Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application-CorrespondenceGARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING: 945.8212 October lI, 19B4 Mr. Jeff Pecka Storm King l"lines r Inc. gL37 East ltineral CircIe Englewood, California 801f2 Dear Jeff: since our recent conversation $ras fairly brief, I thought a follow up Ietter would be aPproprlate given the number of tssues discussed' In general, r wlli i;!, t; address the puD rezoning, special use permit ieguirements and tlre f iscal impact, mitigation program' It will be necessarY to have a legally described PUD boundary to maKe any proposed changes to the -Riverbend PUD. wlthout a legaI description', it would be impoisible to define the boundaries of the area to be rezoned' As far as t,he zoning text for tne new PUD, it need only to address the uses proposed within the boundry of the pilp' There ls no need to include uses that could be a part of a iifterent PUD rezoning aPptication' Any special use permit aPPlication must address all of the approPriat'e sections in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978' ds amended' Specifically, Sect,ions 5.oJl- s.og.oz lnd 5'03'oB should be addressed as completely as posslble. At a minimum, note each sect'ion in the application .rrh address th; ippficaOility. In general' the more detailed the information, t,he less chance there '-itt Oe for additional informatron being reguested. Without seeing a revised application, it is difficult to determine what modif icat,ions may be ,r""""llty ln your fiscal impact analysis' As $'e noted previously, that issue iiff have to be evaluated in light ot the dif f erent aPPIicat'ion. Ifyouhaveanyguestionsorconcernsaboutthisletter'pleasefeelfreeto call or writ,e this off ice, dt your convenlence' S j-ncerelY, DEPART!'IENT OF DEVEL.OPMENT 7na.L*d,* Mark L. Bean Senior Planner !,tLB/vts GARFIELD COUNTY COURTHOUSE I09 8TH STREET. SUITE 306 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 8I60I ffi ,1 1gB4 Storm King Mines E. Peter Matthies President and Chief Executive Olf icer October 2, 1"984 Mr. Dennis Stranger, DirectorGarfield County Department of DevelopmentGarfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Strangrer: This letter provides a follow-up memorandum to our telephone con-versation of late l-ast week. As r indicated at that time, stormKing Mines intends to use a phased approach to develop the coalRidge No- l- Mine and associ-ated surfile facil-i-ties. Because ofthis pha99d approach, the initial CoaI Ridge planned Unit Devel-opment will be much smaller in both scal_e ,rrd irpacts than pre-vious preliminary engineering and planning studiLs have indicated.This -phased approach will all-ow teit mining to occur which willverify productivity factors and other technical considerationsbefore a commj-tement of resources to ful1 scale mine developmentis being made. As part of its Planned Unit Development application process, StormKing Mines would tike to combine the documents and any necessaryhearingrs for the initial- phases of the project. Rock tunnel deve1-opment wirr have only l-imited impacts at the surface and mostpermanent structures and facilities will not be constructed untill-ater phases- Where necessary, applicable industrial performancestandards will- be described ana alfrieved in the initial phases ofreview and development. Specific areas of concern on thl part ofGarfield County such as storage of materi-al-s, blasting matLrials,roadway access and so forth can be determined in the next few weeks. During this initial test mine development period, l--imited amountsof coal- witl be produced which shoul-d be transported to the marketfor testing and use. Storm King Mines intends to develop a temporaryloading facility on the east side of the City of New Castle in co-operation with the Town, the Rio Grande Raj-lioad, surrounding 1and-owners- and a private subcontractor who will- haul the coa1. W" pro-pose that this loading site be annexed into the City to direct the nnr Storm King Mines, lnc. . gl3TEastMineralCircle. Englewood,CO8O112. (303) tg2-2625 Mr. Dennis Stranger Page Two October 2, l9B4 revenue stream to the most directly impacted community. We look forward to working closely with you over the next several months to complete the permitting program for the test mine and its limited surface facilities. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Yours very truIy,/A*fu E. Peter Matthies EPlrr/ jkI LEAYENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHIIEAD, P C. ATTORNEYS AT LA\{ Augusl I3 , l- 984 LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH KEVIN L. PATRICK JAMES S. LOCHHEAD PETER A. MILWID Board of County Commissioners of Garfield CountY tO9 Bth Street Glenwood Springs, CO Bl6Ol Re:Iication of Storm Kin Mines for Zone Ctra Dear Commissioners: 1,tris firm represents the Riverbend Homeorrners Association, and in our ""p"tity as counsel for the Homeowrrers, we have received the Sdorm fritrg Mines Application for Zone Change, and wish to clarify certain points within the submittal to your Board. On pagi 2 of the eugust 3, 1984, eover letter from Sam S. Arentz, Vi"" President of Storm Kirrg Mine Operations, there exists a representation that the existing homeowners are par- cicipating i* a housing price guarantee program and that the Homeowrrers consent to the rezorririg application' Although preli- minary discussions with regard to a price guarantee program have been intertained between the parties, this firm received a first draft of a proposed agreement attempting to resolve the Homeowners Association concerns on August 9. AccordinglY, there shoutd be "" -i"p-i".entations t,hat tha Homeowers consent to the rezoning requesCed by Storm King Mines until suctt time that arr "gr""rn"it ir firrallzed and executed by th-e -Association ' edaitiorrally, the Homeowners have just