PARK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Virtual Meeting TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2021 11:00 AM CALL TO ORDER

Video To join the meeting, click on the link below or copy and paste into your preferred web browser:https://zoom.us/j/632627219? pwd=Q2gvUVEwd0JuQ0R3TE9qWE9LTk9kQT09

Audio Upon joining the meeting, you will have the option to use either your computer mic and speakers for audio interaction, or participate by phone. If you are not using your computer speakers and mic to interact in the meeting, you may use the dial- option below:

Dial by your location (669) 900-6833 US (Western US) (929) 205-6099 US (Eastern US)

Meeting ID: 632 627 219 Password: 04408 *For the purpose of an accurate public record, you will need to identify yourself when you enter the meeting and when prompted*

11:00 AM CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Documents:

03232021bocc.pdf

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS

CONSIDERATION AND/OR DECISION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

.I. APPROVE/DENY A RESOLUTION DENYING THE 1041 WILDLIFE PERMIT FOR THE HARTSEL SOLAR PROJECT

Documents:

Reso 2021- BOCC Hartsel Solar 1041 App FINAL EBN010.pdf

.II. APPROVE/DENY AN AGREEMENT TO CREATE AREAS OF REFUGE

Documents:

agreement.areas of refuge.pdf MAP.1.pdf MAP2.pdf

PUBLIC HEARING(S)

.I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE #20CUP-08 PROPERTY IS PART OF THE N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF S19, T14, R72, ADDRESSED AS 2618 C.R.59, GUFFEY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A COMMERCIAL CAMPGROUND ON A 41.02-ACRE AGRICULTURALLY ZONED LOT APPLICANT: Chris Honeman

Documents:

20CUP-08 BOCC Staff Report and Atts..pdf PC Resolution 03-2021-01.pdf Referral Responses.pdf 20CUP-08 Application.pdf

PUBLIC COMMENTS

EXECUTIVE SESSION IN REGARD TO LEGAL & PERSONNEL MATTERS (CLOSED SESSION)

ADJOURN

ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION

TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE. ITEMS MAY BE HEARD EARLIER OR LATER THAN SHOWN ABOVE. NOTE: Items May Be Added To These Agendas Up To 48 Hours Before The Scheduled Time. Items May Be Deleted Or Cancelled At Any Time. Please Check Website “Parkco.Us” for most Updated Agendas. If You Need Further Information, Please Contact The BOCC (Board of County Commissioners) Office At: 719-836-4201. PARK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Virtual Meeting TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2021 11:00 AM CALL TO ORDER

Video To join the meeting, click on the link below or copy and paste into your preferred web browser:https://zoom.us/j/632627219? pwd=Q2gvUVEwd0JuQ0R3TE9qWE9LTk9kQT09

Audio Upon joining the meeting, you will have the option to use either your computer mic and speakers for audio interaction, or participate by phone. If you are not using your computer speakers and mic to interact in the meeting, you may use the dial- option below:

Dial by your location (669) 900-6833 US (Western US) (929) 205-6099 US (Eastern US)

Meeting ID: 632 627 219 Password: 04408 *For the purpose of an accurate public record, you will need to identify yourself when you enter the meeting and when prompted*

11:00 AM CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Documents:

03232021bocc.pdf

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS

CONSIDERATION AND/OR DECISION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

.I. APPROVE/DENY A RESOLUTION DENYING THE 1041 WILDLIFE PERMIT FOR THE HARTSEL SOLAR PROJECT

Documents:

Reso 2021- BOCC Hartsel Solar 1041 App FINAL EBN010.pdf

.II. APPROVE/DENY AN AGREEMENT TO CREATE AREAS OF REFUGE

Documents:

agreement.areas of refuge.pdf MAP.1.pdf MAP2.pdf

PUBLIC HEARING(S)

.I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE #20CUP-08 PROPERTY IS PART OF THE N 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF S19, T14, R72, ADDRESSED AS 2618 C.R.59, GUFFEY. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A COMMERCIAL CAMPGROUND ON A 41.02-ACRE AGRICULTURALLY ZONED LOT APPLICANT: Chris Honeman

Documents:

20CUP-08 BOCC Staff Report and Atts..pdf PC Resolution 03-2021-01.pdf Referral Responses.pdf 20CUP-08 Application.pdf

PUBLIC COMMENTS

EXECUTIVE SESSION IN REGARD TO LEGAL & PERSONNEL MATTERS (CLOSED SESSION)

ADJOURN

ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION

TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE. ITEMS MAY BE HEARD EARLIER OR LATER THAN SHOWN ABOVE. NOTE: Items May Be Added To These Agendas Up To 48 Hours Before The Scheduled Time. Items May Be Deleted Or Cancelled At Any Time. Please Check Website “Parkco.Us” for most Updated Agendas. If You Need Further Information, Please Contact The BOCC (Board of County Commissioners) Office At: 719-836-4201. BOCC MEETING MARCH 23, 2021

The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Elsner. The reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Tom Eisenman. All members were present with County Attorney Erin Smith via Zoom.

AGENDA: Action: Douglas moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mitchell seconded, carried 3-0.

MINUTES: Action: Mitchell moved to approve the minutes for March 9, 2021 as presented. Douglas seconded, carried 3-0.

VOUCHERS: Action: Douglas moved to approve the vouchers for March 16, 2021 in the total amount of $100,953.00 as presented. Mitchell seconded, carried 3-0.

Action: Mitchell moved to approve the vouchers for March 23, 2021 in the total amount of $284,012.00 as presented. Douglas seconded, carried 3-0.

CONSIDERATION AND/OR DECISION ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE #20CUP-04. PROPERTY IS 31 ACRES IN SECTIONS 6 THROUGH 8, T09, R78 ADDRESSES AS 6632 COUNTY ROAD 12, ALMA, CO. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITY, A BACK COUNTY HUT IN THE MINING ZONE DISTRICT Applicant: North London Mill Preservation, Inc. Presenter: John Deagan, County Planner.

For the record: Commissioner Elsner. Commissioner Mitchell. Commissioner Douglas. Kate McCoy, applicant. Jeff Crane, applicant.

Public Comments:

None.

Action: Douglas moved to close Public Comments. Mitchell seconded, carried 3-0. Action: Douglas moved to approve Conditional Use Permit #20CUP-04 as presented and direct the County Attorney to draft a resolution for the Consent Agenda. Mitchell seconded, carried 3-0.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE #20CUP-07. PROPERTY IS PARTS OF SECTIONS 8, 17 AND 18, T07, R72 ADDRESSED AS 228 SOUTH PINE DRIVE, BAILEY, CO. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONFERENCE AND RETREAT FACILITY ON A 121.94 ACRE RESIDENTIAL ZONED LOT Applicant: Tracie Hulbert. Presenter: John Deagan, County Planner.

For the record: Commissioner Douglas. Commissioner Elsner. Commissioner Mitchell. Tom Eisenman. Tracie Hulbert, applicant. Brent Smith, applicant. Tonya Krocker, applicant.

Public Comments: Jim Myers. Jeff Brodsky. Gail Brodsky. Jane Smith. Jason Christian. Chelsie Christian. Brent Hoff. Sarah Powell. Alex per Sarah. Marcel Flukiger. Mike Tanner. Joan Cross.

For the record: Tracie Hulbert, applicant. Brent Krocker, applicant. Commissioner Elsner. Commissioner Mitchell. Commissioner Douglas. Debra Green. John Deagan.

Action: Douglas moved to close Public Comment. Mitchell seconded, carried 3- 0. Action: Mitchell moved to approve Conditional Use Permit #20CUP-07 as presented and direct the County Attorney to draft a resolution for the Consent Agenda. Douglas seconded, carried 3-0.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Joan Cross. Mike Tanner. Robert Skelton.

Action: Douglas moved to close Public Comments. Mitchell seconded, carried 3-0.

EXECUTIVE SESSION:

None.

Action: Douglas moved to adjourn the meeting. Mitchell seconded, carried 3-0. PARK COUNTY, COLORADO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION NO. 2021-___

A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICATION OF HARTSEL SOLAR LLC FOR A 1041 WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS PERMIT FOR THE HARTSEL SOLAR PRESERVE, LOCATED IN PARK COUNTY, COLORADO

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Park County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Park County, Colorado; and

WHEREAS, the Park County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC"), pursuant to C.R.S. §24-65.1-101 et seq., have designated Wildlife Habitat Areas as an area of state interest; and

WHEREAS, the BOCC has adopted guidelines for the regulation of this designated area of state interest known as the Park County Regulations for Wildlife Habitat Areas (the "Regulations"); and

WHEREAS, the BOCC, pursuant to section 24-65.1-301, C.R.S., has the power to hold hearings on applications for permits for development in areas of state interest and grant or deny applications for permits for development in areas of state interest; and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 2nd day of March 2021, for the purpose of hearing the application of Hartsel Solar LLC (the “Applicant”), for a Wildlife Habitat Areas Permit for a utility-scale solar facility project to be located on 595 acres north of Highway 24, approximately 11 miles east of Hartsel, Colorado in Park County (the “Project”), being more particularly described in the application filed by the Applicant (the “Application”); and

WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners continued the hearing for the purpose of deliberations to the 9th day of March 2021; and

WHEREAS, all applicable notice and public hearing requirements have been followed; and

WHEREAS, the BOCC has received letters and exhibits including but not limited to a letter dated January 6, 2021 from Mark Lamb, an Area Wildlife Manager with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (“CPW Letter”) and a letter dated February 4, 2021 from Joshua Voorhis, a District Ranger with the South Park Ranger District (“South Park Ranger District Letter”); and

WHEREAS, during the public hearing on March 2, 2021 the Applicant presented slides and testimony, Mark Lamb and Ian Petkash also with Colorado Parks and Wildlife and Mr. Voorhis and members of the public presented testimony; and

WHEREAS, during the public hearing on March 2 the BOCC heard all of the testimony and statements of those present and those attending online via Zoom who commented, studied the request of the Applicant and the Park County Development Services Staff Report and all of the exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and, having been fully informed, deny the 1041 Wildlife Habitat

Resolution 2021-___ Page 1 Areas Permit.

The BOCC bases this denial on the following findings:

1. The Project area covers 595 acres in portions of Sections 30 and 31, Township 11 South, Range 73 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Park County, Colorado (Figure 1). The UTM coordinates for the approximate center of the Project area are 448650mE, 4323649mN, Zone 13 North (the “Proposed Development Area”). The longitude/latitude of the Project area is 105.593516°W/39.060420°N. The elevation of the Project is approximately 8,890 to 9,100 feet above sea level.

2. During the hearing and in the Applicant’s consulting biologist’s report the Applicant has asserted that Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the County’s consulting biologist did not find that Project will have a significant impact on wildlife and therefore the BOCC must approve the Application. The BOCC disagrees with the Applicant that the standard of approval for a 1041 Wildlife Habitat Areas Permit is a finding of no significant impact from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife or any other outside agency or consulting biologist. As stated in Section 2-404 of the Regulations, “A Permit application shall be denied if the applicant fails to demonstrate to the Permit Authority’s satisfaction that the proposed Project will not have a significant adverse net effect on wildlife species within the Proposed Development area.” Thus, the burden is on the Applicant to present evidence that satisfies the BOCC that the Project will not have a significant adverse net effect on wildlife species within the Proposed Development area. The Applicant has failed to do so.

3. The BOCC finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate to the BOCC’s satisfaction that the proposed Project will not have a significant adverse net effect on wildlife species within the Project Development Area. The BOCC sets forth the following findings in support:

a. Section 2-401(1). The Project, as evaluated after implementation of all mitigation measures will have a significant adverse net effect on wildlife species within the Project Development Area.

The Regulations, Section 2-401(1) provides: “A permit application may be approved if the applicant demonstrates to the Permit Authority’s satisfaction that the net effect of the Proposed Development Project, as evaluated after implementation of all mitigation measures: (1) Will not have a significant adverse net effect on wildlife species within the Proposed Development Area. Assessment of net effect on wildlife species shall be based on the following: (a) The resultant disturbance or harassment to individual animals, groups of animals or wildlife species. (b) Site development or activities that disrupt necessary life- cycle functions resulting in stress to the extent that

Resolution 2021-___ Page 2 physiological damage is done to an individual animal, group of animals or wildlife species. Examples include, but are not limited to, introduction of non-native vegetation, excessive use of fertilizers and other chemicals, placement of structures in close proximity to nesting and feeding areas and excessive exterior lighting. (c) Species’ reliance on specific, unique habitat features that may be affected. (d) Uniqueness of species to area of Proposed Development within Park County. (e) Uniqueness of species to Park County. (f) Mitigation efforts that directly address the negative effects of the proposed land use on wildlife species or specific wildlife species impacted. (g) Any other significant factor(s) the Permit Authority deems relevant.”

The CPW Letter states that the Project Development Area may host species such as pronghorn, mule deer, and elk. The Project Development Area is “an important migration route for pronghorn to summer and winter ranges.” To mitigate this life- cycle function of migration, the Applicant has proposed installing three wildlife migration corridors that are each 300 feet wide. These corridors will be at ground level and bordered by fabric-covered chain link fence for pronghorn to move through the Project Development Area. In support of the success of these corridors, the Applicant shared a video of pronghorn using raised walkway corridors that traverse over highways.

However, there is a difference between pronghorn traveling over something like an above-grade highway crossing and pronghorn traveling through something like a large solar farm. There is no conclusive data about pronghorn utilizing at-grade migration corridors. The South Park Ranger District Letter stated that “it will be interesting to see how much utility these corridors have when they are surrounded by 7-foot-high chain link fencing given pronghorn’s avoidance of areas that do not have an open view.” Further, the South Park Ranger District Letter and the CPW Letter both stated that it is essential for these corridors to be open on either end or the pronghorn movement will be further limited.

Due to the above, the net effect of the Project will have a significant adverse net effect on wildlife species within the Project Development Area. The proposed corridors have not been proven to be effective and the Project will disrupt necessary life-cycle functions by limiting or eliminating movement and migration through the Project Development Area. Relying on camera monitoring after construction would indicate whether the corridors are effective or not, but if they are not effective the damage to pronghorn herds will have already occurred. b. Section 2-401(2). The Project, as evaluated after implementation of all mitigation

Resolution 2021-___ Page 3 measures will have a significant adverse net effect on wildlife habitat within the Project Development Area. The BOCC sets forth the following findings in support:

The Regulations, Section 2-401(2) provides: “A permit application may be approved if the applicant demonstrates to the Permit Authority’s satisfaction that the net effect of the Proposed Development Project, as evaluated after implementation of all mitigation measures: (2) Will not have a significant adverse net effect on wildlife habitat within the Proposed Development Area. Assessment of net effect on wildlife habitat shall be based on the following: (a) The amount of vegetation/habitat removal and/or alteration within the development site. (b) The amount of habitat of similar type and quality within the Development that remains contiguous. (c) The existing and proposed amount of lot coverage. (d) The existence of contiguous habitat of similar type and quality on adjoining land. (e) The effect on surface and subsurface water quantity and quality. (f) Uniqueness of habitat to the Proposed Development within Park County. (g) Uniqueness of habitat to Park County. (h) Mitigation efforts that directly address the negative effects of the proposed land use on wildlife habitat. (i) Any other significant factor(s) the Permit Authority deems relevant.”

The Applicant is proposing fenced development of 448 acres out of a 595-acre property. The CPW Letter states: “The project area includes riparian habitat and small drainage crossings in the form of four riverines and two wetlands as documented by the National Wetlands Inventory.”

