Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application• 1 JOHN L. KEMP ATTORNEY AT LAW 811 COLORADO AVENUE P. O. BOX 698 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 PHONE (8031945-5474 November 26, 1980 Mr. Ray Baldwin Garfield County Planner RE: Peach Valley Acres Subdivision Dear Ray: I am filing with this letter the Preliminary Plan for the above subdivision. The following additional information is pertinent to the Preliminary Plan: 1. Enclosed are Protective Covenants for the subdivision for your review. 2. As mentioned in the Sketch Plan Application, I contacted, on behalf of the subdivider, Mr. Dariel Clark of the RE -2 School District and outlined the proposed subdivision to him. He indicated that if the subdivision was as described the school district would have no objection whatsoever to the development. He further indi- cated because of the small size of the subdivision a fee could be worked out with the School District Board; he felt sure that they would not want any sort of land dedication. I further got the impression that it would not be difficult to reach a satisfactory agreement with the School Board in regard to the amount of the fee. 3. We are proposing that the easements shown on the Preliminary Plan and the well rights and irrigation rights, consisting of 30 shares of the Ware and Hinds Ditch, will be reserved by the subdivider and conveyed at the time the Final Plat is filed, to a Homeowners' Association to be set up as a non-profit corporation. Each lot owner will receive one share of stock in the Homeowners' Association. This body will be responsible for maintenance of the water system and the water rights and the easements. I am attaching herewith a copy of the Plan For Augmentation Study done by Wright Water Engineers and the application for the Plan of Augmentation filed with the Water Court in July of this year. This water application has been published and the time for filing protests thereto has expired and we are now awaiting issuance of a final ruling by the Water Court. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. JLK:cd Ver; truly yours, John L. Kemp PRELIMINARY PLAN GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO NOVEMBER 1980 DEVELOPE?: JAMES a 13/LUE RAE STEVENS ENGINEERING: _DORAD ) ENGINEERING COMPANY Name: (-22...r.)-C.2 SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT • (15 Copies) Check List: (see scale of maps page 19. Zoning Resolution) Preliminary Plat: North Arrow, Scale, Date, Boundary lines and distances with description of tract Property lines, owners adjacent to tract Wkih 5$1. X Notation of easements and setbacks x Street names, block and lot numbering system X Area of each lot X Contours each 5' intervals unless approval for 10' on 1/24,000 intervals N/A Common open space INCNCI --J.. x Sites reserved for public, parks, schools etc... Fee Additional Information: Name of subdivision (unique) X Name and address of owner(s), mortgagees, subdivider, and firm preparing plat X Names and addresses of adjoining land owners X Total acreage of subdivided land and acreage of each use. . Proposed terms of dedication of public sites etc... Evidence that subdivision complies with Zoning Resolution W/A Total Square Feet of nonresidential floor space. Total number of off street parking spaces (excluding S.F.) Vicinity Sketch Map: X Scale 1"=1,000' or 1/24,000 if approved, .5 miles in all directions Physical Information: pC Geological Information >c Soils information Vegetation Wildlife Grading and Drainage Plan: /A Generalized grading for all cut and fill N/4 Cross -Sections for difficult grade relationships on roads and building sites JC Street profiles (scale consistent with preliminary plat) x Drainage Study -existing water courses and expected tributary flows, plus all proposed culverts, bridges, ditches, channels and easements Utility Plan: n Water Supply, source proof of quantity and quality and evidence of ownership >( Historic use and yield >c Amenability of rights to change in use. N/A Proof that public or private will supply water and what amount Evidence of potability • • Nature of legal entity who will own system and method of financing NAA Information on existing water system (if connection is to be made) --� Individual wells -proof of availability of water Plan of Augmentation for Junior wells Sewage Disposal: '/A Description of system (for central system) WA Treatment -public or private facilities can and will handle it N/,4 Entity which will own and operate system and method of financing 4Jh If connected to existing system -information on existing system }� If individual systems -perk tests, maximum ground water level etc.. results Underground Wiring: Comments: A/f► Description of the system and evidence of utility Company agreement — 3 3 z." -^".e.6 h l A-c•A , y, dz ' ie, 4:1406 . @ 0. 4.4,v4 = .0a cps x30: •6 cfs (CW -C, 21.a.6aen 16 6-, 7o dcy .,2 -14).e-th z,)-.4.1 4z, -e.A4_R44--A. ghaao .uae _ 5 7oo9?d e r\. 5.9 Ac.�-+l yr. 554.1 : ?AAA_ C/T 4c412.4 30 c,; • • Lincoln DeVore 1000 West Fillmore St. Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907 (303) 632-3593 Home Office Jim Stevens Construction Box 663 Carbondale, CO 81623 Re: Gentlemen: October 27, 1980 SUBSURFACE SOILS INVESTIGATION PEACH VALLEY ACRES SUBDIVISION NEW CASTLE, COLORADO Transmitted herewith is the report concerning a subsurface soils investigation for the proposed Peach Valley Acres Subdivision in New Castle, Colorado. Respectfully submitted, LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY INC �> -c,�•' (!] ') a .;.... v = v• ci h o N `'' • 9 � � it E. o da x des S��) a tel_ �..,oOF By: . Essigm,Yhn, P. E. MFE/ss LD Job No. 35412, GS -1496 cc: John Kemp, Atty., Box 698, Glenwood Springs, CO LD - Glenwood Springs 602 East 8th Street Pueblo, Colo 81001 (303) 546-1150 P.O. Box 1427 Glenwood Springs, Colo 81601 (303) 945-6020 85 Rosemont Plaza Montrose, Colo 81401 (303) 249-7838 P.O. Box 1882 Grand Junction, Coto 81501 (303) 242-8968 P.O. Box 1643 Rock Springs, Wyo 82901 (307) 382.2649 i • ABSTRACT: The contents of this report are a subsurface soils investigation and foundation recommendations for the proposed Peach Valley Acres Subdivision located in New Castle, Colorado. The soil profile encountered during drilling was noted to consist primarily of low density/high moisture silty clays. Several different foundation options are available for use on this site in conjunction with the proposed residential units, depending upon location, building design, and sensitivity to differential movement. Each of these foundation options will be discussed in greater detail in the last section of this report. Adequate drainage must be provided at all times. Water must never be allowed to pond above the foundation soils. A Type II Cement would be recom- mended in all concrete in contact with the soil on this site. More detailed recommendations can be found within the body of this report. All recommendations will be subject to the limitations set forth herein. GENERAL: The purpose of this investigation was to determine the general suitability of the site for construc- tion of a series of light to medium weight dwelling units. Charac- teristics of the individual soils found within the test borings were examined for use in designing foundations on this site. -1- • • Although Lincoln-DeVore has not seen a set of construction drawings for any of the dwelling units proposed, we believe that they will be basically frame structures of more or less conventional design. Foundation loads for struc- tures of this nature are normally light to medium weight in magnitude. The proposed Peach Valley Acres Subdivision is located in Garfield County approximately 41 miles west, southwest of New Castle, Colorado. It is located in a por- tion or-tion of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, as indicated on the enclosed General Site Location Diagram. The topograpy of the site is relati- vely flat, dropping very gently in a southerly direction. Although subsequent to development, surface runoff will be controlled to some extent by the existence of streets and other man-made structures in the area. Surface runoff will tend to flow in a southerly direction, toward the Colorado River, which is located approximately 1 mile to the south of the site. Generally speaking, the foundation_ soils in this area are of an alluvial nature, consisting of low plasticity silts and clays, with silt and sand seams found throughout. The near surface foundation soils encountered on this site have been deposited across the subdivision by the action of sheetwash (alluvial) originating in the higher areas to the north and east of the subdivision. These materials are pre- dominantly silts and clays with some.fine sands found mixed in the upper soil. Owing to their nature of deposition, these soils -2- • • will tend to be highly lensatic, containing numerous thin lenses of sand, silts and clays. The presence of these thin lenses should not greatly affect the foundations for the proposed buildings, unless they are encountered in extremely thick layers. This stratification will become quite evident upon excavation for foundation construction. All of the alluvial soils on this site have been deposited on the underlying Wasatch Formation, which serves as bedrock in this area. The Wasatch Formation typically consists of a very thick (4,000 to 5,000 feet) sequence of interbedded and multi -colored siltstones, claystones, shales, and discontinuous fine-grained sandstones. The formational materials of the Wasatch Formation were not encountered in any of the test borings to the depths drilled. It is anticipated that the bedrock will exist at sufficient depth that it will not affect construction or performance of the proposed foundation systems. BORINGS, LABORATORY TESTS AND RESULTS: Four test borings were drilled across the Peach Valley Acres Subdivision, and are located approximately as shown on the attached Test Boring Location Diagram. Test Borings No. 1, 3, and 4, were drilled to a total depth of approximately 20 feet. Test Boring No. 2 was drilled to a total depth of approximately 49 feet. These test borings were placed in such a manner as to obtain a reasonably good profile of the subsurface soils. All borings were drilled with a power -driven continuous auger drill. Samples were taken with the standard split -spoon sampler, the thin-wall Shelby tube, and by bulk methods. -3- • . The soil profile encountered during drilling can generally be described as a single layer system. This single layer consisted of the low plasticity, silty clays of Soil Type No. 1. This soil type corresponds to the torrential sheetwash fan deposit, previously described. Generally speaking, the soils were encountered in a low density/high moisture condition. In this low density/high moisture state, these soils are particularly prone to long term consolidation, and foun- dations resting on these soils must be designed with the settle- ment characteristics of the soil in mind. The precise gradational and plasti- city characteristics associated with the soils encountered during drilling can be found on the attached summary sheets. The repre- sentative number of the soil group is indicated in a small circle immediately below the sampling point on the Drilling Logs. The following discussion of the soil group will be general in nature. Soil Type No. 1 classified as a silty clay (CL/ML). Generally, this material is of low plasticity, of low to moderate permeability, and was encoun- tered in a low density, wet condition. It will have a slight tendency to expand upon the addition of moisture, but will have a distinct tendency to long-term consolidation upon loading. Where this material was encountered, it was found to be of quite low density and will probably be capable of supporting relatively lightly loaded shallow foundation systems, providing they are properly designed and reinforced. The maximum allowable bearing capacity for the material encountered near the surface in Test Borings No. 1 and 2, will be on the order of 1200 psf, -4- • • with no minimum pressure required. This material was noted to decrease in density with depth, and foundations should be kept as shallow in the soil profile as possible, in