Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.00 Project Narrative REVOCATION OF THE COAL RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE NUTRIENT HOLDINGS LLC October 2022 Revised March 2023 (This page has been intentionally left blank.) REVOCATION OF THE COAL RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATION OF THE COAL RIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AREA IN RELATION TO THE ORIGINAL RIVERBEND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AREA PROJECT TEAM Owner/Project Designer Authorized Agent and General Counsel Nutrient Holdings LLC Andrew Bruno Post Office Box 560 New Castle, Colorado 81647 Timberline Partners Daniel Teodoru, Esq. Erin Hunter, Esq. 210 S. Ridge Street / Post Office Box 625 Breckenridge, Colorado 80424 Water Attorney Mineral Rights Attorney Hill and Pollock, LLC Alan Hill, Esq. 1528 Wazee Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Balcomb & Green 818 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 SGM Land Use Planner 118 W. Sixth Street, Suite 200 Mathews Leidal, LLC Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Christie Mathews Leidal, AICP Surveyor: Tim Barnett, PLS Post Office Box 4678 Civil Engineer: Dave Kotz, PE, CFM Breckenridge, Colorado 80424 Traffic Engineer: Dan Cokley, PE, PTOE Wastewater Engineer: Chad Paulson, PE Water Engineer: Bailey Leppek, PE Ecologist/Wildlife Professional: Alex Nees, MS Soils and Geohazards Engineer RJ Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Richard Johnson, PE 266 Red Cliff Circle Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 All the above Team Members have degrees and/or professionally licensed and certified in their respective fields and qualified to practice in Colorado and prepare the documents contained within this submittal package. Any necessary stamps/certifications have been included on/in the applicable maps and documents. TABLE OF CONTENTS A. LIST OF APPLICATION SUBMITTAL MATERIALS.……….…………..….…… 1 B. OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND.……………….………... 3 C. REVIEW CRITERIA………………………………………………………………..… 9 D. ADDITIONAL REQUESTED INFORMATION PER NOVEMBER 22, 2022 LETTER………………………………………………………………………………... 12 Consistency Between Multiple Applications, Legal Descriptions, and Mapping………. 12 Submittal Requirements #1 - #4………………………………….……………………… 12 Updated Title Commitment…………………………………………………………. 12 Recorded Statement of Authority…………………………………………………… 12 Matthies Exemption Plat Amendment………………………………………………. 12 Boundary Line Adjustments………………………………………………………… 13 Updated List of All Property Owners within the PUD to be Revoked or Eliminated…... 14 Payment of a $300 Application Fee…………………………………………………….. 14 Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 1 | Page A. LIST OF APPLICATION SUBMITTAL MATERIALS Table 6-301. of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code (“LUDC”) does not contain specific information on the formal submittal requirements for a PUD revocation request. Thus, per the Pre-Application Conference Summary and November 22, 2022 Letter the following materials have been provided: Pre-Application Conference Summary Appendix A November 22, 2022 Letter from Glenn Hartmann (NFPUDNTC Letter) Appendix A.1 General Application Materials (4-203.B.): Appendix B • Land Use Change Permit Application Form Appendix B.1 • Statement of Authority (Reception No. 981220) Appendix B.2 • Letter of Authorization Appendix B.3 • Evidence of Ownership – Special Warranty Deed – Land (Reception No. 949446) Appendix B.4 • Evidence of Ownership – Special Warranty Deed – Mineral Rights • (Reception No. 949447) Appendix B.5 • Evidence of Ownership – Title Commitment Commonwealth Title Company of Garfield County, Inc. File No. 2103068 Appendix B.6 • Nutrient Holdings LLC – Articles of Organization and Statement of Change Changing the Principal Office Address Appendix B.7 • Memo – Chain of Title Appendix B.8 • List of Names and Mailing Addresses of all Property Owners in the Coal Ridge PUD and Map. *Updated list to be generated 30 days prior to the hearing dates per 4-101.E. of the LUDC Appendix B.9 • List of Names and Mailing Addresses of all Property Owners in the Riverbend PUD Amendment Area and Map. *Updated list to be generated 30 days prior to the hearing dates per 4-101.E. of the LUDC Appendix B.10 • List of Names and Mailing Addresses of all Property Owners in the Remaining Riverbend PUD Area. *Updated list to be generated 30 days prior to the hearing dates per 4-101.E. of the LUDC Appendix B.11 • Map of All Property Owners in the Remaining Riverbend PUD Area Appendix B.12 • List of Names and Mailing Addresses of all Property Owners within 200’ of the Nutrient Holdings Property/Nutrient Farms PUD Area. *Updated list to be generated 30 days prior to the hearing dates per 4- 101.E. of the LUDC Appendix B.13 • Map of All Property Owners within 200’ of the Nutrient Holdings Property/Nutrient Farms PUD Area Appendix B.14 • Certificate of Mineral Owner Research and List of Names and Mailing Addresses of all Mineral Estate Owners and Lessees within the Subject Site. *Updated list to be generated 30 days prior to the hearing dates per 4-101.E. of the LUDC Appendix B.15 • Fees – Payment Agreement Form. (A $300 base fee is provided, and it is understood that Nutrient Holdings LLC will be charged $40.50/hour for Plan Review.) Appendix B.16 Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 2 | Page • General Project Description Narrative • Vicinity Map. (Reduction. 