As stated in the CPW Letter, “The wetlands within the project area are two of the only naturally occurring water sources for wildlife in the area.” Additionally, the scarcity of water sources in the Project Development Area was addressed by Mark Lamb, Area Wildlife Manager and Ian Petkash, Lake George District Wildlife Manager during the hearing. Further, the CPW Letter stated: “[The wetlands within the project area] are of particular concern given the limited availability of this habitat in the area and the proportionally high use by many different species.” CPW goes on to recommend “that these wetlands will be completely avoided and incorporated into the wildlife corridors.”

The BOCC finds that the Project Development Area does not completely avoid these wetlands. The Project Development Area surrounds the north and west sides

Resolution 2021-___ Page 4 of a wetland on the northeast portion of the Project. There is a proposed wildlife corridor allowing some access to the west side of this wetland, but as stated above, the corridor may or may not be utilized by wildlife due to the unproven corridor design, the unproven effectiveness for wildlife, especially pronghorn, the 7-foot high fence on either side of the corridor, and the fabric on the fence that eliminates line of site and will make noise in the wind. It is unclear how wildlife can access this wetland from the east, as the two portions of proposed “undeveloped wildlife mitigation area” (parcel nos. 26898 and 26900) to the east of the wetland are not contiguous. If the only access to these water sources is through the Applicant’s proposed wildlife migration corridors that are not proven to be effective it could put wildlife species at risk by eliminating a life-sustaining water supply. Access to precious water supplies is extremely important in many climates, but especially a high-altitude climate.

An additional element that will inhibit wildlife species from accessing this life- sustaining water source is the fabric that is proposed to be placed on the chain link fences. The Project Development Area is located in a very windy portion of Park County. Fabric on a fence in a windy area will degrade and flap in the wind, deterring wildlife, especially pronghorn, from traveling to the area in search of available water or vegetation. This fabric will also eliminate line of site in this critical habitat.

In regard to the Applicant’s proposed “undeveloped wildlife mitigation areas,” the BOCC acknowledges the effort made by the Applicant in negotiating to purchase this land. If the effort is successful, the purchase of these additional parcels brings the total project area to 715 acres. However, as of the date of the hearing, the majority of the parcels were not under contract (“signed”). Furthermore, the purchase of these non-contiguous parcels does not solve the overarching problem of wildlife access on either end of the migration corridors nor the sheer size of the solar development and the amount of habitat that will be impacted as a result.

The Project Development Area includes important winter habitat and is mapped by CPW as winter range, severe winter range, and a winter concentration area. In the winter, the wind scours the snow, providing uncovered vegetation for wildlife when most of their winter habitat is covered in snow. This provides a vital food resource for wildlife and is a unique characteristic of the property within the Project Development Area.

The Project Development Area lies between 8,890 to 9,100 feet above sea level. Every blade of grass is very delicate in the County. Due to the high altitude and climate, it is difficult for vegetation to grow here. Fencing off and developing a large portion of this already limited vegetation eliminates a vital resource for wildlife in the area.

The CPW Letter states: “habitat loss and fragmentation are significant concerns caused by habitat conversion to solar development; therefore, minimizing the

Resolution 2021-___ Page 5 project footprint can help maximize available lands for wildlife species to meet their year-round and seasonal needs.” (Emphasis added.)

The BOCC finds that the Project footprint is significant in scale compared to the private parcel on which it is proposed to be located. The Project Development Area consists of a footprint of 448 fenced acres on a 595-acre parcel of land. Moreover, the Project footprint is significant in scale compared to critical habitat area for wildlife, especially pronghorn, and virtually wipes out a very large area of that critical habitat. c. Section 2-401(3). The Project, as evaluated after implementation of all mitigation measures will have a significant adverse net effect on wildlife movement patterns within the Project Development Area. The BOCC sets forth the following findings in support:

The Regulations, Section 2-401(3) provides: “A permit application may be approved if the applicant demonstrates to the Permit Authority’s satisfaction that the net effect of the Proposed Development Project, as evaluated after implementation of all mitigation measures: (3) Will not have a significant adverse net effect on wildlife movement patterns/displacement and adaptation of wildlife populations within the Proposed Development area. Assessment of net effect on wildlife movement patterns/displacement and adaptation of wildlife populations shall be based on the following: (a) Proposed Development’s effect on preventing wildlife from using a habitat they would normally use, such as blocking migration patterns from summer to winter range. (b) Proposed Development’s effect on causing wildlife to find new routes that expose them to significantly increased predation, interaction with vehicles, intense human activity, or more severe topography and climatic conditions. (c) The size of the affected habitat and availability of similarly sized and quality habitat within the surrounding area. (d) Inability of the specie or species to adapt to significant alteration of their current habitat. (e) Inability of the specie or species to find a new habitat that is sufficient to sustain the species over the long term. (f) Mitigation efforts that directly address the negative effects of the proposed land use on wildlife movement patterns, adaptation and/or displacement of wildlife populations. (g) Any other significant factor(s) the Permit Authority deems relevant.”

The Project Development Area is located on an important migration route for Resolution 2021-___ Page 6 pronghorn to summer and winter ranges.

The importance of habitat and migration is noted in the CPW Letter which states: CPW has a statutory responsibility to manage all wildlife species in Colorado; as such we encourage protection for Colorado’s wildlife species and habitats through responsible energy development and land use planning. Protection of core wildlife areas, big game winter range, seasonal migration corridors, raptor nesting locations and quality fisheries and aquatic habitats are of extreme importance to CPW. CPW recommends that all proposed projects be assessed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to sensitive wildlife habitats and species. That includes Federal and/or State listed species, state species of concern, as well as big game wildlife (migration corridors, winter range, breeding areas), breeding and nesting habitats for ground- nesting birds, and nests of raptors sensitive to development in order to prevent loss of habitat or fragmentation of habitat. The Project Development Area is a migration corridor that is of extreme importance to CPW and therefore it is of extreme importance to Park County. The Applicant’s proposed wildlife migration corridors are not proven to be a viable way to mitigate migration disruption to the point where the Park County BOCC could be satisfied that the Project will not have a significant adverse net effect on wildlife species.

There has been no evidence presented that shows that pronghorn will utilize these corridors. The only evidence of successful wildlife corridors depicted above-grade highway crossings. The highway crossings allowed the wildlife to traverse the highway while still allowing for line of site and a 360 degree open view. Comparatively, the proposed at-grade wildlife corridors will be surrounded by a 7-foot fence covered in fabric. The pronghorn will not have a 360 degree open view migrating through the Project Development Area like they would with the highway crossings.

An additional deterrent for the pronghorn in utilizing these wildlife corridors is the fabric that will be installed on the fences. The fabric will work to both eliminate line of site for the pronghorn and make noise when blown in the wind, further limiting the possibility that these untested wildlife corridors will be effective.

The success of the proposed wildlife corridors is crucial for the pronghorn. Habitat fragmentation is a significant concern caused by habitat conversion to solar development. The CPW Letter recommends “minimizing project footprint to help maximize available lands for wildlife species…” The Project Development Area consists of a 595-acre parcel of land with 448 fenced acres. This is a significant development footprint that does not maximize available lands for wildlife species, instead it prevents wildlife from using the area. Moreover, due to reliance on the

Resolution 2021-___ Page 7 untested migration corridors as the only migration mitigation, this large-scale Project has the potential to virtually block the pronghorn’s summer to winter range migration.

4. The BOCC disagrees with the conclusion of Applicant’s Wildlife Impact Report that “the project will not have a significant adverse net effect on wildlife species, wildlife habitat, and wildlife movement patterns/displacement…” The BOCC concludes that the proposed migration corridors are not a proven effective mitigation measure to ensure that pronghorn and other wildlife have adequate access to food and water sources. Further, the BOCC concludes that the size of the Project Development Area will reduce the crucial winter habitat for the local pronghorn and all but block their east to west/west to east movement from summer to winter range.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PARK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT THE A 1041 WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS PERMIT FOR HARTSEL SOLAR PROJECT, PARK COUNTY, COLORADO IS DENIED.

Moved, seconded, and passed this ___ day of ______2021.

PARK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

______Richard Elsner, Chairperson

ATTEST:

County Clerk

M/PARKCO/RESOS/2021 1335. EBN009

Resolution 2021-___ Page 8 P.O. Box 1373 COUNTY OF PARK Fairplay, CO 80440 (719) 836-4201 (Fairplay) Board of County (719) 836-3273 (Fax) Commissioners Website: www.parkco.us

March 30, 2021

RE: AGREEMENT TO CREATE AREAS OF REFUGE

Platte Canyon Fire Protection District and Burland Firewise work closely and continuously together to reduce the potential for Wildfire. The 2020 Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) recognized the need for Burland Ranchettes to create an Emergency Temporary Area of Refuge. The purpose of an Area of Refuge is to create a wildfire defensible / survivable area for those whose evacuation routes are potentially overrun by fire, forcing a retreat.

The best and most obvious location to create an area of refuge is (1) the Burland Ballfield and (2) the Burland Equestrian Area, both at the intersection of CR72 and Bluebird Drive. The ballfield will require minimal effort to enhance the wildfire defensibility / survivability. Action required: Mitigate the road shoulders, selectively remove overstory (Ponderosa Pine) and understory (ladder fuels) and establish a mowing schedule for flash fuels (grasses). The equestrian area while similar, will require greater effort. Action required: Mitigate the road shoulders, selectively remove overstory (Ponderosa Pine) and understory (ladder fuels) and establish a mowing schedule for flash fuels (grasses). We will replicate a healthy ponderosa pine forest by spacing individual or cluster trees 20 – 100 feet apart. Slash generated through mitigation shall be chipped and broadcast. All proposed mitigation activities will be accomplished by the Platte Canyon Wildfire Module and Burland Firewise volunteers. Funding for this project is secured. Mitigation activities shall be coordinated with user groups to prevent adverse situations.

Both the Burland Ballfield and the Burland Equestrian Area are owned by Park County. Platte Canyon Fire Protection District and Burland Firewise are asking for written authorization to mitigate and maintain these two locations as an Emergency Area of Refuge.

Attachment: MAPS 1 & 2

Joe Burgett, Chief, Platte Canyon Fire Protection District

Signature ______Date ______

Jack Roberts, Burland HOA / Burland Firewise Coordinator

Signature ______Date ______

Richard Elsner Ray Douglas Amy Mitchell (719-836-4209) (719-836-4211) (719-836-4210)

Park County Commissioners authorize the Platte Canyon Fire Protection District and Burland Firewise to proceed with the Emergency Temporary Area of Refuge as described above.

Amy Mitchell, District 1 Signature ______

` Date ______

Dick Elsner, District 2 Signature ______

Date ______

Ray Douglas, District 3 Signature ______

Date ______

Please contact Tom Eisenman ,County Manager at [email protected] or 719-836-4203 with any questions

Cc: T. Eisenman, CM

Richard Elsner Ray Douglas Amy Mitchell (719-836-4209) (719-836-4211) (719-836-4210)

PARK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT

Board Hearing Date: March 30, 2021

To: Board of County Commissioners

Date: March 23, 2021

Prepared by: John Deagan, AICP; Planner

Case #: 20CUP-08

Subject: Twisted Pines Conditional Use Permit

Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Campground in the Agricultural Zone District

Application Summary:

Applicant/Owner: Christine Honeman/County Road 59 Investments, LLC Location: Part of the N ½ of the NE ¼ of S19, T14 R72, addressed as 2618 County Road (C.R.) 59, Guffey. Current Zone District: Agricultural Surrounding Zoning: Agricultural and Residential (in vicinity) - a Zoning Map is included as Attachment 1. Lot Size: 41.02 acres Existing Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Commercial Campground

Background:

The subject lot is on C.R. 59 roughly halfway between Elevenmile Canyon Reservoir and the Guffey townsite. A vicinity map is included as Attachment 2. The applicant is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Commercial Campground, to be known as the Twisted Pines RV Campground.

The proposed campground would be open between May and October and would contain 18 guest RV spots, each with a gas-fueled fire ring, 4 tent sites, and 2 rental cabins. There would also be 1 portable bathroom, an office, and a RV spot for the on- site manager. The RV spots would have electric but not wet utility hookups. A cistern would provide water for the bathroom and cabins. An on-site wastewater treatment system would service the bathroom and cabins and also have a dumping port for RVs.

Board of County Commissioners Staff Report 20CUP-08 (Twisted Pines Commercial Campground) Page 1 of 3 March 30, 2021 Hearing Land Use Regulations and Strategic Master Plan: Each of the standards for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (LUR Section 5-503) is addressed, as summarized below.

A. The use proposed is an authorized Conditional Use for the zone district in which the property described in the application is located. Commercial Campgrounds are a Conditional Use in the Agricultural zone district.

B. The property described in the application for Conditional Use Permit possesses geological, physical, and other environmental conditions that are compatible with the proposed conditional use. The lot does not contain environmental constraints that would prevent the proposed use.

C. The Conditional Use will conform to all applicable requirements of the zone district and these Land Use Regulations and does not create a substantial safety concern for anticipated visitors to the property. According to Colorado Parks and Wildlife species mapping, the parcel is within Black Bear summer concentration area. The applicant’s narrative includes measures to address this concern.

D. The property has a reasonably certain right of permanent legal access permitting vehicular access from the property to the public thoroughfare. The property has frontage along C.R. 59, a public right-of-way.

E. Access to the property from the public thoroughfare reasonably meets County street, road, or driveway standards or, if the property is undeveloped, such access will be established prior to issuance of a building permit. Internal access would be 24’ wide and surfaced with packed earth and gravel, with grades of 12% or less.

F. The proposed Conditional Use is compatible with the uses and zoning for other properties within the neighborhood or immediately surrounding area. The Planning Commission did not believe that this condition was met.

G. In making this determination, conflicts with any enforceable covenants, conditions and restrictions of record will be considered. No such restrictions exist.

Board of County Commissioners Staff Report 20CUP-08 (Twisted Pines Commercial Campground) Page 2 of 3 March 30, 2021 Hearing

Strategic Master Plan:

This proposal is consistent with the Strategic Master Plan’s goal of facilitating business diversification on agricultural lands.

Public Comment

Written public comment opposing the application was received and can be seen as Attachment 3.

Impact Analysis:

Wildfire risk, noise impacts, and trespass onto adjacent lots were considered possible problems by the Planning Department.

Planning Commission:

The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their March 10, 2021 meeting and by a three to one vote recommended denial of the application.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the application be denied in accordance with the Planning Commission recommendation. The BOCC’s options are to authorize staff to prepare a resolution to:

• Deny the application; • Approve the application with conditions; or • Approve the application with no conditions.

Alternatively, the hearing can be continued so that the applicant or staff can provide additional information.

Board of County Commissioners Staff Report 20CUP-08 (Twisted Pines Commercial Campground) Page 3 of 3 March 30, 2021 Hearing Zone Districts Att. 1

CR 59

Elkhorn Trl Old Kathleen Ranch

Old Kathleen Trl Zone Districts Agricultural Conservation/Recreation Residential Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet

´ Park County Planning Department This map is not a survey. Vicinity Map Att. 2

Legend Eleven Mile Subject Lot Canyon Reservoir

C.R. 98

C.R. 59

C.R. 102

Hwy. 9

Guffey USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Data refreshed February, 2020. 0 1.5 3 6 Miles

´ Park County Planning Department This map is not a survey. From: Sam Arnold To: John Deagan Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Case # 20cup-08 proposed RV campground located on Cty Rd 59 identified in schedule 45929. Date: Saturday, January 9, 2021 6:02:42 PM

My name is Sam Arnold. My wife and I live near this proposed site close to the junction of Cty Rd 59 and Cty Rd 98. We have owned property and resided in Park County as full time year round residents for 38 years. We have experienced or witnessed all of the attached concerns over the years of rural living. We moved to the area for the natural beauty and peace and quiet found in rural Park County living. Commercial ventures in rural areas do not provide safeguards for the environment, Park County residents, and other visitors. See LUR section 5- 312 RVC districts.

