Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 12.04.2017Board of County Commissioners — Public Hearing Exhibits Hatch Telecommunication Facility Limited Impact Review (File LIPA-08-17-8569) December 4, 2017 Exhibit Number Exhibit Description 1 Public Hearing Notice Information Form 2 Proof of Publication 3 Receipts from Mailing Notice 4 Photo evidence of Public Notice Posting 5 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 6 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 7 Application 8 Staff Report 9 Staff Presentation 10 Referral Comments from Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering, Dated, November 1, 2017 11 Referral Comments from Keith Lammey, Grass Mesa HOA, Dated October 23, 2017 12 Referral Comments from Dan Goin, Garfield County Road and Bridge, Dated October 19, 2017 13 Referral Comments from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Manager, Dated October 25, 2017 14 Referral Comments from Brian Condie, Garfield County Airport Director, Dated November 6, 2017 15 Referral Comments from Orrin Moon, Colorado River Fire Rescue, Dated November 6, 2017 16 Applicant response to Engineering Comments, Dated November 3, 2017 17 Mountain Cross Engineering Review of additional applicant submittals, dated November 9, 2017 18 Updated Grading and Drainage Plan 19 FAA Accessory Structure Termination Letter, Dated November 16, 2017 20 FAA Tower Determination Letter, Dated November 16, 2017 21 Supplemental Referral Comments from Brian Condie, Garfield County Airport Director, Dated November 16, 2017 22 FAA Email Confirming Structure Lighting, Dated November 27, 2017 7.: \ tOL 6fc,,'; kin 5evve i. -e te„-, DrAec1 Nr,k;�..,be,e- 30zo U Fw.ai (cc ;�. Oceo- Moo- ak5e, Covkkiv\ua.A(e_ 1A%ve_ 15LcS ec( 0-c <QSS, afT'tc_<:Avt EXHIBIT BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller — Staff Planner PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # PROPERTY SIZE LOCATION Limited Impact Review—Telecommunication Facility David and Roslyn Hatch Anna Smith, HRL Compliance Solutions 217723300253 The facility will be located on an approximately 35 acre parcel. The property is located approximately half a mile south of the City of Rifle It is located in Section 23, Township 6 South, Range, 93 West of the 6th P.M. ACCESS The facility will be accessed off of County Road 319, Grass Mesa Road, and a privately maintained road. EXISTING ZONING The property is zoned (R) Rural I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct a 160 foot tall self-supporting telecommunication tower. Associated infrastructure includes a 40 foot by 36 foot compound area on the subject property and a lighted 8 foot by 20 foot accessory building to house electrical equipment for the tower. Electric power will be extended to the facility, but no other utilities including water and wastewater are needed for routine operation. The applicant has proposed one light for the accessory building and the FAA has required that the tower be lit as a condition of approval for the No Hazard to Air Travel Determination. The area will be enclosed by a security fence. The site will be accessed via County Road 319, Grass Mesa Road and a private road. 1 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller — Staff Planner Vicinity Map II. LOCATION - SITE DESCRIPTION The land uses in the vicinity of the site are rural residential. The proposed location of the site is relatively flat on top of a steep mesa. Vegetation includes sagebrush and native grasses. Directly north of the site, on BLM property, there are three separate electrical transmission lines. There are no live streams or significant drainage swales in the vicinity of the proposed site. The property is located in the Airport Overlay and is approximately one mile from the airport. 2 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller—Staff Planner Site Plan 3 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller—Staff Planner III. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS Public Notice was provided for the public hearing in accordance with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code as amended. Notice included publication, mailing and posting. The Applicant has provided evidence of compliance with the notice requirements. Comments from referral agencies and County Departments are summarized below and attached as Exhibits. No public comments have been received. Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Chris Hale, Mountain Cross Engineering (Exhibit 10): - The applicant should revise the grading plan to address off-site water. Drainage should be identified to direct water around the pad with positive drainage and avoiding areas of shallow ponding. - Permits should be provided from the FAA and the FCC - The applicant should provide the size and type of culvert proposed. - The applicant should identify what their plans are for structural and foundation design. Garfield County Vegetation Manager, Steve Anthony (Exhibit 13): - Indicated that the noxious weed report and biological assessment are acceptable. Garfield County Road & Bridge, Dan Goin (Exhibit 12) - Indicated no issues with the application as the property is not accessed off of County Roads. Grass Mesa HOA, Keith Lammey (Exhibit 11) - Indicated no issues with the application. Garfield County Airport Director, Brian Condie (Exhibit 14): - Commented that the applicant should supply a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation finding from the FAA. - Noted that the overlay maps were out of date, but would double check that the FAA was using the most current runway alignment. - Had no other requests. Colorado River Fire Rescue, Orrin Moon (Exhibit 15) - The access road to the site is adequate for emergency access. - Requested that the property owners, Tower Company, and emergency agreement on addressing - Knox Box information needs to be provided. services come to Follow-up Referral Comments, Garfield County Airport Director, Brian Condie (Exhibit 21) - Indicated that the airport requests a surety bond for structures that are installed within the airport perimeter fence. For property outside of the airport, it is recommended, but not required. - The airport does not require the chemical dulling process on the galvanized structures at this time. - Indicated that he is researching further the need for a written agreement between the airport and the FAA for the intrusion. - Indicated that he will have a document that will meet the requirements for an Avigation Easement by December 15. 4 IV. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller — Staff Planner In accordance with the Land Use and Development Code, the Applicant has provided detailed responses to the Submittal Requirements, Section 3-303 Airport/Heliport Influence Area Overlay Regulations and applicable sections of Article 7 including, Divisions 1, 2, 3, and Section 7-1102, Telecommunication Facilities. The Application materials include a general Impact Analysis and related consultant reports. 3-303 A: Use Restrictions The telecommunication facility use is permitted according to the use Table 3-303 A. 3-303 B: Standards for Development 1. Site Plan Information —The applicant provided the required site plan information for the project. 2. Avigation and Hazard Easement—The applicant responded: "A completed Avigation and Hazard Easement will be recorded upon approval of the proposed tower facility." Staff has created a condition of approval requiring the Avigation and Hazard Easement be completed. Brian Condie, the Garfield County Airport Director provided referral comments that he will prepare a document for the applicant to sign. 3. Noise Levels — The applicant responded: "Not applicable since the proposed facility, once operational, would not generate any additional noise. Additionally, since the facility will be unmanned, no noise abatement measures are necessary." With the applicant's representations and the location of the facility in a rural area with spread out residences, staff believes that the application meets noise level requirements. 4. Communications Facilities and Electrical Interference. No use shall cause or create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between an Airport/Heliport and aircraft —The applicant responded: "Based on the fact the proposed tower facility will be new construction, the tower facility will be designed and engineered for structural strength and have sufficient space to support all antennas permitted by FCC for this facility. Additionally, with the construction of the new tower and accessory building with associated electrical work, grounding of copper strapping will be installed in a grid pattern within the facility around the tower and building. Electromagnetic interference typically occurs as a result of inadequate grounding, therefore the proposed grounding of copper strapping within the facility will negate this type of interference from occurring. Additionally, transmissions of radio broadcasting from this tower will be within the FM band of frequencies (88-108 MHz (megahertz)). Each broadcasting tower, based on type of facility, operate in different bands of frequencies, whether AM, FM, cellular, or microwave. On the frequency spectrum, AM bands operate below FM bands and occur between the range of 535-1605 kHz 5 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller—Staff Planner (kilohertz), while cellular towers operate from 700 MHz upwards into GHz (gigahertz). Airports transmit in bands well above the FM band, typically in the microwave lengths, therefore, there would be no interference with airport navigational signals or radio communications by the proposed tower facility. To further ensure no interference with the airport and/or other existing towers, this tower facility will also have filters applied to the outputs of the translators. These filters will allow only the specific frequency of the translator to pass to the antenna for broadcasting while blocking incoming frequencies from mixing inside the translator itself. This would eliminate the potential of mixed frequencies being broadcasted." The application has been reviewed by the County designated engineer, who did not identify any interference issues with the proposal. The applicant has also supplied a Determination of No Hazard from the FAA and the submitted an application to the FCC. As a suggested condition of approval, staff has included a requirement that the applicant submit an approved FCC permit to the County. It is staff's opinion, that based on the applicant's representations and federal agency review, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with this standard. 