8”x11” showing three mile radius.) Appendix C Additional Submittal Materials: • November 17, 1983, April 25, and May 11, 1984 Letters from Mark Bean and Janell Kenzie Appendix D • Preliminary Map of the Riverbend Planned Unit Development Appendix E • Resolution No. 84-261 – Modifying the Riverbend PUD to the Coal Ridge PUD and Approval of its Plan. (Includes Legal Description.) Appendix F • Coal Ridge PUD Plan Map – Per County Website. (Reduction. Full size bound separately.) Appendix G • Coal Ridge Legal Description Appendix H • Sopris Engineering Survey (May 25, 2011) Appendix I • Nutrient Farm PUD Plan Map. (Reduction. Full size bound separately.) Appendix J • Map – Nutrient Holdings Property Overlaid on Original Preliminary Map of the Riverbend Planned Unit Development Appendix K • Map – Coal Ridge PUD Boundaries Overlaid on Nutrient Holdings Property/Proposed Nutrient Farm PUD Boundaries. (Reduction. Full size bound separately.) Appendix L • Overlay Map – Riverbend PUD and Coal Ridge PUD Boundaries Overlayed on Nutrient Holdings Property/Proposed Nutrient Farm PUD Area. (Reduction. Full size bound separately.) Appendix M • Phase III Bond Release and Termination of Jurisdiction Report Appendix N Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 3 | Page B. OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND This proposal is submitted on behalf of the subject Property Owner, Nutrient Holdings LLC, (“Owner/Developer”). The Owner/Developer is requesting approval for the revocation of the entire existing and antiquated Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) concurrently with the approval of the proposed Nutrient Farm PUD for the property. A separate application has been submitted for the Nutrient Farm PUD request, as well as a separate application to amend a portion of the existing Riverbend PUD owned by Nutrient Holdings. The area of this vacation request and the Riverbend PUD Amendment request correspond with the total proposed Nutrient Farm PUD area and the property owned by Nutrient Holdings. No properties owned by others are included in any of these three requests. The Nutrient Holdings property is located between the Town of New Castle and Glenwood Springs, and to the south of Interstate 70 (“I-70”) and the Colorado River. The property is bisected by County Road (“CR”) 335/Colorado River Road and consists of four parcels, containing approximately 1,136 acres. (Assessor’s records Parcel ID Numbers are: 2123-344-00-005, 2123- 344-00-007, 2123-353-00-081, 2183-053-00-086, and 2183-061-00-057. Per our surveyor’s research, the five Assessor’s parcels were combined and re-organized into four parcels in the property’s formal legal description contained in the title work and property deeds, prior to the present property Owner acquiring these parcels. The following shows how each Assessor Parcel ID Number relates to the title commitment and warranty deeds: • Assessor Parcel ID Number 2123-344-00-005 is part of Parcel B; • Assessor Parcel ID Number 2123-344-00-007 is part of Parcel B; • Assessor Parcel ID Number 2123-353-00-081 is all of Parcel A and part of Parcel B; • Assessor Parcel ID Number 2183-053-00-086 is all and only Parcel D; and • Assessor Parcel ID Number 2183-061-00-057 is all of Parcel C and part of Parcel B. Thus, portions of Assessor Parcel ID Numbers 2183-061-00-057 and 2183-053-00-086 contain the Coal Ridge PUD area and also contain portions of the Riverbend PUD area since the Coal Ridge PUD area was never formally subdivided. (A map has been provided illustrating the location of the various Assessor Parcel ID numbers on the Nutrient Holding property and the location of the Coal Ridge PUD Revocation and Riverbend PUD Amendment areas.) The Nutrient Holdings property has historically been used for crop production and grazing and continues to be used as such by Nutrient Holdings. The long established Vulcan Ditch runs through the property and other agricultural improvements such as sheds, greenhouses, fences, gates, ditches, and dirt roads exist. There is one existing single-family home to the south of Riverbend Filing No. 2. The Coal Ridge PUD is almost four decades old. It was approved by the Board of County Commissioners (“BOCC”) on December 27, 1984, with Resolution No. 84-261. The Resolution approved a request by Storm Kings Mines, Inc. to modify the western 292 acre portion of the Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 4 | Page Riverbend PUD for the Coal Ridge PUD. (Resolution No. 84-261 has been attached which includes a legal description of the property. The Coal Ridge PUD Map found on the County’s website has also been included for