My first concern is with the purpose of a RVC, section 5-312 of the Park County Land Use Regulations. The purpose states " with appropriate safeguards for the protection of campground users, the environment, Park County residents, and other users." There are no specific requirements for problems such as air, noise, and light pollution. Without some specific definitions regarding these issues, nearby residents and visitors may be subjected to pollution impacts without remedy if no standards are in place. I believe the LURs and RVCs should be amended and updated before any CUPs are considered.

Specifically I have the following concerns:

1. Access from Cty Rd 59: Cty Rd 59 is a mountain dirt road with tight turns and shoulder dropoff. The access described in the application would require RV users to make wide turns resulting in traffic lane blockage and potential shoulder dropoff from drivers not familiar with mountain dirt road driving and turning ratios. Access to the proposed site from the south is Cty Rd 59. Access from the north is by Cty Rd 59 and Cty Rd 98. The north access has numerous steep grades and sharp curves which drivers may be unable to navigate without difficulty. The north access has seen numerous accidents and slide offs over the years. Law enforcement and fire response usually takes a significant amount of time due to manpower travel issues within Park County resulting in possible road closures, inconvenience, and danger to area residents. Both roads to the area receive limited maintenance on an irregular basis with Cty Rd 98 being a challenge even to experienced resident drivers. These roads are challenging when dry and sometimes near impassible when wet. Adding additional heavy traffic to include trash, water, and gas vehicles necessary to service the site will speed up the road deterioration and danger. The increased impacts from dust will also increase the potential for accidents from reduced visibility. With a current posted speed limit of 40mph users of Cty Rd 59 are frequently observed exceeding 50mph adding to the dangers created by slow moving, wide turning vehicles in any conditions. The applicant hopes to attract ATV/OHV and mountain bike users which will add to the danger on access roads. ATV/OHV users are frequently seen on Cty Rds 59 and 98 in violation of current laws. Changing weather conditions on both north and south Cty Rd 59 can be vastly different creating surprise changes for large vehicle drivers adding to the danger. Cty Rd 59 already experiences heavy usage from visitors to 11 Mile and Spinney Mt reservoirs and from the unregulated camping along Cty Rds 59 and 98 in the narrow national forest access sections between private property. 2. Law enforcement: As mentioned in item 1, law enforcement in southeast Park County is very scarce due to manpower and travel distances. A response to urgent calls often takes an hour or more. Also the problems associated with the Guffey Gorge/Paradise Cove area on Cty Rd 102 in southeast Park County are usually transferred to Teller county because Park County is unable to respond. During the fire and shooting ban in Park County during 2020, calls about violations about both campfire and shooting were met with response times of 1-2 hours if at all. Adding potential traffic accidents, trespassers, and other crimes related to the negative impacts of a new campground will further endanger nearby residents who may want or require law enforcement assistance.

3. Property usage A: As stated in the application for a conditional use permit the proposed campground would be on the lower level of the property as dictated by the slope of the land. The upper portion is for guest exploration and recreation. My concern here is when the guests begin to explore either by foot, mountain bike or ATV/OHVs new trails will be created. Unless there is considerable mitigation, not mentioned by the applicant, these new trails could easily lead to soil erosion. Because of the slope any erosion would wash downhill toward the campground, Cty Rd 59, and the Globe and Anchor property across Cty Rd 59. In addition air pollution from trail dust and noise pollution from motorized ATV/OHV and possibly trail bikes would be detrimental to the environment. Because the size of the total property is only 41 acres, logic dictates users will potentially leave the property to explore and recreate even more, leading to trespass on adjacent properties and illegal usage of ATV/OHVs on Cty Rd 59.

4. Property usage B: Since the proposed campground runs parallel to Cty Rd 59 all 19 RV sites will project noise pollution from generators, voices, radios, TVs etc out to the surrounding properties and down the valley to the south. The same 19 sites will also contribute light pollution throughout the area causing a negative impact to an existing "dark sky" region. If the campground were to add security lighting, not currently in the proposal, that will increase the level of light pollution. Sound travels incredible distances in thin mountain air and in a concentrated area the disturbance could be profound. Area residents moved to the mountains to escape these types of problems.

5. Property usage C: The applicant has proposed bear proof dumpsters and food storage lockers. Camping activities such as outdoor cooking and indoor RV cooking will surely attract bears. If bears are deterred at the trash dumpster they will soon learn to break into vehicles and RVs in search of food. In most human/ bear encounters the bear always loses. This activity will eventually destroy the delicate balance presently found in nature. In addition deer and elk use the affected area for migration from 39 mile and Saddle Mountains through the large adjacent properties. This is another negative impact of the campground on the environment.

6. Property usage D: The applicant proposed to utilize gas fire pits yet they fail to disclose how they will accomplish this. There are no provisions on the site map for gas storage. Since there is no natural gas service in the area I would expect the applicant to use propane. How to store, secure, and provide service to each site is a mystery. Also in question is a fire pit plan for the four proposed tent sites. If gas is not provided then wood burning campfires will result. Southeast Park County is in drought and has a large amount of down timber on both 39mile and Saddle mountains increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. In all directions from the proposal there are numerous homes and cabins. The proposal by the applicant to mitigate and minimize fire risk is inadequate.

7. Property usage E: The proposed location of the required comfort station is adjacent to Cty Rd 59. The proposed absorption pad appears to abut Cty Rd 59. As this location is on the lowest level of the property, any leakage, overflow, or failure will result in environmental contamination along Cty Rd 59 and across the road to the Globe and Anchor property. Normal runoff along Cty Rd 59 could carry pollutants south along the roadway to other properties. The proposed 1000-2000 gallon septic tank seems inadequate for the number of potential users from 19 RV sites and a dump station. Also the property lies in an ancient volcanic field. No evidence of absorption bed engineering is included with the application.

8. Property usage F: The proposal to use a large cistern for the comfort station is not located on the site map. Assuming the cistern to be in close proximity to the comfort station increases the risk of overflow during filling that could compromise the septic absorption pad. It is unknown if this proposal complies with local, state, and federal regulations. See LUR section 5-312 uses c-8.

9. Property usage G: There are no provisions for a play area for children. Potential problems exist without this distraction.

10. Property usage H: The applicant proposes to build two guest cabins.The current LUR regarding campgrounds prohibits these structures. LUR section 5-312 table 5-312 schedule of uses.

11. Property usage I: The initial construction to create roadways, pads for RVs, a comfort station, an absorption pad, a cistern, a dump station, and any excavation necessary for gas lines and power will create an unacceptable amount of air and noise pollution adversely affecting residents, wildlife, and travelers.

12. Economic impact: The applicant suggests new tourism dollars will flow to Park County. The reality is most RV owners and users are fully gassed and supplied prior to arriving in Park County. The nearest gas and grocery locations are in Teller and Fremont counties. Also the owners of this property reside in Arizona according to the application documents. It is difficult to imagine much of a revenue stream to Park County.

In summary: Each of the above concerns alone should result in the application being denied but when considered collectively this application is an assault on all persons or wildlife living or traveling through the region. Environmental and quality of life attacks such as these should be soundly rejected. These types of proposals should be restricted to existing commercially zoned locations. Campground Virtual Meeting: Case #20CUP-08

Objections/Concerns for Campground Development

1. I (we) purchased property in Old Kathleen Ranch 26 years ago because it and land nearby were zoned “agricultural or part of Pike National Forest and did not expect future development.

2. CR 59 does not meet the Park County Planning and Zoning guidance that the developer locate property on a major thoroughfare. CR 59 is a poorly maintained gravel road with limited traffic between CR 102 and Eleven Mile reservoir. Increased traffic due to the campground site will require increased County maintenance and patrols as well as noise and dust disturbance for the area residents.

3. The “18” campsites (plus additional tent sites) at this location are not necessary due to numerous campground areas already available in Pike National Forest and at Eleven Mile Reservoir.

4. Campground development will increase fire danger due to campfires, cookstoves, grills, ATVs, dirt bikes and campers not aware of/or abiding with fire bans.

5. The already slow internet/WiFi speed will be reduced even more due to increased use by campers at the facility.

6. Additional concerns include trash/littering, alcohol and drug use, trespassing, loud music along with ATV’s and dirt bikes that will destroy the property and surrounding areas of nearby residents. 7. Allowing hunting during hunting season or firearms used by campers on such a small land area (41 acres) may cause injury or property damage to neighbors.

8. Campground activities will increase the potential for harm to open range cattle, numerous wildlife and may introduce noxious weeds.

9. This campground could lead to overuse of the area and result in problems now experienced at the Guffey Gorge area on CR102.

Respectfully submitted, Linda Eberly Michael Schneider Property owners 519 Elkhorn Trail, Guffey, Colorado From: DANE EGLI To: John Deagan Cc: Pam English; Linda; Laura Greene; [email protected]; [email protected]; Jeb Jeb; Roy Wendy Hocker; David & Di Williams; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Meeting of neighbors in Opposition to proposed "Twisted Pines RV Campground." Friday, Jan 29th, at the Freshwater Bar and Grill in Guffey at 10:30 am Date: Saturday, January 30, 2021 9:57:57 AM

Dear Mr. Deagan,

Thank you for your reply. We knew it was a last minute invitation, but on the off chance you were available we wanted to make you aware, so you could inform us where the process stands and also provide you, first hand, with some of our objections to this campground. We understand it is your job to recommend a way forward to the Commissioners.

Please know that to date.... we have found no neighbor on either end of Rt.59 ( either the 102 end where we personally own two lots or the Eleven Mile side of 59) that wants ANYTHING to do with this RV campground. At last count, there are already 12 different public and private campgrounds surrounding Eleven Mile. There are plenty of popular free RV sites just over the hill less than a mile away, in the Pike National Forest and further out Rt. 98 and around the Lake George area. There seems to be no guarantee this campground will attract the number of paying campers they anticipate placed here in our residential area, with so many other options available, that are better equipped or closer to Eleven Mile.

Rob Robinson who has been in the area for 15 years and runs the Chaparral General Store and Campground has said he often handles the overflow sent from Eleven Mile, when necessary. In those fifteen years he has only been filled to capacity three times, and those three times were on 4th of July weekends. Otherwise, he always has vacancies. So, why would we give a variance to an out-of-town LLC, to further detrimentally impact his business, or any of the others, that have been here and contributing to the Park County Tax base for years? It seems unfair to our existing business neighbors and friends.

We have many objections, that despite what we consider their rather insincere, glib claims to the contrary, they simply have not been adequately addressed to our satisfaction. They consider Park County "their back yard?" - Well, as one neighbor put it - someone please let them know this is our "front yard!" For example, they have not mentioned limiting the stay of their RV campers as Eleven Mile does. Are we going to have RV's stored there over the winter? Are people going to use this campground to get around the Park County prohibition against living in an RV, except during the permitted building process?

Again, if they were locals, they would know Rt 59 already suffers from severe erosion problems on the undisturbed portions during our spring and summer heavy rains, or snow thaw. Excavating RV sites on the side of a hill, as they propose, will only lead to much greater erosion wash running down to the lower neighbors. Neither Bart Hanson (across the street at Globe & Anchor), nor any of the neighbors down the hill from them, of which we are one, want to deal with the runoff and erosion that is likely to happen to the road area from these sloping excavated hillside campsites. Nothing to deter this problem was presented in their plan.

Our meeting yesterday was well-attended and we looked at the Park County Strategic Master Plan and we do NOT believe their plan meets the criteria for a zoning variance given these issues and the "lack of community support." We have just begun a petition drive in opposition to their development and we have already garnered 200 signatures of Park County neighbors who do NOT want it in a little more than 24 hours. We anticipate we will easily be able to double that number as more of our neighbors are made aware of the details. It is widely unpopular.

We have encouraged everyone to write to you and the Park County Commissioners to present their particular objections and participate in the Zoom meeting on February 10th. We desire that you give them fair consideration before anyone gives approval to this development that, as far as we have found, has NO public support. Considering that RV campers are self- contained by design to not have to spend out-of-pocket funds in an area they visit, for food or lodgings and anticipating the added burden they will place on our already stretched county services, in road maintenance, law enforcement, fire protection, code enforcement, and water delivery, to name a few; we wonder if there will be any net gain in tax revenue realized by Park County, should it choose to overlook private-community objections and approve this commercial development?

What we do know is that our quality of life will be greatly diminished--with more noise, increased traffic, light pollution, and disruptive impact on the abundant wildlife we all treasure. We also know it will lower our enjoyment of our homes. We are also concerned that, if approved, this business will likely lower our property values, because future buyers will be turned off for the same reasons. Lowering our property values will have a cascading impact, and significantly lower the tax revenue collected by Park County. People will move out of this area as no one wants to live by a transient RV park. We feel it is simply out of place here, inserted into our quiet, residential area by outsiders who do not understand or appreciate the value we place on our quiet enjoyment of our peaceful surroundings and why most of us chose to live here in the first place!

Thank you for considering our input before you make a recommendation to the County Commissioners.

Respectfully yours, Annemarie and Dane Egli, and on behalf of 200, and counting, of our Park County neighbors.

101 Old Kathleen Trail and 1820 Rt. 59 719-689-3408

From: John Deagan Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 11:44 AM To: DANE EGLI Subject: RE: Meeting of neighbors in Opposition to proposed "Twisted Pines RV Campground." Friday, Jan 29th, at the Freshwater Bar and Grill in Guffey at 10:30 am

Hello Dane, Thank you for the invitation, but it was much too late for me to be able to attend. Sincerely, John

John Deagan, AICP Park County Planner 719 836 4254

From: DANE EGLI Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 7:17 PM To: John Deagan Subject: Meeting of neighbors in Opposition to proposed "Twisted Pines RV Campground." Friday, Jan 29th, at the Freshwater Bar and Grill in Guffey at 10:30 am

Dear Mr. Deagan,

You are invited to an informational meeting of the neighbors of the proposed Twisted Pines RV Campground on Rt. 59, in Park CO. It will be held Friday, Jan 29th, at the Freshwater Bar and Grill in Guffey at 10:30 am.

We would especially appreciate your insight on the process and where the development stands.

I think you will find that all of the neighbors adjacent to this proposal are NOT in favor of this change and don't believe it in any way enhances our neighborhood or follows the Stategic Plan for Park County.

We are sorry for the late notice, but hope, if available, you will be able to attend our meeting and give us your insights.

Thank you,

Dane and Annemarie Egli owners of two properties on Rt. 59 within .5 miles of proposed campground. 101 Old Kathleen and 1820 Rt. 59 719-689-3408 (h) 719-428-9106 (c) From: Pamela English To: John Deagan Subject: Conditional Use Permit - CASE #20CUP-08 Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 10:02:46 AM

Dear Mr. Deagan:

We are residents at Old Kathleen Ranch, near the town of Guffey. We have recently been advised of an application for Conditional Use Permit to develop a campground at 2318 CR 59, which just one property north of Old Kathleen Ranch.

The land at that address is currently zoned as “agricultural”, and the Conditional Use Permit would change that zoning to “Commercial”.

We have several objections to the development of this property for commercial use.

Additional traffic on CR 59. This is a dirt road and undoubtedly additional maintenance would be required. How is CR 59 considered a major thoroughfare? It would seem that property off of a paved road, such as Hwy 24 or Hwy 9 would be more appropriate.

Ability to ensure security for neighboring areas which are privately owned. Would the campground property be fully fenced to designate the property boundaries so there would not be trespassing on neighboring properties by guests.

Noise and light pollution! This plan is designed to disrupt the serenity of this area. Would they allow ATV/OHV use on this property?