5. Outdoor Lighting — The applicant responded: "Based on the height of the facility on the mesa and the distance from the airport, the exterior light on the accessory building would not be visible. However, a "night -sky" light fixture, which would shield the light bulb and cast light downward, could be installed if determined necessary. If the FAA determines the tower shall be lighted, lighting of the tower will comply with FAA's standards." It is staff's opinion that the applicant meets this requirement. The FAA No -Hazard Determination has required that the tower be lit. Other than this FAA requirement, lighting shall be required to be compliant with the County Land Use and Development Code. 6. Use of Reflective Materials Prohibited —The applicant responded: "The tower will be a galvanized structure, which will dull naturally over time and become non - reflective. This is common on anything from a street/traffic light pole to parts on bridge. If determined necessary, chemicals could be utilized to wipe down the tower before installation to accelerate the dulling process, but this process still takes months to occur." The applicant has shown the tower location to be outside of the Airport Approach zone. Additionally, the application has been reviewed by the FAA, who did not indicate any issues with reflective materials. The Garfield County Airport Director reviewed the application and indicated: This is an important requirement to preserve the flight path from potential light obstruction hazards. As this tower is southwest of the aircraft flight path it is highly unlikely that the galvanized surface area of the tower will produce sufficient glare to cause an obstruction to pilots. If per chance pilots start reporting light glare issues we will look into the conditioned that caused this to include, the seasonality, duration, time of day and another factors to properly address the issue. At this point, however, I do not feel the dulling process would produce a significant amount of glare reduction to justify the additional cost of constructing this tower. As such the airport does not require or request this dulling process as a condition of approval. The airport will leave 6 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller—Staff Planner that determination and potential risk of future mitigation and associated expense of light hazards to the owners who are constructing this tower. With the response of the Garfield County Airport Director, the FAA review and the location of the tower outside of the Airport Approach zone, it is staff's opinion that the applicant meets this standard. 7. Industrial Emissions that Obscure Visibility Prohibited — The applicant responded: "Once operational, this facility will not produce any emissions that would obscure visibility." Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment that once operational the facility will not produce emissions that would obscure visibility. A suggested condition of approval has been included that the applicant control fugitive dust during construction. 8. Height Restrictions —The applicant responded: "As noted above, the tower facility is located vertically higher than, and therefore out of, the 150 - ft horizontal plane over the airport. Height restrictions are not specified for towers within the County's land use code, however, each are reviewed on a case-by-case basis through the County's land use review processes. Through the Form 7460-1 review process, the FAA will provide a final determination on the height of the proposed tower." The applicant's request is compliant with the underlying zoning as a Telecommunication Facility may exceed the maximum height provided the facility is reviewed and approved. The FAA has reviewed and approved the permit as has the Garfield County Airport Director who did not identify issues with the height of the tower, provided it was approved by the FAA. It is staff's opinion that the applicant meets this standard. 9. Penetration of Development into Imaginary Surface Area — The height and penetration of development into the Imaginary Surface Area has been reviewed and approved with conditions by the FAA. The application has also been referred to the Garfield County Airport Manager who did not indicate any issues with the height. Staff has determined that the review and approval of the telecommunication facility by the FAA, together with the review and approval by the Garfield County Airport Director (provided suggested conditions of approval are met) and ultimately if the application is approved by the BOCC, it is staff's opinion that the application will have written approval from the FAA, the Airport Sponsor and the BOCC. 10. Wetland Construction, Enhancement, Restoration, or Mitigation —The applicant responded: "As noted in the Biological Assessment Report, there are no wetlands within or adjacent to the subject property." Staff did not note any wetlands onsite during the site visit and the Applicant's Biological Assessment Report did not indicate the presence of wetlands. As such, it appears that the applicant complies with this standard. 7 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller — Staff Planner 11. Compliance with 14 CFR Part 77.9 — The applicant responded: "14 CFR Part 77.9 requires the filing of a notice with the FAA for certain types of construction or alterations and their locations. Based on this project's proximity to the Rifle Garfield County Regional Airport, two Form 7460-1s have been submitted to the FAA for the proposed facility and accessory structure, copies of which were previously submitted for this LIR application." With the submittal of form 7460-1, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with this standard. The County has received the approved FAA permit with a designation of No Hazard to Air Navigation. Section 7 - Standards 7-101 — 102: Zone District Regulations, & Comprehensive Plan The proposed use demonstrates general conformance with applicable zone district provisions contained in the Land Use and Development Code and in particular Article 3 standards for the Airport Overlay and the Rural Zone District. The tower is located approximately 75 feet from the road and the nearest property line. While the telecommunication facility will exceed the maximum building height, Article 3 of the Land Use and Development Code permits this exception provided the application is reviewed and approved. The site is designated by the Comprehensive Plan of 2030 as Residential Medium High (RMH). No additional residential uses are being proposed with this application. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the County's role in providing traditional and communications infrastructure and access to commerce centers. Generally, the project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 7-103: Compatibility Directly to the north of the site, on BLM property on the other side of the access road, there are three electrical transmission lines with structures of significant height, as well as an operating oil and gas facility. The applicant has represented that the nearest residences are 1,300 feet and 1,800 feet southwest of the proposed tower location. Directly adjacent Land Uses include rural residential uses to the west and BLM land to the north, east and south. The applicant originally proposed lighting for the accessory structure and did not propose lighting the tower, pending the FAA's determination. As part of the FAA's No Hazard to Air Navigation, they are requiring that the tower be lit and marked to meet the guidelines required by the FAA (Exhibit 20). This light will more than likely be visible to structures on nearby properties. However, the facility will be located in an area where transmission towers are already located and it is required to be lighted as it is in a location close to the airport. No public comments have been received on the application and there were no comments from the Grass Mesa HOA. Any other lighting on the structure shall be required to comply with Garfield County lighting standards. 8 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller — Staff Planner Adjacent Transmission Structures 7-104 & 105: Source of Water & Waste Water Systems The Application represents that the facilities will be operated with only occasional (monthly) staff inspections and monitoring by technicians. Water and waste water facilities are not needed for the proposed use. Provision of water in individual staff vehicles and portable toilets should be required during the short construction period. 7-106: Public Utilities 9 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller—Staff Planner To address this standard, the applicant has represented: "Electricity is the only public utility needed for the proposed tower facility. The tower companies will continue to coordinate with Holy Cross Energy to connect the proposed facility to the existing overhead service line located to the south of the tower site, as well as establish any necessary easements for the extended line, whether overhead or underground, once the alignment has been determined. The tower construction company's contracted electrician will obtain a State electrical permit prior to extension of electrical lines or any electrical work for the facility." Electric power is available adjacent to the site and will be extended to the facility. Service is proposed to be provided by Holy Cross Energy. A suggested condition of approval has been included that the applicant supply a will serve letter from Holy Cross Energy. 7-107: Access & Roadways Compliance with Table 7-107 Roadway Standards Access to the site from County Road 319 goes through various iterations of private roads. The applicant has supplied a Roadway Waiver request that discusses the adequacy of the roads that will serve the use. The waiver provides Statements of Adequacy, analyzes the road for existing infrastructure and looks at existing traffic on the road. The consulting engineer identified no obvious safety or structural issues on roads that were analyzed besides a location where a pinch point was described. The engineer's letter states: At the entrance location from Grass Mesa Road, the Private Drive has a pinch -point where it is narrowed down to approximately 13' as it appears to cross over a culvert carrying the ditch on the west side of Grass Mesa Road. Due to the location of this pinch -point, adequate visibility and traffic overflow is provided just west and east of the culvert crossing via expanded road shoulders and the road entrance. The description of adequate visibility and traffic overflow appears to address the one safety issue identified. No comments were generated on this issue from the County designated engineer's review. Additionally, review by Colorado River Fire Rescue indicated that the access road to the property is adequate for emergency vehicles (Exhibit 15). The application also identifies a new access road that will be built to the proposed tower. Staff has included a suggested condition of approval that the applicant construct this road to meet the design standards in Table 7-107: Roadway Standards, for a Primitive/Driveway road. Legal Access The legal access to the site is broken into three separate road sections from the County Road. Initially off of County Road 319 when the applicant accesses Grass Mesa Road, the applicant has not demonstrated legal access across this parcel. The applicant has indicated that they are currently working with Grass Mesa HOA, who has an access easement for this section, to obtain access across this parcel. To address this issue staff has included a suggested condition of approval that the applicant obtain legal access for this section. 10 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller — Staff Planner Beyond the initial private parcel, the road crosses BLM property. The applicant provided a letter that documents legal access via an easement across BLM property from the private parcel, to the applicant's parcel. It is staff's opinion that this representation demonstrates legal access. The final section of road where the applicant needs to demonstrate legal access is just off the northeast corner of the applicant's property. Here the driveway crosses onto BLM land. The applicant has not presented documentation to staff that the applicant has the ability to cross BLM property in this location. The previously provided easement does not provide access in this location. A suggested condition of approval has been included that the applicant demonstrate legal access across the BLM property. 