reference.) The original Riverbend PUD area reaches back almost 50 years to a Sketch Plan that was reviewed and approved by the BOCC on June 26, 1973. The Sketch Plan and materials from that time show a 617 residential dwelling unit community containing an outdoor education center, riding stables, open space, pasture, and a demonstration cattle ranch on approximately 1,180 acres. A Preliminary Plat for Riverbend was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on January 14, 1974. The Sketch Plan and associated Preliminary Plat approval pre-dated the County’s adoption of its Zoning regulations. Thus, when the developer later requested a modification to the approved subdivision, the County required that the subdivision request be accompanied by a formal PUD Zoning application in order to meet the County’s new zoning regulations. Those modifications were reviewed and approved as the Riverbend PUD in January 1977 by the BOCC with Resolution No. 77-2. The Preliminary Map of the Riverbend Planned Unit Development dated August 1976 drawn by Scarrow and Walker and the associated Declaration of Protective Covenants for Riverbend, Garfield County, Colorado received by the County on August 4, 1976, became the demonstrative documents for the Riverbend PUD. Mark Bean, then Senior Planner for Garfield County, indicated such documents, and the County’s written acknowledgement of the same, would so control in his April 13 and April 25, 1984 letters to Sam Arentz of Storm King Mines. (These letters have been attached as well as a May 11, 1984 letter from Janell Kenzie, representing Storm King Mines, further describing these documents, and questioning them as they were neither signed nor recorded.) Per his April 25, 1984 Letter to Mr. Arentz, Mr. Bean states as follows: Dear Sam: Please consider this letter to be confirmation for the County Attorney’s Office and Department of Development position regarding the zoning of the Storm King Mines property. As noted on April 13, 1984, the following documents will be considered the controlling documents for the Riverbend P.U.D.: 1. The approved P.U.D. Plan Map as required by Section 4.08.05(2) of the Zoning Resolution is a map entitled, “PRELIMINARY MAP OF THE RIVERBEND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,” dated August, 1976 and prepared by Scarrow and Walker, Inc. 2. The P.U.D. zoning text, as required by Section 4.08.05(2)(H) of the Zoning Resolution, is contained in the “Declaration of Protective Covenants for Riverbend, Garfield County, Colorado” and received by the Garfield County Planner on August 4, 1976, as a part of the P.U.D. rezoning and Preliminary Plan application. Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 5 | Page It was at this time that the Riverbend P.U.D. was created and the above referenced documents correspond in time to the time that Resolution No. 77-2 was signed…. The Preliminary Map has a number of land use designations depicted as well as specific information on the Development Areas and Notes. The Preliminary Map shows a 376 acre open space/agricultural area adjacent to CR 335 and surrounded by future development blocks for at least 198 residential units (118 single-family and 80 multi-family units), a 10 acre school site, a 0.33 acre commercial site for a convenience store, park/playground, stable, infrastructure areas (i.e., sewage treatment facility, storage tank, etc.), and common areas. Documents from that time indicate the open space/agricultural land area was to function as a working ranch and sufficient water rights existed for it. The 1180.83 acre property was shown to be divided into 11 development blocks, including the open space/agricultural land area, and common areas backing up to the mountains. Hamilton Duncan, the owner/developer, envisioned the PUD as homes for local working families and anticipated build-out of Riverbend in five phase within 10 years. However, to date, only a few of the residential areas shown on the map have been subdivided and developed with homes. The PC 4/12/95 and BOCC 6/5/95 Staff Reports for PUD Zone District and Text Amendment of the Riverbend PUD and Sketch Plan for the Riverbend by the River Subdivision (which later became Filing No. 5) relay this same history, specifically references the Preliminary Map, and acknowledges the 198 residential units of density. The existing Riverbend PUD is approved for at least 198 residential units—118 single-family units and 80 multi-family units. (The Notes on the Preliminary Map indicate that the 80 multi-family units may be developed as multi-family units or single-family units.) The Preliminary Map contains a number of Notes discussing the residential development of the property—the location, type (i.e., single-family or multi-family), the size of the residential lots, as well as utility easements and public street dedications. The Preliminary Map shows residential lots in the existing Riverbend Subdivisions Filing Nos. 1 and 2 locations (designated as Phases I, II, and III on the Preliminary Map) and additional lots extending to the southwest