Not near any services or attractions.

Overuse and abuse – just look to the Guffey Gorge, aka Paradise Cove, for experience with the general public and the lack of regard for the land.

A rural community such as ours has adapted to lengthy response times to calls to 911. Response to fire and medical calls is provided by volunteers, and we recognize that they do the best that they can. Law enforcement, in a county as large as ours, though making progress, is understaffed and would not provide the type of immediate response that may be required when alcohol and “sportsmen” are mixed.

There is potential for violations of the law in regard to extended-stay camping. Would this be a year-round facility monitored by a camp host 24/7/365? It would be hard to imagine that they would turn paying customers away if they stay beyond a specified time limit. It is well documented that the county can’t even keep up with the current volume of code enforcement violations as it is.

Would Colorado Parks and Wildlife be able to provide additional man hours to monitor against poaching? When there have been suspected violations in the past, it has taken at least an hour for someone to respond. I believe there are only two Wildlife Managers in this general area. Would commercial development of this property adhere to the criteria of the Park County Strategic Master Plan? I don’t see how this would protect the rural and alpine landscape, viability of agricultural operations or minimize the impacts on the scenic quality of the rural, agricultural and mountain landscape.

When we bought our property here 20 years ago, it was because of the seclusion and privacy. A campground in this agricultural zone area doesn’t fit and doesn’t make sense because there are already a reasonable number of like facilities near any attraction guests would be interested in. In our conversations with our neighbors and area property owners there is widespread, unified opposition to this project. In fact, since the community became aware of it, we have not come across a single person who supports the project.

We strongly urge you to not recommend approval of this Conditional Use application. Thank you for your consideration.

Sean and Pamela English

598 Castle Mountain Pass

Guffey, CO 80820

[email protected]

719-689-5874

From: Sheila Cross To: John Deagan Subject: FW: 2318 CR 59 Date: Monday, January 4, 2021 2:25:55 PM

From: Laura Greene Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 2:19 PM To: Sheila Cross Subject: 2318 CR 59

Hello Ms. Cross - I received word that there is a limited condition application submitted to Park County for a campground on the above address and I live two lots from this proposed site. We purchased the property three months ago and I am deeply concerned of this news.

1. The land is zoned Agriculture not Commercial 2. It does NOT meet the Standards of Approval

Here are some of our concerns as well.

1. Trespassing onto Private Land 2. Possible Poaching 3. Safety in respect to fencing. 4. Traffic and noise impact 5. WATER & Septic - this could impact the water supply and it would require a commercial well. 6. FIRE hazard 7. Impact on wildlife 8. Respect for the land and the Forrest

This news has caused a lot of grief and disappointment and I will notify the Governor and Senator as well as this is not the appropriateness of land.

Laura Greene

-- Laura Greene CUP Campsite Park County Road 59

Our family is the 29-year owners of the Globe and Anchor Ranch located directly across Park CO Road 59 from the proposed application of the RV commercial campsite.

As an adjacent property owner here are our concerns of the impact both environmentally and economically this proposed use will be to our property and other adjacent neighbors.

1. I notice the applicant is out of state and has not had a presence as a landowner in the area. So the applicant is not a “known” neighbor in the area where the applicant is bringing an untested and active commercial use into a neighborhood of rural ranches and home sites. 2. Commercial campsites are usually adjacent to public land and parks, which give access to hiking, biking, hunting and other recreational uses. With the lack of public access, customers renting at the campsite would be trespassing onto adjacent private properties for their recreational pleasure. This expectation of recreational access to the land will be at the expense of the adjacent property owners. We have asked private property owners of land adjacent to similar commercial campsites and trespassing and vandalism occurs with such incompatible uses especially being in a very rural, low traffic, and seldom patrolled area. 3. We are concerned also of campers in RV’s becoming permanent residents in these kinds of campsites even in violation of what might be permitted as only temporary occupancy of the sites. While Park County might define temporary stays, there will most likely not be active enforcement of such requirements. Again the lack of enforcement will become the burden of adjacent property owners while long-term stays will benefit the commercial owner. I called the project manager of this CUP about the length of stay that will be required and was told 6 month maximum stay. That requirement can be circumvented easily to become a permanent resident or camper by driving out and then back in to begin another 6-month occupancy period. Again I don’t see Park County having active enforcement of such requirements and will only be enforced when it becomes a problem for adjacent property owners. 4. Per the site plan submitted to Park County, the campsite “host” is labeled as occupying one of the campgrounds. Does the 6-month occupancy period apply to the host campground? This feature of the site plan presents two problems. One is supervision; the other is the occupancy status of the host, both of which are in competition with each other. The campground will need to be supervised by a representative of the owner at all times but the host is not housed in a permanent structure and should be subject to the same occupancy limitations imposed on the rest of the campsites. The plan submitted to the county does not address this. In order to provide constant supervision the host will be compelled to circumvent the occupancy limitations imposed by the county. 5. The infrastructure of the campground is not adequate for the number of campsites planned for the development. The size of the septic tank is the same size as the tank we have for our single-family dwelling and will not be adequate for the needs of 18 families plus the “host”. Additionally, the water requirement of the campground will exceed the capacity of the water rights of the parcel. The site-plan and material submitted by the CUP applicant indicates the operator will truck water into the campground but the operator will do this at considerable expense and will be economically advantaged by using as much well-water as possible. The water usage above and beyond that intended for a parcel of this size will come at the expense of the neighboring property owners and the county has no way of monitoring, controlling, or enforcing the consumption of the campground. Both the sewage handling and water usage are elements of the CUP that could have a significant and profoundly negative environmental impact on the area and neighboring properties. Water and sewage infrastructure requirements would be more heavily regulated for permanent structures but the CUP applicant is using Park County’s lack of regulation for this type of development to maximize occupancy while minimally investing in the infrastructure to support the residents on site. With few control measures in place limiting the stay of the guests, the needs of the residents can be assumed to be commensurate to a permanent resident. Has Park County completed an environmental survey to assess the infrastructure requirements of similarly permitted campground facilities? 6. With regard to liability, who assumes the liability when a tenant trespasses and is injured on adjacent private land given there is no direct access to public lands. 7. What are the Park County regulations that apply to commercial campgrounds? What happens when the CUP holder violates the regulations? Is their CUP revoked? 8. Our property stands between the proposed commercial campground and the Pike National Forest and will become an avenue of access for the campground’s tenants and will substantially impact our property. We believe Park County has an obligation to protect county landowners and taxpayers from proposed commercial projects like this that permit commercial use on parcels surrounded by private property. We have a reasonable expectation that users of the campground are likely to infringe on the property rights of adjacent property owners. There are public campgrounds on the Pike National Forest just north along County Rd 59 and at Eleven Mile Reservoir. We believe Park County should seek to expand campsites on public lands or private lands immediately adjacent to public lands where impact to neighboring landowners can be mitigated. As proposed the developers of the commercial campground will place neighbors and their property rights in jeopardy unnecessarily and we see nothing in their plan to mitigate the impact to neighbors. To the contrary, after reviewing the plan proposed by the developers it looks as though they plan to market their campground as providing access to public lands that their parcel cannot provide. This coupled with a currently unknown environment impact should compel the Park County planning office to deny the CUP. From: Debi To: John Deagan Subject: Re: 20CUP-08 Application and Planning Commission Staff Report Date: Thursday, January 7, 2021 2:07:33 PM

John Deagan -

Thank you for sending us the information on the Commercial RV Park Application # 20CUP- 08 that we were made aware of by a local realtor just today.

We are property owners on County Road 59 just North of this property. We STRONGLY OBJECT to this as that is a dirt road that will not be able to handle that amount of large heavy vehicle traffic that this will increase to and from 11 Mile, Spinney and Pike National Forest. Let alone Septic Pump Trucks and Garbage Removal Trucks for a Commercial Campground. This is not a paved Highway Road nor is it a "major thoroughfare". This is a hardly used dusty back road for locals and some that know the area of 11 Mile Reservoir. The garbage and activity will entice more bears, mountain lions, coyotes, etc in that area and "endanger them" in the process. Locked Bear garbage cans will not be used in their back wooded area when hiking and ATV's and will increase in the Pike National Forest area of Saddle Mountain. We frequent that area of Pike Forest on our horses and have seen what is left behind, totally disgusting. Only the locals seem to care about the immediate surroundings. The beauty of this area will be ruined. Again, this is not a paved highway. This is a back dirt road even though they call it Hwy 59 or County Road 59.

This property is in a high fire danger zone that is wooded with access to the Pike National Forest. Even though they state they will only allow LP fire pits they "want to allow ATV/UTV and dirt bikes to run on their property" and will find a way to allow them in the future or will not be able to control them. Those are also a high fire risk in that area and will not be regulated, nor will the dirt road between the campground and Pike National Trails. Resources to fight these forest fires are stretched to the limit in Colorado as it is, especially in this area. The Guffey fire department may be for this Commercial Development and like the revenue but we feel they have their hands full now to handle rescue and fire as Fairplay is many miles away! They use med flight now as ambulance availability is limited.

There will be increased accidents in that area with the high rate of speed as that is a rough hard to maintain dirt road now. Seen the accidents and have helped many in the past pull people out of ditch as they skid off that dirt uneven road. Reducing the speed will not be able to be enforced as excessive speed is prolific now on that dirt road. It is open range and cattle roam as do wild donkeys. Park County Sheriff's and CPW can't patrol that road now and it has no Commercial Campground in that area as they are busy with 11 mile campgrounds. An just off the immediate road RV Park will just ruin the look of that peaceful mountain side and dirt road and cause property values to decrease and be a noise and hazard nuisance. They state they want to develop this Commercial Campground right off the road as that the upper part of the property would be costly to develop "at this time" of which sounds like further development is in their future plans.

We just had a local realtor friend send us the posted sign she saw on a drive by on their property that has the date of 2020 on it so many people in this area have no idea the plans as we did not and some think it is in the past. Old Kathleed Ranch Subdivision is in very close proximity to this property and will influence that peaceful neighborhood. Just the adjacent property owners were made aware by your Park County Office. What about all the surrounding property owners? According to the application the adjacent property owner had not responded and we now know the one that objects to these plans to build a Commercial RV Campground? Maybe others don't know about this either by the posting on the wire fence and the date of last year.

Unfortunately we don't have access to ZOOM and are unable to attend due to Covid so we are responding via email as per your request. We would like to be informed on the process of this hearing that we now find out today 1/7/21 the meeting is next week!

Sincerely,

Steve and Debi Herriges

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:43 AM John Deagan wrote:

Hello,

The application and Planning Commission staff report are attached. Please write or call with any questions.

---John

John Deagan, AICP

Park County Planner

719 836 4254 From: Danielle Griffin To: John Deagan; Sheila Cross Cc: Tom Eisenman; Cindy Gharst Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact County Commissioner"s Office Date: Monday, January 11, 2021 7:13:27 AM

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 08, 2021 2:02 PM To: Park County Administration ; Tom Eisenman Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact County Commissioner's Office

Contact County Commissioner's Office

If you have a question or concern you would like us to address, please submit this form. We will try to address your request in a timely manner.

Personal Information

First Name Jan and Cheryl

Last Name Knibbe

Phone Number 303-829-7251

Email Address [email protected]

Questions & Concerns

What is your question or I am reaching out to voice my concern about the proposed concern? Commercial RV Park application #20CUP-08 that appears to be up for a hearing next week. We are property owners of 89 acres, 188 Ranger Station Road, adjacent to the National Forest area that is near the subject property being considered for this RV park. Our concern is that with the uses proposed our neighborhood will be negatively impacted by increased traffic, noise, disruption to the wildlife in and around the community and the National Forest. We are already experiencing an increase in the disregard for the rules and respect of the natural beauty of the area. Many of the immediate neighbors and ourselves have experienced more and more acts of trespassing on our properties, poaching of wildlife, folks leaving more and more trash in the National Forest from folks who are not from the neighborhood and don't care or don't understand the the delicate nature of the surrounding area. County Road 59 is not designed to handle that level of traffic and this project will only further deteriorate the road and make it more and more hazardous and will incur a level of maintenance that won't be supported by the County crews. It is already difficult to maintain the washboard and ruts in the road with the current level of traffic. Fugitive dust will become an even larger environmental problem with the level of traffic created by the use proposed. The proposed use of the back of that property, the remainder of the 41 acres, for ATV/UTVs and motorcycles will only lead to uncontrolled erosion as this area which is extremely sensitive to destruction of the natural vegetation by wheeled traffic due to the short amount of rainfall and add to the risk of forest fire danger.. Just simple tire tracks take a full season to heal up let alone the aggressive nature of motorized recreational vehicles. With the planned 18 RV sites and a few cabins will create way more ATV/UTVs and motorcycles than the rest of the 41 acres can handle and all the extra demand for that number of recreational vehicles will surely spill over onto the roads and surrounding areas leading to problems on the roads, over use of the few National Forest Trails and surely even more incidents with folks not familiar with the area who just assume that they have access to all the property they see leading to even more private property trespassing and property damage when they get frustrated with not having sufficient space to do what they want. We and our neighbors are finding ourselves needing to do more and more to clean up what is being left behind by folks in the National Forest and on our personal property because when the forest area gets overcrowded the demand for usable space leaks over on our property and we find our fences being cut and debris left everywhere. We are avid hunters and enjoy the wildlife in the area, however, we have recently found ourselves needing to contact the Department of Wildlife due the increase in harrassment of game and not following the proper rules for harvesting game. Adding this RV park will assuredly increase the number of folks attracted to this area and make the problem even worse. Frustrated hunters, due to over population of the number of hunters attracted to the area due to the camping convenience will only add to and encourage more of these encroachments onto private property and violations of proper hunting rules and more altercations with the surrounding property owners. The proposed use is not congruent with the flavor of the community and will only serve to create conflicts and disturbances with the current property owners and residents of the surrounding properties. There are far better properties in locations much better suited for this type of use like properties adjacent to Eleven Mile, where there are campsites already and better road access or nearer already paved roads and other services like along hyway 24 and 9 or near Guffy or Hartsel, etc. that are better suited to handle this level of traffic. Approving this use for this property will destroy the peace, tranquility, and nature of the community and surrounding National Forest and will also destroy the property values of the surrounding land owners. Please do not approve this plan and allow our neighborhood to be destroyed

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

From: Denis & Norma Mattingly To: John Deagan Subject: RV campground Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:49:09 PM

January 25, 2021

TO: John Deagan

We are writing in response to a proposal for an RV campground on CR 59 in Guffey, CO. We are homeowners in the Old Kathleen Ranch and are strongly opposed to this type of development in our area.

My husband and I just purchased our piece of the ranch in October 2019 and are looking forward to spending many more peaceful summers in the mountains before we leave this earth. As we are in our mid 70's there may not be that many summers left for us, so it is very important to us to enjoy our place to the fullest. To us that means: NO noise, NO trespassers, NO hunters, NO off-road vehicles on or near our land, NO increased fire danger, and preferably no increased traffic on CR59. A nearby campground would pose a threat to all the reasons we bought our place there.

Please do not approve zoning for this development. Preserve the beauty and serenity of this section of Guffey, CO. We lived in Colorado Springs the majority of our working careers and only moved away to take care of family. Once we had the chance to come back, even though it is only during the milder weather, we didn't hesitate. We understand the value and appeal of the mountains, and we paid dearly to own a little section of it. We don't want to see our investment devalued in any way.

Thank you for your careful consideration in this matter.

Norma and Denis Mattingly 384 Elk Horn Trail Old Kathleen Ranch Guffey, CO 80820 870-449-2202 870-405-3486 (cell) From: Susan Radzinski To: John Deagan Subject: Proposed Campground Case #20CUP-08 Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 9:36:39 AM

Mr. Deagan,

We strenuously object to the proposed campground Case #20-CUP-08 to be sited at 2318 CR 59.