successfully settled a lengthy lawsuit to protect and improve their water and sewer facilities. My clilnts object, 6s the beneficiaries of the water. and sewer systems approved by the county and the water Court, to repres"ntations from Storm Kirrg Min-es- that they own the water resources and water arrd sewer facilities of the sub- division. These property interests and facilities are not owrted ;t Stor* King tut are owned by Cunningham Construction arrd Development C6mpany held in trust for the benefit of the sub- divisibn, s irrnaf itJnts. Ttre represerrtations contained with part 5.O of the Applicant's submitted by Schmueser arrd Associates' Inc. states, in relevant Part: "From a legal standpoiq!, it is our professional opirrion that stofficient water rights avairable 1-o it to d.evelop the water resources required to meet its domestic water =rppfy demarrds." (Emphasis supplied) Rq&{yED AUG 1.1 iggl "..,. - " "E'fmffi.ffi',:tg,t l; i r'r, o, u^, TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261 (]A;(fItLD [0. PLANNER e LEAVENWORTH, PATRICh cr LOCHHEAD' P. C. Board of CourrtY of Garfield August 13, f9B4 Page 2 Commissiorrers Courrty We object to Schmueser and Associates, Inc. 's legal opinion of aaequicy of water rights on behalf of Storm King Mines rrtren the wate-r rights reviewed are not owned or controlled by Storm King Mines. Ttre Homeowners, we believe, are justifiably corrcerned over the introduction of a heavy irrdustrial use of land within a residential community approved by Garfield County and designated as a residential community within the C,arfield courrty Comprehensive PIan and zonirrg ordinances. It is the Homeowners essociation's intent to work out an acceptable agreement with Storm King Mines, which wiII protect their Property interests, and which wiII permit storm King Mines to proceedi however, we did wish to clarify representations that the Homeowners consent to the application until such an agreemerrt is executed. RespectfulIY submitted, LEAVEI{WORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P.C. KLP: ds cc: Riverbend Homeowners Association Samual S. Arentz, III Ms. JaneIIe Kinzie Patrick GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING 945-8212 JoLy 27, L984 Wn. Janes Cunningham P. O. Box 4I8 VaiI, C0 81658 Dear I'Ir. Cunningham: please be advised that the Carfield @unty Zoning Resolution requires the applicant, for a land use trnrmit or rezoning request, to notify the adJacent landowners of any public hearings on the prolnsal. Additionally' ttrt ap,plicant is required to publish notice of the time and place of the hearii! in a local newspaper. In the case of Storm King I'Iines, they will have to Sxrblish in the Glenwood Post. Ttrese requirenents are spelled out in Sections 9.03 and 10.04 of the Garfield @unty Zoning of 1978, as amended. 1b date, the only action taken on a Storm King Mine application was a finding that the Fiscal Impact Analysis is adeguate. There have not been any other alplications made for land use permits or rezoning request. Whren you receive notice or see notice in a newspaper, You are welcorne to come into our office and review the file. If you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to call or write thris office at your convenience. Sincerely, -/?1^L4'd/4^- Mark L. Bean Senior Planner I"lLB/emh IOO 8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 8I 602 . realty mvestor senrices Dear Mr. Bean, This letter will advise you that as the cleveloper of Riverbend, and a rnajor property owner, I wish to be advised of all and any meetingsor actions by you or the County that would affect my 1and, inconjunctionwith the over all development proposed by Storm King t{ines. Sincerely Yours, July 24, 1984 Mark J. Bean-SendorPlanner 2OL4 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 660 west lionshead place p.o. ti i984 . vail colo. 81657 . telephone a/c 303 416-5237 box 418 . vail, colo. 81658 Mines !!rri , i: l,_r'. rrI lrh*jl July 10, 1984 I'1r . James A. HoppalOfficer, Riverbend Homeowners Association 0031 Pinon Run Nevr CastIe, CO 81641 Rtr: Storm King Mines and the Riverbend Homeowners Dear llomeowners: This letter provides specific information: in addition to the StormI(ing Mine's let'ter of May 11, 1984. This Ietter. addresses .theconcerns expressed at the meeting of June 20,. 1984, and the solutions c'liscussed therein ftem 2 of the May 7I , 1984 Ie'bter describes an offer fer pricegLlarantees. Af ter our recent discussion the guarantee is modif j-ed as fo.IIows: a) The price guarantee may be requested. by the homeownersafter all of the following events have occurred: 1.A11 necessary permits for operation of the CoaI Ridge tl1 Mine have been acquired, From the date such permits have been acquired, oneyear must elapse, At. the beginning of the 2nd yqar after such tlermits' have been acquired, or at any time thereafter, the home/property owner will attempt to sell his home /Loteither privately or through real- estate agents (SI(M will be exempted), and If the home or property has not sold after reasonable attempts for a period of nine months, the home/property owner may reguest that Storm King Mines purchase the home /lot at the adjusted pri-ce guarantee. Limitations on the number of homes/lots SKM wr11 purchase within any six month period are governed by.the followj-ng: 1. If within any si-x month period after the first home/ property owner requests the right to exercise the price guarantee, more than 10 homb /Lot o\A,ners make similar requests, Storm King Mines need only purchase ) ? A. b. I.,lr. James A. Hoppal Page Two JuIy 10, l9B4 d up to 10 homes or lots within any six month period In successive six month periods, the same criteria would hold true The price guarantee wilI be determined by an appraisal of the home /Iof in its condition as of the date of the appraj-sa1 and appraised