, Non-refundable, one time administrative charge, 'Ln the Amount determined by the Board of Directors of the District from time to time, shall ba submitted with this application for consideration by tho District. -2-- 09/28 '95 06:49 ID:ZANCANELLA & ASSOCIATES • FAX :303-945-1253 • Annual payment for the water service dencrlhed herein shall be determined by the Board of Directc>ra of the District at a per acre-foot rate. The initial annual payment Shall be made, in full, within thirty (30) days after the date of notice to the Applicant that the initial payment is due. Said notice will adVir3e the Applicant, among other things, of the water delivery year to which the initial payment $kali apply and the price which io aPPlicable to that year. Annual payments COr each year thereafter shall be due and payable by the Applicant on or Ijoforo each aarurury I. rr an annual payment 1a n.,L male by the due hate, written notice thereof will be vent by the blratrlct to the Applicant at such addreau as may be designated by the Applicant in writing. (If no address Itace been uta cleuignated in writing, then said notice shall be tient to App/icant's addrusa set Forth herein. water use for Any part of a water year shall require payment fur the entire water year. Nothing herein shall bo construed so as to prevent the District from adjusting the annual rate in its solo disetetion for future: years only. If date of said wr Inllue, Applicant ahal l rtten ormade nrtten (atI)iel.rict , after Llte option have no further right, title of intereut under this contract without further notice and delivery may be immediately curtailed; and the allotment or water, att humin madu, may be transferred, leoae1, or otherwise dlaposoa or at the discretion of the tabard oE Directors of the DiaLriot. 7. Securtyyt As security to the District, the foregoing covenant of __`annual payment:a In advance delivery, will be fully mut by annual bust lit and appropriation °f cantor funds from such aotarces of revenues As muyabe. legally available to the Applicant. Ars additional security to the District, the Applicant will hold harmless the District and any person, corporation, quasi -governmental entity, or other governmental entity, for discontinuance in service duo to the Failure of the Applicant to maintain the payments herein contemplated on a current basis. to defray incurred byl�tti ecrniat igct in connection with ttl u allotment ofp pwater r, ig11La hereunder, including, but; not .limited to, tei.mlaureem.:nl of legal and engineering costs incurred in c:onnuctlun with any water rights and adjudication n.3cetas;ary to allow Applioant's boo of at.tuh allotted water rights. 8. Asicrlmentr This agreement shall inure to the benefit of the �rlfie.{re, aueceasor:: or assigns of the parties hereto, except that no Aaeignmen1 atta]1 be permitted in the event the water right allotted hereunder la to be uueJ Luc the benefit of land which will be auhdtv1ded or o1herwiee held or owned lu utt}torate ownership Interests by two (2) or more littera of tlrn water right allotted hereunder. In no event alkali rho owner or portion, but lose than all, of the Applicanttu property to be mer,vetl under this contract, have any tiyhta hereunder, Any assignment of the Applicant's rights undur this contract shall bo subject to, and must comply with, nuch requirements as the District may hereafter adopt regarding anaignmont of contract rights and the aaaumption of: contract obligations by aasicanees and successors. Nothing herein ohall prevent successors to to portion of Applicant's property from applying to the t)iutrlct for individual and separate allotment contracts. 9. Other Mules; Applicant shall be bound by the provisions of i:Fie -WET-e-i C`oiiservancy Apt of eolorado; by the rules and regulations of the Board of Directors of the District, and all Amendments thereof and stupplements thereto and by all other applicable law. 10. Operation .and Maintenance A9reern ntt Applicant ohall enter into ir'"ON4srii:iiail slid-Mciiitanance Agreement" with the b1n1rict uud0r terms and cnnditinne determined by the Heard ul? Directors oE the Dintrlet, 11. and when, the hoard of eruld Dieet:clot _3.. PAGE 8 0928 '95 06:49 ID:ZANCANELLA & ASSOCIATES FAX :SOS -945-125,S • determines in its sole discretion that such yn agreement- ler required. Said agreement may contain, hut Shall not be limited to, proviaibns for additional annual monetary consideration for extension of District delivery Gervic:e, and for arldi.tional administration, operation, and meint.renanue costa/ or for other coats Lo the District which may arias through services ni;,cgo evailahlc to the Applicant. 11_ Chance_ of Deas: The Watt -let re>;ervea the exclusive right to review`,-reapprcive or diaapprave any proposed change in use of the water allotted hereunder. Any use other than that set forth herein or any lease or sale of the water or water rights allotted hereunder without the prior written approval of the District shall be deemed to be a material breach of this contract. 12. Use and Place of lisp: Applicant uvrees to use the water in the mannerariE tie property deeCribed in the documents submitted to the District at the time thins agreement is executed (maid documents are incorporated herein by this reference thereto), or in any operation and maintenance agreement provided by Applicant. Any eau other than as set forth thereon or any leasee or sale of the water or water rights herein, other than ea permitpermittot ed in paragraph it above, ' Gha.l1 be deemed Lo be a material this agreement. 