This will totally destroy the peace, tranquility and security we currently enjoy at our home at 1325 CR 59. These are the reasons we bought this property in 2005. It is why we live here and endure the hardships of winter. We love the herds of elk, deer and antelope that cross our property.

The proposed campground would bring unwanted traffic, noise and light pollution, littering, trespassing and irreparable damage to the environment and our way of life. It would negatively impact the water supply and sanitary discharge.

We have been very fortunate so far to have had no forest fires at our location. This will surely change if this campground is permitted. It would bring substantial risk to our homes, property and livestock.

Additionally, I did not see a time limit to be imposed on the campers. Would there now be permanent residents at this campground? Not good in so many ways!!

Please do not approve this disastrous project that is not even mentioned in the strategic plan.

Sincerely, Susan D. Radzinski William S. Radzinski From: Triller, Mary To: John Deagan Subject: Twisted Pines campground Date: Monday, February 1, 2021 10:28:52 AM

Dear Mr. Deagan

This is in regard to the proposed twisted Pines Campground. I will not bore you with a lengthy letter so I will make this short and to the point.

We moved out to Guffey to enjoy the peace, quiet and safety that this rural area offers. Our quality of life is important to us.

We understand that these investors are asking to change a property from agriculture to commercial so that they can develop this campground. I believe that this would be a mistake and a detriment to our beautiful area. Reason being, if you allow one property to re zone to commercial, others will follow. This will also turn our quiet peaceful area into a tourist attraction. As you know, once this happens, people typically destroy the very thing they come to enjoy.

We ask that you deny this request. Allowing this campground to develop will place a strain on our roads, emergency services (we barely have anyway). It would attract too many people which will most likely create noise, traffic, trespassing opportunities and the threat to the wildlife and our cherished quality of life out here.

Please feel free to contact me if you need to.

Respectfully, Mary E Triller and Miguel Torres

******************************************************************************* This communication is for the use of the intended recipient only. It may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, any disclosure, copying, further distribution or use thereof is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please advise me by return e-mail or by telephone and delete/destroy it. ******************************************************************************* From: Dave Williams To: John Deagan Subject: 20CUP-08 Application.pdf Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 10:13:22 AM

Mr. Deagan This email is in regard to the RV Park and Campsite that is being planned over here on C. R. 59. My wife and myself are strongly opposed to having this approved. we along with those all along C. R.. 59 moved this far away from the noise and traffic of town and we feel that this will encourage more of both into our rural setting. It will also increase the trespassing on our and other properties that border the National Forest that surrounds us due to the folks that hike into the woods and then cut across our property to get back to a road. The impact this R V site will have on the environment will be negative for the Elk, Deer, Wild Turkey and other animals that live and breed here. The impact from hikers and people that come here to walk their dogs and horse back riding,let alone all of the summer camping that goes along the road in the National Forest is already heavy enough. We do not need to attract any more ATV, UTV or off road motorcycle riders than we already have. we strongly ask that this CUP be disapproved

L David Williams

Diana M Williams

4690 C. R. 59 From: Jennifer Haines To: John Deagan Subject: Statement of Opposition - Twisted Pines RV Park. Case#20CUP-08 Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 6:43:06 AM

 Mr. John Deagan,

I am a resident of 3000 County Rd. 59 in Guffey Colorado. I am in opposition of the conditional use permit application for Twisted Pines Campground. Please consider this letter, among several others submitted by my neighbors, as a official statement of objection and request for your consideration to do the same. Case#20CUP-08

As I’m sure my neighbors would agree, everyday we make the choice to live in rural Colorado. I understand that many parts of Colorado rely on tourism and we want everyone to enjoy all of the things that our beautiful state has to offer. However, have to be considerate of the land owning and tax paying citizens of the state and of Park County. Property values and peace of mind would both plummet.

A conditional use permit to allow Twisted Pines Campground to operate in the area of County Road 59 in Park County would be a great danger and obvious nuisance.

The very clear danger is wildfire to all residents, livestock, wildlife and buildings in the area and surrounding Pike National Forest.

Additionally, it is worth noting, all properties surrounding have a well for water source - this would also put a strain on the overall water supply for the area.

Most residence in the area also use a satellite Internet service provider which, provides lower than dial-up style speeds. An increased usage in the area will drastically reduce the available speeds for satellite - impacting those of us who are already challenged working from home on slow speed.

The amount of increased traffic on County Road 59 would be extremely damaging to the poorly maintained county road. The washboards, rocks and trash / litter that will inevitably take place is concerning. A local rancher often has their cattle on the road as well.

I’m addition to trash / litter issues - the noise and light pollution will be a detriment to the wildlife we all enjoy.

Without cellular service - breakdowns and other things will happen on the road and the call for help is minimal. I have several personal accounts up to this point where people have been stranded on the road and have wandered onto my property for help. These are typically campers with blown tires heading to Elevenmile or surrounding National Forest. I am not looking to increase the amount of strangers looking for help and wandering into my property, surprising my family and animals.

I am also curious how the management of this campground intends to communicate that county roads are not ATV friendly. While there are ATV trails in the area, they are not directly accessible from the campground. I have no doubt this will become a problem with ATVs zipping up and down the road both presenting a safety and noise concern.

The proposed site plan lists a total of 32 sites, combination of RV, tent and Cabin. If each site is full with 2 people every weekend alone from June-September; that is over a thousand people and vehicles traveling on these roads. Thank you for your time and consideration with this letter and others that my neighbors have likely submitted to you. As a community, we are rural and distant from each other in geography but stand together in the opposition of this conditional use permit in our community. We welcome all visitors to camp at the campground nearby in Cripple Creek and Elevenmile Reservoir.

Jennifer Haines 3000 County Road 59 Guffey, CO 80820 402-321-4734 From: [email protected] To: John Deagan Subject: Case #20CUP-08 Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:51:25 AM

Dear Mr. Deagan

I am a property owner on County Rd 59. I own 3 properties Parcel Numbers 45206,42427 and 30485, I oppose the "Conditional Use Permit" to allow "Twisted Pines RV Campground".

All owners in this area own acres of land and we own it because of the low density of population, wildlife, beautiful forests and ability to graze cattle and/or horses. I also own in the area for those reasons.

Several years ago Park County Planning Commission passed a rule that does not permit trailers and single RVs on the properties by the owners. Why would the planning commission now consider passing a Conditional Use Permit to allow an RV campground?

County RD 59 is a beautiful forest area with open land used for grazing and homes. It should stay that way. There is space in Guffey proper that already has retail businesses. That is a much better area for an RV park rather than spoiling a beautiful area.

The risk of fire is very high in addition to the destroying of the fragile eco system with the addition of an RV park to the area. Campers will be coming from all over the US from areas that do not understand the fire danger and how fragile the eco system is in an area that is semi arid. Native grass and trees do not grow back quickly once destroyed by over use and/or fire.

The area designated for the RV Park does not have any activities near by other than the open areas which leads me to conclude that keeping campers in a confined area when there is so much open land will be difficult. This site is not near a National Forest or other activities open to the public. People seem to feel any open land is theirs to use. This is not the case and the land owners property near by will be destroyed by hiking and misuse by the RV Park residents.

County Road 59 is not designed for a high volume of traffic. The County must agree to upgrade the road and maintenance of the road if something like the RV Park is approved. Does the county have the funds to complete such a project with out additional tax dollars. The approval of this cannot increase taxes to upgrade and or maintain the road.

An RV Park is a high density use of the land. This area is not a high density use area. There is a minimum of 35 acres per house. The electric utilities, septic systems, cell towers, land line, propane and water wells in the area are not set up to handle high density use. There is not a developed sewer system, water system (instead of wells) or gas lines (instead of propane) to support the high density use suggested for this land.

I strongly oppose the approval of this Case #20CUP-08.

Please use this as my official opinion regarding this case #20CUP-08

Sincerely,

Betty J LeSuer Zoril

CUP Campsite Park County Road 59

Hello,

My name is Margarett Hansen, and my family has owned The Globe and Anchor Ranch located at County Road 59 for 29 years. I stand in agreement with my family’s previous letter, and our neighbors' objections to this project due to the lack of infrastructure on the lot, the agricultural zoning for the land, as well as poor planning from the developer.

I attended the meeting virtually on February 10th, 2021 to hear the proposal for the commercial RV camp site on CR 59. I do not wish to rehash the concerns that have already been brought to your attention. I would like to address a few of the concerns I have after hearing the developer share their vision and plan for the land.

The slide show presentation included a slide that stated the campsite is across the road from 11,000 acres of national forest. This is a lie. The 40 acres are directly across the street from private property. Our property. This is false advertising. Our ranch backs up to Pike National Forest. What the developer is telling its possible guests is that they will have direct access to the National Forest from their camp site, which is simply untrue and will only encourage people to trespass on our property to get to the national forest. The fact that they have made this claim reveals their lack of integrity and calls into question whether they would remain true to the limitations of the CUP if approved.

To host 18 RV sites, several small cabins and multiple tent sites on a mere 40 acres is an ambitious goal. When I look at the lot and the plan, the front of the lot will be heavily developed which is very close to the road. This is an affront to the landowners along CR 59 as there would be no landscaping buffers. The majority of the trailers would be in view of everyone driving by, completely destroying the aesthetics of the land. We do not wish to view a trailer park from our house.

The developer’s poor planning is alarming. They were willing to say whatever they thought was necessary to get a CUP. This resulted in many flip flops on their plans throughout the meeting. At first, it was stated they would have a comfort station with flushing toilets and hot showers. When pressed more about the lack of water and septic on the property, the plan immediately began to change. Now, they’d have composting toilets; maybe they wouldn’t have hot showers and they’d truck in water. There is no clear plan for water for this project. If they were to get a domestic well permit to manage the comfort station, it is our concern that they will use the domestic well to service the entire project, thus negatively affecting the water tables for the entire area.

The video presentation said they would put in a fence between their property and the neighbor to the West. However, when asked about this, the presenter said they “MIGHT” put in a fence, but would definitely put up signs. So, which is it? A fence or no fence? Showers and flushing toilets or compost toilets and trucking in water? These are just a few of the inconsistencies I heard at the meeting. Others included offering recreational activities and allowing ATVs on property, but then not allowing them to be used. In addition, they said they would take measures to mitigate the fire danger, but also offer a gas tank at each camp site. They refuse to limit the length of time campers could stay, but envision that the sites would be short term.

I don’t have confidence in their plan, or even that they’ll execute this plan in accordance to the CUP if it is approved based on the inconsistencies demonstrated at the meeting. They couldn’t get this approved with a zone change, so they’re trying to circumvent what is really needed which is a commercial well permit and septic by attempting to secure a CUP.

Despite claiming that they want people to experience all that Colorado has to offer through their trailer park, the developer quickly revealed their true motive is profit. They want to profit off of land that is zoned for agriculture without using it for that purpose. They are then trying to circumvent the permit process by attempting to secure a CUP and make money from unsuspecting visitors that don’t know the area by falsely advertising to them, all at the expense of the neighboring homeowners. From: Victor Malchesky To: John Deagan Cc: [email protected] Subject: Conditional use case #20CUP-08 Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:40:05 PM

For the property at 2618 C.R. 59, Guffey.

I'm sorry to be dumping this on you the day before the meeting. My wife and I attended the last meeting by phone (all day) and in the interim I contracted a serious case of pneumonia (coughing up blood for a couple weeks) and I have been recovering. Now I'm trying to catch up.

Before anything else, I thank the Board members and other staff for the work that they do. Listening to the roughly seven hours of the previous meeting was a real education. From what I heard the Board works very carefully to balance the interests of the property owner while protecting the interests of all other Park County residents.

My wife and I own the property at 820 C.R. 59 in Guffey. Our property is downhill and downstream from the proposed RV park site. From all that we have read in the proposal and heard at the last meeting, we are very opposed to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for an RV park on County Road 59.

We can only react based on the published permit request and the things Ms. Honeman said addressing the Board in the last meeting. Our objections are as follows:

1. From my experience, the conversion of agricultural land to commercial use is driven by the needs of an expanding community. Or the conversion allows an opportunity for the general public to avail themselves of adjacent public recreational facilities. The proposed RV site fulfils none of these instances. The proposed RV site is adjacent only to private property and existing underused RV facilities would put vacationers closer to fishing, boating, food services and scenic opportunities. 2. The details of the CUP request do not match the plans verbally expressed by Ms. Honeman at the last meeting. Quite frankly it seemed that Ms. Honeman was asking for permission to proceed and make it up as she went along. Neither the Board nor the residents along C.R. 59 can be expected to reasonably respond to Ms. Honeman's request without the presentation of a solid plan. 3. The proposed septic system shown in the permit request is suitable only for a one family home. With twenty five (25) proposed camp/RV sites, and assuming only two persons per site, at capacity that is fifty people using a septic system suitable for one family. If any visitors bring their families the numbers just get worse. 4. Will any possible tax revenues generated by the proposed RV site pay for the additional road maintenance to repair wear and tear the RV park visitors will surely cause? 5. Campers that would be attracted to the proposed RV park are likely to be hikers, bird and other wildlife photographers, and off road vehicle enthusiasts. There are NO adjacent facilities for these activities. We are concerned about the potential for trespass and illegal vehicle use of C.R. 59.

This is NOT a well thought out project and should be rejected.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Teresa and Victor Malchesky 820 C.R. 59 owners 719-439-6038

From: Dave Williams To: John Deagan Subject: RV Park and Campsite Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 6:18:41 AM

Mr. Deagan This email is in regard to the RV Park and Campsite that is being planned over here on C. R. 59. Please share with all at the meeting. I will not be able to be there as I have an appointment at the V A today. My wife and myself are strongly opposed to having this approved. we along with those all along C. R.. 59 moved this far away from the noise and traffic of town and we feel that this will encourage more of both into our rural setting. It will also increase the trespassing on our and other properties that border the National Forest that surrounds us due to the folks that hike into the woods and then cut across our property to get back to a road. The impact this R V site will have on the environment will be negative for the Elk, Deer, Wild Turkey and other animals that live and breed here. The impact from hikers and people that come here to walk their dogs and horse back riding,let alone all of the summer camping that goes along the road in the National Forest is already heavy enough. We do not need to attract any more ATV, UTV or off road motorcycle riders than we already have. we strongly ask that this CUP be disapproved

L David Williams

Diana M Williams

4690 C. R. 59

This petition has collected 315 signatures using the online tools at www.ipetitions.com

Printed on 2021-02-03

Page 1 of 27

Opposing the Twisted Pines Campground

About this petition

Let it be known that the undersigned oppose the development of the Twisted Pine Campground proposed for County Road 59, Guffey Colorado.

The proposed campground is in violation of Park County zoning. The Conditional Use Permit is an attempt to circumvent the zoning regulations and bypass the rezoning process.

The proposed campground will directly and negatively impact the surrounding areas and neighbors by increasing traffic, road damage, noise, and environmental pollution.

The proposed campground will destroy an undisturbed natural vista.

The proposed campground will not have a permanent and guaranteed source of water (well) and will instead rely on trucked in water deliveries of a minimum of 1200 gallons per day.

The proposed campground will disrupt the elk herd in the area as well as encroach on an identified bear territory.

Park County Planning Commission Agenda for February 10th

Conditional Use Permit Application

Conditional Use Permit Staff Report

Environmental Board Findings

Page 2 of 27 Signatures

1. Name: Laura Greene on 2021-01-27 15:00:24 Comments:

2. Name: Merry Roloff on 2021-01-27 15:17:25 Comments: Additional traffic is not wanted on CR 59 or CR 102. this would increase the wear and tear on the county roads which are already in bad condition and cannot be maintained regularly by the county due to lack of funds.