value as of December, 1983.If the homes are not maintained in like condition (normal wear and tear excepted) the price may be adjusted. fmprovements made on a home /Lot after appraisal will be added to the price guarantee, provided acleguate receipts for listed improvements are presented. The improvements must be of a reasonabl-e nature and add value to the home /Lot. Expenditures toward improvements which would exceed $5,000 must be submitted in advance to SKM for review. UnIess SKM agrees before the improvement 1s made that such expenditures will add to the value of the propertyj-n I1ke amount, the appraised value shall not be in- creased by the amount of such expenditures. trscalation of price guarantee. The price guarantee as established through appraisal and fixed for December, 1983, shalI be escalated from that Cate based upon the Bureau of Labor Consumer Price Index for housing. Improvements will be summed for each year and adcled to the price guarantee for the following year and wiII be escalated each year thereafter in Iike manner. The price guarantee when escalated and increased as des- cribed herein wiII be referred to as the adjusted price guarantee. Reimbursement of realtor fees, Storm King Mines will cover the costs of realtor fees under the following example: If an offer is made by a legitimate third party and SKM and 'bhe home/property owner agree to sell at the of fered nrice, SKM will pay to the seller the amount, if anY, by which the adjusted price guarantee exceeds the offered price received by the owner at the closirg, Iess commission. Commissions may not exceed 6.52 r e. Duration of Price Guarantee The price guarantee will remain in terms herein stated for a period of date of acquisition of permits, as effect under the ten years from the stated in a. 1 above lvlr. James A. Hoppal Page Three JuIy 10, 7984 After the 1Oth anniversary of the acquisition ofsuch permj-ts, the home/prbperty owners wi]-l- grantto SKM a first right of refusal to purchase anyhbme/property offered for sale. sucf, right sfraf tapply to the ownership at the time the home/propertyis offered for sale Responsibitities of the home /l-ot owners: l. rf the home /Lot owners desire to participate inand benefit by the provisions stated in liris retterand that of May 11, 7984r dtr agreement incorporatingthose provisions wirl be prepared for signature by' al] participan.bs. onry when such an agreement haibeen signed by sKM and each owner wirl either partybe bound. l 2. The key to the terms stated herein is time (the dateof permit issurance), Therefore, it iS regLlested, that arl parties to this l-etter make valid effortsto assist sKM in acqui-ringr the necessary permits toconduct our proposed and future mining operations. As stated at the meeting of June 20,1984, Storm King Mines j-s plan-ning to rezone the Riverbend to a PUD to conform to the multi-uienature of our-proposed operations. Maps of the rezoningr action wirrbe available for inspection at 0064 Pinon Run. please call Ericl'Jindesheim at 984-3113 for access. on the evening of July'16th,Jeff Peclca and I will be available at that addresi to clisluss aIIpertinent matters and answer your questions. For t.hose whp wish topa::ticipate in the PUD Rezoning Action, letters will be available , tThe PUD iezoning application wiII be finalized. for submittal by JuIy ', 24, I9B4 r will be at 0064 Pinon Run on the above-menti-oned dates to discussarl-l- perbinent matters. Thank you for your attendance and input.LooJ<ing forward to seeing you. f AI l-en Sam S. D. Gray, Arentz, Chairman of the Board forfII, Vice President/Operations nc er ely Storm King Mines The Honorable Dale Dawson Iulayor of New Castle P.O. Box 166 New Castle, Colorado 87647 RE: Mitigation of Eiscal ImPact Dear MaYor Dawson: BythisletterrW€wish-toprovide.youwithourcommitmentwith respect to miiigation of th; fiscal impact of our project upon the Town of New Castle. The fiscal impact analysis adopted uy -the commissioners of Gar- fietd County [V-n"="tuiion B4-b9 wilI be in force and effect for one Year from June 4, \984 ' Duringthatyear,W€willattempttonegotiateanAgreementamong the Town of New Cast1e, Storm Xing l"tines, Inc' and the Departments of Local Affairs and Revenue of the state of colorado which will allow for a tax credit from the Severence Tax Trust Fund to direct $50,000.00 to the Town of New Castle' This Agreement and our colrunitment to provide the $50'000'00 tax credit would go into efrecl at such time as we reach 50 employees in Garfield County. We do not expect that this will hanpen !:l:I" June 4t 1985, but our commitment witt survive the one year period under the County's Resolution B4-99' we anticipate that the Agreement will provide that the Town may use these tax credit funds to offset projected general operatingt deficits directly associated with the St6rm King Mines' project' related to the Town's p"p"i"tion growtfr through l99O ' ds shown on the f iscal- imPact analYsis' June 29, 1984 Storm Krng Mines, lnc. .9137 East Mineral Circle ' Englewood, CO 80112 ' (303) 792-2625 , The Honorable DaIe Dawon Page Two June 29, 1984 This Agreement would. also provide that the Town would be obligated to provide a project budget to demonstrate the need for these impact funds This letter and proposed Agreement would in no way preclude a review of the possible fiscal impacts if the projected emplolzment of SKI'Irs project exceeds the spatial allocation of alternative B of the fiscal impact analysis. VJe are hopeful that this letter will be of assistance to you in evidencing our commitment to the Town of New Castle and in demonstrating our sincere efforts to work with you in mitigating the possible fiscal impact of our operations upon the Town. Sincerely yours, S. kteVLz, III Vice President/Operations CONSENT TO: THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY coMtIISSIONERS OF GARFTELD COLINTY, COLORADO By this Consent, the undersigned owner (s) of Lot , Block , Rr ver i: e n-o S ubo r v r s r o nFiling No. evidence (s) his/her/their support in favor of the applica- tion of Storm King lr{ines, Inc. for PUD zoning on lands adjacent to and including Riverbend, as identified in the application. I/We request that the Planning Conrnission and the Board of County Commissioners adopt the PUD proposed by Storm King Mines, Inc. in order to achieve the purposes and objectives of development described in the application. Dated , L984. Owner Owner GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING ' 945'8212 JuIy II, 1984 Sam Arentz, III 9137 E. I'lineral Circ1e Englewood, @ 80112 Dear Sam: At your request, we have reviewed the draft subrnittal of the PUD zone change of the Riverbend PUD. Please consider the following conrnents to be very preliminary in nature. Based on the information submitted, the following conrnents are relevant to that information: I. General Conrnents: A. In general, we have sone reservations about the prolrcsed mix of uses SrarticularIy the residential and industrial mix. If the eastern industriaL area were to be developed as proposed, there would be conrnercial/industrial traffic traveling through a residential area. Some other reservations are related to the following comnents. B. Access to the PUD is limited to the New Castle I-70 interchange. provisions should be made for a secondary access to the property from the I-70 corridor. C. As a PUD, variances from the building height requirernents can be requested as noted in Section 4.07.04 of the Carfield County Zoning Resolution. As noted in that section, there has to be some justification for the variances based on the criteria noted. D. It is not clear how public access to the public lands will be available. E. ft is not clear wl'rat the rnaximum gross residential density is prolrcsed to be. Apparently, You intend to provide that information in Section 3.4 of your application. The zoning text indicates, predominately, single family lots, but allows for multi-family uses. If multl-family units are actually contemplated, there should oe sorne indication of the nurnoer. I OO 8TH STREET P O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8I 602 Page Two II. Zoning: A. f,gffi=a/mdustrial - Other than the agricultural uses, the rest of the uses are either unnecessary or should be special uses. Possible special uses would be: utility lines and facilities and municipal structures to serve industriaL uses such as pipelines, powerlines, substations, conveyors, water and sewer treatment facilities access roads. ltre reason for this is that the previously mentioned uses should be a part of the Special Use permit application. - Ttre conditional uses do not appear to be necessary, with the exception of "storage" which would, more appropriately, be a special use. - Need to Ert in requirements for the screening of outside storage of equipnent. I'bt necessarily for natural resource storage. - Would suggest rnaximum building height of 35 feet. for permitteo uses. Allowing for I50 foot maximum, if approveo by Special Use permit. Regardless, the 150 foot height has to be justified, as noted previouslY. - What are sorne acceptable industrial standards for setbacks? this section is too vague. - Ihere needs to be sorne language allowing for nxcre than one principal use per lot, if the uses are aII related to the same industrial operation and owned by the same company. Otherwise, the C,arfield County Zoning Resolution would supercede and require each use to be on a separately deeded lot. See Section 2.02.52 (1) of the Zoning Resolution. B. Residential -Is the shelter or enclosure of animals incended to De for domestic animals such as dogs, cats, etc., or for horses, chickens, cattle, etc.? If it is for livestock purPoses, a 7500 square ft. lot is not adequate. Page Three - Conditional uses should be special uses. - Special uses such as two-family, multi-family dwe1lingr-.In@biJ.e --herne-a5--the*pr-incipal*use--of--thejot, c-omer5;i@ are not generally consistent with a single family neighborhood. Thre two family and multiple-family dweitings couta be compatible, dependent upon the prolnsed density. If it is intended that each dwelling unit will have 75OO sq. ft. of lot area this may work. The more logical approach- would be to create a multiple-family zone district with its own standards and plan designation. - A 45 foot maximwn building height exceeds the maximrm building height limitation in the Zoning Resolution and wiII have to be just.ified as noted PreviouslY. C. ConrnerciaL - Residential uses should be deleted from tkre uses by right. In general, there are too many uses allowed. If this is intended to be a neighborhood conrnercial, i.e., convenience retail with some professional office, it should be noted as sucn. In general, this district is too wide open. - Conditional uses are not really necessary. - Special uses such as camper Pilk, nxcbile home park, plant for processing natural resources and agricultural materials into food and beverages, salvage yard and rnaterial handling do not fit. witfrin the appropriate uses for this district. Salvage yards and processing plants are more appropriate in an industrial zone. - Is there going to be a special review by the Board of all uses in the conmercial zone? It would seem more appropriate to set some standards. - Again a 45 foot building height will have to be justified. - Unless a cormercial park is approved by special use, not more than one principal use is allowed on a 1ot. \\N $'+o Page Four D. Connpn Q>en Space - Witlr exception of some of the utilities and public gathrerings, none of the conditional or s5:ecia1 uses appear necessary- - A 55 foot height variance should be justified at thre time of PUD rezoning, not 1ater. !'Jhrat buildings are proposed? These conrnents are for your consideration and would be similar to comnEnts made on a formal application. If you have any questions or concerns about these issues, please feel free to catl or write this office at your convenience. Sincerely, fl.W'lg//,,* Ivtrark L. Bean Senior Planner MLB/enft LEA\IENWORTH, PATBICK & LOCHHEAD, P C. ATTORNEYS AT LA.