7-108: Natural Hazards The applicant represented that there were no natural hazards on the property. County hazard mapping shows that there are some slope hazards on the site. Staff's site visit showed that while portions of the lot are extremely steep, the area where the applicant is proposing to construct the telecommunication facility is relatively flat, without any slopes approaching 20 percent. The site is located at the top of a mesa and does not have any slopes above, which could potentially threaten the site. The County designated engineer's review included a comment that the applicant supplied a geotechnical report, however it only identified the gradation of the soils and couldn't be used for foundation design. The Applicant responded to this statement by stating that additional engineering plans would be provided to the County once completed. Staff has included a suggested Condition of Approval that the applicant supply engineered plans that are acceptable to the County designated engineer prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 7-109: Fire Protection This application was reviewed by Colorado River Fire Rescue (Exhibit 15), they noted that access to the site is adequate for emergency access, however, they also identified that addressing could be a concern for the use and emergency response. Specifically, the referral comment stated: This facility shall have an access address for emergency response that is identifiable in our Dispatch Centers CAD System. Due to the rural area where this tower is proposed to be located and the existing property address, a new address for this facility will be a challenge due to all the other property address being on CR 319. County Road 319 is about 1 mile from this proposed site traveling on Grass Mesa Road and then on the private road to the site. My concern is that we will not be able to find the 319 address in this location without outside intervention. I would request that the property owners, Tower Company, and emergency services can come to agreement to ensure adequate emergency response to this location. The fire department's review also identified that the applicant will need to provide information for a Knox Box System on the security gate so that the fire department has access to the site. Both of these issues have been included as suggested conditions of approval. 7-201: Agricultural Lands 11 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller — Staff Planner With minimal areas of new disturbance and fencing of the facility, impacts on agricultural or ranching lands are not anticipated. 7-202: Wildlife Habitat Areas The applicant provided a Biological Assessment as part of the application. This included the following statement: During the biological assessment of the proposed tower location, HRL biologists observed no sensitive, threatened, endangered, or special status species, nor was there any evidence found of these species within the survey area. Also, there was no proposed or final designated critical habitat or suitable habitat for the sensitive, threatened, endangered or special status species listed for the area. Additionally, no evidence of active or inactive nests, including raptor nests, was observed within the project area. Based on the findings of the biological assessment, the project will have a no effect on the listed species or their critical habitats. The proposed tower location is not located in an officially designated wilderness area or wildlife preserve. The proposed tower location is located within several CPW designated species' habitat ranges. Based on the small footprint of project impact and the fact that the long-term presence of the proposed tower will have a negligible increase in human activity, HRL doesn't anticipate a significant impact to wildlife activities in the area. However, temporary displacement and disruption is expected during the periods of active construction. The application was referred to the Division of Wildlife who did not respond with any comments. As such, staff believes that effects on wildlife from the proposed use will be minimal. 7-203: Protection of Water Bodies In the Biological Assessment, the applicant represented: The project area is not located on a floodplain, and will not involve significant change in surface features (e.g. wetland fill, deforestation, or water diversion). Furthermore, there are no potential jurisdictional U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) waters within or in close proximity to the proposed project area. Staff did not identify any waterbodies on the site. It is staffs opinion that the application meets waterbody setback requirements. 7-204: Drainage and Erosion (Stormwater) The applicant submitted a Drainage and Erosion plan that was reviewed by the County Engineer. That review generated the following comments: The Applicant should revise the proposed grading plan to address off-site water. Drainage should be identified to direct water around the pad with positive drainage and avoiding areas of shallow ponding. (...] 12 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller—Staff Planner The Applicant proposes a culvert at the access of the driveway crossing of the roadside ditch. The Applicant should provide the size and type of culvert proposed. The applicant responded to referral comments by providing an updated Grading and Drainage plan as well as a description of the culvert that is proposed to be installed on the property (Exhibit 16). The County designated engineer reviewed and responded that the applicant's response and updates addressed his concerns (Exhibit 17). Because of this additional review, it is staff's opinion that the applicant has adequately addressed drainage and erosion, provided they use the upgraded plan for grading and drainage and install a culvert as indicated. 7-205 Environmental Quality No air quality or water quality concerns have been noted with the proposal. Dust suppression needs to be required during construction and re -vegetation completed as soon as weather permits. Compliance with all FCC and FAA Regulations shall be required. 7-206: Wildfire Hazards The site is located in an area mapped with generally low wildfire hazard and the proposal has been reviewed by the local fire district. Existing vegetation near the proposed tower is mainly grasses with limited trees. It is staff's opinion that the application adequately addresses potential wildfire hazards. 7-207 Natural and Geologic Hazards See Section 7-108 for a discussion of Natural and Geologic Hazards on the site. 7-208: Reclamation The Application includes plans for re -vegetation of the site following completion of construction. These plans were reviewed and accepted by Garfield County Vegetation Management (Exhibit 13). 7-301 & 302: Compatible Design, Parking, and Loading The proposed tower will be constructed in an area where there are three transmission lines in close proximity. This helps demonstrate compatibility with adjacent land uses. The tower may be visible from public rights-of-way below the mesa, however the transmission structures would also be visible. Lighting of the tower has been required by the FAA as a condition of their permit. Compatibility is discussed further in staff's analysis of Section 7-103 of this staff report. Adequate areas of the site are provided for the limited onsite parking that will be required. The parking area will be screened by the significant distance to a neighboring residential structure or Public Road right-of-way. 7-303: Landscaping Existing vegetation surrounding the facility will be maintained. No additional landscaping is proposed. 13 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller—Staff Planner 7-304: Lighting The applicant has proposed lighting for the accessory structure that will be required to be compliant with County regulations. The FAA approval has indicated that the tower will need to be lighted to meet their conditions of approval. Any additional lighting, beyond what is federally required shall need to meet County lighting regulations. 7-305 Snow Storage Adequate space is indicated on the site plan for snow removal. The site is located interior to the parcel, so snow storage should not impact adjacent lots. 7-306 Trails Trails standards are generally not applicable based on the rural nature of the site and surrounding uses. 7-1102 Telecommunication Facility The Application represents that the facility will comply with the following standards. A. New Towers and Facilities: Staff has included this as a suggested condition of approval that the applicant shall provide engineering designs for the proposed tower including foundation details. The applicant has indicated that the proposed facility will not cause interference with other antennae's. The applicant has represented that no other nearby tower allows the applicant to provide service. The application has been reviewed and approved by the FAA and is still being reviewed by the FCC. B. Structural and Engineering Standards: Engineered plans for the tower have shall be required as a condition of approval. C. Public Utility Structures: The proposed tower is not planned to be located on a public utility or related structure. D. Design Material and Colors: The proposed tower will submit engineered plans addressing gravity and wind loads. No camouflaging is proposed, however, the location of the tower and existing vegetation do provide some visual mitigation for the fenced area at the base of the tower. A suggested condition of approval has been included that the accessory structure utilizes non -reflective materials. E. Lighting and Signage: Lighting has been required by the FAA. The applicant has proposed one other light on the structure that will be required to meet County Lighting Standards. F. Non -Interference: The Applicant represents that the facility will be operated in compliance with all FCC non-interference requirements. The tower has been reviewed and approved by the FAA and is still being reviewed by the FCC. Confirmation of approval of the FCC permit shall be required as a suggested Condition of Approval. 14 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller—Staff Planner G. Federal Aviation Form: The applicant has included in the application an application for FAA review of the site. Approval from the FAA shall be required prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. H. Telecommunication Act: The Application has been reviewed and approved by the FAA. It is still being reviewed by the FCC. V. STAFF CONCERNS Lighting and Obstruction Marking As part of the original submittal, the applicant represented that there was no proposal to light the tower pending a determination from the FAA. Since that time the FAA has supplied a No Hazard Determination that is conditional upon the top of the tower being lit with obstruction lighting to warn pilots of the presence of the tower. The tower will also need to be marked to comply with FAA marking guidelines. The applicant has indicated that they would work with the FAA to request that the tower not be required to be lit, provided that the overall height of the tower was decreased. Exhibit 22, an email from the FAA in response to the applicant's request demonstrates that the FAA is not changing its requirement to light the tower regardless of lowering the height below the neighboring, unlit, transmission towers. The applicant has proposed one other outdoor light for the use that will be required to be compliant with Garfield County Lighting Standards. VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Land Use Change Permit application by David and Roslyn Hatch, for a Telecommunication Facility is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 5. That with the adoptions of conditions and granting of a waiver from Section 7-107, Roadway Standards, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. VII. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners approve the application for a Land Use Change Permit, with the following suggested conditions of approval. 15 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller — Staff Planner General Conditions 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application shall be conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the conditions of approval as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the facility shall be operated in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility including but not limited to all FCC and FAA regulations. 3. The Applicant shall maintain compliance with all FAA and FCC permitting requirements including but not limited to safety requirements, non-interference provisions, and conditions of approval. Prior to Issuance of the Land Use Change Permit 4. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide structural and foundation engineered plans prepared by a qualified professional engineer. The tower shall be designed to carry appropriate gravity and wind loads. The engineering plans shall be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development Department and the Garfield County Engineer. 5. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall supply an approved permit for the facility from the FCC. The approved permit shall be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development Department and the Garfield County Engineer. 6. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall supply a will serve letter for electricity to the site. The will serve letter shall be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development Department. 7. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the applicant shall work with Colorado River Fire Rescue and the Community Development Department to ensure that the location is addressed to the satisfaction of both entities and to allow for adequate emergency response. Demonstration that this condition has been met shall be supplied from Colorado River Fire Rescue. 8. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the applicant shall supply a bond or other security acceptable to the County Attorney's Office to ensure that the structure shall be removed within 90 days following the expiration of the lease agreement. Compliance with this condition shall be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development department and the County Attorney's Office. 9. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the applicant shall demonstrate legal access to the site from the County Road to the use. Demonstration of legal access shall be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development Department and the County Attorney's Office. 10. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the applicant shall record at the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder, an Avigation and Hazard Easement that is acceptable to the Garfield 16 BOCC Public Hearing December 4, 2017 - LIPA-08-17-8569 Patrick Waller — Staff Planner County Airport Director. A demonstration of compliance with this condition shall be reviewed and accepted by the Community Development Department. Other Conditions 11. No construction shall commence without all federal, state, and local permits being issued and final, including but not limited to Garfield County Building Permits, State of Colorado Electrical Permits, FAA and FCC Permits as required. 12. Potable water and sanitation shall be addressed during construction by provision of portable facilities in compliance with OSHA requirements. 13. The area of disturbance shall be re -vegetated during the next growing season after completion of construction. Dust suppression during construction activities shall be provided. 14. The facility shall be operated in compliance with all lightning protection requirements. Any light not required by the FAA shall comply with Garfield County Lighting Standards as detailed in Section 7-304 of the Land Use and Development Code. 15. The applicant shall install a Knox Box security lock and work with the Colorado River Fire District to make sure it is operational. 16. The applicant shall use the updated grading and drainage plan (Exhibit 18) for construction and operation of the tower. The applicant shall also install a culvert for grading and drainage as represented in (Exhibit 16). 17. The accessory structure shall utilize non -reflective construction materials. 18. The newly constructed access road to the use shall comply with Roadway Standards in Section 7-107 of the Land Use and Development Code. 19. The height of the tower shall be limited to 160 feet. 17 4i:, Garfield County .0 EXHIBIT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. LJ My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. Mailed notice was completed on the 18k=' day of Oc �k .s < , 20 11 All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. ✓ All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] ■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. My application required Published notice. ./ Notice was published on the ZL:—day of , 20.0 ■ Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. 0 My application required Posting of Notice. Notice was posted on the 17" day of o{ , 2011 Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. I testify that the above information is true and accurate. \—c Name: Signature: Date: 4 **\ 4 4� �� 1f HRL COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS. INC. Environmental Consultants Date: To: Subject: PUBLIC NOTICE October 16, 2017 Adjacent Property Owners and Mineral Lease Owners 2385 F A Road Grand Junction, CO 81505 Phone: 970-243-3271 Fax: 970-243-3280 David and Roslyn Hatch Land Use Change Permit to Garfield County for a Telecommunication Facility at 1885 C.R 319, Rifle CO 81650 in Section 23, Township 6 South, Range 93 West, 6th P.M., in Garfield County, CO Dear Sir/Madam: David and Roslyn Hatch has applied to the Garfield County Community Development Department requesting a Land Use Change Permit for a telecommunication facility on their property. The subject property, having the assigned Garfield County Assessor's parcel number of 217723300253, is located within the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, as follows: NW%SW% Section 23, Township 6 South, Range 93 West of the 6th Principal Meridian EXCEPTING a tract of land described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said NWY4SW1A, Thence Northerly along the West line of said NWY4SWY4 466.7 feet, Thence Easterly and parallel with the South line of said NW%SW% 466.7 feet, Thence Southerly and parallel with the West line of said NW%SW% 466.7 feet to the South line of said NW%SW%, Thence Westerly along the South line of said NW%SW% 466.7 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. FURTHER EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed via Quit Claim Deed August 8, 2001 in Book 1275 at Page 859 as Reception No. 585895 and Quit Claim Deed recorded January 14, 2004 in Book 1554 at Page 486 as Reception No. 644561. Also known by street address as: 1885 County Road 319, Rifle CO 81650 The attached Site Plan depicts the location of the subject property and the location of the proposed facility. This item is scheduled for public hearing before the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners on Monday, December 4, 2017 at 1:00 P.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 81601. Guidelines for submittal of comments are included in the attached Garfield County Public Notice. This notice to adjacent property owners within 200 feet and to mineral lease owners is provided at least 30 days in advance of the meeting in accordance with Garfield County Land Use and Development Code requirements. Sincerely, Aknna Smith HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. I Project Manager Attachments: Garfield County Public Notice Site Plan PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that David and Roslyn Hatch have applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request a Land Use Change Permit to allow a Telecommunication Facility (File No. LIPA-08-17-8569) to be located on the subject property located in Section 23, Township 6S, Range 93W County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: Practical Description: Description of Request: See attached. The property is located approximately half a mile south of the city of Rifle and is accessed from County Road 319 and privately maintained roads. County records list the physical address of the property as 1885 County Road 319, Rifle, CO 81650. The Garfield County Assessor's parcel number for the property is 217723300253. The Applicant is requesting a Land Use Change Permit for a Telecommunication Facility. The proposed development includes a 160 -foot tall self-supporting telecommunication tower with supporting infrastructure and an accessory structure. The total disturbance footprint of the project is approximately 2,000 square feet. The property is zoned Rural. All persons affected by the proposed project are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you cannot appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request. The application may be reviewed at the office of Garfield County Community Development located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or through Garfield County Community Development's website. Contact the Garfield County Community Development Department at (970) 945-8212 or pwaller@garfield-county.com with any questions. A Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing on the application has been scheduled for Monday December 4, 2017 at 1:00 P.