3. Name: Eric West on 2021-01-27 15:35:46 Comments: This is an inappropriate use of this land.

4. Name: Gary Shipley on 2021-01-27 17:44:18 Comments: This campground will not be located along a major thoroughfare as required by County regulations, CR59 is a gravel road that is not maintained regularly.

5. Name: Linda Eberly on 2021-01-27 17:55:33 Comments: This could be worse than Guffey Gorge with overnight camping

6. Name: Dylan Greene on 2021-01-27 17:57:25 Comments:

7. Name: Travis Holtan on 2021-01-27 18:42:48 Comments:

8. Name: Carolyn Newton on 2021-01-27 18:43:14 Comments:

9. Name: Justin Blair on 2021-01-27 18:49:52 Comments: The peace and tranquility of the surrounding area will be a total loss. This will have major effect on the local wildlife as well. Bears, elk, deer, pronghorn, and much more are prevalent in this area. This could also affect the local streams and ponds.

10. Name: Seth Wilcock on 2021-01-27 18:53:24 Comments: I oppose construction of the campground. Please don't destroy the area and disturb residents with this. It also doesn't sound legal, and would damage the environment.

11. Name: Russell McMillan on 2021-01-27 18:56:32 Comments:

12. Name: RAYMOND PICKETT on 2021-01-27 19:08:35 Comments: We have already had individuals using OKR roads , which are privately

Page 3 of 27 owned and maintained by the home owners, with both vehicles and ATV's . Since you can't legally drive ATV's on county road 59, I'm afraid our OKR roads will be overrun with campers vehicles.

13. Name: Harry Walters on 2021-01-27 19:14:08 Comments: I am opposed to the development of this campground.

14. Name: Marc Mayhew on 2021-01-27 19:15:04 Comments:

15. Name: Lee Tibbetts on 2021-01-27 19:20:26 Comments:

16. Name: Colleen McNeil on 2021-01-27 19:24:41 Comments:

17. Name: Cody Blair on 2021-01-27 19:50:07 Comments:

18. Name: Norma Mattingly on 2021-01-27 20:03:15 Comments: Allowing this campground would be a total violation to the serenity of the area which we sought when we bought our property. There is no doubt in my mind that such a campground would devalue our experience of life in Guffey as well as property values. I vote NO!

19. Name: Julia King on 2021-01-27 20:09:29 Comments: Too close to homes and intersection of Ct. Rd. 102 and 59?

20. Name: Louise Peterson on 2021-01-27 20:11:23 Comments: I am strongly opposed to a commercial campground in this residential area. CR 59 is a largely unmaintained dirt road and can't handle the extra traffic. Noise and disruption to wildlife will negatively affect our quiet rural community. Please don't approve this permit.

21. Name: Elaine Rocksted on 2021-01-27 20:15:05 Comments:

22. Name: Molly on 2021-01-27 20:18:19 Comments:

23. Name: Rebecca S Calanni on 2021-01-27 20:32:30 Comments:

Page 4 of 27 24. Name: Janel Newlin on 2021-01-27 20:39:01 Comments:

25. Name: Ginny Stoltz on 2021-01-27 20:40:53 Comments: NO campground

26. Name: Hope Juda on 2021-01-27 20:41:16 Comments: CR 59 is already a horrible road in terrible condition and has livestock on it in the summer. Along with the elk and bear. Allowing this campground is nothing short of a disaster. Do not allow this to happen

27. Name: Patricia E McCormick on 2021-01-27 20:51:08 Comments: I hope your slice of heaven stays that way!!

28. Name: Christina Bammes on 2021-01-27 21:03:59 Comments:

29. Name: Justin Moxon on 2021-01-27 21:06:25 Comments:

30. Name: Anita Cash on 2021-01-27 21:06:40 Comments: Same address as Christina Bammes--721 OKR Trail

31. Name: Brian webb on 2021-01-27 21:10:25 Comments:

32. Name: Lorraine Echter on 2021-01-27 21:14:50 Comments: As a Park County property owner myself, I can’t believe that you would think this is a good thing for the people in this community. Bringing in traffic, noise and who knows what else to their peaceful surroundings? I oppose this campground and only hope that it will be voted down. Money isn’t everything is it?

33. Name: Amanda Deann Ruybal on 2021-01-27 21:21:26 Comments: Please respect their land

34. Name: Nicholas Untch on 2021-01-27 21:26:36 Comments:

35. Name: Donna West on 2021-01-27 21:28:51 Comments: We have many different kinds of wildlife that would be impacted ie: mountain lions, bobcats, deer. Light polution and noise would increase. We moved to this area for the wildlife and peace and quiet.

Page 5 of 27 36. Name: Chris Juda on 2021-01-27 21:34:17 Comments: Got a feeling it's already too late

37. Name: Jodi Corona on 2021-01-27 21:50:57 Comments:

38. Name: Mona Wilcock on 2021-01-27 21:58:10 Comments: Please do not create this campground.

39. Name: Jason Newlin on 2021-01-27 22:09:11 Comments:

40. Name: Steve Hails on 2021-01-27 22:09:14 Comments:

41. Name: Alice Foster on 2021-01-27 22:10:35 Comments: When they figure out the short cut our OKR neighborhood will be ruined. I say absolutely not to this campground proposal.

42. Name: Scott Wilcock on 2021-01-27 22:12:41 Comments: I vehemently oppose this encroachment..

43. Name: Bonnie Waluda on 2021-01-27 22:18:30 Comments:

44. Name: Pamela English on 2021-01-27 22:20:18 Comments: I don’t see how this would protect the rural and alpine landscape, viability of agricultural operations or minimize the impacts on the scenic quality of the rural, agricultural and mountain landscape which are all objectives of the Park County Strategic Master Plan.

45. Name: Teresa Heldreth on 2021-01-27 22:26:16 Comments: Please don’t destroy this lovely space with a campground. What a tragic waste of beauty.

46. Name: Andrea Shepard on 2021-01-27 22:29:58 Comments:

47. Name: Casey stevens on 2021-01-27 22:30:38 Comments:

48. Name: Tim Manderscheid on 2021-01-27 22:34:01 Comments: No, no, no!!!

Page 6 of 27 49. Name: Colleen Soux on 2021-01-27 22:41:03 Comments: Trucked in water does not go far.

50. Name: Christy Miller on 2021-01-27 23:03:47 Comments: We don't need idiots walking away from campfires, am just over the hill don't need that worry on my plate !!!

51. Name: Dennis Dupray on 2021-01-27 23:13:03 Comments:

52. Name: Wyatt Newlin on 2021-01-27 23:14:04 Comments:

53. Name: Lane Newlin on 2021-01-27 23:15:07 Comments:

54. Name: Vail Ashburn on 2021-01-27 23:15:50 Comments:

55. Name: Steven F Wilcock on 2021-01-27 23:15:56 Comments:

56. Name: Kevin J Wilcock on 2021-01-27 23:24:47 Comments:

57. Name: Nina Kalivas on 2021-01-27 23:27:46 Comments: I too disagree with this proposal for several reasons. There are plenty of campgrounds around 11 mile reservoir, which should be the place tourists gather rather than in our residential area. Further, the additional stress on the dirt roads both north and south of this location will be difficult to repair and maintain; Further disrupting those of us who drive these roads frequently.

58. Name: Ellen Anderson Manz on 2021-01-28 00:04:12 Comments:

59. Name: Christopher Losey on 2021-01-28 00:36:35 Comments: If the simple fact that commercial development of any kind is not in concert with the area is not reason enough, I offer the following: CR 59 is not a major thoroughfare equipped to handle the additional traffic from campers, water and propane deliveries. The mix of "various types of camping rigs...hikers, ATV/OHV and mountain bikers" they hope to attract are a recipe for disaster on this unimproved road. Most secondary commerce (shopping, entertainment/recreation and fuel) that would be driven by this would occur in Teller county rather than Park, thus

Page 7 of 27 creating more of a financial liability than profit to Park County. 102 Old Kathleen Trail

60. Name: Bill Kappel on 2021-01-28 00:50:17 Comments:

61. Name: Peggy McVay on 2021-01-28 00:59:46 Comments:

62. Name: David J Schneider on 2021-01-28 01:13:19 Comments: We barely seem to manage our current facilities, we don't need more sprawl. Put more rangers in the field first.

63. Name: Tammatha Shade on 2021-01-28 01:31:07 Comments: We don't need more campgrounds

64. Name: Jaclyn Simmons on 2021-01-28 01:32:06 Comments:

65. Name: Miguel on 2021-01-28 02:09:32 Comments:

66. Name: Linda Rinkor on 2021-01-28 02:46:44 Comments: Impact on our volunteer fire and EMS could be overwhelming. Traffic on CR 59 and 102 will be disruptive to wildlife and environment.

67. Name: Patrick Harris on 2021-01-28 02:47:36 Comments:

68. Name: Nicole Lampman on 2021-01-28 03:05:18 Comments:

69. Name: Charmaine Freeny on 2021-01-28 03:20:17 Comments:

70. Name: Tracy Aitken on 2021-01-28 03:25:06 Comments:

71. Name: Susan Simion on 2021-01-28 03:34:59 Comments:

72. Name: Don Roberts on 2021-01-28 03:42:57

Page 8 of 27 Comments:

73. Name: Graham Fowler on 2021-01-28 03:46:04 Comments:

74. Name: Tara Whyte on 2021-01-28 04:20:09 Comments:

75. Name: Matt Trostle on 2021-01-28 04:20:14 Comments:

76. Name: Kyra Nistler on 2021-01-28 04:20:57 Comments: Nature needs to be left as is and not disturbed.

77. Name: Lori Gajarsky on 2021-01-28 04:21:56 Comments:

78. Name: Charles McKenney on 2021-01-28 04:22:31 Comments:

79. Name: Richard Carter on 2021-01-28 04:23:30 Comments:

80. Name: Alicia Davis on 2021-01-28 04:24:01 Comments:

81. Name: Kari Scyoc Wilson on 2021-01-28 04:26:44 Comments:

82. Name: Katanna Logsdon on 2021-01-28 04:27:05 Comments:

83. Name: Jamie Bosley on 2021-01-28 04:27:07 Comments:

84. Name: Ashley Pechek on 2021-01-28 04:27:12 Comments:

85. Name: Vanessa Ayala on 2021-01-28 04:28:49 Comments: Stop building unnecessary places for filthy humans! If anything you should tear down some campgrounds and let nature thrive.

Page 9 of 27 86. Name: Kadee Kline on 2021-01-28 04:29:57 Comments:

87. Name: Leslie Marzano on 2021-01-28 04:33:11 Comments: With no source of water this is a very bad idea. Also it will endanger the wildlife.

88. Name: Theresa Taylor on 2021-01-28 04:34:31 Comments:

89. Name: Kelly Fresquez on 2021-01-28 04:37:52 Comments:

90. Name: Jessy Poswilko on 2021-01-28 04:38:35 Comments:

91. Name: Patrick Barton on 2021-01-28 04:39:55 Comments: Once again, someone has the color of money in their eye.Their continued misuse of land. Stop the campground!

92. Name: Annalisa Poeschel on 2021-01-28 04:41:04 Comments:

93. Name: Claudine Otey on 2021-01-28 04:41:48 Comments:

94. Name: Stevie Welsh on 2021-01-28 04:45:52 Comments:

95. Name: Linda Tafolla on 2021-01-28 04:49:58 Comments:

96. Name: Michael Archuletta on 2021-01-28 04:58:20 Comments:

97. Name: Nathan Early on 2021-01-28 04:59:55 Comments: Respect people’s property!!!

98. Name: Lori Sullivan on 2021-01-28 05:01:01 Comments:

Page 10 of 27 99. Name: Patricia Harrison on 2021-01-28 05:07:58 Comments:

100. Name: Zacharey Green on 2021-01-28 05:10:39 Comments: My family also has property in this area and are also firmly opposed.

101. Name: Brittany on 2021-01-28 05:21:05 Comments:

102. Name: Penny Overdier on 2021-01-28 05:23:44 Comments:

103. Name: RJ Slater on 2021-01-28 05:24:05 Comments:

104. Name: Suzie Graf on 2021-01-28 05:25:28 Comments:

105. Name: Katie Prusik on 2021-01-28 05:27:22 Comments:

106. Name: Eric seifert on 2021-01-28 05:28:17 Comments: One buys mountain property to get away from congestion noise and people

107. Name: Jessica Chou on 2021-01-28 05:44:25 Comments:

108. Name: Jim Moxon on 2021-01-28 05:53:46 Comments:

109. Name: Randall West on 2021-01-28 05:57:42 Comments: Wildfires is a constant threat! locals that live here know how to act in this environment! Outsiders don’t care or have the slightest idea why we put burn bans on. They still feel that they are an exception to the rules, like shooting explosive targets, propane tanks, livestock and poaching. I live just East of were this campground is projected to be and with the prevailing winds coming out of the West. That puts a lot of private homes, Ranches and the Old Kathleen Ranch Subdivision in-line for destruction from a fast moving wildfire.

110. Name: Shelli Creech on 2021-01-28 06:02:54 Comments: Don't do this!

111. Name: Miqui Miller on 2021-01-28 06:04:02

Page 11 of 27 Comments:

112. Name: Christine Warriner on 2021-01-28 06:24:45 Comments:

113. Name: Jennifer Weddle on 2021-01-28 06:44:45 Comments:

114. Name: Stephanie Rose on 2021-01-28 09:51:34 Comments:

115. Name: Tiffany Lopes on 2021-01-28 10:17:32 Comments:

116. Name: debi carter on 2021-01-28 10:20:52 Comments:

117. Name: bernie on 2021-01-28 11:19:34 Comments:

118. Name: Mary Erickson on 2021-01-28 12:22:47 Comments:

119. Name: Tabitha Pruitt on 2021-01-28 12:27:39 Comments:

120. Name: Garrett Cupp on 2021-01-28 12:46:40 Comments:

121. Name: Troy Dutenhoeffer on 2021-01-28 12:47:55 Comments: Keep the wild, wild!!!! Too much progress and not enought open space in this state. Open space is open, developed space can never go back to open space.

122. Name: Jennifer Ormond on 2021-01-28 13:04:04 Comments:

123. Name: Rachelle Gordon on 2021-01-28 13:05:40 Comments:

124. Name: Tonya Sawyer on 2021-01-28 13:12:16 Comments:

Page 12 of 27 125. Name: Dana Walker on 2021-01-28 13:16:22 Comments:

126. Name: Carol Umberger on 2021-01-28 13:21:11 Comments:

127. Name: Cameron Nicholl on 2021-01-28 13:23:19 Comments: Don't ruin my state

128. Name: Leanne Marshall on 2021-01-28 13:28:18 Comments:

129. Name: Leah Stout on 2021-01-28 13:29:30 Comments:

130. Name: Dave Williams on 2021-01-28 13:47:10 Comments: I am opposed to the RV Camp groung

131. Name: Diana Williams on 2021-01-28 14:07:08 Comments: I'm opposed to the campground!

132. Name: Matthew Pigott on 2021-01-28 14:16:35 Comments:

133. Name: Sharon Franz on 2021-01-28 14:35:50 Comments: Please keep our peaceful place peaceful

134. Name: Mary Gilley on 2021-01-28 14:38:01 Comments:

135. Name: Cathy Driller on 2021-01-28 14:39:42 Comments:

136. Name: Mary Feindt on 2021-01-28 14:54:01 Comments:

137. Name: Kirk Chirico on 2021-01-28 14:56:53 Comments: No to this campground. Take it elsewhere.

138. Name: Fiona Chamness on 2021-01-28 15:30:21 Comments:

Page 13 of 27 139. Name: Becca silver on 2021-01-28 15:30:41 Comments:

140. Name: Renee Rudolph on 2021-01-28 15:48:26 Comments:

141. Name: Lucy Newill on 2021-01-28 15:49:06 Comments:

142. Name: Dane Egli on 2021-01-28 15:51:27 Comments:

143. Name: Rebecca cohen on 2021-01-28 15:59:16 Comments:

144. Name: Diana Belles on 2021-01-28 16:04:42 Comments: Why are developers always wanting to build where water supply is limited or nonexistent?