along the foothills of Coal Ridge. According to the Preliminary Map and its Notes, these areas were to be developed as single-family lots of a “1/2 acre more or less.” These areas contain 70 single-family lots in Blocks 7-10 and were to be developed in Phase IV of the Riverbend PUD but were never subdivided. The 80 multi- family/single-family units were shown on the northeastern portion of the property, adjacent to the Colorado River, in Block 6. They were to be developed in Phase V, but that subdivision phase also did not take place. Thus, according to the Preliminary Map, at least 70 single-family lots on the southwest portion of the property backing up to the Grand Hogback in Blocks 7-10 and 80 multi- family/single-family lots on Block 6 adjacent to the Colorado River have yet to be developed. (Please refer to the Riverbend PUD Amendment Narrative for more information about the Preliminary Map.) Again, to date, only a few of the residential areas shown on the Preliminary Map have been subdivided and developed with homes by the original owner/developer—Riverbend Subdivision Filing Nos. 1 and 2 and the Riverbend Ranchettes. The remainder of the property subject to the Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 6 | Page PUD was sold off in the early 1980’s. Some of the PUD areas were developed by others in a different manner than planned—the Cedar Ridge Subdivision, Riverbend Filing No. 5, the Matthies Exemption, and the Coal Ridge PUD. In 1984, Storm King Mines received approval to modify approximately 292 acres of the undeveloped western portion of the Riverbend PUD into the Coal Ridge PUD. (The Coal Ridge PUD area encompasses some portions of Blocks 8, 9, and 10—the Phase IV residential subdivisions, a portion of the open space/agricultural land, and a portion of the common areas.) The Coal Ridge PUD allowed for a coal mine, heavy industrial support facilities, as well as residential and agricultural uses in it. The Coal Ridge PUD contains three types of development districts Common Open Space, Transition, and Heavy Industrial. Agricultural was a By-Right Use in both the Transition and Heavy Industrial Districts, and a single- family dwelling was also a By-Right Use in the Transition District. The Coal Ridge Common Open Spaces areas are generally located on the hillside and between CR 335 and the Colorado River and were intended for the use and enjoyment of the owners, occupants, and employees of the PUD. They allowed for the then existing on-site uses as well as future uses such as utility lines, substations, power/water utilities, water impoundments, storage of agricultural materials, public gatherings, recreational facilities, and park shelter including maintenance facilities. The Transition Areas are located directly to the south of CR 335 and allow for a variety of utilities, as well as agricultural uses and a single-family dwelling. The utilities include such improvements as, “Utility lines not greater than 68 KV, and facilities and municipal structures to serve existing and industrial needs, such as pipelines, powerline, sub-stations, conveyors, ditches, roads, underground water and sewer facilities, and easements.” The Heavy Industrial Districts are located behind/south of the Transition Areas. A minimum lot size of two acres and a maximum lot coverage of 85% is specified. No number of buildings or square footage limitations were specified. Agricultural and utilities were By Right Uses and include, “Utility lines and facilities and municipal structures to serve existing and industrial needs such as pipelines, powerlines, sub-stations, conveyors, ditches, road, water and sewer facilities, and easements.” Beyond these particular, intensive uses, according to the PUD, additional Special Uses encompass several rather expansive and very intensive uses, such as the following: Heliport with support facilities, mine salvage yard, yards for layout of storage, temporary structures for housing, office or storage when approved as part of an extractive operation. Plant for fabrication of goods from processed natural resources; material handling, pumping facilities, electoral distributions, warehouse facilities/staging areas, fabrication areas, storage areas, water impoundments, access routes, utility lines over 69KV, pipelines. Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 7 | Page Sites for extraction, processing, and storage of natural resources, including mines, shafts, pits, storage points, and boreholes for coal, oil and gas, geothermal and other minerals, water, sand, gravel, rock, soil, explosives, chemicals, and fuel. Railroad corridor for spur or branch lines serving agricultural/industrial sites; radio and/or television transmission and receiving facility (not general broadcast), wholesale/retail sale of coal. According to the staff report and other submittal documents from the time of the PUD adoption, development of the mine in Coal Ridge was to take place in nine phases with the goal of producing 2.2 million tons of coal annually. Retail and wholesale production and conveyance of