13. it that noth herein shall be'rTritetpreted ito giver the c,Applicantand aarced any equitablelor legal foe title inlereat in or to any water or water £hilt,., referred to heroin. 14. Conservation; Applicant shall eue co accepted conservation practices with respect Lo the wateroand water rights herein, and hereby agrees to be bound by any conservation plan adopted hereafter by the District for ace of Diatrlct owned or Controlled water or water riyhLu. 15. 11strictiona; Applicant aha11 restrict useti as follows (unless 'esp�TfFc waivers tyre appended to this agreement). Violation of these restrictions shall be deemed to be a material breach of this agreement. UUse Annutrl`M.1ximum 01verniorl liousehold hivesDomestic (includes town 1/3 acre Loot t:ock 1 1 — 3 dere feet vesaLior,(cattle) 1 acre foot/1t10 head 2 3 acre ieet/acre 16. Well Permit: if Applicant intends to divert through a well,"T1in Applicant must provide to District a copy of Applicant's valid well permit before District is obligated to deliver any water hereunder. 17. Reprecrentption ; uy O meeting this agreement, Applicant Agrees that he .in not relying on any legal or engineering advice that he may believe he hart received from the District. Applicant further acknowledges that he has obtained all necessary legal and engineering advice from his own asourr:es other than the District. Applicant further acknowledges that the District makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances whatsoever about the quantity or quality of water available pursuant to this agreement. !Mould the nintrict be unable to provide the water Contracted fpr herein, no dameges may be assessed against the Diatrlc,t, nor may App]lc.rnt obtain a refund from the District. 1n. vaaf r of W;11:1.r CclljrL iL^11 Ina n itn own cli;mgrs tisit; .Clibur,c;.Lo-inr:luc(1ir 'Apel ircantl'cu tc:rnntr',ct: herein in a water court filing for alternate point of divernioll or plan of augmentation, then Applicant hereby agrees to pay to the District, when assessed, an additional fee representing the DiGtrict:'o actual and reasonable costa and fees for Aeolicant'u share of the proceeding. PAGE 9 09/7)8 'C5 06:50 I D : 2ANCANELLA a ASSOCIATES FAX : `'03 +4r _ 1 `, ,-} PAGE 10 4111, 19. Binding Agreement: Thin Agreement uha]1 not ba complete nor tiraing upon—tge prstrtet unless attached hereto In the form entitled "Application for Purchase of Waters from the West Divide Water Conservancy t)tatrict" fully completed by Applicant and approved by the District's engineer. Said attachments shall by this reference thereto bo Incorporated Into the Lerma of this agreement. 20. APPLICANT TO ogjj( Din_D, I'i' IN THE 60RDS PONSIBILITY OV TUC4 � VALro WELL PERMIT OR CYPHER WATER RIc;Hy' IN ORDER TO DIVERT WATER, 7r7C[,UDING THE WATER ACQUIRED UNDER THISI CONTRACT. IT IS THE CONTINUING DUTY OF THE APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN THE VALIDITY OF THE WELL PERMIT Ok WATER RIGHT INCLUDING FILING FOR EXTENSIONS OF PERMITS, FILING WELL COMPLETION REPORTS, fiILINCI S'T'ATEMENTS OF BENEFICIAL USE, OR OTHERWISE LAWFULLY APPLYING TUE WATER TC) RENL'FICrAr, USE ON A REGULAR OASIS w,121riyoT WASTE. APPLICANT ADDRESSt P.O. Box 1155 13r 3 t:, CO 81621 STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) sa. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before; mo on this 26 day of July , 19L5 by Lr,.. Y, .nr;A Witness my hand and official seal_ My commiartion expires: Mar/ ar 'It 8 ( 1 9" ORDER ACtex a hearing by the hoard uC Directors of the went Divide Water ContlorVancy District on the above application, it l:a hereby ORDERED that said application be granted and thief contract rihnll be and in accepted by the District. ATTEST: Secretary WLuT DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT By Prevent —"Vale This contract includes and in oubjcet to the tartan and conditions of the following documents which must accompany this contract: 1. Map showing location of point of diversion (uoo map provided) 2. Application and Data Farm fully completed And signed 3. Other --5- t 09/23 '95 06:50 I D : 2ANCANELLA '8 ASSOCIATES FA';'; : S08-945-12513 PGE 11 • 1 APPENDIX A The Cedar Hills Ranch Well # 1 is located at a point whence the SE '/ of the NE YA of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. bears a distance of North 22° 58' East for a distance of 2635.34 feet, The Wall can be a North Section Line and 1264 feet from the East Section ixLinQtely plotted 2310 feet from the The Cedar Hills Ranch Well # 2 is located at a point whence the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 5th RM. bears a distance of North 09002' 25" East for a distance of 2190.14 feet. The Well can be approximately plotted 2161 feet from the North Section Line and 363 foot from the East Section Line. The Cedar Hills Ranch Wall # 3 is located at a point whence the SE 1/4 of the NE A of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. bears a distance of North 22° 18' 23" East for a distance of 2475.21 feet. The Well can be a the North Section Line and 951 feet from the East Section Li lately plotted 2283 feet from The Cedar Mills Ranch backup well is located at a point whence the SE % of the NE Y4 of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. bears a distance of North 21° 18' 26" East for a distance of 2563.01 feet. The Well can be approximately plotted 2381 feat from the North Section Line and 942 feet from the East Section Line.