\,V LOYAL E, LEAVENWORTH XEVIN L. PATRICX JAME5 S. LOCHHEAD PfiER A. MILWID May 2L, 1984 IOII GRANO AVENUE P O. DRAWER 2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS.COLORADO 8160I TELEPHONE: (3O3) 945 -2261 Janel1 Kinzie, Esq. Carpenter a Klatskin, P.C. 1508 Denver CIub Building 518 Seventeenth Street Denver, CO 80202 Re: Storm Kinq llines/Riverbend Homeowners Association Dear Ms. Kinzie: The Homeowners are in receipt of your May 11, 1984, correspondence, and they have authorized me to advise you that the terms of the letter appear to begin to provide an acceptable mitigation of the probtems associated with the Storm King Ranch Development near their residential properties. They will be in contact with your client directly, if you have no problems with this approach, to work out the details, logistics, and timing of the mitigation effort. Should you have any guestions, please do not hesitate to ca1l. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHEEAD, P.C. KLP : ds cc: John Masur Earl Rhoades, Esq. Steve Zwick, Esq. 4'W CARprtlri,l & XLAiSiilN, p.C. LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK d,LOCHHEAD, P C. ATTORNEYS AT LA\{ LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH KEVIN L. PATRICK JAMES S. LOCHHEAD PETER A. MILWID June 6, 1984 IOtt GRAND AVENUE P O. DRAWER 2O3O GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8160I TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261 RENHIVED JUN r 1934 Giir'.r i -L,r .*". C()tlNIY AIICiiliry Steve Zwick, Esq. Assistant Garfield County Attorney P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Storm Kinq Mines/Riverbend Homeowners Association Dear Steve: Enclosed, per your request, are two pieces of correspon- dence, one from this firm to Sam Arentz and one in response to my letter by attorneys for Storm King Mines. The Homeowners wift be siCting down with Storm King Mines to work out the method of the mitigation measures conceptually agreed to by Storm King in their latest correspondence. We reguest that any land use iubmission require the the imptementationr oI) a timely basis, of the points of concern which have been agreed upon -bythe parties. OnIy with the incorporation of such mitigation measures would the Homeowners Association believe the issue of compatibility of uses in the area be resolved. Please review this and advise me what position the staff may take as to the implementation of these conceptual points within the conditions of approval of any land use submissions prepared and applied for by Storm King Mines. I appreciate the oppor- tunity-to provide ttris comment. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH, PATRTCK & LOCHHEAD, P.C. KLP : psb cc: John Masur Kevin L. Patrick l'i 1,,'[-r. ,,'. d L-.r\ CARPENTER & KLATSKIN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW I5OO DENVER CLUB BUILDING 5I8 SEVENTEENTH STREET ' OENVER. COLORADO EOAOE. - PC. WILLIS V. CARPENTER ANOREW S. KLATSKIN JANELL KINZIE ln't 't' ' May 11, 1984 li,i ,1,, i i ir TELEPHoNE , ii (3o3) s34-63rs : jl -:llt_',,. Kevin L. Patrick, Esg. Leavenworth, Patrick & Lochhead, P.C. P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Storm King Mines and Riverbend Homeowners As sociation Dear Mr. Patrick: As you know, our offj-ce represents Storm King Mines, Inc. ("SKM"). We have reviewed with SKM of f j-cia1s your Ietter of april 17, J-984, expressing the concerns of the Homeowners Association about SKM's proposed mining develop- ment. We will respond to these matters as you have numbered and identified them. 1. Road Improvements. It is the intention of Storm Ki-ng to make improvements to County Road 335 to the extent that its operations have an impact on that road. Most probably, this will not invol-ve improving the road all the way to the Riverbend Subdivision, since vehicles involved in SKM operations will be usi-ng only a portion of this road. At the least, SKM will improve the road to the standard and for the distance required by the County regulatory authorities. From the T-70 interchange to the point where a new road cij-verges to the Storm King facilities, the road will be upgraded to haulage standards (better than access road requirements) during the pre-construction period. After production begins, it is 1ikeIy that Storm King will pave. that portion of the road, even though this will not be required by the County. Prior to transport of coal from the proposed operation, SI(M will- improve County Road 335 to meet County specifications for such usage. In the interim G Kevin L. Patrick, Esq. I,lay 11, I9B4 Page 2 the access road will be constructed to the mine surface facilities. As the number of employees durj-ng this period will be limited, the road will not suffer adversely and areas of concern (namely the hole near the New Castle mine triple) can be mitigated. 