order to take advan- tage of the slightly stiffer surficial materials. The finer grained portion of Soil Type No. 1 contains sulfates in detrimen- tal quantities. Free water was encountered in all 4 test borings at depths ranging from approximately 21 to 6 feet below the present ground surface. This free water table must be considered as a permanent feature of the site, and will tend to fluctuate somewhat, depending upon external environmental effects. Because of capillary rise, the soil zone within a few feet above that depth identified as free water during drilling will be quite wet. Some pumping and rutting may be encountered during the excavation process, particularly .if the bottom of the foundations extend to near the free water elevation. This is a temporary, quick condition caused by vibra- tion of excavating equipment on the site. If this should occur, it can be stopped by removal of the equipment and greater care exercised in the excavation process. In extreme cases, a layer of coarse cobble sized material could be introduced into the bot- tom of the excavation and worked into the soft clays. This cobble raft will tend to stabilize the bottom of the excavation, providing a firm base on which to work. The presence of the free water will also complicate the installation of drilled piers, should they be used. Excessive amounts of caving could possibly be encountered below the free water level. Continuous casing of the drilled -5- 1 1 hole may become necessary if excessive caving is encountered. It should be pointed out that a suitable bearing stratum for the foundation system was not encountered to a depth of approximately 49 feet below the present ground surface. Therefore, a deep foundation alternative would be quite expensive, and probably not appropriate considering the type of construction proposed for the site. Due to the high moisture conditions encountered, it is recommended that basement or half basement foundations not be used on this site, and that all floor slabs be constructed over a capillary break and vapor barrier. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: In general, the soils found across the subdivision were found to be of a fairly low density/high moisture condition. At the present time it would appear that several foundation options would be available for use on this site, depending upon the location of the building, its design, and sensitivity to differential movement. In the region of Test Borings No. 1 and 2, the silty clays were encountered in a low density condition. Free water in this area was noted to range from approximately 5 to 6 feet below the present ground surface. In this area, spread footings of various widths in conjunction with a reinforced concrete grade beam stem wall, will probably be the most suitable foundation type. Where the soils are encountered in a very low density/high moisture condition, such as at the 4 foot -6- • • elevation in Test Boring No. 3, a reinforced slab or "waffle slab" type of foundation could be used. The mat foundation refers to a very rigid, heavily reinforced concrete mat, capable of readily transferring load across all points of the foundation system. Similarly, a "waffle slab" type of foundation system involves the use of a tight network or grid of stem walls which would, again, be very rigid and capable of readily transferring load across virtually all portions of the foundation system. In the case of the "waffle slabs" used directly on the very low den- sity soils, as previously described, they should be proportioned on the basis of a maximum allowable bearing capacity on the order of 1000 psf, with no minimum dead load requirement. The stem walls should be designed as grade beams capable of spanning at least 15 feet. Reinforcing should be placed at both the top and the bottom of the grade beam, and approximately balanced between these two locations. At the present time it is difficult to establish the exact maximum and minimum allowable design para- meters for each residential lot across the subdivision (should Soil Type No. 1 be encountered in a medium density/low moisture condition, it would have a tendency to swell upon the addition of moisture. It should be pointed out, however, that the soil was typically encountered in a low density/high moisture condition, with virtually no remaining swell potential). In any event, the engineering properties given in this report were based upon those soil materials encountered in our subsurface exploration program. While it is unlikely that drastically different soil types will be encountered during excavation for foundations, the possibility -7- • i exists that soil types or conditions varying from those described here could be encountered. It must, therefore, be recommended that the open foundation excavation be inspected prior to the placing of forms to establish the appropriate design parameters for each individual building lot. Further exploration on a lot to lot basis may be warranted. At the time of inspection or further investigation, the maximum and minimum bearing values can be established and recommendations made as to the suitable foun- dation type for that particular lot. Also, this inspection will ensure that no debris, soft spots, or areas of unusually low den- sity are located within the foundation region. Any changes in the recommendations included in this report can easily be made at the time of such inspection. If it is desirable to design the foundation systems for several standard model residences which are planned for this development, some preliminary design parame- ters could possibly be used. Based upon the results of our exploration program, it would appear that the engineering charac- teristics of the soils encountered during drilling can be divided into two separate groups for purposes of preliminary design. Where the silty clays of Soil Type No. 1 are encountered in a low density condition, as in the upper several feet of the soil profile in the region of Test Borings No. 1 and 2, then shallow foundation systems designed on the basis of a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 1200 psf could be used. No minimum foundation dead load pressure would be required unless the soils were encountered in a medium -8- • • density/low moisture condition. Where the silty clays of Soil Type No. 1 are encountered in a very low density/high moisture condition, then a reinforced slab or "waffle slab", as described previously, designed on the basis of a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 1000 psf would be appropriate. Where shallow foundation systems are used on this site it is recommended that all stem walls, both along the perimeter of the building and beneath all internal load bearing walls, be designed as grade beams capable of spanning at least 15 feet. This reinforcing will help make the structure somewhat more rigid, and will tend to spread the loads more evenly around the building. Horizontal reinforcement should be placed continuously around the structure, with no gaps or breaks in the reinforcing steel, unless they are specially designed. Diagonal reinforcing should be used at all steps in the foun- dation wall. Beams should be reinforced at both top and bottom, with the steel being approximately balanced between these two locations. When stem walls will retain soil in excess of 4 feet in height, vertical reinforcement may be necessary and should be designed to resist the active pressure of the soil against the exterior of the wall, To design such vertical reinforcing, the equivalent fluid pressure of the foundation materials in the active state can be taken approximately as indicated below: Soil Type No. 1 - 50 pcf It should be noted that the above value should be modified to take into account any surcharge loads applied at the top of the walls as a result of stored goods, live loads on the floor, machinery, or any other externally applied -9- forces. The above equivalent fluid pressure..should also be modified for the effects of the free water table. Again, where conventional shallow foundation systems are used, it is recommended that the foun- dation components be balanced to lower the possibility of dif- ferential movement. This balancing will help the buildings move more or less as a single unit, rather than in a differential manner. The foundation systems should be proportioned such that the pressure on the soil is approximately the same throughout the building. Using the criteria of dead load plus approximately one third the live load, contact pressures should be balanced to within +300 psf beneath all load bearing walls throughout residential units. To aid in limiting the amount of differential movement, we would recommend that the design of the structure utilize a center bearing wall with its own grade beam, in lieu of utilizing a series of isolated column pads (post and beam). Should isolated interior column pads be used, then they should be designed for pressures of approximately 150 psf more than the average of the exterior walls. The existing drainage in the area must either be maintained or improved. Water should be drained away from the structures as rapidly as possible and should not be allowed to stand or pond in the area of the buildings. The sur- face drainage across the entire subdivision must be carefully controlled to prevent infiltration and saturation of the foun- dation soils. All backfill around the buildings should be com- pacted to a minimum of 90% of its maximum Proctor dry density, ASTM D-698. Roof drains must be carried across all backfilled regions and discharged well away from the structure. -10- the • • A subsurface peripheral drain, including an adequate gravel collector, sand filter and per- forated drain pipe, should be constructed around the outside of the building at foundation level. Dry wells should not be used anywhere on this site. The discharge pipe should be given a free gravity outlet to the ground surface. If "daylight" is not available, a sealed sump and pump should be used. All floor slabs on grade must be constructed to act independently of the other structural portions of the building. These floor slabs should contain deep construc- tion or contraction joints to facilitate even breakage and to help minimize any unsightly cracking which could result from dif- ferential movement. Floor slabs on grade should be placed in sections no greater than 20 feet on a side. Prior to constructing slabs on grade, all existing topsoil and organics must be removed from the building interior. Likewise, all foun- dations must penetrate the topsoil layer. A capillary break, or gravel bed of 4 to 6 inches in thickness should be used beneath floor slabs on grade. This gravel bed should not contain any large amount of fines. It .must be provided with a free drainage outlet to the surface, so as not to allow water to be trapped beneath the floor slabs. This free drainage outlet may consist of nothing more complicated than simple weep holes through the grade beams, or they may consist of ties into a more comprehensive subsurface perimeter drain. A vapor barrier would also be recommended above the capillary break and beneath the floor slabs. • • The amount of structural fill transported to the site during construction, either for purposes of site grading or to raise the interior floor slabs to their desired design elevation, should be kept to an absolute minimum. The surcharge applied by the structural fill could consolidate the soft, fine grained soils previously described. Obviously, if the underlying soils consolidate as a result of this applied surcharge, some structural movement would follow. The soils on this site were found to contain sulfates in detrimental quantities. Therefore, a Type II Cement would be soil. Under no added to a Type recommended in all concrete in contact with the circumstances should calcium chloride ever be II Cement. In the event that Type II Cement is difficult to obtain, a Type I Cement may be used, but only if it is protected from the soils by an impermeable membrane. As mentioned previously, a deep foundation system consisting either of drilled piers or driven piles could also be used on this site. However, due to the depth to which a deep foundation system ;rust extend to encounter ade- quate bearing materials, it is felt that in terms of practicality and economics this foundation scheme would prove quite unsuitable. If recommendations for a drilled pier or driven pile foundation are desired at a later date, then additional test borings should be placed on the site so that the depth and nature of the underlying soils can be determined. As mentioned previously, the foun- dation soils on this site are alluvial in nature. The upper soils are a sheetwash deposit originating from the higher ground to the north and east of this site. Beneath the sheetwash -12- • s deposit would be the alluvial soils associated with a terrace gravel deposit of the Colorado River. These terrace gravels lie immediately above the formational materials of the Wasatch Formation, as described previously. Since the terrace gravels do exist beneath this site according to available geologic maps (they were not encountered during drilling, however), it would indicate that the Colorado River did indeed encrouch upon this site at some time during the past. We do not believe, however, that the site is located at the present time within the 100 year flood plain of the river. We must recommend, however, that local zoning maps be investigated in order to verify this. Percolation tests were conducted on the site. These tests indicated a percolation rate of 30 minutes per inch. Owing to the relatively shallow free water table, the use of conventional leach fields will probably not be satisfactory, therefore, the use of evapo-transporation, or package plants will probably be required. It is extremely important due to the nature of data obtained by the random sampling of such a hetero- geneous material as soil that we be informed of any changes in the subsurface conditions observed during construction from those outlined in the body of this report. Construction personnel should be made familiar with the contents of this report and instructed to relate any differences immediately if encountered. It is believed that all pertinent points concerning the subsurface soils on this site have been covered in this report. If questions arise or further infor- mation is required, please feel free to contact Lincoln-DeVore at any time. -13- • . ; • tr. ,..3 .... . - I, •,, . ... y....', ':.....S:\". .:\' ' ... 1 ,ti. , -;:i.--,•il •••••-•t,., •,:-.z...•,,..,-,..... Cit ."--;''''. v,, v•:..-„,, , . ._ ..; •-‘, ...!,---'1',',. .,•.f -... r „.- • :3 • : • - .+4,..,-• i vt i,-,:ji.1....; i .•1-;<*-'• .,•-;•-.',.,.;-J1.,..ii- ,.•,,...,,,‘••1,.,..,,, --4),...s..-.4;44--:./:, ,--,..•..... ,.., .tcq•;-.-..4....7.7-17.-., .,...,• ',.,,--6,,=•,-,1 7.4::-•-:,'),"-."-',;-:-...... -1 ,•,....,..7.-_:•;,--„,\li` 3, --„,:.'t,•- `i, :••:--‘ .--:'J."..-1i't•'•'.z.7::f.„ "7,,•\ l'i " i ,•,..e.,,t...., „...),'1`1, • --• Vit ( `.2 ) , it : 41,, • *':- 1. 1/ t I il !! .,,..„. 'I! 5-7y ---4., 1 c; ? 1 . ) • • • \ )(/ S f ' r.)'s - 7 , - - - — ilo _C • —t, WARE P • , • , ' •1•111-- ? 7 • • • , - „ • • --,\:„. .,.. ,.,. „.., , q ,:•:,.. . _.,,, 3. , , • ,,., ;-•<17:.), ,-,..`..i, ',..-_-`t.- ,'.•.! ,\"•-. _ 't r .t,„ ' \ . ,t\ ---.",„,...,.,--:,,,t, '• - - r5 --'_-...c.5.__.\:', "';'---:z ''',:‘,,,,11 , ii,:, ; - 1 _ • i -,,. 1 - - -- -1 -r i. -1,_• \ i 1 • i •-:-..._: ' S805 . - o • j.IINDS .1% it•„ fl I •° VI E. 5 N Dg GRA V °• V , I - _ , • ER DEN . • 24 V Ct. • 2./ 1 /1 a/rcH _ • ..- - . - . .I.:...-....., .......,.-.:'.1.,• '-‘,.. 5460 • _ '--- / Ott ...,----1--- o. . \ \ '' \ • ' • ° I... • 1 . . ..‘ '\\ ''''----- - , ' Z.6 : • ‘‘I 4Gra • \‘,. - VI , • AA P, 4 ekL SITE LOCATION DIAGRAM VALLEY ACRES,NEW CASTLE • ar41: • t. / 1 LINCOLN DeVORE ENGINEERS• GEOLOGISTS COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS, PUEBLO, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, GRAND JUNCTION , MONTROSE, WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS COUNTY ROAD e T,B.2 Q3 TEST BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM I PEACH VALLEY ACRES , NEW CASTLE i U'J O O L N DeVORE ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS • COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS, PUEBLO, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, GRAND JUNCTION , MONTROSE , WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS ;YG1.90L USCS 0.0;7,-0 0:0:0:0: 0160.0. 0 0 0 0 0000 0000 0000 GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH Pt GW/GM GW/GC, GP/GM GP/GC GM/GC GC/GM SW/SM SW/SC SP/SM SP/SC SM/SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 00 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOILS DESCRIPTIONS: IWK DESCRIPTIONS.. OESCR/PTION SYMBOL_ DESCRIPTION �' O•. ,a S_OIMENTARY ROCKS Topsoil CONGLOMERATE Man-made Fill I • Well -graded Gravel Pocrly-graded Gravel Silty Gravel Clayey Gravel Well -graded Sand Poorly -graded Sand Silty Sand Clayey Sand Low -plasticity Silt Low -plasticity Clay Low -plasticity Organic Silt and Clay High -plasticity Siit High -plasticity Clay High- plasticity Organic Clay Peat SANDSTONE SILTSTONE SHALE CLAYSTONE COAL LIMESTONE DOLOMITE MARLSTONE GYPSUM Other Sedimentary Rocks IGNEGUS RCCKS GRANITIC ROCKS Well- graded Gravel, Silty Well -graded Gravel, Clayey Poorly -graded Gravel, Silty Poorly -graded Gravel, Clayey Silty Gravel, Clayey Clayey Gravel, Silty Well - graded Sand, Silty Well -graded Sand, Clayey Poorly -graded Sand, Silty Poorly -graded Sand, Clayey Silty Sand, Clayey SC/SM Clayey Sand, Silty CL/ML Silty Clay DIORITIC ROCKS GABBRO RHYOLITE ANDESITE BASALT TUFF ASH FLOWS BRECCIA & Other Volcanics Other igneous M=TAMCRPHIC ROCKS GNEISS Rocks SCHIST PHYLLITE SLATE METAGUARTZITE MARBLE HORNFELS SERPENTINE Other Metamorphic Rocks VIOLS & NOTES. SYMBO DrSCR/PTION Free water 15' Wx Form. 9/12 Standard penetration drive Numbers indicate 9 blows to drive the spoon 12" into ground. ST 2-1 /2" Shelby thin wall sample 1.110 Natural Moisture Content Wx Weathered Material Free water table 'VQ Natural dry density T.B.— Disturbed Bulk Sample 02 Soil type related to samples in report Top of formation Test Boring Location um Test Pit Location r -—i Seismic or Resistivity Station. Lineation indicates approx. length a orientation of spread (S = Seismic , R=Resistivity ) Standard Penetration Drives are made by driving a standard 1.4"split spoon sampler into the ground by dropping a 140 Ib. weight 30". ASTM test des. D-1586. Samples may be bulk , standard split spoon (both disturbed) or 2-112" 1.D. thin wall ("undisturbed") Shelby tube samples. See log for type. The boring logs show subsurface conditions at the dates and locations shown ,and it is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. LINCOLN (COLORADO: Colorodo Springs, Pueblo, DeVORE Glenwood Springs, Montrose, Gunnison, TESTT0 ARORi+TORY Grand Junction.—WYO.—Rock Springs EXPLANATION OF BOREHOLE LOGS AND LOCATION DIAGRAMS ' TEST HOLE No. TOP ELEVATION 1-10 15 20 —25 r —30 H uw Id --35 i z I-40 1 = — 0 rtilch SANL,y To Y. S/i.YD —SC rE.?ED Ro w/D VEA S$ V. ,Coo SE, /'7o/sT 4- To V. Mo s r —SQ. .JN. 1 SAr1E DRILLING LOGS c.c Lc ff,/ PM5T/e S/ T'S AND a.cAf ;f, SAN t71' ro y. S.9NQ s" iTERED RouNN 6R/9 V EX!, Y. A ooSE, Mot sr - To ,Q,Qo WN. -r SA /I E SAME SArt SAME' LINCOLN DeVORE ENGINEERS• GEOLOGISTS COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS PUEBLO , GLENWOOD SPRINGS , GRAND JUNCTION , MONTROSE , WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS TEST HOLE No, TOP ELEVATION Flo fI FI5 —20 ,-25 1114.,•• tlh/Ch PAST/ 3 7s AN.D o4AP.S , S. SA/v41", WET; y. aoSe, /Po SAMO .4111••••=1•00.01•1619404.110M1., /fr 0 W PA,4.57/ S/X Ts AN cf.-4PS, —S. S4/VY To -r-4i NA 4 ZW.5,05., JA/6T ,Zoo..r.e 2,0,1 `.2t.,7 0 *A.? ff.:7 0 DRILLING LOGS SAPIE SA T6 LINCOLN DeVORE ENGINEERS• GEOLOGISTS 20 25 30 35- 40— COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS, PUEBLO , GLENWOOD SPRINGS , GRAND JUNCTION , MONTROSE , WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS SUMMARY SHEET Soil Sample Mt_ /CL Test No. (z, 49B — 35412 Location PFACB VALLEY ACRES s CO .-- Date 8.7:28— 80 Boring No. 1 Depth 9' (TYA) Test by K.,. Sample No. 1 Natural Water Content (w)22_2_6_2/0 In Place Density (To) 125.8 pcf Specific Gravity (Gs) SIEVE ANALYSIS: Sieve No. .% Passing 1 1/2" Plastic Limit P.L.,_._L9,.5 % Liquid Limit L. L. 25.2 Plasticity Index P.I. 5.7 111 Shrinkage Limit % 3/4" Flow Index 1/2" Shrinkage Ratio % 4 Volumetric Change 10 /QQ.CL __,°fo Lineal Shrinkage °'o 20 9 9. 7 MOISTURE DENSITY: ASTM METHOD Optimum Moi<, ure Content - w° % 40 2. 100 77.4 200 ED; 8 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS: Grain size (mm) % Maximum Dry Density -Td pcf California Bearing Ratio (av) °o 'Swe I I • 1 Days 4.0 % Swe!! against.Q.QLsf Wo gain 10.3 % BEARING: 0 REPORT i -lo„ u) Penetrometer (av) _ _ 78 7 ._.._psf Unconfined Compression (qu) 500 Q4,0? 4 . ZSc _ 0.00 S Iai psf Plate Bearing• psf Inches Settlement Consolidation % under psf PERMEABILITY: K (at 20°C) iN ,lob✓ Mo/JTr.,e,E,,' D. DeWsir/ STATE., iN /?/6N Pio/ sre,,Q', ,los✓ -r/7? ,.r7ArF_ rxPAtl.f/ani PRESSe,a'4' oFA9ovr /So Ps/ ANT/ciPt7-ti). Void Ratio Sulfates 20001 ppm. SOIL ANALYSIS LINCOLN-DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO LDV -09 /// / // FLOolt. \CoMPAcra \\\\\\ \Pty oL6\ LENS \4 CA1Z1zY BENE -ATN w P "Mr, vt U C- A2TH BACK FILL Fi ///v.<";( \\\\\\\ A.111.4, 45'AWAY reoI4 WALL-. DEPTH VALES A¢otJND euILo1'1G- M/N.211. SPREAD FooruNt. Typ6 SAND F1Lrc2 G zAJGL COLLEGTOQ. FLoole aP To WALL A5 5Ho&rt w SAKI" FI LTE! GeAVEL COLLEGre / 00o Opo\ 0 oO d\.. e•a OO /41•4• 45. Au.+AY FCOH 1a7Aii. h5 DEArN VA21E3 In 420a..40 $HILD/Nry. p1PE. M1M.:L'I: GIZADS IORG"PE,Zc. • pipe 0 OANf TvPP Ftooe Go>n PAGTE'D / NATIVS EATLTN SA CKF / LL i/ \ \\\ FILTEp. FA817IC GIAVEL. GoLLecro R. bbaoo ry o 0 0- d ooaboo M Int. 45°A way FeoM ti%ALL. DEPTH VAElES AGouPD 8u14.DINtw. 1-41,4.2." a o0 b 0 co -+ 3,4ojeb"Pr . Pipe F/1_t-EIL FA8ZIC AtTarxNr+rir C./NOEZ-SLAB, INT.E /ort TYPE NOTES: .Size of Perforated pipe sand filter varies with amount of seepage expected. 4" diameter is most common. .Gravel size depends on size of pipe perforations: 85% gravel> 2 x diameter of perforation. .Sand filter must depend on native soil and must follow the Terzaghi-Vicksburg Criteria: 1) 15% kilter _ 44_ 2) 15�1, filter < 4 3) 50; filter _ 12 to8 15% base 85% base 50% base 5 This is required for stability and length of filter life. The sand filter may be replaced with an approved filter fabric. .All pipe to be perforated VCP, PVC or Orangeburg. .4" flexible pipe may be used to depth of 42 feet, but must be carefully graded. 