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, 108 8th St, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 81601. Planning Department Garfield County LEGAL DESCRIPTION Township 6 South, Range 93 West of the 6th Principal Meridian Section 23: NWY4SWY4 EXCEPTING a tract of land described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said NW%SWY4, Thence Northerly along the West line of said NWY4SWY4 466.7 feet, Thence Easterly and parallel with the South line of said NWXSWX 466.7 feet, Thence Southerly and parallel with the West line of said NWXSWX 466.7 feet to the South line of said NWY4SWY4, Thence Westerly along the South line of said NWXSWX 466.7 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. FURTHER EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed via Quit Claim Deed August 8, 2001 in Book 1275 at Page 859 as Reception No. 585895 and Quit Claim Deed recorded January 14, 2004 in Book 1554 at Page 486 as Reception No. 644561. Ad #: 0000133619-01 Customer: EAGLE VALLEY ENTERPRI Your account number is: 2927005 PROOF OF PUBLICATION RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD I, Randy Essex, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of ;aid weekly newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 10/26/2017 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 10/26/2017 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 10/27/2017. ,g c:?4,4-54,- Randy Essex, Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this day 10/27/2017. Ars- � k `' Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1ERI LYNN MEDI 4 ME OP *MARCO NOTARY M 201$4079399' wYct;tsla+AITIRMAUST a, PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that David and Roslyn Hatch have applied to the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request a Land Use Change Permit to allow a Telecommuni- cation Facility (File No. LIPA-08-17-8569) to be lo- cated on the subject property located in Section 23, Township 6S, Range 93W County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: Township 6 South, Range 93 West of the 6th Princi- pal Meridian Section 23: NW1/4SW1A EXCEPTING a tract of land described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said NW1/4SW1%, Thence Northerly along the West line of said NW1/4SW1/4 466.7 feet, Thence Easterly and parallel with the South line of said NW1/4SWY4 466.7 feet, Thence Southerly and parallel with the West line of said NW1/4SW1/4 466.7 feet to the South line of said NW1/4SW%, Thence Westerly along the South line of said NW1/4SW% 466.7 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. FURTHER EXCEPTING therefrom that portion con- veyed via Quit Claim Deed August 8, 2001 in Book 1275 at Page 859 as Reception No. 585895 and Quit Claim Deed recorded January 14, 2004 In Book 1554 at Page 486 as Reception No. 644561. Practical Description: The property is located approximately half a mile south of the city of Rifle and is accessed from County Road 319 and private- ly maintained roads. County records list the physical address of the property as 1885 County Road 319, Rifle, CO 81650. The Garfield County Assessor's parcel number for the property is 217723300253. Description of Request: The Applicant is request- ing a Land Use Change Permit for a Telecommuni- cation Facility. The proposed development includes a 160 -foot tall self-supporting telecommunication tower with supporting infrastructure and an accesso- ry structure. The total disturbance footprint of the project is approximately 2,000 square feet. The property is zoned Rural. All persons affected by the proposed project are in- vited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you cannot appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request. The applica- tion may be reviewed at the office of Garfield Coun- ty Community Development located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or through Garfield County Community Development's website. Contact the Garfield County Community Development Department at (970) 945-8212 or pwaller@garfield-county.com with any questions. A Board of County Commissioners Public Hear- ing on the application has been scheduled for Monday December 4, 2017 at 1:00 P.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, 108 8th St, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 81601. Planning Department Garfield County Published in the Citizen Telegram October 26, 2017 0000133619 U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only 7017 0660 0000 —0 rn ru D _0 N D N N 0 ED 0" ED n.1 D D D N D N For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com°. WA411. •Rft, ..;••••50 Certified Mail Fee $ $3.35 to) - Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee aff: &Ord (e) 0 Return Receipt (harticopy) $ $ 0 UO 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ $0.00 p Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ 0t SO. 00 $ Adult Signature Required$0.00 D Adutt Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $ $1.19 Total Postage and Fees $ $7.29 0501 25 P\atrnark c,Here 10/18/2017 Sent -Street an6ti:1C10., °FPO Sox Nb. 'City State, ZIP+4 PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.cone. DE Certified Mail Fee $3.35 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee 4 Zpisate) Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ $0.00 O Retum Receipt (electronic) SU 1.111 ID Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ D Adult Signature Required 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $1.19 Total Postage and Fees $7.29 C\SIX 6A 00 -Street and Apt. No., or Pb Box No. Sent 0501 25 ark $0.00- , Here i c : , , (• , ''-, „.., tr :', ' - /,/,'-'—'1.3'' $ '. 1 8)201 7 0, -Ng City, State, ZIP+46 PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for instructions U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com". Certified Mail Fee $ .35 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee 0 Retum Receipt (hardcopy) o Retum Receipt (electronic) $ 0 Certified Mall Restricted MYST), $ • D Adult Signature Required Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $1.19 noi 7 Total Postage and Fees s(cca o-€ Jr IN\c,-(\ S To 81ree and pt. No., or156-tiox No. • •I• • • „r; ,---,7rs0125 o ark City, State, ZIP+45 PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02.000-9047 See Reverse tor Instructions Lfl nJ —0 ru D D N U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com®. RI F(4 &cif 1- L, Certified Mail Fee $3.35 $ Extra Services & Fees (check box, add feeattlypilit e):" D Return Receipt (hardcopy) U. 111 f 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ $0-.00; • 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ " - 0 Adult Signature Required $ " 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $ $1.19 \-• Total Postage and Fees $ $7.29 Sent Tojati 0501 25 4 e 10718/2017 Street and Apt. o., or PO Box No. City, State, Z1P+4® PS Form 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions Posted notice in front of tower site along private gravel drive. Posted notice at intersection of Grass Mesa Rd and private gravel drive. DEAD END ROAD NO ACCESS TO QUICKSILVER WAY! DEAD END ROAD NO ACCESS TO OUICKSILVER WAY! MOUNTIAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. November 01, 2017 Mr. Patrick Waller Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design EXHIBIT a ID RE: Review of the Hatch Telecommunication Tower: LIPA-08-17-8569 Dear Patrick: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Hatch Telecommunication Tower Application. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments: 1. The Applicant should revise the proposed grading plan to address off-site water. Drainage should be identified to direct water around the pad with positive drainage and avoiding areas of shallow ponding. 2. The materials provided showed applications to the FAA and the FCC. The applicant should provide approved permits from these entities. 3. The Applicant proposes a culvert at the access for the driveway crossing of the roadside ditch. The Applicant should provide the size and type of culvert proposed. 4. The geotechnical report is generally relied on by structural engineers to determine soil bearing capacity for foundation design. The geotechnical report provided only identifies the gradation of the soils but would not be as helpful to determine structural strength. The Applicant should identify what is intended for structural and foundation design. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountaj h Cross Engi>jieering, Inc. Chris Hale, PE 826 1/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com EXHIBIT SL VGrass Mesa Homeowners Association An Elk Peaks Alan ,ed Assoc ration October 23, 2017 Mr. Patrick Waller Senior Planner Community Development Department I08 8th Street, Ste. 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 8160I Re: Hatch Telecommunication Tower Land Use Change Permit Dear Mr. Waller: w.ElkPeaksAssocratrons.com The Grass Mesa Homeowners Association has reviewed the above referenced application and has no objection to this proposal. Association Managr Grass Mesa@ElkPeaks.com 46 East Ridge, Ste. 100, Battlement Mesa, CO 81635 970.285.7482 Patrick Waller From: Dan Goin Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 3:23 PM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Hatch Telecommunication Tower Patrick EXHIBIT z The access to these towers is off the Grass Mesa Roads which are not county roads but are actable where they leave county road 315 so we see no issues with this application. Dan Goin District 3 Foreman Garfield County Road and Bridge 0298 CR 333A, Rifle CO 81650 970-625-8601 1 October 25, 2017 EXHIBIT a j'5s I Garfield County Vegetation Management Patrick Waller Garfield County Community Development Department RE: LIPA-08-17-8569 Hatch Telecommunication Towers Dear Patrick, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit. The Noxious Weed Report and Biological Assessment are acceptable. Sincerely, Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 195 W. 14th Street, Bldg. D, Suite 310 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Mobile Phone: 970-379-4456 RIZRIFLE AIRPORT November 6, 2017 Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Planner RE: Grass Mesa Tower Site David and Roslyn Hatch Mr. Waller: EXHIBIT I Izt Upon review of this application, 1 find the correct application to the Federal Aviation Administration with an Aeronautical Study Number (ASN): 2017-ANM-2654-OE was submitted. However I did not locate the associated FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation in the application or on the FAA search archives. I respectfully request that the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation findings be forwarded to myself for my review of any recommended procedures and or obstruction lighting requirements if any. 1 also noticed that the overlay map of the approach surfaces was the 2010 and prior layout with the approach surface shown farther north than it is presently. Since the runway realignment in 2010 the approach surfaces on the west end of the airport move south significantly closer to this proposed site than indicated on the map referenced in this proposal. 1 reasonably expect the FAA would use the new alignment but will double check to make sure the previous approach path was not used in the determination as an oversight. There are no other requests at this time from the airport. Let me know if you need any further clarification or assistance. r— n Brian Condie, CM Airport Director rifleairport.com 0375 County Rd. 352 970 625 1091 Bu ding 2060, R,f e, CO 81650 Colorado River Fire Rescue EXHIBIT I -.4.3 Patrick Waller Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Reference: LIPA-08-17-8569, Hatch Telecommunications Tower November 6, 2017 Patrick: I have reviewed the referral request and conducted a site visit of the proposed Hatch Telecommunications Tower located at 1885 CR 319, file number LIPA-08-17-8569, and have the following comments for this proposed tower; 1. The access road to this site is adequate for emergency access from Grass Mesa Road and up the private road to the proposed site. The county road map shows the access road as listed as Quick Silver Way. I have found that Quick Silver Way actually has no access to this site due to locked gate which is located 1/2 mile South/West of the proposed facility. The county road map needs to be changed to reflect that this private road is not Quick Silver Way. This facility shall have an access address for emergency response that is identifiable in our Dispatch Centers CAD System. Due to the rural area where this tower is proposed to be located and the existing property address, a new address for this facility will be a challenge due to all the other property address being on CR 319. County Road 319 is about 1 mile from this proposed site traveling on Grass Mesa Road and then on the private road to the site. My concern is that we will not be able to find the 319 address in this location without outside intervention. I would request that the property owners, Tower Company, and emergency services can come to agreement to ensure adequate emergency response to this location. 