coal was allowed, as well as a railroad spur onto the property to transport the coal off-site. The Coal Ridge PUD Amendment staff report did not contain any analysis of the proposal in relation to the existing Riverbend PUD (i.e., uses, density, open space, etc.). Rather, it focused on the proposed mining activities of the Coal Ridge PUD in relation to the Comprehensive Plan and potential impacts to neighboring properties. That PUD was highly contested by the neighboring property owners and the community, with numerous concerns articulated ranging from decreased property values, additional truck traffic, air, water, and noise pollution, to compromised safety, and the general visual aspect of the project. Invariably, the subject property area of the Coal Ridge PUD was originally envisioned for a highly intensive operation that would be predominately industrial in nature. That operation was reflected in the PUD and thereby wrapped into the vision for the area, despite the protestations of the adjacent community. In 1986, Coal Ridge mining operations began with two exploratory holes drilled into the hillside and the construction of sediment control improvements. However, no coal seams were reached, and the operation ceased the following year. The portals were sealed and backfilled, and all disturbed areas reclaimed and revegetated to the satisfaction of the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety according to their Phase III Bond Release and Termination of Jurisdiction Report. (A copy of the Phase III Bond Release and Termination of Jurisdiction Report has been included in this submittal package.) Roads were developed on the property in connection with the mining activities. Those roads still exist and will be utilized/improved in the forthcoming Nutrient Farm PUD in the interests of efficiency and minimizing impacts and new disturbance. Invariably, the coal mine operation was never fully developed, yet the PUD remains in place and the intensive uses contemplated therein remain authorized. Ultimately, essentially the entire property area now planned to be contained within the newly proposed Nutrient Farm PUD has always been planned for rather extensive development— residential, commercial, and even industrial in nature—essentially since the early 1970’s with the Riverbend PUD and with the 1984 Coal Ridge PUD. A variety of uses—residential, agricultural, commercial, mining, and heavy industrial activities are all allowed under the existing Riverbend and Coal Ridge PUDs. Of course, the Nutrient Farm PUD as proposed seeks to eliminate the intensive, industrial, and even intense residential nature of the property, and restore that property Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 8 | Page to what we believe is its highest and best function—a primarily agricultural and educational operation that embraces the unique physical beauty and function of the area. In accord with this new vision, we are now seeking to vacate the entire existing Coal Ridge PUD in its entirety, and the intensive nature of uses contemplate therein. Further we seek to modify the remaining portions of the existing Riverbend PUD that are owned by Nutrient Holdings and replace them with the Nutrient Farm PUD. None of the existing residential subdivided lots (vacant or developed) or any other property owned by any third party are included in the boundaries of the PUD request; neither will be any common area, infrastructure, nor any other aspect of the existing residential aspects of Riverbend be affect or compromised by this Nutrient Farm rezoning. (Maps showing the boundaries of the Coal Ridge PUD in relation to the property owned by Nutrient Holdings and the proposed Nutrient Farm PUD boundaries and the original Riverbend PUD area have been included in this submittal package for location reference.) The proposed Nutrient Farm PUD goes back to the original agricultural and light rural residential intent of the Riverbend PUD and is much more compatible, sensitive, and less intense than which is currently allowed under the existing Coal Ridge PUD. We believe that the very act of elimination of the Coal Ridge PUD, which will proceed concomitantly with the adoption of the Nutrient Farm PUD, is a significant benefit to the adjacent properties and the overall community, and accordingly a significant public benefit of our present PUD proposal. It allows the vision for this property to much more adroitly reflect the vision of the community and the area at this juncture. It also will eliminate, permanently, the very intensive uses once planned for this area and the abundance of impacts that run hand in hand with such anachronistic industrial operations. Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 9 | Page C. REVIEW CRITERIA Section 6-203.A.2. of the LUDC expressly contemplates “Removal or release of a plan provision as stated in C.R.S.