145. Name: Barb Rewerts on 2021-01-28 16:20:12 Comments:

146. Name: Terrie Dalessandro on 2021-01-28 16:39:03 Comments:

147. Name: Jodie Hipwell on 2021-01-28 16:40:23 Comments: Save our open land

148. Name: Shauna Edgeman on 2021-01-28 16:47:51 Comments:

149. Name: Karen Bliss on 2021-01-28 16:49:59 Comments:

150. Name: Rebecca Schiola on 2021-01-28 17:02:50 Comments: We moved last year to Guffey because over the 17 years we lived at our previous home, 2 RV/Camp businesses opened. One was adjacent to our property and between the traffic, every time I smelled smoke, it would stress me out. We had been evacuated twice from wild land fires. I occasionally would come home and fine "visitors" in my yard to "see the horses". I highly disagree with the location of this proposal for the home owners that will have to deal with all of it.

151. Name: Stephanie Shannon on 2021-01-28 17:50:07

Page 14 of 27 Comments:

152. Name: Judy Stippich on 2021-01-28 17:50:31 Comments: Please protect this land.

153. Name: Jalina Mueller on 2021-01-28 18:05:21 Comments:

154. Name: Steve Herriges on 2021-01-28 18:18:05 Comments: Opposed. Park County and the owner of the property have numerous letters on reasons we opposed this Commercial RV Campground on County Road 59

155. Name: Brittany Jaeger on 2021-01-28 18:21:21 Comments:

156. Name: martha lange on 2021-01-28 18:33:55 Comments: I own property adjacent to this land This campground will destroy all the reasons I live here. I have sent several protests already. Totally opposed.

157. Name: Patricia K Wiseman on 2021-01-28 18:47:11 Comments:

158. Name: Jeff Booker on 2021-01-28 18:55:54 Comments: I am absolutely against the proposed campground on County Road 59. It will bring more traffic to our serene area, cause excessive road damage, pollution and congestion. It will increase our wildfire possibilities, and bring more trespassers onto our properties. In addition, I would like to mention the increased security concerns, and a danger to free roaming wildlife and livestock. This area is zoned and hopefully will remain Agricultural. Let's not forget the impact to the previously non-congested Guffey Gorge.

159. Name: Bruce Harris II on 2021-01-28 19:01:18 Comments:

160. Name: Jan Knibbe on 2021-01-28 19:29:33 Comments: I oppose the Twisted Pines Campground

161. Name: Cathy Colvin on 2021-01-28 19:46:39 Comments:

162. Name: Cher Eberly-Malinowski on 2021-01-28 20:09:40 Comments:

163. Name: Gene Hollowell on 2021-01-28 20:10:13

Page 15 of 27 Comments:

164. Name: Cheryl Knibbe on 2021-01-28 20:21:12 Comments: I am opposed to the campground and the inevitable traffic, noise, and vandalism the area will incur. Plus the extra taxing on our natural resources and wildlife.

165. Name: Jennifer Green on 2021-01-28 20:23:36 Comments:

166. Name: Alexis Albert on 2021-01-28 20:37:25 Comments:

167. Name: Maschauna Carter on 2021-01-28 20:40:30 Comments:

168. Name: Roni Taylor on 2021-01-28 20:42:15 Comments:

169. Name: Sara Kern on 2021-01-28 20:49:23 Comments:

170. Name: Chad Clyburn on 2021-01-28 21:18:00 Comments:

171. Name: Lisa Eshom on 2021-01-28 21:18:49 Comments:

172. Name: Robert Bishop on 2021-01-28 22:24:27 Comments:

173. Name: Amy Tedesco on 2021-01-28 23:06:07 Comments: I oppose this campground being in the proposed area. 1)There are people that live adjacent to this property and it will ruin the reason they decided to live there. 2.) this campground will bring more traffic, fire hazards, trash and debris, along with the disturbance of protected wildlife in the area. We all moved out here to be away from noise disturbances such as busy campgrounds, extra traffic, add that to debris and protected animal disturbances and fire hazards equals an unsafe loud, disturbing terrible place to live. We oppose this campground.

174. Name: Hali Hunter on 2021-01-28 23:08:56 Comments:

175. Name: Christine Patterson on 2021-01-28 23:27:40

Page 16 of 27 Comments: Just signed

176. Name: james radochia on 2021-01-28 23:55:04 Comments: For people that want to camp and enjoy nature, there's plenty of campsites and public land in Park Country. Keep it wild, leave no trace.

177. Name: Amity Frazer on 2021-01-28 23:57:13 Comments:

178. Name: Bart Hansen on 2021-01-29 00:06:14 Comments: Our family has owned the Globe and Anchor Ranch located directly across CR 59 from the proposed sight of this campground. We have owned our ranch for over 28 years and we oppose this proposed project. It’s a mistake to place transients campers in an area totally surrounded by private property. This will inevitably invite and encourage trespassing as the campers would feel entitled to use the land around this campground. Also importing water is not a good planning an operating solution that will have environmental impacts not covered in their application. Vote NO this conditional use permit.

179. Name: Susan Ray on 2021-01-29 00:11:59 Comments:

180. Name: Crystal R Vigil on 2021-01-29 00:24:36 Comments:

181. Name: Jenny McCoy on 2021-01-29 00:43:00 Comments:

182. Name: Debi Lanzi on 2021-01-29 00:55:33 Comments: Signed

183. Name: Rachel Kroncke on 2021-01-29 00:59:38 Comments:

184. Name: Jordan Larcade on 2021-01-29 01:06:43 Comments:

185. Name: Tom and Virginia Coblentz on 2021-01-29 02:10:23 Comments:

186. Name: Laura Odegard on 2021-01-29 02:12:59 Comments: Keep land free of building

Page 17 of 27 187. Name: Linda Harris on 2021-01-29 02:15:52 Comments:

188. Name: Rhonda Maurer on 2021-01-29 02:21:41 Comments:

189. Name: William Sanborn on 2021-01-29 02:24:57 Comments:

190. Name: Carla Dabney on 2021-01-29 03:12:15 Comments: No Way!

191. Name: Kim and Bruce Seymore on 2021-01-29 04:17:25 Comments: Totally Opposed

192. Name: Drew Raynor on 2021-01-29 04:47:02 Comments:

193. Name: Marilyn Jensen on 2021-01-29 05:16:00 Comments: Against this!

194. Name: Erin Cummings on 2021-01-29 05:16:31 Comments: Follow the rules

195. Name: Stephanie Touch on 2021-01-29 05:25:26 Comments:

196. Name: Kelli Kanemoto on 2021-01-29 05:54:02 Comments:

197. Name: Sara Villanyi on 2021-01-29 12:51:32 Comments:

198. Name: Teresa Neurauter on 2021-01-29 13:03:57 Comments:

199. Name: Colleen Olson on 2021-01-29 13:22:53 Comments:

200. Name: Toni Hollowell on 2021-01-29 13:56:44 Comments:

Page 18 of 27 201. Name: Marianne Mogon on 2021-01-29 19:26:40 Comments:

202. Name: Christina Gradillas on 2021-01-29 20:50:18 Comments:

203. Name: Annette Sylber on 2021-01-29 21:23:45 Comments:

204. Name: Jaclyn Lankenau on 2021-01-29 21:24:10 Comments:

205. Name: Christina Sandoval on 2021-01-29 22:39:16 Comments:

206. Name: Mary Triller on 2021-01-29 22:41:19 Comments:

207. Name: Neil Keane on 2021-01-29 22:59:46 Comments:

208. Name: Heather Turner on 2021-01-30 00:05:00 Comments:

209. Name: LARRY SKIDMORE on 2021-01-30 02:22:30 Comments:

210. Name: Jessica Moxon on 2021-01-30 02:51:50 Comments: Based on the information this is not a good place for a campground.

211. Name: Alli Caraveo on 2021-01-30 02:52:25 Comments:

212. Name: Jillian Troute on 2021-01-30 04:38:34 Comments:

213. Name: Anastasia piper on 2021-01-30 05:14:57 Comments: Peace

214. Name: Lisa Harrison on 2021-01-30 07:10:15 Comments:

Page 19 of 27 215. Name: Eugene Massaro on 2021-01-30 12:44:09 Comments:

216. Name: Angela Burke on 2021-01-30 13:43:47 Comments:

217. Name: Nicole Bogaert on 2021-01-30 13:48:31 Comments:

218. Name: Ellen Carter on 2021-01-30 14:47:15 Comments:

219. Name: Tammy Hamill on 2021-01-30 15:57:11 Comments:

220. Name: James P Loiselle on 2021-01-30 16:06:22 Comments:

221. Name: Dana Echter on 2021-01-30 16:17:27 Comments: This conditional use permit should not be granted. I think that it will be a nightmare for nearby land owners.

222. Name: Elizabeth Heritage on 2021-01-30 17:17:40 Comments:

223. Name: Joseph barach II on 2021-01-30 18:42:50 Comments: signed

224. Name: Kristopher Hansen on 2021-01-30 19:07:10 Comments: My address 2981 Park County Rd. #59 is directly across the road from the proposed trailer park. It is my sincere hope that the county listens to its long time constituent in the neighborhood and does not approve the CUP. This is a circumvention of the county zoning regulations and would be a bad precedent for ALL Park County land owners.

225. Name: Thomas Neurauter on 2021-01-30 20:06:56 Comments:

226. Name: Penny Braaksma on 2021-01-31 15:37:17 Comments: You must more open spaces, there are plenty of other options for camping that already has water and sewer. Silly to do this!!!!!

Page 20 of 27 227. Name: Michael Schneider on 2021-01-31 16:38:19 Comments: The proposed campground does not belong in an agricultural area like this and will diminish the quality of life for area residents. It will also lower property values and be a financial burden to Park County.

228. Name: Susan Gorney on 2021-01-31 16:50:16 Comments: As an owner of a local property I am very opposed to this development. I respect the new owners right to capitalism and use of this property however this development is a detriment to a fine neighborhood. This area is open space, agricultural and natural ranch land which will be destroyed by which is essentially a trailer park disguised as a campground. The influx of traffic on a mildly used dirt road off the beaten path amidst ranch land is contrary of what this area is all about. It's location invites trespassing on private property and overuse of our roads by RVs/ATVs/dirt bikes. In addition to RV sites it is noted that campsites will be built throughout the property. There is something very distressing about a dump site for RVs on the property and water being trucked in. The threat of wildfire is very high here in the summer and a congregate of this many RVs, and campers on the property only escalates this threat. I could go on...

229. Name: Lexy McElligott on 2021-01-31 16:54:35 Comments:

230. Name: Amy Randolph on 2021-01-31 19:05:54 Comments:

231. Name: Leslie Lynn Ballew on 2021-02-01 00:34:22 Comments:

232. Name: Zachary Alan Stanley on 2021-02-01 00:36:35 Comments:

233. Name: Stan Holtan on 2021-02-01 15:52:47 Comments:

234. Name: Samia Hudacsek on 2021-02-01 21:35:32 Comments: Please keep Colorado naturally beautiful.

235. Name: Bruce l harris on 2021-02-01 22:43:09 Comments: No

236. Name: Gerald Mccann on 2021-02-02 00:54:54 Comments:

237. Name: Craig Lyles on 2021-02-02 01:03:16 Comments:

Page 21 of 27 238. Name: Tanya Huneycutt on 2021-02-02 01:05:40 Comments:

239. Name: Christopher on 2021-02-02 01:06:46 Comments: Vote no!

240. Name: Hector Ruiz-Santana on 2021-02-02 01:11:13 Comments:

241. Name: Fred Huggins on 2021-02-02 01:11:40 Comments:

242. Name: Chris on 2021-02-02 01:11:45 Comments: Preservation of resources is important to not only humanity but also American farmers and aboriginals

243. Name: Wallace Perry on 2021-02-02 01:22:44 Comments:

244. Name: Mike OLeary on 2021-02-02 01:24:25 Comments:

245. Name: Taylor Huggins on 2021-02-02 01:24:32 Comments: Hell no.

246. Name: Lauri McCaulley on 2021-02-02 01:25:32 Comments:

247. Name: Lee Wachendorf on 2021-02-02 01:27:19 Comments:

248. Name: Tyler Mccaulley on 2021-02-02 01:29:21 Comments:

249. Name: Polly Debari on 2021-02-02 01:33:24 Comments:

250. Name: Jennifer on 2021-02-02 01:40:01 Comments:

251. Name: David Taylor on 2021-02-02 01:43:23

Page 22 of 27 Comments: people buy property in rural areas to escape the hustle and bustle of city life. Farmland is for farming not a camping

252. Name: Michelle Parker on 2021-02-02 01:45:03 Comments:

253. Name: Dale Johnson jr on 2021-02-02 01:47:43 Comments:

254. Name: Cheryl Sones on 2021-02-02 01:53:21 Comments:

255. Name: Brandee Wharton on 2021-02-02 01:55:47 Comments:

256. Name: BILL on 2021-02-02 01:56:20 Comments:

257. Name: Brian Johnson on 2021-02-02 01:58:22 Comments:

258. Name: Susan Oostendorp on 2021-02-02 02:04:39 Comments:

259. Name: Jose Perez on 2021-02-02 02:07:36 Comments:

260. Name: Jeanie Thompson on 2021-02-02 02:08:48 Comments:

261. Name: Rosanna ward on 2021-02-02 02:10:39 Comments:

262. Name: Dwight Tevuk on 2021-02-02 02:29:04 Comments:

263. Name: Debra Metcalfe on 2021-02-02 02:30:58 Comments:

264. Name: Stella Roberts on 2021-02-02 02:35:37 Comments:

Page 23 of 27 265. Name: Erica Crittende on 2021-02-02 02:39:56 Comments: Building a campground where people have purchased land to be away from the hustle & bustle is ridiculous! Let the people enjoy their peaceful farms & homesteds

266. Name: Terri Hammon on 2021-02-02 02:42:31 Comments: I am firmly against this. I moved in this town just over two years ago and like it just the way it is.

267. Name: Willow on 2021-02-02 02:54:15 Comments:

268. Name: Chase on 2021-02-02 03:01:46 Comments:

269. Name: Ray peters on 2021-02-02 03:07:32 Comments:

270. Name: Tony on 2021-02-02 03:15:34 Comments:

271. Name: Brandon Smith on 2021-02-02 03:21:32 Comments:

272. Name: Michelle Hitchins on 2021-02-02 03:23:55 Comments:

273. Name: J dunn on 2021-02-02 03:29:00 Comments: Leave it alone.

274. Name: Ward Trudy on 2021-02-02 03:46:41 Comments:

275. Name: Erline Conwell on 2021-02-02 04:12:12 Comments: Not the spot for a park come on now!

276. Name: Maiya Buzzell on 2021-02-02 04:16:51 Comments:

277. Name: Nadine Ward on 2021-02-02 04:42:26 Comments:

278. Name: Roderick Cihak on 2021-02-02 04:50:56

Page 24 of 27 Comments:

279. Name: Karen Tyler on 2021-02-02 04:59:58 Comments: No to camp ground

280. Name: Theresa on 2021-02-02 05:04:52 Comments:

281. Name: Stacee Lawrence on 2021-02-02 05:30:06 Comments:

282. Name: Anthony Pascua on 2021-02-02 05:34:46 Comments:

283. Name: Jasper Bruner on 2021-02-02 05:35:59 Comments:

284. Name: Karen Olson on 2021-02-02 05:58:42 Comments:

285. Name: Monica McGee on 2021-02-02 06:05:49 Comments:

286. Name: Levi swan on 2021-02-02 06:18:15 Comments:

287. Name: Holly Greene on 2021-02-02 07:01:28 Comments:

288. Name: chris weaver on 2021-02-02 07:02:57 Comments: People who live out there don’t want a camp ground. There is a reason they moved out there in the first place. No people.