2. The tower company listed in the referral that they are willing to provide a Knox Box system security lock to provide access to the site and building for emergency response. We will provide information to the tower company to facilitate the Knox Box Security System. I have no further requirements or concerns with this proposed Telecommunications Facility on this property. This addition to the property will add only minor any impacts to CRFR or our response to that area. Thank you for allowing me to review this referral and please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank You, Orrin D. Moon, Acting Division Chief/ Fire Marshal EXHIBIT Patrick Waller From: Anna Smith <asmith@hrlcomp.com> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 10:10 AM To: Patrick Waller Cc: Mike; chris@mountaincross-eng.com Subject: Mountain Cross Engineering's Referral Comments Attachments: MRS Grass Mesa Drainage and Grading Map 11-3-17 Portriat.pdf Good morning Patrick, In response to the referral comments received from the County's engineer, Chris Hale, I'm providing the following answers: 1. Attached is the updated Drainage and Grading Diagram depicting a swale around the perimeter of the proposed improvements. Between the proposed raised elevation above existing ground level and the swale, off-site water flow will be captured and redirected around the site. 2. Upon receipt of authorizations from FCC and FAA, copies will be submitted to the County. 3. One 12" galvanized steel culvert, approximately 20 feet in length, will be installed beneath the access drive crossing over the existing roadside ditch. 4. Engineering plans for the tower have not yet been completed for the tower location but will be designed and engineered with appropriate foundation and structural strength. Engineered plans will be submitted to the County once completed. At this time, it is anticipated that a "pad & pier" or a "drilled pier" design will be provided but that is pending the tower engineer's recommendation. Additionally, to address the width of the proposed access drive discussed onsite on 11/1, the Diagram has also been amended to now depict a 12 -ft wide access drive. If you could insert this updated version in the submitted BOCC binders, I would greatly appreciate it. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Anna Anna Smith I Permitting Program Manager HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. 2385 F 1/2 Road Grand Junction, CO 81505 main 970.243.3271 Ex.417 I mobile 970.623.1242 Web vCard Map 1 E 1 Confidentiality Note: This email and any attachments are confidential and only for the use as authorized by I in Compliance Solutions, Inc. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information. Permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments or copies. 1 Patrick Waller From: Chris Hale <chris@mountaincross-eng.com> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 11:27 AM To: Patrick Waller Subject: RE: Mountain Cross Engineering's Referral Comments Patrick: Their comments are sufficient as responses. They had incorporated them into the revised plan. So as long as the build to the revised plan, I would not think they need conditions. Call or email if you have other questions. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 From: Patrick Waller [mailto:pwaller@garfield-county.com] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 10:55 AM To: Chris Hale <chris@mountaincross-eng.com> Subject: RE: Mountain Cross Engineering's Referral Comments Hi Chris, Following-up on the Applicant's additional submittals I was wondering if their upgraded Grading and Drainage Plan was enough to address comment 1. from your referral letter. Also is there response to the culvert question (#3) enough to address your comments. I am trying to figure out whether they should be included as Conditions of Approval, or whether their answers are sufficient to address your concerns. Thanks for your help, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ i From: Chris Hale [mailto:chris@mountaincross-eng.com] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 2:40 PM To: Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> Subject: RE: Mountain Cross Engineering's Referral Comments Patrick: I have reviewed the additional information and no further comments were generated. Call or email with any questions or comments. Thanks. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, P.E. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Ph: 970.945.5544 Fx: 970.945.5558 From: Anna Smith [mailto:asmith@hrlcomp.com] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 10:10 AM To: Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> Cc: Mike <mike@mmps.net>; chris@mountaincross-eng.com Subject: Mountain Cross Engineering's Referral Comments Good morning Patrick, In response to the referral comments received from the County's engineer, Chris Hale, I'm providing the following answers: 1. Attached is the updated Drainage and Grading Diagram depicting a swale around the perimeter of the proposed improvements. Between the proposed raised elevation above existing ground level and the swale, off-site water flow will be captured and redirected around the site. 2. Upon receipt of authorizations from FCC and FAA, copies will be submitted to the County. 3. One 12" galvanized steel culvert, approximately 20 feet in length, will be installed beneath the access drive crossing over the existing roadside ditch. 4. Engineering plans for the tower have not yet been completed for the tower location but will be designed and engineered with appropriate foundation and structural strength. Engineered plans will be submitted to the County once completed. At this time, it is anticipated that a "pad & pier" or a "drilled pier" design will be provided but that is pending the tower engineer's recommendation. Additionally, to address the width of the proposed access drive discussed onsite on 11/1, the Diagram has also been amended to now depict a 12 -ft wide access drive. If you could insert this updated version in the submitted BOCC binders, I would greatly appreciate it. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Anna Anna Smith 1 Permitting Program Manager HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. 2385 F 1/2 Road I Grand Junction, CO 81505 main 970.243.3271 Ex.417 I mobile 970.623.1242 2 99 d Private Gravel Drive ropose° a2 Lurverc 12' 40' x 36' Fenced Tower Facility Double Gate Entrance Step 8' x 20' Building Walk Doo Double Door 8' Existing Elevation: 6,175.95' 40'x36' Fenced Tower Facility Proposed Elevation: 6,176.45 i Grass Mesa Tower Drainage and Grading Diagram USGS Quads: S6f and Res NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Sao6un 23 Township 6 Swd6, Range 93 West NOTES/COMMENTS: Proposed elevation is 6,176.45 ft reducing down to the natural elevation of 6,175.95 ft around the perimeter of the facility. 8908/0: 0 Oats: 11/312011 EXHIBIT Wolk Gat 8 6 175 95' ti 0 2 4 6 8 10 Feet Miles 0 0 5 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 11/16/2017 Cheri Gardner Mountain Radio Systems 489 1/2 28 1/2 Road Grand Junction, CO 81501 ** TERMINATION ** The aeronautical study concerning the following project has been terminated: Structure: Building Grass Mesa Tower Accessory Building Location: Rifle, CO Latitude: 39-30-42.17N NAD 83 Longitude: 107-44-59.68W Heights: 6176 feet site elevation (SE) 20 feet above ground level (AGL) 6196 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study is terminated because: Study not required as this is shadowed by the communications tower. Aeronautical Study No. 2017-ANM-2557-OE If you need to reactivate the study, it will be necessary for you to re -file notice using the electronic filing system available on our website oeaaa.faa.gov. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (425) 227-2625, or paul.holmquist@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2017- ANM-2557-OE. Signature Control No: 337119734-349316237 Paul Holmquist Specialist Page 1 of 1 ( TER ) Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 11/16/2017 Cheri Gardner Mountain Radio Systems 489 1/2 28 1/2 Road Grand Junction, CO 81501 Aeronautical Study No. 2017-ANM-2654-OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Antenna Tower Grass Mesa Tower Location: Rifle, CO Latitude: 39-30-42.02N NAD 83 Longitude: 107-44-59.28W Heights: 6176 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 6336 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, paint/red lights - Chapters 3(Marked),4,5(Red),& 12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. This determination expires on 05/16/2019 unless: Page 1 of 8 (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before December 16, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on December 26, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co -Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the structure is subject to their licensing authority. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Paul Holmquist, at (425) 227-2625, or paul.holmquist@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2017-ANM-2654-OE. Signature Control No: 337928827-349315010 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Frequency Data Map(s) cc: FCC Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2017-ANM-2654-OE Aeronautical Study Number 2017-ANM-2654-OE Abbreviations AGL - above ground level AMSL - above mean sea level RWY - runway VFR - visual flight rules IFR - instrument flight rules NM - nautical mile ASN- Aeronautical Study Number Part 77 - Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace 1. LOCATION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Proposed is a 160 -foot AGL (6336 -foot AMSL) antenna tower to be located approximately 5,968 feet (0.98 NM) southwest of the RWY 08 threshold at Rifle Garfield County Airport (RIL), Rifle, CO. The RIL airport elevation is 5537 feet AMSL. 2. OBSTRUCTION STANDARDS EXCEEDED The structure is identified as an obstruction under the following Part 77 standard: Section 77.19(a): The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under 77.17, 77.19, or 77.23 -Horizontal Surface, a height exceeding a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation. This antenna tower would exceed the RIL Horizontal Surface by 650 feet where the terrain also exceeds this surface by 490 feet. 3. EFFECT ON AERONAUTICAL OPERATIONS a. The impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under VFR: The structure would exceed the RIL Part 77 Horizontal Surface by 650 feet where the terrain at this location also exceeds the Horizontal Surface by 490 feet. There are no effects on the VFR Traffic Pattern. The published RIL VFR Traffic Pattern Airspace keeps aircraft to north of the runway and away from this location. There are no effects on any existing or proposed arrival, departure, or en route IFR/VFR minimum flight altitudes. There are no physical or electromagnetic effects on the operation of air navigation and communications facilities. There are no effects on any airspace and routes used by the military. The RIL Airport Master Record can be viewed/downloaded http://www.gcrl.com/5010web/airport.cfm? Site=RIL . It states there are 33 single-engine, 8 multi -engine, 5 jet and 2 helicopter, 0 military, 0 ultra -light and 2 glider aircraft based there with 14,382 operations for the 12 months ending 31 December 2015 (latest information). b. The impact on arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under IFR: None. c. The impact on all planned public -use airports and aeronautical facilities: None Page 4 of 8 d. The cumulative impact resulting from the proposed construction or alteration of a structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures: None 4. CIRCULATION AND COMMENTS RECEIVED The proposal was circulated for public comment based on 6 October 2017 and public comment period closed on 11 November 2017. No comments were received by 11 November 2017. 