§24-67-106(3).” That statutory provision sets forth, in relevant part, the following: (3) All those provisions of the plan authorized to be enforced by the county or municipality may be modified, removed, or released by the county or municipality, subject to the following: (a) No modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall affect the rights of the residents, occupants, and owners of the planned unit development to maintain and enforce those provisions at law or in equity as provided in subsection (1) of this section. (b) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b.5) of this subsection (3), no substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall be permitted except upon a finding by the county or municipality, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of section 24-67-104 (1)(e) that the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire planned unit development, does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. It follows that, per both the LUDC and Colorado law, these statutory criterion serve as the driving standards to consider in order to determine if a removal or release of a PUD is appropriate. In that regard, we address such standards as follows: 1. Removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall not affect the rights of the residents, occupants, and owners of the planned unit development to maintain and enforce those provisions at law or in equity As discussed in detail herein, the entirety of the Coal Ridge PUD is owned by one entity, the applicant on this proposal as well as the associated Nutrient Farm PUD. We have outlined herein our keen interest in rescinding the impactful, industrial type uses and intensive development allowances of the Coal Ridge PUD. Instead, we will overlay the entire area of this PUD with a new PUD that is focused on agriculture, education, and community experience for guests and residents alike. Plainly, our efforts at modification underscore th e fact that our rights will not be compromised by this PUD removal or release. 2. Removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire planned unit development, does not affect in a substantially adverse manner eit her the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 10 | Page Again, in this instance, the removal of the entire Coal Ridge PUD, to be replaced with the Nutrient Farm PUD, instills a more reasonable approach to the efficient use, development, and preservation of the land within the PUD. The intensive impacts of industry and coal mining and other such onerous uses will be replaced by uses which are far more passive and experiential in nature. The proposed PUD revocation also does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest. As discussed, the original Coal Ridge PUD was met with very significant public opposition and concern. Those uses commenced but ultimately failed, yet the approved PUD has left this entire area in limbo indefinitely, as coal mining or other impactful uses could always just recommence. The residential uses in the adjacent areas will not be impacted by this lessened impact and higher preservation associated with the new Nutrient approach—a biodynamic farm with low level uses and very low impacts. Finally, the revocation is not sought solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. We have stressed that the Coal Ridge PUD is anachronistic, highly impactful, illogical for the area and serves no driving logical or pragmatic purpose at this juncture. The surrounding community never embraced such impactful industrial uses. The present Owner seeks not a special benefit but rather an altered vision for its property that seeks a low impact, biodynamic, high preservation, and low intensity approach for the property—as an experiential and productive farm. Ultimately all these issues must be considered and deliberated upon at a public hearing. Nonetheless, we are confident that all evidence and testimony at such a hearing will underscore the strong merit and public benefit of not only removing and releasing the entire Coal Ridge PUD, but also replacing that same area with the Nutrient Farm PUD. Moreover, the revocation of the Coal Ridge PUD satisfies all of the standards for PUD adoption set forth in Section 6-202.C of the LUDC. Of course, this Narrative is specific to a revocation, not an adoption, however, the same logic applies in force. In that light, as the Nutrient Farm PUD application underscores, our overall proposal greatly fosters the following concerns: 1. The standards for the purpose and intent of Section 6-101 are fostered by removing the Coal Ridge PUD and allowing flexible zoning to enable a low impact biodynamic farm. 2. The PUD standards of 6-401. are greatly satisfied by removing the Coal Ridge PUD. Industry is not nearly as contemplative of the County’s Comprehensive Plan as the allowance of a biodynamic farm will be. The impacts of industry do not foster the goals of the PUD standards in the LUDC. 3. The standards of Article 7 are furthered by revoking the Coal Ridge PUD. The new approach to the property will improve access, utility connection, avoidance of natural hazards, preservation of water resources and preservation of open areas. It will further the public interest and abate the potential of significant impacts to the community, particularly adjacent properties. Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 11 | Page Perhaps most importantly, Chapter 7 also focuses on the preservation and protection of agricultural lands and operations. The revocation of Coal Ridge will, in turn, greatly enhance the fundamental agricultural character of the area, by removing industrial uses and specifically replacing them with such agriculture. Further, we contemplate a high level biodynamic farm operation that the entire community can experience, enjoy, and learn from. This consideration, alone, underscores the importance of the proposed revocation. 4. Finally, the zoning standards of the LUDC are greatly furthered by the proposed revocation. The zoning standards all contemplate lessening the impacts of the zoning uses allowed, the conformance of the PUD with the general area, and the intensity and impacts of uses mollified when possible. All such goals and standards are well satisfied by revoking the Coal Ridge PUD. Conclusion We are requesting that the BOCC revoke the entire undeveloped Coal Ridge PUD in concurrent fashion with the adoption of the now proposed Nutrient Farm PUD. The adoption must necessarily run concurrently with the revocation as we need the new zoning designation to replace the repealed Coal Ridge zoning. Nutrient Holdings owns all of the Coal Ridge PUD area and the remaining portions of the Riverbend PUD in singular ownership, which offers a unique opportunity to make this significant and lasting change to the vision for the area. All of this subject land is now proposed to be included in the proposed Nutrient Farm PUD. As mentioned before, there will be no direct zoning implications whatsoever to properties owned by others in the Riverbend PUD—developed or vacant. All applicable submittal material has been provided and the notice described in Section 4-101.E. of the LUDC will be provided for the BOCC hearing relating to this PUD vacation request. We will be glad to provide any further information that may be needed for this application and elaborate upon any aspect of this proposal if requested. Thank you for your time and attention, and we look forward to working with the County on these efforts to change the vision of the area for the good of the community. Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 12 | Page D. ADDITIONAL REQUESTED INFORMATION PER NOVEMBER 22, 2022 LETTER This revised Coal Ridge Revocation request package includes the following additional information in response to the November 22, 2022 Letter’s requests. For ease of reference, responses to each request have been provided below or it has been noted where the information has been provided earlier in this Narrative. Ensure consistency between the multiple applications, legal descriptions, and mapping. The revisions to this Coal Ridge PUD Revocation request package are consistent with the contents of the Riverbend PUD Amendment and the revised Nutrient Farm PUD submittal packages. The application needs to address submittal requirements noted below as items #1 - #4. 1. Title Commitments need to be updated to be more current. The title commitment was updated by Commonwealth Title Company of Garfield County, Inc. on December 6, 2022 and a copy has been included in this submittal package as well as in the accompanying Riverbend PUD Amendment and Nutrient Farm PUD requests’ packages. 2. Statement of Authority needs to be recorded. A Statement of Authority for Nutrient Holdings LLC was recorded on November 10, 2022 with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder under Reception No. 981220 to ensure proper ownership interests on the subject property was properly implemented and designated. (A copy has been included in this submittal package.) Working with our title insurer and our title counsel, it does not appear that any further statements of authority are required. Nevertheless, if at any juncture it comes to light that some additional or modified statement of authority is needed, we will promptly do so. Of course, in accordance with CRS 38-30-172(6) a statement of authority may be recorded which reaches back to and clarifies or corrects prior transactions or prior statements of authority. 3. A Plat Amendment Application for the Matthies Exemption is needed, or the Application needs to proposed appropriate timing or completions of the Plat Amendment. The Matthies Exemption Plat was approved by the Garfield County BOCC on November 14, 1994 and recorded in the Garfield County records at Reception No. 471051, over three decades prior to Nutrient Holdings acquiring the subject Nutrient Holdings property. That plat created two parcels, colloquially the Lake Property (owned by the Lakes and not subject to the PUD proposal), and the “Owner’s Parcel” for the primary Farm House. In terms of the various PUD proposals at hand, and the alignment and relative sizes and boundaries of these parcels, we have utilized this subject exemption plat for such descriptions, which is the only