2- Price Guarantees. SKM is willing to discuss price guarantees for the homes of members of the Riverbend Homeowners Association and for the unimproved lots owned by such homeowners. It is our proposal that Storm King will pay for an independent appraisal of each property at its value in 1983 prior to the announcement of the Si(M development. SKM would be willing to guarantee the price of that appraised value to the home- owners. Any homeowners who are dissatisfied with the value established by such an appraisal could provide an alternative appraisal within 60 days at their expense; the guaranteed price would then be based on an average of the two appraisals, provided that the second appraiser is independent and approved in advance by SKM. It must be understood that any such price guarantee is totally contingent upon Storm King obtaining its mini-ng permit as requested. Furthermore, such a guarantee will be effective only after construction is begTun on the railroad or other surface facilities which impact the subdivision. The guarantee will be exercisable only upon presentation of a bona fide offer from a third party to purchase a home or l-ot from a homeowner, and if the guarantee is exercised, Storm King shall have the option to purchase the house or lot at the giuaranteed price or to pay the difference to the seller. We recommend that such a purchase by Storm King be exempted specifically from any listing agreements between a homeowner and a real estate broker to avoid paying a commission on a guaranteed buyout. Ilomeowners wishing to sell their property would be well- advised to contact Storm King in advance, since an informal market may be available through Storm King personnel and facifities. a G I A Kevin L. Patrick, Esq May 1I, I9B4 Page 3 3. Landscape PIan. It is the intention of Storm King to work wltfr Carfiefd County, Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, the Bureau of Land Management and the Riverbend Homeowners Association on an acceptable landscape plan to mitigate the vj-sual and noise impact of SKM operations. Reasonable berming and vegetation screening will be provided- Storm King will attempt to assure that these efforts are satisfactory to the homeowners, although it is unlikely that all railroad and mining operations can be fuI1y screened -from view and hearing. Mitigation of such impact wi,II be the goa1. 4. Noise and Dust Suppression. Storm King will take reasonabfe measures to s[p!?ess aust and noise from its facilities and will limit its loading operations to daylight hours to the greatest extent possible. The best good faith efforts will be made to schedule train loading and hauling operations during non-sleeping hours. However, no guarantees can be provided by SKM that these operations will be conducted only during daylight hours. Such scheduling matters can have a drastic economic impact on SKM, their customers and on the railroad. Contrary to your assumption that such a requirement is easily achieved, it is virtually impossible for SKM to guarantee only daylight operations without seriously jeopardizLng the economic viability of its operations. Additionally, SKIui has virtually no control over the railroad. 5. Truck Hauling. To the extent that truck hauling is used during pre-production, Storm King wiIl take adequate dust and noise suppression measures in connection with such truck haulage. Water trucks wil-1 be used to limit the dust, and hauling will take place only during daylight hours. 6. Water Quality Improvements. Storm King will be happy to work r^ritil the fromeovrner.s to improve water quality in the subdivision. If Storm King develops an ample potable water supply, it woul-d be willing to make such water available to the Riverbend residents by piping water to the edge of the subdivision. (SKM wil-l- not become involved with improving or upgrading the water lines within the subdivision) . In exchange, Storm King would trope to integrate the existing ra Kevin L. Patrick, Esg. May 11, L9B4 Page 4 Riverbend water supply into its operations without jeopardizing deliverable quantities or water rights. It is also likeIy that additional storage facilities will be provi-ded if the two water systems are integrated. More definite j-nformation on the sources and quality of water supplies to be used in the SI(M operations will be avaj-lable in the next 60 days. Our response to the alleged "representations" of Storm King, which you have set out in Subparagraphs A through D, is on a somewhat di-fferent IeveI, si-nce these are obviously matters which have nothing to do with any negative impact of the SI(M operations. The matters described in Subparagraphs B and D have never been promised by Mr. Arentz or any other representative of SKM, and will not be provided by Storm King. The company cannot and will not become involved with the internal operation or maintenance of the subdivision or with any services which are or should be provided by loca1 goverrunent or other public entities. In regard to Subparagraph A, Storm King is willing to install a pedestrian gate and construct a designated pathway across its property for pedestrian use in maintaining access to BLM property. Such access would be only for residents of the Riverbend Subdivj-sion and would require a waiver and release by such residents of any SKM liabi-1ity in connection with the use of such access. In regard to Subparagraph C, if the homeowners eval-uate the j-nstal-lation of a television satel-lite disk receiving station and agree to pay all required fees and royalties for the use of such a station, Storm King will provide to the Homeowners Association the capital to purchase and install such a satellite disk based upon reasonable competitive bj-ds. All- ongoing repair and maintenance obligations, and any fees and royalties for the use and operation of such a disk would necessarily be the obligation of the Homeowners Association. We hope that the positions of Storm King as outlined in this letter can provide some further direction for a ra nt il Kevin L. Patrick, Esg. May 11, 1984 Page 5 productive dialogue with the Homeowners Association. SKI\'I is willing to make its operations as compatible as possible with the interests of the homeowners, within reasonable economic limits. Obviously, if Storm King provj-des to the homeowners the benefits which are being discussed, we would expect the homeowners to cooperate and work with Storm King in obtaining the necessary County approvals for zoning and permitting. Some of these matters will need to be dealt with in the near futurer so your prompt response to this letter would be helpful. we look forward to discussing these matters with you further; please feel free to call the undersigned or Willis Carpenter. Sincerely yours, ()a*l-L Q+r^-t-/l c-lr- v Jahell Kinzie CJK: deg LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH I(EVIN L, PATRICK JAMES 5. LOCHHEAO perEn a. ullwro LEAYENWORTH, PATRICIi dr LOCHHEAD, p C ATTOR}iEYS AT I,AW April )7, 1984 IOII GRAND AVENUE P O NR^WrR ?q:rQGLEN]!