3" flexible pipe may be used to a depth 'of 7 feet and should be carefully graded. .Rigid pipe only to be used below a depth of 7 feet below ground surface. .All pipe to be laid at a minimum grade of 1.4% around building foundations. .Outfall to be free, gravity outfall if at all possible. Use sump and pump only if no gravity outfall exists. .Conditions can vary considerably, and each site may be variable as to quality of sand or gravel required. All sites should be inspected to determine the amount and quality of sand filter required, unless a filter fabric installation is used as shown. TYPICAL SECTIONS PERIMETER DRAIN & FRENCH DRAIN LINCOLN DevORE ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS COLORADO: COLORADO SPRINGS, PUEBLO, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, GRAND JUNCTION , MONTROSE , WYOMING: ROCK SPRINGS 4 ASPEN OFFICE • 07I1 VINTNOP AVENUE ASPEN COLORADO 81811 CHEYENNE OFFICE 3228 LOCUST DRIVE CHEYENNE WYOMING 82001 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE P.O. BOX 1285 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81501 SAN LUIS VALLEY OFFICE P.O. BOX 240 ALAMOSA. COLORADO 81101 STEAMBOAT OFFICE P.O. BOX 5220 STEAMBOAT VILLAGE. COLORADO 80499 •RIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 2420 ALCOTT STREET DENVER COLORADO 80211 (303)458-6201 Jim Stevens Box 663 E Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Mr. Stevens: Glenwood Springs Tel. 945-7755 June 17, 1980 RE: Stevens Subdivision Water Resource Study KENNETH R WRIGHT WILLIAM L LORAN RICHARD D JOHNSON FRANK J TRELEASE EMILY KROKOSZ JOHN M GERSTLE M RAY NEwMYER CATHERINE KRAEGER ROVEY EDWARD W ROVEY MARILYN M. STOKES DANE VERWOERT In accordance with our proposal dated April 29, 1980, we have prepared the following report evaluating the water rights appurtenant to the proposed Stevens Subdivision. The property is located in the NEQ of the SWQ of Section 1, T 6 S, R 92 W, near Silt, Colorado in Garfield County. The purpose of our study has been to assess the water right re- sources on the property as they relate to the proposed 14 lot subdivision. As a part of this investigation, we have reviewed records of the State Engineer's Office and job files in our office, analyzed aerial photographs from the Soil Conservation Service, and drawn certain conclusions from telephone conversations with officials of the Ware & Hinds Ditch Company. The proposed subdivision is expected to have 14 single family lots on approximately 30 acres. Apparently 10 acres of the original 40 acre parcel have been sold in various transactions. The following observations, conclusions and recommendations have resulted from our study. • • Mr. Jim Stevens -2- June 17, 1980 WATER RIGHTS The water rights appurtenant to the Stevens property are in the Ware & Hinds Ditch, which diverts water from the west bank of Elk Creek. The ditch headgate as determined from U. S. Geological Survey mapping is located in the NE4 of Section 36, T 5 S, R 91 W, roughly 1/2 mile north- west of New Castle. The decreed location of the headgate is on the west bank of Elk Creek about three-quarters of a mile above the mouth. The ditch flows in a westerly direction, irrigating land along the Colorado River from New Castle to Silt. Table 1 presents a summary of decreed information for the Ware & Hinds Ditch. TABLE 1 WATER RIGHTS - WARE & HINDS DITCH COURT PRIORITY ADJUDICATION APPROPRIATION AMOUNT DECREE NUMBER DATE DATE (cfs) Original 15 5/11/1889 10/1/1883 5.0 1st Enlargement 57 5/11/1889 3/1/1886 6.5 Supplemental 4/17/1890 3/1/1886 1.9 2nd Enlargement 136 5/11/1889 5/1/1888 '5.5 3rd Enlargement 154C 6/15/1898 3/3/1896 0.2 4th Enlargement 155 11/15/1897 4/18/1896 1.6 5th Enlargement 157 12/18/1900 10/8/1898 3.6 TOTAL 24.3 Inspection of the table shows that a total of 24.3 cfs has been decreed to the Ware and Hinds Ditch. The ditch also claims a right to the 6th Enlargement for 21.3 cfs with an adjudication date of 11/23/1943. We believe this later right represents a flood right which is able to divert only during times of high flows in Elk Creek. • • Mr. Jim Stevens -3- June 17, 1980 We understand the original Stevens parcel of 40 acres was irrigated with 37 shares of Ware & Hinds Ditch water. Seven shares were conveyed with the 10 acres which have been sold and the 30 acre parcel which is expected to be subdivided has retained 30 shares. Apparently 1 share of ditch water translates into .02 cfs. It is our understanding that the 24.3 cfs is viewed as a block, and when the water is distributed to the shareholders, no distinction is made according to priority date. The 37 shares which irrigated 38-39 acres on the original parcel represent an application ratio of approximately 1 cfs per 51 acres. This appears to be consistent with the gross application of the 24.3 cfs which irrigates approximately 1100-1200 acres, or roughly 1 cfs for 49-50 acres. Our interpretation of the diversion records maintained by the District 39 Water Commissioner for the period 1970 thru 1978 indicate a typical irrigation season under the Ware & Hinds Ditch of 165-170 days from the first of May to mid-October. The average diversions of the ditch are 28.3 cfs daily and 9400 AF seasonally. We believe, based on these diversion records and interviews with local irrigators, that the Ware & Hinds gener- ally carried a full supply of irrigation water for the duration of the season. In 1977, under dry year conditions, the ditch was able to divert almost 10,000 acre-feet. Because there are no decreed water rights on Elk Creek below the Ware & Hinds headgate, no calls on the stream will be placed by downstream users. The Ware & Hinds has placed brief calls on Elk Creek during dry periods later in the season when it was not able to divert the full senior decreed rights. Based on studies of the Colorado River hydrology, decreed water rights, and past usage of the Colorado River and tributaries, it is our opinion that senior rights on the Colorado River below the Shoshone Power Plant will not call out senior rights in the Ware & Hinds Ditch, even in the driest years. • • Mr. Jim Stevens -4- June 17, 1980 HISTORIC CONSUMPTIVE USE The value of a water right can be measured by its historic depletion (consumptive use) on the river system. The consumptive use is equal to the amount of water diverted at the headgate less the amount that returns to support the stream flow. The consumptive use attributed to a specific crop can be calculated utilizing regional climatological data. The Blaney-Criddle method, a well - accepted procedure for calculating consumptive use values, was employed in this study. Climatological data for Rifle was used to determine the potential consumptive use of pasture grass for average and dry year conditions. Table 2 presents the potential monthly consumptive use values for pasture grass grown in the Rifle/Silt area, which we feel are applicable to the Stevens Subdivision. TABLE 2 POTENTIAL CONSUMPTIVE USE - PASTURE GRASS/STEVENS PROPERTY MONTH AVERAGE YEAR DRY YEAR - 1977 (AF/acre) (AF/acre) April 0 .09 May .23 .25 June .32 .46 July .44 .48 August .35 .30 September .21 .22 October :05 .06 TOTAL 1.60 1.86 We estimate the Ware & Hinds Ditch has historically irrigated 30 acres on the Stevens property which is expected to be subdivided. Therefore, the historic consumptive use of the 30 shares of Ware & Hinds Ditch water appurtenant to the proposed subdivision is 48 acre-feet in an average year, • • Mr. Jim Stevens -5- June 17, 1980 - and 56 acre-feet in a dry year. We believe the property has historically received a full water supply in both average and dry years. The 48 to 56 acre-feet range of consumptive use represents the amount of water that may be transferred to new points of diversion for uses other than irrigation purposes. WATER RESOURCES/WATER REQUIREMENTS It is our understanding that the subdivision will have two independent water systems. The potable water system is expected to be supplied by ground water withdrawals from 2 wells, while Ware &.Hinds Ditch water will continue to be used for irrigation. The assumptions incorporated into our water requirement calculations for the potable water system include the following: 1. 14 single family units 2. 3.5 persons per unit requiring 100 gallons per capita per day. 3. Septic tank/leach field systems with 20% consumptive use 4. 500 sq. ft. per unit of landscaping to be irrigated with the potable system 5. With the exception of the 500 sq. ft. mentioned, all outside irrigation, residential and greenbelt, will be with Ware & Hinds Ditch water. We estimate the gross in-house water requirement of the potable system will be 4900 gallons per day, or 3.4 gallons per minute on a con- tinuous rate basis. This level of use represents an annual requirement of 5.5 acre-feet. The limited outside irrigation requirement of the potable system is expected to be about 0.4 acre-feet per season, or 800 gallons per day. It appears the total gross requirement of the potable system will be approximately 5700 gallons per day, or 5.9 acre-feet annually. The annual consumptive use of the potable water system will be 1.10 acre-feet, or 20% of the gross in-house use, plus .26 acre-feet from the limited irrigation, totalling 1.36 acre-feet annually. • • Mr. Jim Stevens -6- June 17, 1980 Table 3 is a summary of the potable water requirements, together with a comparison of the historic consumptive use pattern and the pro- jected future consumptive use associated with the potable water system. TABLE 3 WATER REQUIREMENT/CONSUMPTIVE USE PATTERN (AVG. YEAR) POTABLE WATER SYSTEM (AF) HISTORIC IRR (AF) IN-HOUSE IRRIGATION SEASON APPLICATION C.U. REQMT C.U. APPLICATION C.U. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Irrigation 200 48 2.5 .5 .4 .3 Non -irrigation - 3.0 .6 Review of Table 3 indicates there is a surplus of 47.2 acre-feet of historic irrigation season consumptive use (column 2 - column 4 - column 6). A small portion of the surplus historic consumptive use must be allocated to augment out of priority winter time depletions, i.e. approximately .6 acre-feet associated with the in-house consumptive use, along with a small amount to cover conveyance and storage losses. The balance of the surplus consumptive use from the Ware & Hinds Ditch will continue to be used for irrigation. AUGMENTATION STRATEGY It has been determined that the 30 shares of Ware & Hinds Ditch water appurtenant to the proposed 30 acre Stevens Subdivision represents 48 to 56 acre-feet of historic consumptive use. If a portion' of the available historic consumptive use were transferred to a new point of diversion and augmentation for domestic or municipal uses, a comparable amount of historically irrigated acreage would have to be dried up. If, as expected, the two community wells are to be used for the potable water supply, an augmentaiton plan should be developed to protect the junior out of priority well diversions. An augmentation plan would utilize a por- tion of the property's historic consumptive use from the Ware & Hinds Ditch. Mr. Jim Stevens June 17, 1980 -7- We estimate the acreage taken out of irrigation with the road and lot improvements of the development will provide a sufficient quantity of historic consumptive use to protect out -of -priority well withdrawals during the irrigation and non -irrigation season. An integral part of the augmentation plan should be a provision to protect out -of -priority winter time depletions resulting from domestic in-house uses. Out -of -priority well depletions can be augmented during the irrigation and non -irrigation season by utilizing an infiltration pond on the develop- ment site. During the irrigation season, sufficient historic consumptive use would be diverted to the augmentation pond and allowed to infiltrate into the ground water system. Approximately 1.4 acre-feet,plus conveyance and pond evaporation losses, should be diverted to the pond during the irrigation season. Infiltration of 1.4 acre-feet into the ground water system will provide year round protection for out -of -priority well deple- tions. If a portion of the Ware & Hinds Ditch was transferred to augmentation use, we would not expect opposition from other water users on Elk Creek, with the possible exception of other users under the Ware & Hinds Ditch, because no other ditches on Elk Creek rely on the support of return flow from the Stevens property. Internal ditch users may fear the transfer of water to augmentation may adversely affect their interests. However, protestors of this nature should not prevent the transfer and augmentation of a portion of the Ware & Hinds Ditch water. CONCLUSIONS The historic use of Ware & Hinds Ditch rights appurtenant to the proposed Stevens Subdivision have yielded approximately 48 to 45 acre-feet of historic consumptive use in average and dry years. This amount of water should satisfy the water requirements of the 14 lot subdivision. Augmentation of out -of -priority well depletions can be accomplished by utilizing an • • Mr. Jim Stevens -8- June 17, 1980 augmentation pond and infiltrating a small portion of the historic consumptive use attributable to the Ware & Hinds Ditch. We anticipate that ground water can be developed on the site to meet the domestic needs of the development, however, further studies would be required to verify this opinion. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. We recommend that you proceed to develop an augmentation plan as outlined in this report. Such a plan should be developed under the guidance of legal counsel familiar with Colorado Water Law. Wright Water Engineers will be available to provide ad- ditional engineering support as may be required by your water attorney. 