tool we can use. It does appear that there may be some ambiguity related to Assessor’s records and some potential subsequent quit claims deeds that also well preceded Nutrient Holdings’ involvement, but we simply cannot speak to the Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 13| Page same within the context of this zoning application. Moreover, we also cannot unilaterally proceed with any plat application that affects property outside of our interests. Nonetheless, in order to address and resolve any concerns regarding such a plat, we will agree to some sort of condition of review or approval, etc. that notes that if it is properly determined that a plat amendment is needed to the existing Matthies Exemption Plat, we will take prompt, good faith efforts to process such plat in collaboration with the owners of the Lake Parcel prior to recordation of the Nutrient Farm PUD. 4. Boundary Line Adjustments to address merger of the properties to be aggregated under the Nutrient Farm PUD are needed or the Application needs to proposed appropriate timing for such mergers and/or provide a legal opinion/assessment of this issue. As indicated previously, we will not be merging any parcels or adjusting any internal boundary lines within the property prior to the Nutrient Farm PUD review and approval. To proceed with such efforts on the auspice of presuming quasi-judicial approval seems to be placing the proverbial cart before the horse. Moreover, there is no pressing reason or requirement to do so at this juncture, as there is simply no requirement under the LUDC or state law or jurisprudence that would mandate such an effort. In fact, to the contrary, both the LUDC and state law belie any notion that such merger is required. First, per section 6-101.B. of the LUDC, multiple contiguous parcels are expressly allowed to be included in one proposed PUD, as follows: Any single parcel of land or contiguous parcels of land comprising a minimum of 2 acres, sufficient to accommodate an integrally planned environment to be developed through a unified plan, is eligible for PUD zoning. In terms of pragmatic application of this notion, one need to look no further than the Riverbend PUD itself, which of course includes scores of separate properties within it. That PUD, in closer to its present manifestation with various parcels under different ownership, contained therein, has already been subject to several PUD Amendments. We of course have four contiguous parcels here that far exceed two acres in total area, all under one owner (though they need not be). We readily meet the qualifications to proceed with the PUD as proposed. Further, we point to a Colorado appellate case which has become the seminal case regarding how a PUD may be processed amongst owners of the property within a PUD. In Whatley Ranch v. Summit County, 77 P.3d 793 (2003), the Colorado Court of Appeals noted that a proposed PUD designation may be processed if all owners of property within the proposed PUD sign off on the application. In terms of a PUD Modification, only the directly affected properties within a PUD need sign off on the application to proceed. Any other property own ers need only receive notice of the application via the public notice process. Narrative – Revocation of the Coal Ridge Planned Unit Development 14 | Page In the present matter, Nutrient Holdings is the owner of all property within the Nutrient Farm PUD—and has of course signed off on the application fully. Nutrient Holdings is also the owner of all property within the Coal Ridge PUD and has signed off accordingly. In regard to the Riverbend PUD Amendment request, we are seeking an amendment only to the PUD area boundaries that exclusively only affects the property that Nutrient Holdings owns. Thus, we are signatories to the application that only affects such properties. Ultimately, we are happy to explore any future platting or merger that the County feels is necessary or appropriate after the PUD is reviewed and hopefully approved. However, there is no legal mandate, nor any good policy impetus, behind doing so prior to review—when of course quasi- judicial approval is not even in any manner guaranteed. Updated listing of all property owners within the PUD to be revoked or eliminated. Nutrient Holdings owns the entire area of the Coal Ridge PUD. There is no other owner as illustrated on the submitted maps and shown metes and bounds legal description. A property owner list with Nutrient Holdings as the sole owner to be notified has been included in this submittal package. Payment of a $300 Application Fee. As requested, an application fee of $300 is included in this submittal package. Conclusion to Additional Requested Information per November 22, 2022 Letter Thank you for this Letter and the opportunity to provide additional information and clarification on the Coal Ridge Revocation request. We believe we have addressed each comment adequately and with practicality. We will be glad to discuss any of these items, and the overall Coal Ridge Revocation request, at Staff’s convenience.