-OUD SPRINGS, COLORAOO 8160ITELEPHONE: (3O3) 945 -2E6I GAtiltt0Mr. Sam S. Arentz, IfI, Vice presidentStorm King Mines9137 East Mineral CircleEnglewood, CO BOll2 Re: Riverbend Homeoyners Association Dear Mr. Arentz: Ar our meeting of April 13, 1g84, 1 indicate.i that we wouldbe providing you with a rist of the homeowners, specific con_cerns so that you could know -ir-r" " p"sition of the homeownerstoward your company's proposed devefopment and come back to uswith proposa I s on' *i"iq"li;; i;"#"o.o.,."r.=. fhis list isintended to be generar i; narure and to highright what we con_sider to be tl" major areas where we believe an i,ndustriar usedevelopment wir I la,r"r=ury _ impact - atr" existing residentiarcharacter of the neigfrUortooa. ' rmprovements to county Eggq 335 from the rnterstateInterciranse -Eo-FiTin'q -o;g_-ffi.u H"&ffiuaifisTor,. - rtEinerease i; Tabo-er-r"TTl-" ""a-i"iilffi iH#ft "" countyRoad 335 witr - require the-. widening and improving of the road.rmprovements shouid be *"i" prioi-'to '"r.r. i.r.r.a='" in vehicurartraf f ic ' we - w-ourd propose to sit <10wn with the county Roadsupervi-sor and deveroi -i--"".ptabre road improvement pran. nrr"3'rorffi4p Price Guarantees ar_ a Muruarry Acceptabteffi nffi ,-#u#,#F+#{"HFP#H="ffi m*f mnecessarily det.racts from the desirabirity of the residentiarmarket in the s_ub<livision; this rras .i..oy occurre<l to a cer_tain degree by sKM's announcement oF its <ievelopme.t prans. sKMhas pubricry indicatea to Garfierd counry and the homeownersthat they believe they wirr enhance "t" varue of the devel0p_ment' rf sKM is coriect, trri"."qiriiu*".ra will not resurt inany risk or expenditure on. the p.ri of SKM.. per your request,we wourd conse-nt to providing sxu ,iarr " right of tirst refusar:::r;:J"J:"" fide odr.. ,eceirr"a for. a price suaranreed rot or 3. Lancf scape plan toResidential ch.ru""".Ioi th; Mirigate_ Subdivision. fndustrial Tr A landscape plan on LEAVEN\{ORTH, PATRICK d LOCHHEAD, P. C. Mr. Sam S. Arentz, IIIApril I'7 , 1984 Page 2 mutually acceptable to the homeowners and SKM should be deve- Ioped which would provide.a berrr and vegetation screen shietdingall railroad and mining operations from subclivision view. This woultl assist in noise control. A good example of. what can conscientiously be done for a coal loadout facility is the landscape plan provided by Snor'mass Coal's loadout facitity on Highway 82 four miles northwest of Carbondale. 4. Dust and Noise Suppression. In addition to the requiremeiEs-foF-EusT--GIpprEdETon coi-trol which will be imposed upon your operations by the Colorado Mined Land ReclamationBoard and Colorado Department of Health, we would like to seeperiodic suppression techniques ( sealants) applied to any railroad spur which runs adjacent to the subdivision. Unit train loading and hauling operations should be confined to the daylight hours (7:00 AM 7:00 PM). fhis requirement is easily achieved and is fundamental to any agreement with the homeowners. Perhaps more than any other impact on the residen- tial character of the area will be the sound pollution problems with loading and moving rolling stock during the evening hours. 5. Prior to Train Loqdout Facilities Becoming Operational, Truck Loadout Problems Should be Mitigated. T'he timing of yourproducEfon rnay-Ee aavarrcea oF your traln loadout facility'sconstruction completion, which may necessitate truck hauling. The homeowners expect that aIl mitigation measures set forth in I, 2 and 4, above, would be implemented prior to truck hauling of production. 6. Improvement of Water Ouality for Central Water System. As you are aware from our meeting, the homeowners are presently involved in litigation against Mr. Cunningham (Case No. BICV239). I have provided you with copies of the Court'spleading file which indicates that Cunningham Construction and DeveJ-opment Company and Mr. Cunningham personally, will be required to improve the water and se\^/er systems in accordancewith the homeowners desires and demands. Nevertheless, physical water facility improvements will not answer the question of poor water quality. We would therefore seek to work with SKM to Iocate ancl utilize a better physical water source for the sub- division. Ttris would be a requirement prior to any future use of SKM of the central water facilities. Additionally, any new demand placed upon the system by SKM would, according to our engineers, require enlargement and improvement of the present central water and sewer systems. In addition to these points, w€ expect that all representa- tions made by you to the homeowners and county officials would be provided. Specific representations include: LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK d LOCHHEAD, P C. Mr. Sam S. Arentz, IIIAprif 17, L9B4 Page 3 A method of access to BLM property for pedestrian useof subdj vision resident s; InstaI Iat j-on of paved roads and street lights in thesubdivision; rnstarlation of a terevision saterrite disk receivingstation for the subdiv:i-sion; and Construction of a smal I structure to house the pumperfire truck which the Town of New castre has indicated may be given to the holneowners. Per out meeting of April l3th, these concerns are beingexpressed to describe problerns which the homeowners believe mustbe mitigated to avoid opposition to your proposed industrialdevelopment. Thre