5. DETERMINATION - NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION It is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the conditions set forth in this determination are met. 6. BASIS FOR DECISION Study for possible VFR effect disclosed that the proposed structure would not affect existing or proposed en route, arrival or departure VFR operations or procedures. In this case, the proposed structure would exceed the RIL Part 77 Horizontal Surface by 650 feet where the terrain also exceeds by 490 feet, however the proposed structure would be located in an area of high terrain that is a well know obstacle for local pilots. No other VFR issues were identified and there are no IFR effects. Circularization and further aeronautical study resulted in no issues or objections to this proposed construction. The incorporation of obstruction marking and lighting is required to mitigate the protected surface penetrations and provide additional conspicuity for VFR and IFR pilots flying in this vicinity. 7. CONDITIONS The structure shall be marked and lighted as outlined in chapters 4, 5 (Red), and 12, of Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1L. The advisory circular is available online at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/ Advisory_Circular/AC_70_7460-1L_.pdf Within five days after the structure reaches its greatest height, proponent is required to file a FAA form 7460-2, Actual Construction notification, at the OE/AAA website (http://oeaaa.faa.gov). This Actual Construction notification will be the source document detailing the site location, site elevation, structure height, and date structure was built for the FAA to map the structure on aeronautical charts and update the national obstruction database. Page 5 of 8 Frequency Data for ASN 2017-ANM-2654-OE LOW HIGH FREQUENCY FREQUENCY FREQUENCY UNIT ERP ERP UNIT 98.7 98.7 MHz 250 W 100.3 100.3 kHz 60 W 102.1 102.1 MHz 62 W 103.3 103.3 MHz 92 W Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2017-ANM-2654-OE • . .„;k.• , • - ; • tto° • _ Y '...... -(... A , k — : ,. I. " 51" . . • , n , WV," /..c ..... - if , .4. - .... AL. ;• , :-C-J • - 27 A — - -- 27 7 , .,.. . , . ---"tr----- , i „........., ..., Page 7 of 8 • t •••' V-• - , , / / - • Sectional Map for ASN 2017-ANM-2654-OE resort 'See NOTAMs/SupplE 000 fo? Ciass,E (sfc) eff s GARFIELD CO .RGNL (RIL) ASO -S. 135.275 5537 *L 70' 122.8 Q, RP 26 VOR -DME 122' RIFLE %110.6 Ch 43 .RIL / [ENVEFij nches S 800 Page 8 of 8 Patrick Waller From: Brian Condie Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 5:07 PM To: Patrick Waller Cc: Janet Samson Subject: RE: Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Device Thanks for the email As we talked about on the phone, a brief summary to the questions asked below is as follows: EXHIBIT 2( 01. The airport requests an escrow account or other form of surety "bond" to remove and mitigate the land to the original state after a lease term has expired for property within the airport perimeter fence. For property outside of the airport it is recommended but not required by the airport. Q2. This is an important requirement to preserve the flight path from potential light obstruction hazards. As this tower is southwest of the aircraft flight path it is highly unlikely that the galvanized surface area of the tower will produce sufficient glare to cause an obstruction to pilots. If per chance pilots start reporting light glare issues we will look into the conditioned that caused this to include, the seasonality, duration, time of day and another factors to properly address the issue. At this point, however, I do not feel the dulling process would produce a significant amount of glare reduction to justify the additional cost of constructing this tower. As such the airport does not require or request this dulling process as a condition of approval. The airport will leave that determination and potential risk of future mitigation and associated expense of light hazards to the owners who are constructing this tower. Q3. I am researching this further and believe it is a notice only to property owners that the airspace above property within the 5 -mile airport influence area is controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration and the landowner is restricted in their use of the property by statute. Q4. Not sure the intent of this requirement, I will need to research it further. An avigation easement is something we purchase form the adjacent landowner and is recorded with the property. This legal document is usually used for property directly under the flight path of the aircraft on approach to the runway. I will investigate this requirement with the intent of creating a notice or other form that the airport may use to satisfy this requirement for property owners outside of the aircraft flight path. My intended date for this document is Dec 15, 2017. Hope this helps. Please call me if you have any questions. Brian Condie C.M. Airport Director Rifle Garfield County Airport office 970-625-1091 ex 4118 cell 970-379-5156 Original Message From: Patrick Waller Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:52 AM To: Brian Condie Cc: Janet Samson Subject: RE: Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Device 1 Importance: High Hi Brian, Following-up on my questions below. I have received the Determination of No Hazard from the FAA. It is attached to this email. I know you said you wanted to double check that the correct mapping was used. Also, if you could respond to my questions below, that would be great. Thanks so much for all your help throughout this process, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ Original Message From: Patrick Waller Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:24 AM To: Brian Condie <bcondie@garfield-county.com> Cc: Janet Samson <jsamson@garfield-county.com> Subject: RE: Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Device Importance: High Hi Brian, Following-up on your comments, I have a couple of questions that need to be addressed from the Land Use and Development Code: 1. Our code requires a bond or other form of security for a guarantee of removal once the tower is no longer in operation. Our staff was thinking that this might be required by the FAA, just wondering if you know if the FAA requires this? 2. Our code requires that the structure not be built of reflective materials if it is located within an Airport Approach Surface or on nearby lands where glare could impede a pilot's vision? The applicant has stated that the structure will be made of galvanized material, and that they may use chemicals to wipe it down to expedite the dulling process. I was wondering if you could comment on whether or not glare from this tower could impede a pilot's vision and if the chemical wipe down is appropriate? 3. Any intrusion into the Imaginary Surface Area or increase in height above the underlying zoning requires a written agreement from the Airport Sponsor and the FAA. I was wondering if the written agreement is a standard form or letter that you have with the FAA? 4. The code requires that an avigation and hazard easement be recorded in the Clerk and Recorder's office in form acceptable to the Airport Manager. Is this something that you would require from this tower? 2 Thanks very much for all your help on this, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ Original Message From: Brian Condie Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 6:14 PM To: Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> Subject: FW: Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Device Letter in reference to Grass mesa tower Let me know if you have any question. I did not find the FAA notice of NO Hazard, only the application. Hopefully it was just an oversight on my part and it is in the proposal somewhere. Brian Condie C.M. Airport Director Rifle Garfield County Airport office 970-625-1091 ex 4118 cell 970-379-5156 Original Message From: copier@garfield-county.com [mailto:copier@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 6:10 PM To: Brian Condie Subject: Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Device Please open the attached document. It was scanned and sent to you using a Xerox Multifunction Device. Attachment File Type: pdf, Multi -Page Multifunction Device Location: Device Name: airportxerox For more information on Xerox products and solutions, please visit http://www.xerox.com 3 Patrick Waller From: Anna Smith <asmith@hrlcomp.com> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 11:49 AM To: Mike; Vala Berry Cc: Cheryl Gardner Subject: FW: 2017-ANM-2654-OE (DNH) Mike, Vala, Please see FAA's followup response below. Anna Anna Smith I Permitting Program Manager HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. 2385 F 1/2 Road I Grand Junction, CO 81505 main 970.243.3271 Ex.417 1 mobile 970.623.1242 Web 1 vCard Map 1 Et 1 EL X EXHIBIT Confidentiality Note: This email and any attachments are confidential and only for the use as authorized by HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information. Permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments or copies. From: Paul.Holmquist@faa.gov [mailto:Paul.Holmquist@faa.gov] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 11:45 AM To: Anna Smith <asmith@hrlcomp.com> Subject: RE: 2017-ANM-2654-OE (DNH) Anna, after reviewing this area and the proposal, I am going to stand by my decision to require marking and lighting on this structure. It will not matter if the tower is voluntarily lowered. The existing transmission line structures in this area were never studied by the FAA and are exempt from requirements. As proposed, your tower is the highest structure in that area. Even if it is lowered below the highest transmission line tower, it would still exceed obstruction standards and would require marking and lighting. I spoke with the airport manager and he said there are no other structures lit in that area. He concurs with the requirement for marking and lighting. Thanks, Paul Paul Holmquist Specialist FAA Obstruction Evaluation Group AJV-15 Western Service Area (WSA) Service Center Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave SW Renton, WA 98057-3356 Office: (425) 227-2625 https://oeaaa.faa.gov 1 From: Anna Smith [mailto:asmith@hrlcomp.