289. Name: Nathan Tyler on 2021-02-02 07:25:53 Comments:

290. Name: Lauren Ward on 2021-02-02 07:31:37 Comments:

291. Name: Desiree Buttram on 2021-02-02 07:39:51 Comments:

Page 25 of 27 292. Name: June Williams on 2021-02-02 07:55:22 Comments: Leave the land just the way it is. Also, don't intrude in the families living within the vacinity of this proposed campground.

293. Name: Alexis on 2021-02-02 09:01:44 Comments:

294. Name: Albert Daveiga on 2021-02-02 10:07:36 Comments:

295. Name: Sunshine Copas on 2021-02-02 10:37:28 Comments:

296. Name: Betty Charter on 2021-02-02 12:45:54 Comments:

297. Name: Roland Villarreal on 2021-02-02 13:30:12 Comments:

298. Name: Michelle Davis on 2021-02-02 14:13:25 Comments: Just NO!!

299. Name: Benita Gonzalez on 2021-02-02 14:26:09 Comments:

300. Name: Rebecca Hitchins on 2021-02-02 14:27:58 Comments:

301. Name: Paul Pacelli on 2021-02-02 15:07:06 Comments:

302. Name: Collin Johnson on 2021-02-02 15:34:00 Comments: No to camp ground

303. Name: Nicholas McCormick on 2021-02-02 15:45:31 Comments:

304. Name: Milton Damas on 2021-02-02 16:22:48 Comments:

305. Name: Samuel Arnold on 2021-02-02 16:40:04 Comments:

Page 26 of 27 306. Name: Angel on 2021-02-02 17:07:14 Comments:

307. Name: Joseph Bain on 2021-02-02 17:54:11 Comments:

308. Name: Alyssa Gabriele on 2021-02-02 18:15:49 Comments:

309. Name: Stephanie markishtum on 2021-02-02 19:41:07 Comments:

310. Name: April Serjeant on 2021-02-02 19:45:43 Comments:

311. Name: June Ward on 2021-02-02 20:12:23 Comments:

312. Name: Victor Malchesky on 2021-02-02 21:20:21 Comments: The plan is unrealistic. It proposes a septic tank suitable for a one family home. The site plan shows 21 camper slots/cabins. If only two people per camp site that's the waste of 42 people going into a system suitable for a average to large family.

313. Name: Teresa Malchesky on 2021-02-02 21:53:39 Comments: We own the property at 820 cr59. Allowing a campground on this property would be a violation of how the property is zoned.

314. Name: Fran Tyler on 2021-02-02 22:02:43 Comments:

315. Name: Luke on 2021-02-03 02:22:31 Comments:

Page 27 of 27

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Park County Planning Department P.O. Box 1598 Fairplay, Colorado 80440

Phone: (719) 836-4254 ● Fax: 719-836-4268 ● E-mail address: [email protected]

Referral Response

Comment Deadline Date: January 11th, 2021 Submitted Date: November 27th, 2020_

Case #: _20CUP-08 Case Name: Twisted Pines Commercial Campground_

Request: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a Commercial Campground on a 41.02 acre Agriculturally zoned lot. Legal Description: Part of the NE ¼ S19 T14 R72, addressed as 2318 C.R. 59, Guffey.

Date of Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, January 12th, 2021______

Date of BOCC Hearing: To be determined._____

__X_____ We have reviewed this referral and find that it does comply with our specific organization’s concerns.

___X____ We offer the following comments regarding this referral: Wildlife concerns: Please enforce campers to use bear-proof trash and food storage cans, they only work when they are used. Set a policies for: 1) no bird feeders to reduce attraction of bears and other wildlife, 2) pets must be leashed at all times. Not shown on application but if there will be livestock areas – horse corral - to serve horse trailer/campers use electric fence on the corral. Environmental: Install a surface like gravel on the campground site to reduce erosion. Properly size the septic/leach field for 19 campsites.

Signed: ___Amy Mitchell______Date:_____December 16, 2020______

Title: __ABE Chair Secretary______Park County Planning Department P.O. Box 1598 Fairplay, Colorado 80440

Phone: (719) 836-4254 ● Fax: 719-836-4268 ● E-mail address: [email protected]

Referral Response

Comment Deadline Date: January 11th, 2021 Submitted Date: November 27th, 2020_

Case #: _20CUP-08 Case Name: Twisted Pines Commercial Campground_

Request: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a Commercial Campground on a 41.02 acre Agriculturally zoned lot. Legal Description: Part of the NE ¼ S19 T14 R72, addressed as 2318 C.R. 59, Guffey.

Date of Planning Commission Hearing: Tuesday, January 12th, 2021______

Date of BOCC Hearing: To be determined._____

______We have reviewed this referral and find that it does comply with our specific organization’s concerns.

______We have reviewed this referral and find that it does not comply with our specific organization’s concerns for the following reasons:

______

______

______X_ We have reviewed this referral and find no conflicts with our interests.

______A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to ______.

______Please refer to the enclosed letter.

______X We offer the following comments regarding this referral:

_Public Works will conduct a brief traffic study to determine if additional signage may be needed once operations have begun.

Signed: Greg Kasparek Date: 1/11/21

Title: __Right-of-Way Manager, Park County Public Works From: Eugene Farmer To: John Deagan Subject: Re: 20CUP-08 (Twisted Pines Commercial Campground) Referral Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 3:20:46 PM

John, I made a trip to that property (I think) there may be an issue with the address not being in order. I will send this to Cindy and see if she can help. I visited with the guy at 2428 (schedule number 47592) and he said the property is north of him and the address 2318 should be south of him. There is no address sign for 2318. The department is okay with this condition use permit though I would like to see some kind of caution sign on County Road 59 as that is heavy traveled at speeds greater than the posted speed limit and I have had 2 vehicle wrecks within 1/4 mile of that location (there is washboard in the road that causes vehicles to fishtail) and possibly a better fence to keep young kids out of the road way. Just for your information I would expect the community (Guffey area) to be greatly against this.

Thanks Eugene Farmer Fire Chief Southern Park County Fire & EMS

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 4:42 PM John Deagan wrote:

Please write or call with any questions.

John Deagan, AICP

Park County Planner

719 836 4254

StatementOfTaxesDue

Account Number R0045929 Parcel 45929 Assessed To LASS RICHARD H & JANE N TRUST 1679 CRYSTOLA RD WOODLAND PARK, CO 80863 Legal Description Situs Address T14 R72 S19 NE4 LOT 1A AS DESC R624529 METES AND BOUNDS 2318 CO RD 59 GUFFEY 80820 Year Tax Interest Fees Payments Balance Tax Charge 2019 $9.30 $0.00 $5.00 ($14.30) $0.00 Total Tax Charge $0.00 Grand Total Due as of 12/14/2020 $0.00

TR COLLECT $5.00 Tax Billed at 2019 Rates for Tax Area 0020 - South Park County Fire Authority Mill Levy Amount Values Actual Assessed SOUTHERN PARK COUNTY FIRE 12.2700000 $2.21 GRAZING LAND - AG $614 $180 PARK COUNTY 19.1713000* $3.46 Total $614 $180 PARK COUNTY ROAD & BRIDGE F 0.8576000 $0.15 SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 14.6180000 $2.63 SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-2 BOND 3.5870000 $0.65 UPPER SOUTH PLATTE WATER 0.1280000* $0.02 CENTER OF COLO WTR CON DIST 1.0000000 $0.18 Taxes Billed 2019 51.6319000 $9.30 * Credit Levy

AMOUNTS SHOWN ARE CORRECT AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. ALL TAX LIEN SALE AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO ENDORSEMENT OF CURRENT TAXES BY THE LIENHOLDER OR TO ADVERTISING AND DISTRAINT WARRANT FEES. CHANGES MAY OCCUR AND THE TREASURER'S OFFICE WILL NEED TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO REMITTANCE AFTER AUGUST 1. TAX LIEN PAYMENTS: 1. MUST BE PAID BY CASH, CASHIERS CHECK, MONEY ORDER OR ONLINE AT WWW.PARKCO.US/TREASURER. 2. PLEASE PUT "ATTN:TAX LIEN" ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE ENVELOPE. 3. MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE BY THE ABOVE DUE DATE. POSTMARKS NOT ACCEPTED. 4. PAYMENTS WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTED FROM THE OWNER, HIS AGENT OR ANY OTHER PERSON HAVING A LEGAL OR EQUITABLE CLAIM AGAINST THE PROPERTY PER STATUTE CRS 39-12-103

Park County Treasurer P.O. Box 638, Fairplay CO 80440 (719)-836-4334

Contact Information of Adjacent Property Owners

Daniel Eberling Schedule # 47592 and Camella Jantz P.O. Box 253 Montezuma, KS 67867

Martha Lange Schedule # 44314 P.O. Box 787 Divide, CO 80814

Globe & Anchor Ranch Schedule # 43049 2610 Old Broadmoor Rd Colorado Springs, CO 80906

Legend Driveways and Parking (Est. Avg. Slope 3%) Est. Avg. Slopes >20% Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Current Conditions - Environmental 0 200 400 800 Feet

´ Constraints and Access Park County Planning Department This map is not a survey.

25.00' 25.00'

50.00' 24' WIDE TWO WAY TRAFFIC

HOST

83.50'

PARKING 10'x20'

ONE WAY 16'

PARKING 10'x20'

RV-13

16.00'

50.00'

PARKING

10'x20' PARKING 60.00'

16.00' RV-1 10'x20' 40.00' 60.00' 60.00' 40.00' RV-14

50.00'

PARKING

10'x20'

10'x20' PARKING PARKING RV-2 10'x20' 50.00'RV-8 RV-15

50.00'

PARKING 10'x20' 10'x20' PARKING RV-3 50.00' RV-9

16'X24' CABIN Site Plan

60.00' 12'X28' COMFORT STATION APPROX 16'X50' 16'X24' ABSORPTION BED ONE WAY 16'' CABIN 12' X 20' OFFICE 1000-2000 GAL

SEPTIC TANK

50.00' PARKING 50.00'

PARKING 10'x20' DUMP 10'x20' STATION RV-4 RV-16

60.00'

50.00' PARKING 50.00'

PARKING

10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' PARKING 50.00' RV-5 RV-10 RV-17

60.00'

50.00' PARKING 50.00'

PARKING

10'x20' 10'x20' 10'x20' PARKING 50.00' RV-6 RV-18 RV-11

ONE WAY 16'

50.00'

PARKING 10'x20' 10'x20' 0

SCALE: PARKING 50.00' 5 30' 15'

1'' = 30' RV-12 RV-7

7- 10'X 20' TENT CAMPING PARKING T-1 N 60'

T-2 24.00' T-3

25.00' T-4 PARK COUNTY APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for Recreational Vehicle Park and Campground

Park County Schedule #45929 Zoning: Agricultural Physical Address: 2318 County Rd 59, Guffey, CO 80820

Those of us who are outdoor enthusiasts often find ourselves in some of nature’s most extraordinary places. When there, who of us hasn’t had the thought that we could almost imagine what it looked like hundreds of years ago when the Native Americans occupied this wild space? That’s what you feel when spending time on this property and that is what we want our guests to feel as well.

Before we started our property search in earnest, we contacted the Park County Planning and Zoning Department to seek guidance regarding the type of properties we should be looking for to give us the best opportunity of obtaining the permitting we need. It was suggested that we find an agriculturally zoned property that is not within a residential subdivision in order to minimize neighbor opposition. I will note here that there is only one full-time resident on an adjacent property (Ms. Martha Lange) and on June 27, 2020, we sent her a courtesy letter informing her of our intentions to develop a small campground and asked her to contact us with any feedback or concerns she may have so we could take those into consideration during our planning stage. To date, we have not been contacted by her. The Planning Department also suggested that we look for property that contains frontage on a major thoroughfare. Based on that criteria, combined with its proximity to recreational activities, its beautiful views and lack of covenants, we believe this lot to be the perfect property on which to pursue our venture.

Twisted Pines Campground, as we plan to call it, has an abundance of natural features with one of its most prominent features being a Bristlecone Pine forest that runs between a lower and upper level. Because its frontage on a main thoroughfare (County Road 59) will allow ease of access to all types of camping rigs, we have decided to focus our development efforts on the lower level of the property. Regarding the upper section, as the costs would be prohibitive to develop it at this time, we plan to leave it in its natural state for our guests to explore and recreate on.

So, as soon as we get our approval to move forward, we will green light our contractors to begin the development of the lower section’s meadow into our campground, utilizing the attached Site Plan as a guide. As you can see, we plan to develop eighteen electric RV sites for our guests plus one for our camp host. We plan to utilize native plants and natural hardscapes to create a sense of privacy and beauty between each site. Our comfort station (see attached sample plan) will be a portable building that we’ll finish out utilizing natural materials such as wood and rock so that it is in harmony with the natural surroundings. Additionally, we plan to build a couple of small cabins for guest rentals and offer a few walk- in tent sites situated in natural nooks within the wooded area for our more adventuresome guests.

As there is access to electricity on this property, we will work closely with our engineer and Intermountain Rural Electric Association to ensure we have adequate power for each site. We will install a septic system to service both our comfort station and a dump station for our guests to dispose of their sewage. To provide an adequate water supply, we will utilize a large cistern with regular, potable water delivery to service our comfort station.

We will also centrally locate a bear-proof dumpster with regularly scheduled pick up for our guests to use and as an additional precaution to mitigate wildlife encounters, each campsite will have access to a bear- resistant food storage locker. And finally, as an innovative way to provide an authentic camping experience, we plan to have only gas fire pits at each campsite for guests to use instead of wood fires to lessen the chance a stray spark may cause a forest fire.

In keeping with the county’s Strategic Master Plan, our endeavor will promote recreational activities on agricultural land utilizing its scenic and historical qualities to attract new tourism dollars to the county. As this property enjoys close proximity to Pike National Forest, we anticipate attracting a wide variety of outdoor enthusiasts, including hikers, ATV/OHV riders and mountain bikers. We also anticipate attracting guests to Twisted Pines due to its proximity to Park County’s premiere public fisheries, including the Dream Stream and Eleven Mile and Spinney Reservoirs. Finally, with whitewater rafting on the Arkansas River, the Royal Gorge and Cripple Creek all within a 45 minute drive, our guests will have many diverse choices for adventure while enjoying their time with us.

Our ultimate objective with this venture is to provide an opportunity to share our love of wild spaces with like-minded individuals and to create a safe and beautiful space in which to do it. We are confident that our planned use for the land is in direct alignment with Park County’s Strategic Master Plan and we look forward to partnering with the county to bring this vision to life.

Legal Description of Property Township 14 Range 72

Topography Map of Property

Proximity to Recreational Opportunities in Pike National Forest

Current Condition of Property via Satellite Image There are no existing structures, wells or septic systems. Property is not currently being used.

Portable Comfort Station – Sample Plan

Bear Resistant Food Storage Locker example