method of mitigating these concerns wirr, ofcourse, require dialog to assure that such are satisfactorilymitigated. We believe these concerns are fairly and conservatively put forth and are ones in which any reasonable and conscientiousresource company should expect and fa-irly answer. The minorcosts associated with these mitigation items should already be apart of your overarr project budget since the project was ini-tated a.nd the resources purchased with knowl,edge of the presentzoning and character of the area. we look forward to solving the concerns that exist andrequest that adequate time be provided to answer these concernsand reduce them to an agreement prior to the initiation of anyland use proceedings by sKM. rt is our desire to settre thematters between us prior to tand use proceedings since suchwould necessitate the homeowners to take an adversarial positionto the project to preserve their property rights. Very truly yours, KLP : psb cc: Mr. John Masur Mr. Mark Bean EarI Rhodes, Ese.Steven Zwiek, Esq. A. B. D. LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & WILLIS V. CARPENTER ANDREW S. KLATSKIN JANELL KINZIE CARPENTER & KLATSKIN, PC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW I5OO DENVER CLUB BUILDING 5I8 SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER,COLORADO 8O2O2 T ELEPHON E: (so:) ss+-osrsMay 11, 1984 Mark L. Bean, Senior planner Garfield County Department of DevelopmentlO8th StreetP.O. Box 640 Glenwood Sprl-ngs, Colorado Bt6O2 Re: Ri-verbend pUD Dear Mark: r received from sam Arentz a copy of your letter to himdated April 25, lgg4. This letter concerned the verbaldiscussions at our meeting of April 13 regard.j-ng the con-trolling documents for the Riverbend puD. For the record.,we would l-ike briefly to reiterate our objections to yourposition on this matter: 1. The designated 'tp.u.D. plan Map" is clearly labeledas a preliminary map onry; no f inal map appears i-n lnyone'srecords and no map of any kind was ever recorded. 2- The Declaration of protective covenants, which youar9 id.entifyi-ng as the zoning text, is unsigned and undaled,and perhaps most significantly, was never recorded. As asubsequent purchaser of this property, ily client acquiredLitle wi-th no knowl-edge, actual or constiuctive, of theexistence of these covenants. As r indicated in our meeting, r believe the legitimacyof the existing puD to be highly questionable, partiiularlywhen based on the documents upon which you appear to rely.Nonetheless, it is the intention of storm Ki;a Mines toproceed with a rezoning applicati-on on that portion of theproperty which it acquired. rt is storm xing,s hope thatthis action can be taken in conjunction with the Riverbendhomeowners, so that there wirr- be no dispute about therezonj-ng action. rt is our intention to create a valid pUDfor the bulk of the property. !, . ,1, i Mark L. Bean, Senior Planner May 11,1984 Page 2 Hopefulty, it will not become necessary for us to contest tfre viiidity of the "preliminary'r PUD. But we do want it clearly estlblishe,il that we do not agree wi_th the position on this matter set forth in your letter of April 25, 1984. Sincerely Yours, ,fl,ff:"tuer CJK: d.eg cc: Mr. Sam Arentz Earl Rhodes, Esq. GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH / BUILDING 945'8212 April 25, 1984 Sam Arentz, Vice President, Operations Storm King Mines 9137 East Mineral Circle Englewood, CO 80112 Dear Sam: Please consider this letter to be a confirmation of the County Attorneyrs office and DepartmenL or oeveropmeni position-regarding the zoning of the srorm King Mines properry. A, ;;i; ln April tl, t9ga, the following documents will be considered th; controrring documents for the Riverbend P.U.D.: l.TheapprovedP'U'D'PLanMapasrequiredbySectiol-1-:08'05(2) oftheZoningResolutionisamaperrtitled,.PRELII,INARYl,lAPoF THE RIVERBEND PLANNED UNIT DEVELoPMENTi, dated August, 1976 and prepared by Scarrow and Walker ' Inc' 2.TheP.U.D.zoningtext,asrequiredbySectionl:08.05(2)(H)ofthe Zoning Resolutio"l-'iJ containea - in the nDeclaration of protective Covenants -'foi Riverbend, Cutfi"fd-County' Colorado" and received by tfre c,ariietd County Pianner on August 4, L976' as a parr of rhe i.U.o. ;;;il;g una -preliminary Plan application' It vras at this time that the Riverbend P'u'D' was created and the above referenced documents "or."=;ond in time to the time that Resolution No' 77-2 was signed- If you or Janell Kinzie documents, Please feel free convenience. Sincerelyr have any questions or concerns about these to calt or write this office at Your 7nr^L [4ark L. Bean Senior Planner XC: EarI Rhodes, CountY AttorneY Steve Zwick, Ass't CountY AttorneY I OO 8TH STREET P.O. BOX 640 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO BI 602 GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNlNG,945.82l2lENVlRoNMENTALHEALTH,.g45.2339lBUILDING:945-8241 November 17, I9B3 Sam S. Arentz, III Vice President, OPerations Storm King Mines 5335 West 8th Ave Denver, CO. 802L2 Dear Mr. Arentz: EnclosedisacopyoftheDeclarationofProtectiveCovenairtsfor Riverbeild. In reviewing the file for PUD i:ezoning, it appears-that tire county accepted this document as the methoci of controlling land use within the puD. Presently, a separate zoning text is rcquired, which becomes a part of the resolution of approval' It appears that your compar:y will have to amencl these covenants' to alloru for some parts of your operations. Whether or not there is any action required on the puit of tfre Counly is still in question'. Normally' the County cloes not Lnforce protective covenants. i have asked the County ettorney's office to review this matter' If this office can be of further assistance, feel free to call or write' SincerelY, 7fW4&,'* Mark L. Bean Senior Planner I,tr B/emh encl. 20I4 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 8I60I