Chinook Ridge land

Chinook Ridge Castle Drawings

/in , /by
This concept has been abandoned.  This is a good preliminary rendition of what the Chinook Ridge Castle will look like.  It will banquet seat 500 in the main floor hall and have a commercial kitchen.  The rooftop is flat and will function as a very large rooftop patio.  The turrets are real and a great place for photographs with a mountain view backdrop.  We are many, many days away from knowing when we will obtain our development permit, water license and start construction but believe me we are as anxious as any bride to set the date:)
Stay tuned here as we’ll post updates the minute we have more information.

SUCCESSFUL – Land Use Redesignation Hearing – Bylaw C-7188-2012

/in , /by

On November 6, 2012, RVC Council passed Bylaw in a 7/2 vote redesignating the land to Business, Leisure & Recreation (B, L & R) for the purpose of building an 18-hole golf course, a 21 room hotel with a banquet hall for 500, 15 RV Stalls, and 15 campsites (with spa, spike room, etc).  Here are Council’s comments:

And the Bylaw Passed!

 

Audio of the 2012 Land Re-designation Hearing

/in /by

This is only for those that missed the 2012 Hearing and have questions about how Rocky View County Council made the Decision to create Bylaw C-7188-2012, what opposition was heard and what aspects were considered.  It is in 4 parts due to size limitations on uploads.

Original NOTICES from Rocky View Weekly

/in /by

I am in the process of having the original 2012 Land Re-designation Hearing audio tapes copied to clear uploadable files and will post them here when available. The opening remarks by RVC Planner Rick Michelinko clearly indicate that the application was to construct an 18-hole golf course, a 21 room hotel with a banquet hall to seat up to 500, 15 campsites, and 15 RV stalls. (spas and spike bar in the lower level were also included but not specified).

This application was SUCCESSFUL and passed by RVC Council on a 7 to 2 vote in favor of the Bylaw changing the land use to Business, Leisure & Recreation use.

 

Then the subsequent Development Permit for the identical purpose as the redesignation.  Unfortunately, RVC staff was less clear in the wording.

Unfortunately, I let this Development Permit lapse for personal reasons related to my spousal relationship but soon followed by the dire need of one of my foster kids who got into a whole mess of trouble.

When I resumed the idea of developing I changed the proposal and increased the number of RV Stalls to 81 and the design and location of the building.  I wanted a ‘different’ style of building as the Mountain View Heritage Center is a refurbished barn so I chose a Castle design to be unique.  The new location offered more privacy visually; the trees and lower elevation would help buffer both sight and sound and was in response to neighbor concerns about the potential for impaired drivers.  This way there would be no reason to leave impaired.

The Beginning – Water

/in /by

Chemical Analysis on well water is NOT conclusive proof that wells are not connected
BUT if the analysis on the wells is all the same
THEN it is likely they are connected and drawing from the same aquifer.
It is a starting point to see if the next step should be taken.

The above results show that it is very unlikely the wells are connected and I should proceed to the next step.

 

 

Requesting Neighbors Water Sample

/in /by

To determine the likelihood of connected aquifers I offered to sample, arrange, and pay for chemical tests on neighbor’s well water.  This map indicates the locations the offer was made to and whether they responded or not.  Most were quite accommodating, some were not but . . .
I tried.

2012 Letters to neighbors

/in /by

Here is a copy of the letter we sent to all neighbors within a 3 km radius asking for their input on our proposed development.  Rocky View County received 105 letters in response (24 local) and about 90 from farther away in Rocky View or Mountain View Counties, while a handful were from out of province.  Some of these were from interested parties who wanted to use the facilities.  All were very aware that a facility offering accommodations, banquet/dining, and recreation in one place was not available unless you traveled a great distance.

The Early Vision – January 2012

/in /by

This is a feature article in the Hitching Post News (Water Valley and area paper) published August 2012 that discusses our vision and plans so area residents would have an opportunity for feedback.  This was done between our first FAILED redesignation application (in 2010) and our second APPROVED application (in 2012).  Redesignation of land in Rocky View County is not easy.  It requires many costly engineering studies and community support all of which are available on other tabs on this website.  The vision has remained the same but the operational plan has changed in response to community input.

2011 FAILED – Land Re-designation Hearing

/in /by

I am posting these as some individuals alleged I was “not getting their permission” or “not asking them“.  I can only respond that there were many attempts to deliver letters, post-cards, and have them attend information Open Houses.  It is difficult to engage people especially when they don’t want to participate. Samples with dates are under the tab SDAB – PDF pages 13 through 17.

This ad was placed by Rocky View County in the November 8th, 2011 issue of the Rocky View Weekly – it is still online in their archives.

This attempt FAILED!  It was a learning opportunity.  The Councillors opposed the redesignation in a 5 to 4 vote but they encouraged me to come back and try again.  I did –  in 2012.

Here are the Councillors comments from the 2011 Hearing:

Rick Butler, Division 1:  Difficult one. No

Kim Magnuson, Division 2, “I just don’t get the ‘confined aquifer’ and Roads are an issue. No”

Councillor Margaret Bahcheli, Division 3: “I find this one extremely difficult because the application was so exceedingly well done, well researched, and I have every faith that there is all the right energy behind this project.  I like the whole concept of the golf course. YES”

Rolly Ashdown, Division 4 – Reeve: “It is a different golf course; it is a rural golf course and I have never seen one plus I do trust the Alberta Government’s Water licensing issues that they are going to put the applicant through so I will be supporting the motion to approve. YES”

Earl Solberg, Division 5. “I will support the motion.  Frankly, there is a campground at Bottrel already and so I think that, and I heard that the local people are able to use this golf course.  From what I saw of the diagram of how the fairways and all will be laid out it will be bringing it back to the wildlife habitat that it once was.  Looking at the picture from the 50s it seems to me to b better environmentally than a hayfield.  So, and I think the employment factor is important for this area . . .d up to 60 jobs is relevant.  Actually, from my own experience, we actually have a golf course in my area that came in similar to this.  It had opposition from the neighbors and so on and now the people are quite accepting of it and quite happy to have there and do go to the golf course and clubhouse for lunch on occasion.  So, I think once one of these gets put in place it becomes an amenity to the locals as much as it is from the outside.  I am sure there are solutions to the 574 using maybe the gravel-lock process.  It is something to be investigated. YES”

Greg Boehlke, Division 6, “An upgrade of RR of 35, 2 miles of upgraded road.  Water, wastewater, and stormwater.  There ARE upgrades to the community.  I welcome that kind of request from staff. YES”

Lois Habberfield, Division 7, – Water, Roads. No.

Al Sacuta, Division 8.  Issues with Water, Roads, No.

Paul McLean, Division 9, Deputy Reeve and councilor for the subject area “We have heard a 5/4 split both issues are in provincial jurisdiction.  Transportation and Water. I think there are opportunities to move forward and I encourage a reapplication.  No”

N0:                                                                                                 YES
Butler                                                                                            Bahcheli
Magnuson                                                                                    Ashdown
Habberfield                                                                                  Solberg
Sacuta                                                                                           Boehlke
McLean
5/4 against

Technical Studies – BIA, TIA, EIA and Soils

/in , /by

The Biophysical Impact Assessment, Traffic Impact Assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment, and the Soils Assessment were all completed by Stantec (as was the original Ground Water evaluation) in November of 2011.  These are on the main website under the ‘Technical Reports’ tab.

Since then the Ground Water evaluation and the Traffic Impact Assessment were updated in late 2020. The new Water evaluation is under the ‘2020 Water Rpt’ tab.