2. We recommend that you initiate additional studies to verify the availability of ground water (both yield and quality) at the development site. This can be accomplished by testing an existing well, or drilling a new test well. 3. Once the concept of the augmentation has been finalized by your water attorney, we recommend that the infiltration capability of the site subsurface materials be investigated. We believe this can be accomplished by performing a standard leach field type percolation test. If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact us. Very truly yours, WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. ByWal[te " r F. Bricker By WFB:RDJ:ep cc: (John Kemp Scott Balcomb 801-040 t Richard D. Johjon • • 1 PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR PEACH VALLEY ACRES SUBDIVISION GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO JAMES E. STEVENS and BILLIE RAE STEVENS, the Declarants herein and owners of Peach Valley Acres Subdivision, Garfield County, Colo- rado, as the same appears upon that plat filed for record on , as Reception No. , in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado, do hereby covenant and agree that the use thereof shall be restricted by the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth. They further covenant and agree that said restrictions shall be covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon themselves, their successors and assigns, and shall be mutually binding and enforceable by all purchasers of lots or property within said Subdivision. The protective covenants to run with the land are as follows: 1. Homeowners' Association. Declarants hereby state that they have reserved, on said filed and recorded final subdivision plat, all easements shown on said plat except the roadway easement designated thereon as "Peach Court" which has been dedicated thereon to the County of Garfield, State of Colorado. Easements reserved include, but are not necessarily limited to, a 20 foot irrigation and drainage easement around the perimeter of the subdivision; access easement to well, pump house and infiltration pond; easements con- taining fire protection storage tank; and a 60 foot easement for possible future dedication to Garfield County, Colorado as an extension of "Peach Court" to the south boundary of the subdivision. Declarants also have reserved and retain ownershipto 30 shares of the Ware and Hinds Ditch, which have historically been used for irrigation of the lands within the subdivision. Declarants hereby state that, prior to within the subdivision, they shall organize in accordance with the laws of the State of "Peach Valley conveyance of any lots a non-profit corporation Colorado to be known as ,Acres Homeowners' Association, Inc." (hereinafter "Homeowners' Association"), and that Declarants shall convey all • • reserved easements and the water rights including 30 shares of the Ware and Hinds Ditch to said Homeowners' Association. Upon convey- ance of lots within said subdivision each lot owner shall receive one (1) share of stock in said Homeowners' Association. Each and every lot owner agrees to be subject to, and abide by, the Articles of Incorporation and By -Laws of such Homeowners' Association, to work toward the furtherance of the purposes for which such Homeowners' Association is formed, the preservation of the property rights owned by it, and to abide by all of the rules and regulations which may hereafter be promulgated by said Home- owners' Association for the preservation of, restriction in the use of, maintenance, repair or improvement of, the property rights to be owned by said Homeowners' Association. Each lot owner further agrees to pay his, her or its proportionate share of the expenses incurred by the Homeowners' Association to accomplish the purposes for which it is created, said proportionate share of the expenses to be assessed to each lot owner as a monthly, quarterly, semiannual or annual charge. The purposes for which said Homeowners' Association is to be created shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) The full utilization of, preservation of legal title to, and defense of, all water rights, ditch rights, storage rights and well rights owned by said Association including the water decrees and adjudications pertaining thereto. (b) Compliance with, and performance of, all obligations imposed upon such water rights by decrees of court or reasonable rules and regulations imposed by the Ware and Hinds Ditch. (c) Enactment of reasonable rules and regulations for the use within the subdivision of so much of said water rights, being 26 shares of the Ware and Hinds Ditch, as may be used for irrigation purposes by the lot owners within the sub- division and limitation of well water to domestic, in-house use only. (d) Maintenance, repair, relocation or reconstruction of the well facilities, including the well, pump, water storage tanks, pumphouse and infiltration pond, and the easements pertaining thereto. • • (e) Maintenance, repair, relocation, or reconstruction of the fire protection storage tanks and the facilities and easements connected therewith. (f) Maintenance and repair of all other easements for irri- gation ditches or drainage ditches within the subdivision. Preservation and maintenance of the easement for possible future dedication to the County of Garfield extending Peach Court to the south boundary of the subdivision. (h) Enactment of reasonable rules and regulations for the assessment of, expenditure of, and collection of the expenses of the Homeowners' Association from, or on behalf of, the various lot owners within the subdivision. 2. Electric Utilities. All service lines for electrical energy servicing any improvements within the subdivision shall be constructed underground from the lot line to the service connection on the building being served. 2. No Further Subdivision. The owners of lots within the subdivision shall be absolutely prohibited from further division or subdivision thereof. 4. Building Construction, Setbacks, Commencement of Construc- tion. The following restrictions, setbacks and construction require- ments shall apply to construction of improvements on lots within the subdivision. a. Improvements constructed shall be for single family resi- dential purposes only. b. Each single family residence shall have a minimum floor area of 1,000 square feet, exclusive of deck, patio, porch and garage area. c. No building constructed shall exceed 27 feet in height. d. All construction must be new. Modular or previously constructed buildings, or trailers, are prohibited. e. Construction of outbuildings shall be limited to horse barns or storage sheds, and such construction shall be aesthetically similar to the construction of the main residence. No more than two (2) outbuildings may be constructed on any parcel. (g) • 1 f. The outside of all buildings shall be constructed of cedar, redwood, stone (not cinderblock), or brick. Siding must be left in a natural state or stained with earth -tone colors; no paint shall be allowed. g. All garages shall be attached to the main residence. h. All decks or wood porches must be of redwood construc- tion, including handrails. i. All roofs shall be constructed of asphaltshingles, shake shingles, or built-up material and shall be com- posed only of earth -tone colors. All buildings shall be set back at least 50 feet from the front lot line adjoining Peach Court; 30 feet from each side lot line and 10 feet from the rear lot line, except that the side lot line setback applicable to Lot 8 shall be 10 feet. All set backs shall be measured from the inside edge of any easement within a lot. k. All fences must be of four strand barbed wire construction, woven wire construction, or split rail construction. No fence may exceed five feet in height. This restriction shall not apply to fencing around the commonly used facilities or reserved easements within the subdivision. 1. No stove pipes may be located on the outside of any building. m. No elevated gas or oil tanks, cisterns, or other elevated tanks shall be allowed on any parcel. All such tanks must be buried underground. n. After construction has commenced the principal residence must be completed for occupancy within one year after the date of commencement as stated on the building permit. o. All state and county zoning, subdivision and building laws and ordinances must be complied with. 5. Temporary Structures. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, camp, tent, shack, garage, barn, or other out- building shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently. Outhouses or temporary toilets J • • shall be allowed only during periods of construction of the main residence. 6. Noxious Activities, Debris, Junk Cars, and Cleanliness. No junk cars shall be kept on any lot or on the roadway adjacent thereto; all such cars must contain current license plates and must be in good running order. The entire extent of each lot must be kept neat, clean and free of all debris. Weeds must be removed, exterminated or cut to ground level. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. No light shall be emitted from any lot within the subdivision which is unreasonably bright or causes unreasonable glare; no sound shall be emitted on any such lot which is unreasonably loud or annoying; and no odor shall be emitted from any lot which is unreasonably noxious or offensive to others. Each lot shall be kept and maintained by the owner thereof in a clean, safe, attractive and sightly condition and in good repair. 7. Animals. There shall be allowed one cow and one horse, or a combination thereof totaling two, on each lot. Dogs and cats shall be allowed. Dogs must be kept on leash or fenced within the perimeter of each lot. No animals may be raised on any lot for sale to the public. No exotic animals such as reptiles or wild animals of any kind shall be allowed. Goats, sheep, ducks, geese, pigs'and chickens will not be allowed on any lot. 8. Signs. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to public view on any lot, except one professional sign of not more than six feet square advertising the property for sale or rent or used by a builder to advertise the property during the construction period of any residence. 9. Trash and Rubbish. All trash, garbage and other waste shall be kept only in covered, sanitary containers. Newly created rubbish piles which cannot immediately be removed by an owner, or cannot be fitted into sanitary containers, must be removed by the owner at the earliest possible opportunity. 10. Obstructions. No structure shall be placed or located in • • any manner that will obstruct, divert, or otherwise alter the natural water drainage courses and patterns, and no landscaping or changes to the existing terrain shall be made which shall obstruct, divert or alter such drainage. 11. Antennas. Neither external television or radio antennas shall be allowed, except such antennas as might be approved in writing by the Architectural Control Committee. 12. Irrigation. Irrigation of lawns and gardens shall be by sprinkling only. 13. Architectural Control Committee. An Architectural Control Committee (hereinafter "the committee") is hereby created to function as follows: a. The Architectural Control Committee shall consist of three members: James E. Stevens, P.O. Box 663, Carbondale, CO; Billie Rae Stevens, P.O. Box 663, Carbondale, CO; and A majority of the committee may designate a representative to act for it. Should a member resign or become unable to act, the other members can appoint a successor. By written petition signed by a majority of the lot owners, any commit- tee member may be removed. Such petition shall also name a successor to serve on the committee. At least two members of the committee shall be owners, or part owners, of lots within the subdivision. b. Before anyone shall commence the construction, remodeling, addition to, or alteration of any building, wall, fence, or other structure whatsoever, upon any of the parcels herein- above described, there shall be submitted to the committee two complete sets of the plans and specifications for said work and no such structure or improvement of any kind shall be erected, altered, placed, or maintained upon any parcel unless and until the final plans, elevations and specifica- tions therefore have been approved in writing by the Archi- tectural Control Committee. Such plans and specifications shall be submitted in writing over the signature of the owner of the parcel or his authorized agent. Approval or disapproval by the committee shall be based upon the specific restrictions set forth in these covenants per- taining to construction of improvements on any parcel. In addition, approval or disapproval may be based on the quality of the proposed construction, adequacy of site planning, conformity and harmony of exterior design with neighboring structures, effect of location and use of improvements, landscaping, operations and uses, relation of topography, grade and finished ground elevation of the site being improved to that of neighboring sites, proper facing of main elevation with respect to nearby streets, and conformity of the plans and specifications to the pur- pose and general plan and intent of these restrictions. Approval or disapproval of the plans and specifications based on any of the matters set forth in the previous sentence hereof, as opposed to approval or disapproval based on matters specifically prohibited or allowed by these cove- nants, shall be made at the sole and absolute discretion of the committee. The committee shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold approval of such plans and specifica- tions. c. The committee shall approve or disapprove in writing said plans or specifications within thirty days from the receipt thereof. One set of said plans and specifications with the approval or disapproval shall be retained by the committee. In the event no action is taken to approve or disapprove such plans and specifications within said thirty day period, the provision requiring approval of said plans and specifi- cations shall be deemed to have been waived. d. In the event the committee shall desire to grant a variance from the strict application of these protective and restric- tive covenants such committee may do so only by obtaining the unanimous written consent of two-thirds of the owners of lots described herein. e. Neither the Declarants, the committee members, nor their successors or assigns shall be liable in damages to anyone • • submitting plans to them for approval, or to any owner of land affected by these covenants, by reason of mistake in judgment, negligence, or nonfeasance arising out of or in connection with the approval or disapproval or failure to approve any such plans. Every person who submits plans for approval agrees, by submission of such plans, and every owner of any lot agrees, by acquiring title thereto, that he will not bring any action or suit against Declarants to recover such damages. 14. Waiver During Construction. During the course of actual construction of any permitted structures, roads, or improvements, the provisions contained in these covenants shall be deemed waived to the extent necessary to permit such construction, provided, that, during the course of such construction, nothing is done which will result in a violation of any of said provisions upon completion of construction. 15. Enforcement. Enforcement of these covenants shall be by proceedings at law or in equity by any owner or owners, or association thereof, of the land hereby restricted, against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant, either to restrain violation or to recover damages. For the purposes of this section, the Declarant, or its successors and assigns shall be deemed an owner so long as any of the lots within the subdivision shall remain to be sold or developed by Declarant. In the event an action is brought to enforce these covenants, as hereinabove described, the party bringing the action may claim against the alleged violator of the covenants a reasonable attorney's fee and the costs of suit therefore. 16. Covenants To Run With The Land. These covenants are to run with the land within the subdivision and shall be binding upon all parties and persons claiming under them for a period of twenty-five (25) years from the date these covenants are recorded, after which said time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten years. These covenants may be changed at any time by two-thirds of the owners of the parcels described herein provided, however, that no such change or amendment shall be made without the consent of the Declarant until such time as Declarant shall no longer • • have any ownership interest in the lots within the subdivision or any interest in these covenants as herein described. Any such change or amendment shall be made in writing, following at least twenty days written notice to all of the owners of parcels described herein, and such change shall be recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, after the expiration of two years from the date of issuance of a building permit by municipal or other governmental authority for any improvement, said improvement shall, in favor of purchasers and encumbrancers in good faith and for value, be deemed to be in compliance with all provisions of these covenants, unless actual notice of such noncompliance or noncompletion, executed by Declarants, or the Architectural Control Committee, acting by majority, shall appear of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado, or unless legal proceedings shall have been instituted to enforce compliance or completion. 17. Partial Invalidity. Invalidation of any one of these covenants by judgment or Court Order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. 18. Applicable Laws. These covenants are subject to applicable laws and ordinances of the County of Garfield, and the State of Colo- rado, and violation of said laws or ordinances are violations of these covenants, subject to enforcement as hereinabove provided. DATED AND SIGNED this day of , 1980. JAMES E. STEVENS BILLIE RAE STEVENS STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 1980, by JAMES E. STEVENS AND BILLIE RAE STEVENS. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Notary Public e IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5 STATE OF COLORADO Case No. a,p Cc 2. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLI- CATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF JAMES E. STEVENS AND BILLIE RAE STEVENS IN THE COLORADO RIVER IN GARFIELD COUNTY 1. ) )) ) APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS, STORAGE RIGHTS, CHANGE OF WATER RIGHTS AND FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN FOR AUGMENTATION Name, address and telephone number of applicants: James E. Stevens and Billie Rae Stevens P.O. Box 663E Carbondale, CO 81623 (303) 963-2132 CLAIMS FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS 2. Name of well: Stevens Subdivision Well No. 1 3. Legal description of well location: The well is located at point from whence the SW Corner of Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M., bears S. 60°24' West 2875 feet. 4. The well is located in the watershed of the Colorado River. 5. Proposed depth of the well: Approximately 120 feet 6. A. Date of initiation of the appropriation: 2/1/80 B. Date water first applied to beneficial use: N/A C. How appropriations were initiated: Prepared and submitted well permit application to State Engineer's Office. 7. Amount of water claimed in gallons per minute of time: 15 gpm, conditional 8. Use or proposed use of the waters: Applicants intend to use the water to be diverted from the Stevens Subdivision Well No. 1 for the purposes of irrigation, municipal use, domestic use, fire protection, recreation, aesthetic and all other beneficial uses. 9. Number of well as registered in the State Engineer's Office: Well Permit # 24716-F Approved 3/27/80 • • 10. Applicants intend to irrigate no more than 26 acres of land by use of the decrees herein requested. CLAIM FOR WATER STORAGE RIGHT 11. Name of reservoir: Peach Valley Acres Reservoir 12. Legal description of location of dam: The legal des- cription of the location of the dam forming the Peach Valley Acres Reservoir is a parcel of land located within Sec. 1, T. 6 S., R. 92 W. of the 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado and more particularly des- cribed as follows: The east abutment is located at a point from whence the Southwest corner of Sec. 1, T. 6 S. R. 92 W. of the 6th P.M. bears S. 61°05' W. 2936 feet. 13. Source of water by river and tributary: The reservoir claimed herein will be filled by diversions from surface flows of Elk Creek. 14. A. Date of initiation of the appropriation: 6/17/80 B. Date water first applied to beneficial use: N/A C. How appropriation was initiated: By location of the. reservoir site. 15. Amount of water claimed in acre feet: 2 acre feet, conditional. 16. Total capacity of the reservoir: 2 acre feet, total storage 0 acre feet, active storage 2 acre feet, dead storage 17. Name and capacity of ditch leading to reservoir: Ware and Hinds Ditch, at least 47.5 cfs 18. Use or proposed use of the water claimed: Applicants intend to use the water from the reservoir for the pur- po3es of irrigation, municipal use, domestic use, fire protection, recreation, aesthetic and all other beneficial uses. CLAIM FOR CHANGE OF WATER RIGHTS AND FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN OF AUGMENTATION 19. Name of ditch or other structure: The Ware and Hinds Ditch 20. Present point of diversion: The headgate is located on the west bank of Elk Creek in the NE; of Sec. 36, T. 5 S., R. 91 W., 6th P.M. 21. Amounts and priorities of diversions of the Ware & Hinds Ditch: Decree Original 1st Enlarge- ment Supplemental 2nd Enlarge- ment 3rd Enlarge- ment 4th Enlarge- ment 5th Enlarge- ment Court Priority Number Adjudication Date Appropriation Date 15 5/11/1889 57 5/11/1889 4/17/1890 136 154C 155 157 5/11/1889 6/15/1898 11/15/1897 12/18/1900 10/1/1883 3/1/1886 3/1/1886 5/1/1888 3/3/1896 4/18/1896 10/8/1898 % of Amount Applicants (cfs) Ownership 5.0 2.6 6.5 2.6% 1.9 2.6 % 5.5 2.6 % 0.2 .- 2.6 % 1.6 2.6 % 3.6 2.6 % 22. Proposed change and/or description of plan of augmentation: A. Applicants intend to provide a legal water supply to the Peach Valley Acres development to be located in the Colo- rado River watershed in Garfield County, Colorado. The development will include up to 14 residential units and space all located on 30.4 acres. In order to evaluate the proposed water requirements for the development, it has been assumed that each unit will have an average of 3.5 people per unit, using 100 gallons per capita per day for inhouse domestic use, and that the units will be occupied 100 percent of the time. Total irrigated acreage within the development will be 26 acres including that devoted to residential use and open space. Total water diversions necessary to sustain the development will be 90 acre feet, of which 43 will be consumed. Domestic consumptive use using a septic tank/ leachfield treatment system has been determined to be 20 percent of total inhouse domestic diversions. Future irrigation consumptive use has been determined to be 50 percent of total diversions. Reservoir evaporation loss will be less than 1 acre foot per annum. Applicants have historically used the water rights and priorities described in paragraphs 19 and 21 herein- above to irrigate 30 acres. Applicants have diverted an average of 200 acre feet per annum to the irrigation use and has consumed approximately 48 acre feet per year in so doing. Applicants intend to utilize the priority requested for the Stevens Subdivision Well No. 1 described in paragraph 2 hereinabove to supply the inhouse domestic water and a small portion of the irrigation needs of the proposed new development. In order that the proposed diversions pursuant to this well, when being made out of priority, will not injure senior appropriators, applicants propose to refrain from diversions and -3- consumptive use pursuant to its senior priorities described in paragraphs 19 and 21 hereinabove. The acreage historically irrigated except that devoted to the new purposes herein described will be permanently removed from irrigation as needed to defray the consumptive use of the out -.of -priority diversions of the Stevens Subdivision Well No. 1. Augmentation with the priorities described in paragraphs 19 and 21 hereinabove will be accomplished only during the historic irrigation season. Applicants intend to augment the supply of water available to the Stevens Subdivision Well No. 1 in the non - irrigation season by utilizing an infiltration pond to be known as the Peach Valley Reservoir hereinabove described, for the infiltration of water in quantities sufficient to equal the water consumptively used in the non -irrigation season by the Stevens Subdivision Well No. 1. Consumptive.- use onsumptiveuse in the non -irrigation season is expected to be .6 acre feet per annum. B. In order to implement the plan of augmentation, applicants also request judicial approval as follows: (a) Applicants intend to either continue diverting the waters decreed under the priorities described in paragraphs 19 and 21 above to the Ware and Hinds Ditch at the point of diversion described in paragraph 20 hereinabove, or at the point of diversion requested to be decreed for the Stevens Subdivision Well No. 1. (b) Applicants intend to use the waters heretofore decreed for irrigation purposes to the ditch described in paragraph 19 hereinabove for all beneficial purposes, including, but not limited to, municipal use, domestic use, irrigation, fire protection, recreation, and aesthetics. 23. Court where original decrees are entered: District Court in and for Garfield County, Colorado. Decree Civil Action No. Original 103 1st Enlargement 103 Supplemental 103 2nd Enlargement 103 3rd Enlargement N/A 4th Enlargement 767 5th Enlargement 908 24. Approval of the relief requested herein will not injure. any owner of or user of water rights on the Colorado River. DELANEY &iSALCOMB By Scott Balcomb #1376 P.O. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (303) 945-6546 -4- • • STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) SS. Walter Bricker, being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says that he has read the foregoing application, knows the contents thereof, and that the same are true to the best of his information, knowledge and belief. y?1 f _•.1 Walter Bric er Subscribed and sworn to before me this / 914.day of ri4y,; 1980. J1:1\_,- My commission expires: Notary P .lic My Commission expires Jan. 18, 1984 Owe' — Fort-, 5 ./....-Pir.c.ted poi B i \ :, f .,/,:,,:,:7T7 -7,4?', -.1.,-.20:,. ,••1:-.„..71.,+. .`,...-.., - ......44.1i..;W;.:-.: ,,?1,147.;,' _.... i,, '-';_‘!*,,"-',".••.'_'• ' •-•P '-"";',1,',AP'`,T.!'.',"!.!,9!"-P.,..f`7.-"--- : %--`• ' i'-..-••'(,-., -• .0, , ,ik V.,"4",r......' ' ,S, l'W."' "*...1,' '.'•••••2-..-Yt-?..;.--4t'er"A' 1 ' ',;.(.5i(0,:i.11.---, ,.-4,,,•;',..4,--..!:--Pc,.-.4..,-.., _,... - , _ :.,..4.-....," .-..,7',OPm leR,az,;<•.,,v-:,.i:A-44.,A., . . r . ... ,'... . . . . ' . • . .• ''', ' POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY - . •:•,-,,,r, .,,,•,?,4 : .,,,, .... k.:511_ p, 7171 'v.& A JP TIT LE'. 14 9' i GUARANTY COMPANY .. ....- . suBjEcT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND . THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY ... COMPANY, a scorporatiOn of GalvestOn, Texas, herein called the ,Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in - ', • - Schedule, A, against loss or da!nage, not exceeding the amount Of.insurance stated in Schedule A;anci costs, attorneys' ;*Aw: fees and expense,,, ,Nhich the Cornpan,v ma- become obligated to pay hereundei, susta.;ned or ; , i ct:rrPti by thP ,.1-cired by t . - 4. c•,,, r _ . . - - - •.,. to the estate or interest.clescribed,iri Schedule A'being (Jested othei-viii§e than as stated therein; :. , . .. Z Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title; . , • -- -:-, .. - , 3.. Leck of right of access to and from the land; oi ••• .:-!-„,!, ,• ,.-. r. 4, Unmarketability of such title I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stevvat Title Guaranty Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its duly authciized officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. • • Countersigned: • ....... (pit 1 9 (I 3 STEWAIIT TITLE GATARANTy COMPANY a-r7-1:-a • • 4 .Chairman of the Board -1- A.utncirized CounteEsigiieture Fre-;:Jent E.XCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE • The f011owing matters are expiassly excluded from the coverege of this 1.ohoy: • 1. Any law; ordinance or governmental regula,ion (including ii.or mat limited to lai.ildirig and zoning oi-clinances) restricting or regulating or 'A -• • prohibiting the occunancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating tnecheracter, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiling a separation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions or area of the land, or the effect of any violation of any such laW, ordinance or gOverninentn1 :egulatiort. i . . - . . . , --- 2. Rights of. eminent domain. or governmental rights of police power unless nonce of the ex.ercise. of such rights appears in the public. ':(A4P),/ii ' • records at Date of Policy. ' - ". _ '•'':1-,' 'e.,', 411'47: '3. 'Oefects, liens, encumbrances, adverse clairM, or other matters la) created, suff aced, assurned or agreed to by the insured claimant, (b) not known -to the Companyand not shovvn by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date 4 such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and rot disclosed in writing by the insured claimant -to the Company • oriof-to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no loss rrclamage to -the insured claimant; (d) attaching or -created subsequent to Date of Policy; „-r (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustain -ed if the insured • claimant had:paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy.. i . , • , . , .. . . ▪ 44: • Page 1 of • r) Policy ra N, .., SChEOL;LE • Qde 110 No.: 6591 Policy No.: Q-339464 Date of Polic,;: SEPTEMBER 24, 1979 AT 4:22 O'CLOCK Amount of Insurance: $165,000.00 1. Name of !nst.m..-,.d: JAMES E. STEVENS and BILLIE RAE STEVENS 2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy FEE SIMPLE 3, The estete.or interest 'referred to herein isat Date of P.olicy-vested in: 2 - JAMES E.,.STEVENS and BILLIE.RAE-STEVENS; Irt:JOINT TENANCY . . 4. The land referred to in this policy is ciescribed as folloWs: Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. Section 1: NE1/4SW4 • COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO Authorized- COuntersignature U.IIDEC012 Page 2 • • S EVA R'[' T '1LE GI" /4 !•:TY PANY • • Pocky <o.:0-389464 l-• :U!i ��.' .i V'.. ,`i ', tn3U�F ac; lass, c-�•7.e.z Shown 'y . i;' - Sli r'•J .�(�.. ; "il ;i� ,g :.f1.! r.:.:��?I�i, tiJ•�:'.'.� _..i .. _. 3'.. rl.. • u are: nu s'.c., ,r; i_ i:,+ : aen :;s• Taxes for the year 1979 and thereafter. The effect of inclusion in any general.. or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil`:conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service'or street improvement area. 7. Right of the proprietor of a. vein or lode to extract and remove his ore there- from, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby ,granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded February:4, 1941, in Book 73 at page 212 as Reception No.'142437. 8. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States'as.reserved in United States Patent recorded February'4, 1941, in Book 73 at page 212 as Reception No. 142437. 9. Easement and right of way for the county road along the northerly line of subject property, Maps and Statements of the following: a. Ware and Hinds Ditch recorded December 21, 1883 in Book 7 at page 93 and filed August'19, 1887 as Reception No. 5083. b. Amended Ware and Hinds Ditch filed -August 18, 1887 as Reception, No. 5078. c. Nelson Enlargment of the Ware and Hinds Ditch filed June 15, 1895 as Reception' No. 19478. d. B. 0. and.C..'Enlargment of;the'Ware and Hinds;Ditch filed November 20, 1979 aseReception'No, 22112.:`- 10. 11. All of the oil, gas and minerals and right to explore for and remove,the same as reserved by Walter E. Castle and Alice A. Castle in deed recorded December 30' 1964 in Book 362 at page 581 as Reception No. 228177. 12. Right of way for gas line across the NE4SW4 Section 1 as granted to Maysel E. Deter by document recorded December 15, 1961 in Book 338 at page 115 as Reception No. 215993. 13. Right of way as granted to Public Service Company. along the westerly line of subject property by document recorded April 4, 1962.inBook 34C'at page 319 as Reception No. 217086. 14. Possessory•cights lying outside the fence as shown;on the survey, by KKBNA/INC.: dated August 2.3; 1979. (Continued on Page 3-A) Path 1 13 ' Gu RA,STY (lO%}•a'V . i:: .1 . •+ 7. company 11 Att.d:.i+I i ;.o and mc.. a tsar: C 3[?:V! Title 1�t .--11- n )mpai / Policy Na.a0-389464 Condr-uation of Sc hadlule B 15. Deed of Trust from James E. Stevens and Billie Rae Stevens to the Public Trustee of Garfield County for the use of Joseph Conto and Mary Conto to secure $100,000.00, dated September 24, 1979, recorded September 24, 1979 in Book 535 at page 826 as Reception No. 297883. 3-A !T= T E\V.:. RT T 1'i' L E OUA'tA VTY COMP_ NY ' 303-945-8596 CONSULTING ENGINEERS / ELDORADO ENGINEERING COMPANY November 21, 1980 Mr. Keith Crandall Silt/New Castle Fire Department 911 Ballard Silt, CO 81652 RE: Peach Valley Acres Fire Protection System Mr. Jim Stevens - Developer Dear Keith: I would like to thank you for the time you took recently to discuss fire protection at Nir. Steven's proposed development known as Peach Valley Acres. We are now submitting the preliminary plat for the development so the County will be soon asking you formally for your comments. We agreed that the most desirable system for Peach Valley Acres is a cistern system as opposed to any sort of mechanical/electrical system. It was proposed to have a 10,000 gallon cistern located centrally in the development. The cistern would be connected to the domestic system by a float valve to insure that the tank would always be full. We will additionally provide a separate valved connection to the tank to allow manual filling should the float valve malfunction or freeze. We are also proposing a standard fire hydrant with a 6" connection to the cistern. This will leave all water lines below frost line and eliminate any possibility of freezing of a standpipe. The hydrant will have a 4" pumper nozzle and two (2) 2 1/2" nozzles. While we all agreed that the fire pump/standby power/charged hydrant system looks good in theory, from a practical standpoint it results in a less reliable source of fire protection because of the high possibility that when the pump is needed it will not function due to long periods of neglect and disuse. I am copying the planning department so that they are kept abreast of our conversation. Sincerely, DWG/jlw xc: Mr. Ray Baldwin - County Planner OCT 2 41984._ gARFIELM a (PLANNER GARFIELPSCHOOL DISTRIPT NO. RE -2 RIFLE, COLORADO Rifle High School Matthew V. Chambers, Principal 625-1596 Forest Davis, Assistant Principal 625-1596 Rifle Junior High School Grant L. Fiedler, Principal 625-1776 Esma Lewis Elementary Lawrence D. McBride, Principal 825-2438 Dariel Clark, Superintendent 625-1595 David R. Crabtree, Assistant Superintendent 625-1595 Lennard D. Eckhardt, Assistant Superintendent 625-2361 822 East Avenue Rifle, Colorado December 11, 1980 Mr. Davis S. Farrar, Assistant Planner Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Farrar: SILT, COLORADO Silt Elementary School Roy D. Moore, Princlpal 878-2363 NEW CASTLE, COLORADO Riverside Junior High +stool New Castle Elementary George L. Hesse, Prine pal 984-2372 I do not believe Peach Valley Acres would present problems for this school district. It obviously will not accommodate a large number of people so the impact on the schools will not be prohibitive. Mr. Kemp called and discussed the proposed development with me. Based on his description of what was planned I saw no reason for opposing Peach Valley Acres. I do not anticipate difficulty in negotiating a fee in lieu of allocating land to the district. The directors will want, I am sure, an amount which is fair and in keeping with what other developers in similar situations are paying. Sincerely, 2tie;A! d4446 Dariel Clark Superintendent mrm cc: John L. Kemp • COLORADO Richard D. Lamm Governor December 12, 1980 • DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Frank A. Traylor, M.D. 1876 Mr. Davis Farrar Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Executive Director Re: Peach Valley Acres Dear Mr. Farrar: This Department has received the preliminary plans for the above referenced subdivision. Our review has resulted in the following comments: 1. Wastewater disposal must comply with County regulations. 2. The well casing must terminate one foot above ground level. 3. The final water plans must be approved by this Department. If you have any other questions, please contact me at 245-2400. Sincerely, FOR DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION e 612 -fie Perry C. Biberstine, P.E. District Engineer JCB/zp cc: Denver Office Eldorado Engineers File 1657 �: DEC 511980 6 1t--. l c i n p 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER,COLORADO 80220 PHONE (303) 320-8333 RICHARD D. LAMM Governor • DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street - Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Administration (303) 839-3581 Ground Water (303) 839-3587 December 16, 1980 Mr. Davis S. Farrar Garfield County Planning Dept. 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Peach Valley Acres Dear Mr. Farrar: This is to acknowledge receipt of preliminary plan material for the above referenced subdivision. Water is to be supplied from a municipal well (permit no. 24716-F) to each of the 14 proposed lots for domestic purposes. J. A. DANIELSON State Engineer The developer has filed a plan for augmentation with the Division 5 Water Court (80-CW282) to insure that no injury to senior vested water rights would occur. This application was filed with the Court on July 15 of this year and no statements of opposition were filed. It appears that the plan is adequate and that sufficient water will be available. However, we cannot recommend approval of this final plat until a decree for the plan is issued by the Court. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call us. Very truly yours, ite A „1"*..4- Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Assistant State Engineer HDS/GDV:pkr cc: Lee Enewold, Div. Eng. Ralph Stallman Land Use Comm. L J r - DEC 1 9 1980 TO: Public Service Co. • • • ITEM: Peach Valley Acres • LOCATION: Garfield County= Glenwood Spr1ngs.Co. • rii)1&,W5TM 11 DEC 6 1980 U `_ GARFIELD CO. PLANNER DEVELOPER OR PETITIONER: James & Billie Rae Stevens ADDRESS: 811 Colorado Ave., Glenwood Springs.Colo. PHONE: The attached plat has been sent to your office for your review and comments. Failure to object or comment by shall constitute approval by your office. COMMENTS: Electric: Request the east 10' of lots 1 thru 7 as utility easement and the south 20' of lots 7 and 8 as utility and irrigation easement. HB 12/15/80 Gas; Show easements recorded Book 362 P.581 and Book 338 P.115 on final plat • Reviewing Office Date12/23/80 Public Service Co. TOWN of SILT • ®EC 3 01980 GARFIELD CO. PLANNE„ P.O. Box 174 Silt, Colorado 81652 303 876-2353 December 29, 1980 Memorandum To: Davis Farrar, Garfield County Planning Department Subject: Peach Valley Acres Subdivision From: Charles Hedgepeth The plans for the Peach Valley Acres Subdivision were reviewed by the Silt Planning and Zoning Commission during their regularly scheduled meeting in December (a quorum was not present). Those members present expressed favorable comments about the plans as submitted. The Town Planner finds no fault with the general concept of this development. ELDORADO ENGINEERING COMPANY 303-945-8596 0 00 823 BLAKE AVENUE / • • January 22, 1981 Mr. Ray Baldwin Garfield County Planning Director 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 31601 RE: Peach Valley Acres Dear Ray: I am writing in regard to questions raised at the recent P & Z meeting concerning ROW dedication on County Road 214 by the developer of Peach Valley Acres. The preliminary plat submitted indicated that 5' along the north boundary would be dedicated to the county for road ROW. This 5' plus the apparent existing 50' ROW plus 5' obtained at a later date from the north would result in the required 60' ROW. However, Jim Stevens, at the county's request, has agreed to dedicate that amount of land necessary to result in a dedicated ROW 30' from the center of the existing road. Since the road is not centered in the ROW, it appears that it will be necessary to dedicate approximately 8' instead of the 5' shown on the plat. This dimension will be confirmed in the field and the final plat will indicate the amount of land to be dedicated in compliance with the county's requirements. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, /hJ Rich Holsan RH/jlw xc: Jim Stevens John Kemp CONSULTING ENGINEERS / ELDORADO ENGINEERING COMPANY 303.945-8596 0 x 0 0 823 BLAKE AVENUE / • • January 16, 1981 Mr. Keith Crandall • Silt/New Castle Fire Department 911 Ballard Silt, CO 81652 RE: Peach Valley Acres - Fire Protection System Dear Keith: As a condition of approval for this development, the county is asking for a letter from you approving the fire protection systerii. I assume that you received the plat submittal ti ;hich detailed the design in con- formance with our discussion in November, as still concur with the design. If so, I would ask that you sign the statement that appears below and return to me for transmittal to the county. Thank you for your cooperation. Please feel free to call me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, • Dean U. .rdon D1JG/ j 1.r xc: Mr. John Kemp As Fire Chief for the Silt/New Castle Fire Department, I approve the fire protection system as submitted for the Peach Valley Acres Sub- division. By Date: Keith Crandall CONSULTING ENGINEERS / ELDORADO ENGINEERING COMPANY • • January 15, 1981 Mr. Ray Baldwin County Planner 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Fire Protection System Peach Valley Acres Dear Ray: I would like to explain to you the functioning of the proposed fire protection system as requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please distribute this letter to the Commission members for their re- view. The storage system will not be a charged system, that is, water must be pumped from the tank to be used. The fire department would use the water supply by connecting their truck pump to the hydrant and dis- charging through hoses or into a portable tank. Because of the plumbing arrangement, the tank would always be full and available for use through the uncharged hydrant thereby guaranteeing an available water supply. As discussed with Mr. Crandall, the Fire Chief, this is the most reliable and useful system available. The question was raised if the pump should be part of the water system on site. It is our feeling that this is not a reliable approach. The pump would sit for months and probably years between uses. The likeli- hood that it would receive routine care and maintenance is not very great, which in turn means that the possibility of pump failure under these conditions is significant. Since the delivery of water is totally dependent on a pump, whether brought to the site by the fire department (which is routine procedure) or on site, pump failure means no fire protection. The on-site pump can fail because of failure to start or loss of prime. I trust this will answer the questions of the Commission. If not, please feel free to contact me for any additional information you may need. Sincerely, Dean L. Gordon DWG/j1w Prq7P7qc--\ JAN 2 01991 GARFIELD CO. PLANNER • JOHN L. KEMP ATTORNEY AT LAW Mr. Rich Holsan Eldorado Engineering Co. P.O. Box 669 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Peach Valley Acres Dear Rich: PR7_ • Illi JAN 16 1981 �. GARFIELD CO. PLANNER 811 COLORADO AVENUE P. O. BOX 898 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81801 PHONE (303) 846-6474 January 15, 1981 As you know by now, the Planning and Zoning Commission of Garfield County approved the Preliminary Plat this past Monday evening. Their approval was subject to certain recommendations and as of today the hearing before the County Commissioners for final approval of the Preliminary Plat has been scheduled for 2:00 P.M. on January 26, 1981. We would like to have you present at that hearing. Also, the Garfield County Planning Office has advised me that several of the conditions for approval must be met before the County Commissioner's hearing on the 26th. The total conditions for approval are as follows: 1. Some sort of a notation must be added to the Restrictive Covenants and to the Final Plat stating that the type of septic system which may be required on any particular lot could be an evapotranspiration system or a closed cycle system and that such system is generally more expensive than the ordinary type of septic system. 2. The lots must be renumbered with the present Lot 8 elimi- nated and that portion of Lot 8 not encumbered by easements must be dedicated as an additional easement for open space. 3. A letter from the Silt Fire District must be obtained stating that they approve the proposed fire protection system for Peach Valley Acres subdivision. 4. A letter of explanation must be obtained from you explain- ing in full the functioning of the fire protection system. • • Mr. Rich Holsan January 15, 1981 Page 2 5. We must obtain a letter from you explaining the distance from the present north boundary of the property to the centerline of the existing county road and the size of the strip that is needed for dedication to the county to create a distance of 30 feet between the north boundary of the property line and the centerline of the county road. In this regard, there is a figure on the Preliminary Plat which appears to show the width of the road easement as 60 feet. This caused confusion at the Planning and Zoning Meeting and this figure needs to be clarified and possibly corrected or amended on the plat. In talking to Davis Farrar, the Assistant Planner, today, he wanted assurances that you would obtain for him on or before the January 26th hearing date the letter from the Fire District and the two letters from you so that those approvals and explanations would be obtained prior to the hearing on the 26th. Could you proceed as quickly as possible to prepare the letters in regard to the functioning of the fire system, the road dedication, and the approval letter from the Silt Fire District. Please forward those letters directly to me when you have obtained them and I will review them and deliver them to Davis Farrar. I am also enclosing six comment letters received by the Planning Office in regard to the mailing of the Preliminary Plat to various agencies. From talking to the Planning Office we must comply with any reasonable request made in these letters and the only one that seems to affect your work in preparing the Final Plat would be the letter from Public Service Company in regard to certain requested easements which they would like added to the plat and in regard to certain easements of record which they would like shown on the Final Plat. If there is any problem in complying with the Public Service Company request please let me know at your earliest convenience. JLK:cd encls cc: Jim Stevens Davis Farrar Very truly yours, 1 John L. Kemp Pfr z_ 001111 C-4,uki,t-t. .150 .4•(.1,2cIAAA/:At.. �►!b�3,esro CitieA, .AA_: C .2 0 W -&-v" ,Aviyr6, 26 c1/4(12e}roZ ca 09/At 4)e -e -Vo,r S C/N00 [; 5t' . e(72.2 _tN,.. 9,0,-4,- A../...,az_i p16,r &oz) 44O/- /e C2IGLE -6Y-bx ,t„ .d3litaz w � i ' 4I jiA"CN4‘4/ ;4;:(2-7 114%.0 v ._64 -PkPi5.e.o .*xN•ez_ ,604,4C -6(140e0 eto ad-- 4e- .c6A-e- am .cw�?&•. .c1aAA.1b7 00046kA-4) 4"/ ‘C6i-le\Atc2:A- //// ,aee, • (7:20, /14+ 0.A..6.„ LWv`.o- • C% E T. ,42 ve �O o ASz-c1-64A-A:C- /ax,444x.& a''4 �t,r1 d AZ cos2 .°4k2 U Cay ,6A4/1 4-Nn,haft' t,-/Ate.A1°A(fLc. 6/1 twifus _4(z Ciaazo,o /3/vto gaz,wv- 4,61A_C )-t4_(,t 8' L� "4 -aha .7J,4,(x4) 4, .0. ./et,4 elaa0/÷6 4,,c. eo< 434-a) 0.466.../& /a04 46 1 1 • 4L2: 3 /Ae,&,z ,91•„-\, z‘keJ CLA/4 ,))1,guLetrzfe,,,..s s --t, V 14110 a . cee 2/164 041442� YCaw1 / A . 30.' 1 .,0.-cA•e.d ' Q4.4 tact . j e1,/ & 1 ,c,A)I/ ak,,0,91b/ sci-ll I • .0. /4 0 6 O ,1( 4�. — a, -1Y6 deceyd;4_ ,Lso a(r‘..Z(A-tC2c4fr-C / v,ctA.. /5.9P ^2) 0 3o, a AAAzA ho t. iZZ,e128 c 2 Z p - ' Sabo© 2A U .� — ;- 7 / ,4/ 4,6(AztA.,/z/,”-so ga) 'Fa "t1 net 11003 in'IA IS rn Q.'"AtifeNe" @3:Dc VJ�1, S<RL a i'1-17G- (WA2rc?JOwZ, /ic�so Jam- a434,t.ltC2 ,2 ar.. -G'vN --s7 16, A.61),c --/J_e."_746yz azaatehz) polit4n. :may I.5.Z2