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 3:55 PM To: Holmquist, Paul (FAA) <Paul.Holmquist@faa.gov> Subject: RE: 2017-ANM-2654-OE (DNH) Thanks Paul! I sent the meeting invite. Anna Smith I Permitting Program Manager HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. 2385 F 1/2 Road 1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 main 970.243.3271 Ex.417 1 mobile 970.623.1242 Web 1 vCard 1 Map 0 i 0 Confidentiality Note: This email and any attachments are confidential and only for the use as authorized by HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information. Permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments or copies. From: Paul.Holmquist@faa.gov [mailto:Paul.Holmquist@faa.gov] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 4:50 PM To: Anna Smith <asmith@hrlcomp.com> Subject: RE: 2017-ANM-2654-OE (DNH) 8 will be okay, I'm Pacific time so 7 should work. Thanks, Paul Office: (425) 227-2625 https://oeaaa.faa.qov From: Anna Smith [mailto:asmith@hrlcomp.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 3:47 PM To: Holmquist, Paul (FAA) <Paul.Holmquist@faa.gov> Subject: RE: 2017-ANM-2654-OE (DNH) Hi Paul, Mike is in a bad cell reception area right now and asked if 8am MT tomorrow would work for you? Anna Anna Smith I Permitting Program Manager HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. 2385 F 1/2 Road 1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 main 970.243.3271 Ex.417 1 mobile 970.623.1242 Web 1 vCard 1 Map 0 0 Confidentiality Note: This email and any attachments are confidential and only for the use as authorized by HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information. Permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments or copies. From: Paul.Holmquist@faa.gov [mailto:Paul.Holmquist@faa.gov] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 4:44 PM 2 To: Anna Smith <asmith@hrlcomp.com> Subject: RE: 2017-ANM-2654-OE (DNH) Is it too late today? If so, we can try for tomorrow Thanks, Paul Office: (425) 227-2625 https://oeaaa. faa. qov From: Anna Smith [mailto:asmith@hrlcomp.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:01 AM To: Holmquist, Paul (FAA) <Paul.Holmquist@faa.gov> Cc: Mike <mike@mmps.net> Subject: 2017-ANM-2654-OE (DNH) Hi Paul, In regards to the attached determination letter for the above referenced project, I wanted to see if you would have any available time today for a quick conference call with Mountain Radio Systems representative Mike Kelley and myself to discuss the lighting requirement on this tower. If we could take a little bit of your time to chat and explore alternatives we'd greatly appreciate it. If you could get back with me on your availability, I will gladly set up a meeting invite with our conference call information. Thanks for all of your help and time on this! Anna Anna Smith 1 Permitting Program Manager HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. 2385 F 1/2 Road I Grand Junction, CO 81505 main 970.243.3271 Ex.417 1 mobile 970.623.1242 Web 1 vCard 1 Map i ❑ i ❑ Confidentiality Note: This email and any attachments are confidential and only for the use as authorized by HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information. Permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments or copies. 3 November 30, 2017 Anna Smith Permitting Program Manager HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. 2385 F 1/2 Road Grand Junction, CO 81505 3799 HIGHWAY 82 • P.O. BOX 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 (970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945-4081 RE: Hatch Property Dear Ms. Smith The above mentioned development is within the certified service area of Holy Cross Energy. Holy Cross Energy has adequate power supply to provide electric power to the development, subject to tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations, and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be undertaken by Holy Cross Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to necessary governmental approvals. Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this project. aja,, (.6jt(Er. Phyllis Wittet Engineering Department 970-945-5491 A Touchstone Energy Cooperative Patrick Waller .iz From: Orrin Moon <Orrin.Moon@Crfr.us> `2 `I . Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 2:13 PM To: Patrick Waller Cc: David Hatch; Anna Smith; Matt Provost Subject: RE: Garfield County Community Development - Referral Request EXHIBIT Patrick: I want to follow up with you on the Hatch Telecommunications Tower address issue. We have decided to flag each address on the private road in the Communications Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD), which will give us directions to each property from CR 319. This will allow us to receive the directions on our Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) or via mobile radio from the dispatch center, which will aid us to find the address. Dave Hatch as also agreed to post a sign on the private road entrance off of Grass Mesa Road that will show all the addresses on that road. Matt Provost with the Garfield County Building Department is in the process of assigning an address for the Radio Tower that will be sequential with the other addresses on that road. I believe this will solve the unique emergency response issues with this area until a better solution is found. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. I will be on my cellular phone the rest of the day, 970- 379-2932. THANK YOU, ORRIN D. MOON PREVENTION DIVISION CHIEF/FIRE MARSHA COLORADO RIVER FIRE RESCUE 970-625-1243 orrin.moon@crfr.us 1 From: Patrick Waller [mailto:pwaller@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 3:23 PM To: Kelly Cave; Morgan Hill; Wyatt Keesbery; Brian Condie; Steve Anthony; scott.hoyer@state.co.us; Taylor Elm - DNR; msenor@blm.gov; nlindquist@rifleco.org; Chris Hale; Orrin Moon; klammey@elkpeaks.com; tillmon.mcschooler@xcelenergy.com; fred.eggleston@xcelenergy.com; kelly.mcbartlett@xcelenergy.com Subject: Garfield County Community Development - Referral Request Good Afternoon, Garfield County Community Development is requesting referral comments for an application submitted by David and Roslyn Hatch for a Land Use Change Permit to allow for a Telecommunication Facility use. The proposed development includes a 160 foot tall self-supporting telecommunication tower with supporting infrastructure and an accessory structure. The total disturbance footprint of the project is approximately 2,000 square feet. The property is located south of the Rifle airport and is zoned rural. The link to the application is available here and the referral request form is attached to this email Garfield County Community Development is requesting any responses to referral comments by Monday, November 6, 2017. Thanks for your help and please contact me with any questions, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ 2 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: 1111 Synder Oil Corporation 16258roadway, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202 111111111111111111 111 1111 111 IIIA 9590 9402 2753 6351 6791 14 COMPLETE THIS SECTION 0 A. Sign X l `t i L ❑Addressee B. R eived by7nted Name) C. Date of Del Pt/ la /) 1 rt ^ /(22171-7 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: D No 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7017 0660 0000 2690 2369 PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: 3. Service Type 0 Priority Mas Express® 0 Adult Signature 0 Registered Ma11TM O Adult Signet= Restrioted Delivery 0 Registered Mall Restricted O Certified Mal® Delivery O Certified Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Return Receipt for 0 Collect on Delivery Merchandise 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signature Confirmation" O Insured Mal 0 Signature Confirmation O Insured Mas Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery (over $ 22 Domestic Return Receipt COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY D Agent 0 Addressee C. Date of Delivery r b -z3 -r7 D. Is delivery address different from Item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: D No Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Valley Field Office 2300 River Frontage Rd Silt, CO 81652 111111 111 111111 11111111 11111 11111 9590 9402 2753 6351 6791 07 2 Article Number (Transfer from service Iabeq 7017 0660 0000 2689 8297 PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to You is Attach this card to the back of theinailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 4 1. Article Addressed to: 3. Service Type O Adult Signature 0 Arlt Signature Restricted Delivery 0 Certified Mall® O Certified Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery n In. wed Mali fired Mall Restricted Delivery it $500) ❑ Priority Mall Express® O Registered Malin" O Registered Mall Restricted 0 Delivery Recelpt for Merchandise 0 Signature Confirmation'," 0 Signature Continuation Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt C&B Jewell Revocable Family Living Trust 124 E Leota St. Wasilla, AK 99654 111111 1111 111111111111 ilii 11111 1 11111 9590 9402 2753 6351 6790 84 2. Article Number (ransfer from service labeq Agent Addressee B Received by (PnnCed N6/ne) C. Date of Delivery c�/4 g s R fZVOE /d/V/i7. D. Is delivery address differentfrom )tem 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: tilcNo 7017 0660 0000 2689 8303 PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530.02-000-9053 3. Service Type 0 Adult Signature 0 Adult Signature Resbicted Delivery O Certified Mall® 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery q Collect on DelNery 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery O Insured Mal 3 Insured Mal Restricted Delivery (over $500) O Priority Mel Express® O Registered Malin" O Registered Mall Restricted 0 Rethndi ept for 0 Signature Conflmetlon"" 0 Signature Conftrmatlon Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt ; Q Agent 0 Addressee C. Date of Delivery , z ct W V z r = z 8 ono... r....(7) Ma-C�<SnNz0 0 0 r f. 0 HRL COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, INC 2385 F Y2 ROAD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 rt.J m Ili 7017 0660 0000 2690 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. t Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retum the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: 11 Jay Woody 1887 County Rd 319 Rifle, CO 81650 111 1111 111111 111 1111 111111111111111 9590 9402 2753 6351 6790 91 2. Article Number (Transfer from service fate° 70L? 0660 0000 2690 2352 A. Signature X S. Received by (Printed Name) D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES. enter delivery address below. 0 No 3. Service Type 0 Adult Signature 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 0 Certified Merle 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery 0 Collect on Del very 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery • 0 Insured Mail 0 Insured Mall Restricted Delivery (over$500) l: PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 0 Priority Mail Express® 0 Registered MelITM O RDealetered Mall Restricted o Retum Receipt for Merchandise 0 Signature ConfirmationTM ❑ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt ,