HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0 BOCC Staff Report 08.10.2009BOCC Exhibits
(Mojor lmpoct
(B/10t200e1
Review- High Meso RV Pork- High Meso Portners LLC)
Exhibil
Letler
(A to Z)
Exhibit
A Proof of Moil Receipts
B Proof of Publicotion
c Gorfield County Unified Lond Use Regulotions of 2008, os omendeO tUfUn, tfre
Zoning Code)
D Gorfield County Comprehensive plon of 2OOO, os omended
E Town of Porochute Moster plon (2002)
F Applicotion
G Sioff Report
H Stoff Powerpoint
I
Letter, Applicont request for Woiver for right for public heoring witnin +O Ooyr
Bob Grohom, dote 5.14.09
J Letter, Gorfield County Rood & Bridge Deportment- Administrotive foremon
Joke Moll, doted 7.9.09
K Letter, Gorfield County Vegetotion Monogement Deportment- Oirector, Stere
Anthonv, doted7.2?.Og
t Letter, Gorfield County Plonning
Niewoenher PE , doted Z.2B.Og
Deportment- Project Engineer John
M Emoil, Gorfield county Public Heolth Deportment- Environmentol Heolth
Monoger, Jim Rodo, doted A.2.Og
N Emoil, Colorodo Division of Wildlife (DOW)- Gome Officer, Don Skinner for i.T.
Romotzke, Areo Wildlife Monoger, doted 8.3.09
o Emoil, colorodo Division of woter Resources- Stote Engineer, croig Ml_is, pR,
doted 7.29.O9
P
Letters, Grond Volley Fire Proteciion
Fire Chief- Operotions; re: Vorionce
7.29.O9
Disirict (GVFPD), Rob Ferguson, Deputy
to rood configurotion/ occess, doted
o Excerpt, Minutes, Plonning Commission meeting of 5.13.09
R ment ( Bookcliff Survey)
s Applicont supplied: Letter re t-806 (H) stondords (SGM)
T Applicont supplied: Revised preliminory wwTF Engineering report (sGt\4)
U Applicont supplied: Revised WWTF CryHE Applicotion (SGM)
V Applicont supplied: NOI
Siructure (CO Div.
to Construct Non-jurisdictionol Woter lmpoundment
of Woier Resources-Office of the Stote Enoineer)
w Applicont supplied: NOI to Construct Non-jurisdictionol Woter impoundment,
west ond Eost Ponds, Revised (co Div. Woter Resources- stote Enoineer)
x ent Droft (B. Grohorn)
Y
z
AA
BB
BOCC 8'10/09 DD
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
TYPE OF APPLICATION
APPLICANT
SITE INFORMATION
LOCATION
'AGCESS
Land Use Change for a for a 'Campground /
RV Park' through a Major lmpact Review
High Mesa Partners, LLC
36.637 acres PARCEL lD # 2407 -1 93-00-1 89
The subject property is located off a well pad
access road off CR 300, approximately 1 mile
south of Battlement Mesa
Rural; Adjacent: Public Lands (BLM)EXISTING
'
ADJACENT ZONING
I. DESCRIPTION
OF THE PROPOSAL
The application is for a MIR for a
recreationalvehicle (RV) Park. The site
is shown on the maP at right, and is %
miles from CR 300, south of Battlement
Mesa.
The campground would consist of 119
back-in parking spaces for RVs with full
hook-ups and utilities. (There are no tent
spaces proposed.)
Each parking site is proposed to have a
gravel-surfaced pad to accommodate
the RV and related vehicle(s), hookups,
and fire extinguisher. ADA-compliant
sidewalks link 10 HC-accessible sites
with the laundry facility; a soft surface
path links the other looPs with the
service building.
On-site services would include laundry /
shower facility, dump station, waste
receptacles, with a campground store
and storage facilities proposed in the
immediate future.
To support the facility, a wastewater
treatment Plant is ProPosed on an
adjacent parcel owned bY one of the
partners, and a water treatment plant for
potable water needs is proposed on an
adjacent parcel owned bY one of the
partners. Easements and contracts are
proposed to provide the RV Park with
these services. Fire flow is to be
provided from a pond that is to be located on the
adjacent proPertY.
Access to the site is via a road that is to be
constructed to the 'Secondary Access' standards'
An emergency access road will be built to the
north, to connect the site to CR 300 via the
Speakman property. The road will be restricted to
emergency use only and has been evaluated and
approved by the Grand Valley Fire Protection
District.
YA
-- -19-
MIR High Mesa RV Park- D.Dunbar- BOCC il10/09
,/.
f_
T,
i
ll. PROCESS and AUTHORITY
A Major lmpact Review is defined in2-106 of Ihe Land
^ rYrqJvr
(ULURlas.alanduseconsideredtohaveas-ignificantimpacf,.Theetan111ss,:TT:}::':Lru qe u rs"v
review is sought to consider the project's relationship to The Comprehensive Plan of ?000' A
recommendation from the planning-Commission is sought; the application shallthen be
presented to the Board of County Commissioners for decision.
The application was presented to the Planning Commission on 5/13/09, and was recommended
for approval with 14 conditions recommended by Staff. There were no stipulations that these
conditions be satisfied before the BOCC hearing'
1. All representations of the Applicant, either within the application or stated at the
hearing before the Planning Commission, shall be considered conditions of approval
unless explicitly altered by the Commission'
2. The operation of the facility be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State,
and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility.
2
and Wastewater
Facility offsite
i:d-t-d
hcRE:il-alr3RAP{s,S{t l\ rr
3.
4.
MtR High Mesa RV Patu- D'Dunbar- BOCC U10/09
volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the colorado
Revised statutes for residential standaid! "rr"*ed at a location of 350'from the park
Lirt a point ZS'neyonO tn" parcel boundary' whichever is lesser'
The High Mesa RV Park shall be operated so as to comply with all Federal' State and
County air quality laws, regulation, ,nJ .irndards for emissions' heat' glare' radiation'
fumes, smoke o, ot
"-i"rn-"nation
wr,icnsuustantially interfere with the existing use of
adjoining property oiwhich constitutes a public nuisance or hazard.
5.TheApplicantshallcomplywith-thefireprotectionprovisionsincludedinthecomments
of the Grand Valley Fire proteJor birtri"t 1CVreo1, develo.p a fire safety and
response prrn to in" satisfaction Li1n"-cVFPD and arrange for the Grand Valley Fire
protection District to perform "n "nnrlt
inspection of the iire protection pond at their
convenience.
6.Anysignsassociatedwiththeuseshallbedesignedsoastobecompatiblewith,and
enhance the existing character of adjacent uses, and comply with the Garfield County
Sign Code.
7. No storage of heavy equipment is proposed. or perm.itted 9n.lli' site, with the
exception of " ,r.tiine'oi ,"ni"r" tJr snowplowing' which shall be parked in the
storage area or inside a structure'
g. Any lighting of the site shall be pointed downward and inward to the property center
and shadeO to prlvent direct reilection on adjacent property.
9. All equipment, structures and ligh-t fixtures 9n the site shall be painted with a neutral
shade of tan or sage green non-ieflective paint to reduce glare and make the site more
inconspicuorr. siiu"irres designed to mimic barns, agricurturarstructuralorfalse-front
western storefronts may be eithei neutral colors ot f-ad"d barn red' but the surface
must be a non-reflective surface to reduce glare'
10. Prior to site disturbance or construction on this project, the following shall be in place:
A. All necessary Building D#;;;;nt permiis, including grading permits,
B. permits from GarCo noai a Aridge Department foialt over-sized/over-weight
vehicles to be used on site'
c. All necessary traffic contior pians required with GarCo Road & Bridge
DePartment,
D. All necessary financial
reclamation,
securities related to construction, re-vegetation and
and related Plans set forth bY the
E. All requirements for engineering design
Garfield County Project Engineer'
3
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
11. Prior to site disturbance or construction on this project' the following shall
be submitted to the Garfield county vegetation Management Department
Director:
A. ,Soil management plan' (either stand-alone or as a component of the
rectamatiJn plan) will be required of the Applicant to include:
i. provisions for salvaging tie to.psoil'
.ii. a timetable for the iico"rporation of topsoil and aggregate piles
into the landscaPe,
iii. , prrn that provides for soil cover if any disturbances or
,tJcrfite, will sit exposed for a period of 90 days or more.
B.Re-vegetationplanwillberequiredoftheApplicantandwillinclude:
i.anaccountingofthe,u.f,""disturbanceofcommonareas,road
cuts, utilitY easements,
ii.basedontheaforementionedaccounting,are-Vegetation
,""urity shall be determined and ptocessed according to standard
c"rco'r"-vegetation requirements detailed in comments
(attached)
iii'".uppr",entalirrigationplanfortreeandshrubplantings.
C.lnventoryofnoxiousweedsandcorrespondingmap.need.tobe
oeveropJJfor weeds that appear on the GarCo Noxious Weed List'
12. wildlife safety shall be addressed with the following conditions:
a. Fencing shall meet'wildlife friendly'fencing standards of the colorado
DOW, and be that in r""ping with thL rural character of the
n"igntoif,ood: non-climbable 2", 4" mesh horse fence with or without
barbed wire strands at the crest, no less than 60,, in height.
b.Thedesignandconstructionofthefirepondshallincludebothfencing
to p,we"nt access by wildlife and human beings, and safe egress
measures forwildlife and human beings that might inadvertently enter
the Pond.
c.Bear-proofwastereceptaclesshallbeusedon-site.
13 An operational plan that addresses the relationships and obligations of the
park including maintenance shall be developed and submitted to Garfield
bounty Plannlng prior to the issuance of the permit'
14. Amendments to this permit may be cons.idered with Major lmpact Review
Amendment;;;.;;;5ttn" tJniLi Land tJse Resotution of 2008 underwhich
it will be administered.
MtR High Mesa RV Part - D'Dunbar - BOCC A1A09
A waiver was tendered by the Applicant to allow the hearing date to be held beyond the
40-day requirements of the ULUR (Exhibit H)'
III. ZONING & ADJACENT USES
The subject property is zoned Ert?l(R). The.typg 9f use requested falls under the
definition ot,,campgrornonv park" cont"rnpt"ied for permission following a Major lmpact
Review (MlR) in the Rural (R) Zone District'
Adjacent uses are agricurturar,.rurar residentiar and to the south there is energy resource
extraction unOerwalin pr5li"'lands under Federal ownership (BLM)' They are zoned
'Public Lands.'
There seemed to be a misunderstanding bytheApplicant regarding the difference between
use and zoning. The zoning ot tne pZicel is llA with a use- at present- listed as
,agricultural'. The proposal tor tr.rg C;;g;rnOlRV p,rk is considered by review and' if
granted, may incrude conditions that [qiir"o mitigation of the effects on the neighborhood
character. This is not a rezoning. nrin"r, it is Jonsideration to grant permission for a
specialized use tn the iurat Zoie Oitttici. The LUC (Land Use Change) the Applicant
seeks does not ,"qrir" reioning torl6e parcel; it will remain Rural in designation'
IV. REFERRAL AGENCY GOMMENTS
staff referred this to a number of referral agencies for comment:
. Garfiero county ioao & Bridge Defiartmgnt, Jake MallAdministrative Foreman':
Email dated Z.g. ZOOS, attached (Exhibit J)
. Garfield county Vegetation Management Department, Steve Anthony' Director:
Letter dated l.2g.ZOOg, attached (Exhibit K)
' Garfield County Planning Department, John.Niewoehner, Garfield County Project
Engineer: Letter dated .'ZA'ZOOS, attached (Exhibit L)
.GarfieldCountyEnvironmentalHealthManager,JimRada:Letterdated8'2.09
attached (Exhibit M)
. Colorado Division of Witdlife (CDoW) Game o-fficer Dan Skinner for J.T. Romatzke,
AreaWildlifeManager:Letterdated8.3.09.(ExhibitN)
, colorado state Division of water Resources- state Engineer, craig M' Lis: Email
dated 7.29.09 (Exhibit O)
. Grand Valley Fire Protection District (GVFPD), Rob Ferguso.n, Deputy Fire chief-
Operationr,'Lutt"r, regardinl variance to road configuration and access only
(Exhibit P).
5
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D.Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
, Garfield county school District 16: No comments received.
Bureau of Land Management: No comments received.
Town of Parachute: No comments received.
V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR MAJOR IMPAGT REVIEWS
ARTICLE I : DIVISION I - GENERALPROVISIONS
zoNrNG DISTRICT RURAL ( R),Useg densities and standards esfab/is hed for this zone distict are intended to protect
the existing neighborhood character of the area from uncontrolled and unmitigated
residentiat, comlmercial and industriat use. (lt) also provides for the use of recreational
development....'
Response
rne-proposed use is to be reviewed under a Major Impact Review (MlR) as per Use
chart Table 3-501. Staff review is to provide conditions and recommendations for
mitigating the commercial use to protect the existing neighborhood character.
The unified Land lJse Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR) requires Pursuant to
Review uses shall conform to all requirements
listed there, as well as stan-dards specific to use, that being Section 7-806, 'Additional
Stand ard s Appt icabte to Campg rou nds/N ew Recreation al Vehicle (RV) P ark.'
ARTICLE I : DIVISION 2 - ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Guidance for reviewing this use as a Major lmpact Review is as follows:
2. tJse Automaicatty requiring Major lmpact Review - Occupant load exceeding
100 Persons Per lot (Parcel)
3. lJse of wastewaler flow is greater than or equal to 2000 gallons per day per
lot (parcel)
Use as 'Campground/ RV Park'is identified in the Use Table for the Rural Zone
District as requiring a'Major lmpact Review'
Additional standards specific to zoning and setbacks are set forth in:
section 3-306 .Campground/New Recreation vehicle Park'
A. General Requirements:
1. Minimum Sefbacks
a. Minimum Space Width: 20 feet in width'
b. Boundaies (Patu):
1. Front Yard: 25 feet from a local or mountain road
2. Side or Rear Property Line: 20 feet from any side or rear line
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
2. Minimum Park Area: 5 acres
3. Buffer: A minimum 1oo- foii landscaped buffer is required adiacent to
public tandsunless it can-i" i"roittrated that there will be no proiection
of noisi, idor, glare or dust beyond the pro-perty line.
4. Recreationatie"niae Use Resfricted. lJse of an RV for storage purposes'
as an rl""""o.y structure or as a dwelling space for -any other purpose
other than temporary d*"irgiiit fo' traigi, recreation or vacation use ls
prohibitedformoreihanlS0daysinacalendaryear.
Response
TheapplicationwassubmittedcorrectlyasaMajorlmpactReview'The
proposed park exceeds the park area size minimum at 36 acres' exceeds the
setback distances on ail sides, and more than meets the buffer distance by 200 feet'
This standard has been met'
ARTICLE Vll : STANDARDS
DIVISION 1 - GENiRAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE
PERMITS
,SectionT.l0lcompliancewithZoneDistrictUseRestrictions
ffitobeconsideredanditseffectsmitigatedthroughtheMajor
lmpact Review process' This standard has been met'
Section 7'1O2 GomPliance with
Gomprehensive Plan /lntergovernmental
Agreements.
Logend
f1 Ouung ArtiAai.L 2 A@s per o\@llhg ufr
Rsid.itid VsYiig DtnsitY
m Hgh O.rs,ry R.sidotitl 6'16 Unils pu
'\ C@fratcbl
a Nlghlfrhed Conm.Git!
m Arir.d Us. R. tidnti,l Comntrci'l
lj tigunasutat
Public Land,
Op., SPe.
Subdvision
Q aryno*,
Aitlod lndudi.l Prt*
Ql zuit, spa.not tnlu.N'
-E Srn Ul|$ Crcwth Bond.ry
--- frjfla Affi.xaifr Boundtry
.d Nu Cr.th 3 MiL E@nd.ry
--* Ert.rn ol G.ologic lt'ittdt Study An'
Pri!.bly o*nad tandt wlh sil'
bEitg 6a lifrttati@s tudl B
iood otdn, dqc htzud stPttc
cgninhts, ot tutfici.l g.obgY
(mud fiow. dabrit |',n) lg ba tvtl'
ut d at d.n ovbw
Parachute
The subject parcel is not contiguous with the Town of Parachute boundaries' nor is it
nearby (it is separ;i;JLy the [olorado River and is an additional half mile to the
staff finds that whire the deveropment is not compatibre with the Town's goals to foster
in-fill development, the project is not'piopot"o in'a l.ocation that makes it 'a good
opportunity'to annex inio t-he Town of Parachute' either'
TheTownmaySeeaneconomicbenefitaSusersoftheHigh
8
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
The proposed park falls within the Two Mile sphere of lnfluence for the Town of
parachute. No comment was ,e""ir"J in ,"'ponte to the agency referral request'
TheCounty,sComprehensivePlan.designationl"]]|gsubjectparcelis.outlying
Residentiar,. An rntergovernmentari;;;;;;t (tcA) is in ptace with the municipalities
which calls for a review of the ,rni.',iri."rnpi'in"nii'" plan' The To'wn of Parachute
Master plan (zoo2)serves as the "ofipt"n"nsive
planning document' ln that plan the
following citation "int"rprrtes
land uses near the Town's boundary:
.l.hc ovcra, pr.rrposc orthc plirn is to gr.ridc thc r.own tc mainrai, rrrc cioar 'f "c,c',ragi,g
appr.priatc gr.rvfh aucl prtlspcrity r*liil* l-uaintaitrfurg thc surall tolvtr churactcr olthc 'l'tllvt't
olpnruclrtrtc*,. sr.rclr a cjoirl clr. bc -ii,,i,r"a bl,,adhcring to arlr adoptccl N'lastcr Plar"r ancl b-v
pr*tccti'g u,-,.t pr,rrr.,rti,g thc historic ancl rcvci*d placcs-a,tl crtst*urs ku.rvtr I'. tlrc lcsidcuts'
Evarn*tio,s ortrrc lirnd ,sc. vac.rlt hnd. zo.i.g irnd trcds ir-r p'pr-rrati', ircrcuscs i.dicatc
r-rvc basic impr:fla.t aspccts ortirc.l'o*,n lvrriclr influcncctr trrc trcvckrpr-rcrlt olthc Plan' its
listctl hcrc:
l.Popullrtiotlilrcrcirscsbct.rvcctrlt)80arrd2007(litrr-r338ttll.-3(l0pctsons)\vCrCl.lf()rc
or lcss stcatly trt itbrlltt t\\'o pcrucllt pcr 1'car until 2006'
z. vcrl.rcc:cr.rt trc,cls irrvolving trrc cxploration and tlcvclopu:cut tlluattlratl gtts indictttc
tltirt tirc highcr p.,tcntial ,o," .rf gr.iurtl', dtrring thc ncxt clccaclc crltrkl bu as urttch ers
4'3 to (i.5 Pcrt:cut PCr Ycar'
3. Approximatcll,30 pcrcctlt) oltlrc currcutll',Zoucd land in'l'olvn is Vucatrt'
4. "l.hurc is cnouglr vacant and basicrlly improvccl lancl lvithin thc'l't:rvl't to accol-lurodatc
ar largcr p.pukti*,. L''.rmcrcial iands *rc availatrlc 1'r clcv*l*ptncl-lt to scrvc ir,
arlditional I 1.000 Pcrsclns'
5. .l.hc .l-orvn docs nOt rrccd to c.xpirild botrndirriss orcxtcnd r'rtilitics to utl"arirl or 1:}rtrviclc
{irr anr- 11g1v grolvtt-; t.r*'*t*r.',,r't A''"t**ittiotr Plan is in placc to titkc aclvatrtitgc ola
good opportunity ilit rvcrc to arisc'
southeast).
Mesa RV Park contribute
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D.Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
to the local service economy. Because the Town's plan does not address specifically to
this location, the County's designation of 'Outlying Residential'would have a greater
relevance. Staff defines the use as a campground is compatible with 'Outlying
residential'. The Master Plan also calls for preserving 'Old Town Parachute and the rural
lifestyle'.
There was email dialogue between the Applicant and the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan
District (packetnppendix G); the Applicant had requested sewer and water service from
Battlement Mesa, but was denied. The Applicant will have to provide for sanitary
facilities, fire flow and potable water for the development. As part of the PELS
application for the wastewater treatment plant, adjacent municipalities, the County and
Battlement Mesa PUD will have an opportunity to review the application.
The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended, has a greater
relevance to this proposal. ln Chapter 10: lJrban Area of lnfluence, it states in Goals.
o Ensure that devetopment and overatt land use policies occurring in the County
that witt affect a municipality are compatibte with the existing zoning and future
land use obiectives of the appropriate municipality,
. Allow for comments on community impacts including cases which fall outside
the community's sphere of influence,
Related Obiecfives.
10.1 County land use poticies will be consistent with local land use policies and
objectives.
10.2 Development that requires urban servrces will be encouraged to locate in
areas where these servtces are available.
10.5 Retain rural character outside of community limits.
Related Policies:
10.1 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning resolution revisions, Zone District
Amendments and individuat projects within defined Urban Areas of
lnfluence, wilt be consistent with local municipal land use policies-
10.2 Projects proposed adjacent of local municipalities that require urban
seryrces witl be encouraged to annex into the affected iuisdiction.
Staff finds that the proposal has adequately responded to the abovementioned Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as
I
MIR High Mesa RV Patu- D'Dunbar- BOCC U10/09
amended. The proposarwas referred for agency review to the municipality (Town of
parachute), Staff reviewed the propoiriin ';i'tion
to the goals and objectives of the
rown or paracrrutJruqs=te, iiari (2b6rt;"J toul{l[9 pro[osalt9.b" compatible with
that pran. 1re rown of paracnute- ya-sler FIan (200.2) staies that the subject parcel is
notcontiguo,,*iandinanareathatisidentifiedasnot.a
good opfortunity to the community' to annex'
This standard has been met'
. Section 7-{03 GomPatibilitY'
EffiityinthisDivisionreferstotheproj99t,s.na}r11e,scaleand
intensity in relatiorlto "J;1""n1
land use zoning and uses' Much of the acreage
adjacent to the propo""o use is vacant, under energy extraction/processing or has very
rimited residentiar occupation or agricuriurar use, at present. rt is comprised of well-
drained, non-irrigaieJ nittrio" tands *itn pi"V"n-' juniper woodland 1":::t type' The
proposed use is rlsidential in nature, aroeithore transient that true residential
development, but may be permitted irrrougn the consideration of a Major lmpact
Review. The density is greater than that oi nearby residentiar densities, but the size of
the parcel on which thJuse is proposed provides for adequate buffering'
Staff recommends that structures and facilities be painted with non-reflective paint in
neutral colors to ,"Jr"" the visual irpr"it of manmade structures on the landscape'
colors such as sage green ano oeseklrn "r" used by the energy industry for tanks
and buitdings navJLJen found to d;fi;;t,ve in the pinyon-juniper woodland setting'
properly mitigated to minimize adverse physical.impacts (such as glare' dust' light
invasion, smoke, *rrt" and fumes) ano human beiravioral impacts (such as noise)' this
10
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
proposed use could be compatible with the neighborhood'
The App'cant created a handouucontract that w*r be given to users of the facility that
details the rules oi nenavior for the site, including measures that seek to make the use
compatible witn tne neignnornood, ,nO'*itig"teJpotential adverse actions' This
standard has been met'
.SectionT-l04SufficientLegalandPhysicalsourceofWater.. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply'
Responsetothe'abovetwo'reqqifements:Atthetimeofwriting,@monstratedapotablewater
suppty that is b"ill;;i"no pny"'i"rrrv "i5qrrt" forihe proposed use as a 119-unit
campgrounO. fne'npifi"rnif,rJ atso not demonstrated an adequate water supply for
the fire suPPression Ponds'
The water is to be made available through a water agreement from.a well owned by
Bob Graham, one of the High Mesa partners, ,rgr"ni"d by a contract for West Divide
water. At the time of this writing, t*o oO,u"iion iells have been drilled and a 24-hr
test is underway to demonstrate suppry. Modificati?li" the two weil permits is required
as ,observation wells, are not proper for a commerciat use; the description of use must
match that of the apprication (1rg-uniinv park with shower and raundry facilities'.)
The proposed water supply system is adequately sized to meet the needs of the park'
but permissions for the'waier-is not in ptacl, ?t p-t=:nt' The design for the fire flow
ponds is also ,0"-q*L,-nritn" impounOment.permiision for the pond at the top of the
drainage (on tneGrah", prop"rtyinat holds then supplies the two lower ponds) has
not been
"o1npt"tIO
Jin" tir" oi tnis writing' (lt has been applied for')
Recommendations from the Garfield county ProjecJ Engineer, Environmental Health
Director and Grand Vailey rire proie"tion oirtrici ail mention water suppry design
deficiencies.
FirePond:GVFPDstatesthatthefirepond[u.tbekeptinworkingorder,andmaintain
a backup supply of water from the Cof|,,,Oo Department of Water Resources' Staff
recommendsanannualinspectionoffacilities,operationalandsafetyreviewbe
scheduled at tneionvenien"e of the GVFPD, as a condition of approval'
The Garfield County Project Engineer,s comments include discussion of the Fire Pond,
with numerous revisions in t,e preseniapplication' reiponding to^concerns expressed
in the pranning commission neaffi' His comments foilow witn staffs most current
analysis in bold-faced type for clarity'
Fire Pond: Att of the po,fts,2?ty:12'^'::::'^l':* .prior to approvat'
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar - BOCC A10/09
The narrative section of the application has been revised to state that the pond is
to contain 98,000 gallons 1+a,bbO gallons for fire flow and 50,000 gallons for
irrigationl with a single outlet. This standard has been met.
b. Fire Flow:
Calculations, stamped by a Professional Engineer, show that there will be
adequate flow and'pr"""rr" at the hydrants. This standard has been met'
c. Fillins the Fire Pond:
(i) lntake devices'1ii1
Surtace water impoundment permission
lntake devices are now shown on the plans. This standard has been met'
Application has been made for an impoundment permit for the purpose and right
to use surface water from the Graham property, but is not in place at the time of
this writing. This standard has not been met'
The contract for purchased water does not represent a perpetual supply. The
west Divide contiact (Appendix ) is based on an erroneous calculation of 50 gpd
(gallons per day) that dates back to the mistake in using the level for the GDPHE
instead of Garco,s requirement. This 'Temporary Substitute Supply Plan' (TSSP)
is approved annually by the state Engineer's office. This standard has not been
met.
d. water lmpoundment Regulations: The state Engineer's office needs to
a77rove all water imPoundments'
The letter from the state Engineer's office (Exhibit o) dated 7 '28'09 states that
their office cannot confirm any wells that might be required as part of their
permitting, and is not providing an opinion regarding the validity of the water
supply plan. This standard has not been met'
e. Easement for the fire pond is needed
An easement has been created for the fire pond. This standard has been met'
f. Non-potable Water: Provide information regarding how reside-nts and visitors
witt be prenertea from using the irrigation water taps that are fed from the fire
pond.
12
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D.Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
This standard has been met.
2. Potable Water Supplv:
Easement needed-for well pipeline and water
This standard has been met. There is an easement for the well, pipeline, and
water.
Water Rights are for an obseryation well; rights for o commercial well of
adequate capacity, supply and dependability need to be permitted.
This standard has not been met.
Overall, this standard has not been met. Staff recommends that the Garfield
County Project Engineer comments be made conditions of approval, specifically:
1 . A water impoundment permit from the State Engineer's Office for necessary
water impoundment facilities shall be in place prior to site disturbance,
2. Permits for 2 commercial wells for the requested use of a 119-unit campground /
RV Park with shower and laundry facilities shall be in place prior to site
disturbance,
3. A contract for purchased water from West Divide based on a resubmitted,
corrected water supply report prepared, signed and stamped with a professional
engineer's seal licensed in the State of Colorado shall be in place prior to site
disturbance.
. Section 7-106 Adequate Central Water Distribution, Wastewater Systems.
Response
At tfte tirne of this writing, the Applicant does not have a permit for the
development of both a central water distribution system and a wastewater treatment
plan that meets the requirements in7-106. At present, this standard has not been met.
The proposed centralwater system does satisfy 7-104 (BX1) in that it is a central
system iather than an individual well. (Central systems are required for this density.) A
recent water quality test verifies that the water from the two wells is of suitable quality,
satisfying the quality required in 7 -104(BX2).
At the time of this writing, however, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the well(s)
have adequate quantityLnd dependability. Those qualities are demonstrated through
the 24-hr pump test required in 7-104(2Xa). which is undenruay at the time of the writing
of the report.
13
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar- BOCC 8/10/09
At present, the water supply and treatment capacity do not meet the requirements of 7'
104(2Xb)., that being f CjO g'pO plus landscape irrigation requirements' TheApplicant's
systLm designer, Sc-nmeuJer-Gordon-Meyer, lnc. (SCtrl) proposgd a level to satisfy the
iOpHe reqiirements as per the requirements in7-B!6(H)11(5)(3) that direct the
Applicant to get a State pEt-S p"rrit to meet CDPHE standards. That CDPHE standard
cit]eo for 50 gpd rather than Garfield County Project Engineer's requirement of 100
gpd.
Further, the volume in the treatment facility must have a relationship with the required
potable water supply. The requirements ai per the water supply call for 90% of the
water right to be returned to the Colorado River basin. The water cannot be returned
untreatJd. The Applicant's treatment proposal did not match that 90% volume.
In response to comments from Staff, the Applicant is revising the prop_osal for the waste
water treatment facility (wwTF) to satisfy the 100 gpd requirement. staff finds that
because this facility may serve as a locaiion for long-term employee housing, that this
camping facility is more'apt to be occupied at a higher level of occupancy for m-ore days
in the y6ar tnai the classic campground. That logical nexus, the requirement of 7-
104(2i(b) for 100 gpd, and the iequired match between'water-in'and'90% water-out
into ihe Colorado
"Cir"r Basin' that led to the directive for the design change. The
Applicant states that a revised PELS application is underway at the time of the writing of
this report.
comments from the Garfield county Project Engineer and Environmental Health
Director, Jim Rada, both mention the water supply deficiencies:
Jim Rada's comments regarding potable water (Exhibit M ), state that his earlier
comments are still valid:
'The application indicates that the potable water system is under review by
CD1HE. 7-401.A(3), page l4 of the narrative, indicates that water quality
tests will be made prior to occupancy. Water quality tests are generally
requiredfor submittal with applications for the potable water system so that
th; W7CD can determine adequacy of the treatment system design' Tb date
(April 20, 2009 sent again 8.2.09) I have not received a water supply design
for review and signature regarding this system as is standard procedure for
public systems. I would recommend that CDPHE approvalfor the water
-system
be obtained before site disturbance is allowed.'
The Garfield county Project Engineer's comments regarding potable water.
lndividual RV Site Waterbonnection: The typical detail for water service
connecti n 7-806 of County code is provided'
14
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar- BOCC U10/09
WaterStation:onewaterStationforfillingwaterStoragetanksisshownonthe
station on the maf anO a design detailis provided' '
Water Pressure: CalculationJO"ronttraie that the water pressure at the RV
I',te" w',lt oe uetween 2o -80 Psi'
This standard has been met. staff finds that standard 7-806 potable water
deficiencies have been addressed'
At present, it is unclear whether the system meets the requirements set forth in 7-106;
the fottow'113til",]ilt:il:",,n[}
looped or dead-ends shail have a hvdrant or blow-off
valve installed,
2. stem design at the campsite connections shall prevent infiltration'
3.Watermainsshallbesizedtomeetthenecessarywaterdemands,
4. Materiar'lp""N""tion, ,iJr [" approved by the co:.1lv Fl9,ll""t to ensure
that the system meets t"quiltn,ints for strlngth rating' service life and
adequatesurface cover to avert freezing'
standards specific to campgrounds/New RV Park stated and considered in 7-806 are
also standards required for "pprorrt.
ih" folto*ing are requirements of the Garfield
County project il;;; anO'tne environmental HLa[h Department Manager :
1. rne sysie' tn'ii meet the requiremelts of CDPHE'
Z. The system shall not Oe Olsigned to allow contamination from surface or
underground water, not J.r-lt any und.erground stop and waste valves'
3. Treatment and equipmelitn"if *Let all dtate' Fedeial and local standards'
4. connection shall ue provioed by pipes to all equipment, spaces, structures'
5. r?Tiriorrrwater service connections shall meet requirements of 7-806(H)10'
Astherearenotentfacilitiesarebeingproposedforthepark;standardsthatarerelated
to tent sites are not required to be met'
This standard has not been met. staff finds deficiencies in meeting standard 7-
iOe fo, potable water have not been addressed'
Reg a rd i n g wastewate r, th e G a rf i e ld C-o u nlV t t?
"-"1 :l: :: ""
t com m e nts :
1.JeWefS qnd Yl/astewaler treutttto"t ' -"'"""'
a. Stote Approual- Th" opp'ouol by the State "
t"::i:1'1::::,
;:r;';;;r"iiri,- p,nr to iand disturiance-' thl countv ::t!:::':;;";;;r;;;;;d';;;;,-i*,t o'se permit ror the proposed wwrP'
15
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar - BOCC U10/09
Staff finds that a new application with appropriate capacity has been submitted
(Exhibit u ), but the permit has not been granted. This standard has not been met'
b. Wastewater Generation: do not match
Staff finds that new appropriate calculations (wastewater treatment plant is being
re-designed for 25,000 gallons per day) have been submitted (Exhibits s,T)' This
standard has been met.
c. Easement: An easement is required to be depicted
A new map document depicting easements has been submitted (Exhibit R). This
standard has been met.
d. Individual RV Site Sewer Connection: sewer service connection
must comply with Section 7-806 of County code
This standard has been met.
Staff recommends that the Garfield County Project Engineer and Environmental Health
Manager comments be made conditions of approval, namely that:
Awater impoundment permit from the State Engineer's Office for necessary water
impound'ment facilities shall be in place prior to site disturbance.
' Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities'
ResPonse
Holy-fo-ss Energy has stated that the park is within their service area,
that they have an adequate etSltricat supply to serve the development and have stated
a willingness to serve after appropriate coniracts are negotiated, but no signed contract
is provided. An easement has been depicted (Exhibit R )'
At present, this standard has not been met'
. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways'
ResPonseAffioaO: The proposed park takes its access via a private road that
connects to CR 300Jvith a well-designed, surfaced driveway permitted from GarCo
Road & Bridge Department. The acJesr road was initially constructed. as an enhanced
well pad access road, with no engineering review required for the build for that use.
To serve as the public access road for this proposed RV park, the road will have to be
modified to meet County standards for a 'secondary access', as per the road standard
16
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D.Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
table on page 7-48 of ULUR. Further discussion as to standards specific to
'Campground/ New RV Park'in 7-806 and the recommendations set forth by the Traffic
lmpact Analysis required in 4-502-E- 9 are noted.
The Garfield County Project Engineer's comments are as follows:
I. Access Road-from CR 300:
All of the points below should be addressed prior to approval. These
cannot be conditions of approval.
a. Design Standards: Per the County Design Standards (Section 7-307),the
project traffic volume requires that the road be constructed to standards
of a minor collector with l2-foot lane widths, 6-foot shoulders, and a
chip-seal surface. (The minor collector road standard applies to roads
with 401 to 2500 trips per day based on 120 units and 4.8 trips/daylunit,
the ITE trip generation standard for RV Parks.)
b. Road Width: Per previous discussions with the Applicant, the County will
allow the shoulder width to be reduced to 4-foot, the minimum allowed by
the Code.
Section 7-2Og (H) allows a variance to be considered for road grade with an approval
from the fire service provider, but there is not a variance possibility for either roadway
width or conditions considered to be safety engineering features, such as guardrails.
c. Road Slope: The proposed access road has a slope of l0%. Per Code
Section 7-307, the maximum slope allowable is 8%o. Code Section 7-209
'Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards' allows roads to have a I0o% grade on
straight sections of the road. (lnfortunately the l0o% grade on the
proposed access road is on e 'S'curve.
Section 7-2Og (H) allows a variance to be considered for road grade on a straight
section with an approval from the fire service provider, but there is not a variance
possibility for either roadway width or conditions considered to be safety engineering
features, such as slopes or curves.
d. Road Sufface: Per Code Section 7-307, the minimum standardfor the
road surface is chip-seal. The submitted plans show a surface of
compacted Class 6 road base. A chip-seal surface is necessary to
mitigate dust. \
17
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D.Dunbar- BOCC 8/10/09
e. Minimum Engineering Requirements .for Review :
o cross section o-f road - provided but does not meet width standard
o vertical and horizontal geomeTy - vertical provided, horizontal not
provided
. qrading planfor road - Not provided. We're lookingfor a plan
showiig the contours of the road, cut and fill slopes and where the
proposed contours ioin existing grade'
o drainage calculations for ditch and culvert design - not provided.
We're particularly interested in seeing that the ditches and culverts
are designed to handle the predicted storm water flows.
o cor{irmation that sight distance is adequate - not provided
Again, Section 7-2Og (H) allows a variance to be considered for road grade on a
"tirignt
section with an approval from the fire service provider, but there is not a
varia-nce possibility for eiiher roadway width or conditions considered to be safety
engineering features, such as slopes or curves.
'ication o ment or - provide
evidence that the easement/ROW is recorded
The Applicant represents that the 60' easement is recorded for private use at the
preseni time, and requests that the requirement for recordation for public use be
allowed as a condition of approval. Staff feels that this could be allowed as a condition
of approval prior to site disturbance. At present, this standard has not been met.
o maximum side slopes qf 2: I - this will be shown by the grading plan
- not provided
In short, we are lookingfor a level of design which demonstrates that
(a) the road meets County standards, (b) the design detail is adequate
that a contractor could use the design to bid and construct the proiect,
and (c) the design can be use to determine theJinoncial guarantee
amount.
If the applicant is seeking approval for varionces from the Code, they
should jrovide a table that gives the county standard, the requested
variance, and the re(Non and hardship necessitating the variance.
The Applicant represents that the submitted level of design is adequate for construction.
18
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
Staff recommends that it be required that engineering designs and plans be submitted
to the satisfaction of the Garfieid County Project Engineer prior to site disturbance.
At present, this standard has not been met.
f. Road Maintenance: What mechanism will ensure the maintenance of the
road?
A maintenance agreement has been supplied for the Emergency Access Road.
Numerous statenrents of the proposed agreement extend permissions that are contrary
to the comments of the GarCo Road a AiiOge Department, namely mention of allowing
subdivisions and new parcels (2,3,4, etc.) to be party to the use of this road.
Comments from Jake Mall (Exhibit J) state that the access permissions are limited, and
are excerpted below:
By:JakeB.N{allDateJuly23'2009
As a condition of approval, and recorded prior to site disturbance, a revision of the
maintenance agreements for both the Emergency Access Road and the Main Entrance
Road shall be re-submitted to the Planner so as io satisfy the requirements of Road &
Bridge Department. At present, this standard has not been met.
g. Countv Road Access Permit: The applicant has demonstrated that they
@ty access permitforthe change in use (the
change from a well pad road to a RV Park road)'
lnternal Roads: The design for the internal roads has been revised to be one-way roads
w'tde enough to accomm5date traffic and drainage. Parking is to be accommodated on
the RV paJs and in parking stalls provided. The itandard width required is 20' [7-806
(E)l and this is satisfactory.
19
Name of revie$,' agency: Garfield County Road and Bridqe Dept
Drivervav access pennits have been issued for this application' One drivervav access
@rance in and out of tbe BY Park. The othgr 4itert'-aY399-c-ss-
Ba'idge Department. These drivervav accesses are for this application onlv'
TGraff i' .,ohrro" in@ nppli" uti gr, .'.,i l1,rr,,pu"t.u 1l qf CI' 3 0 9 toads
sa' This applicatiollhqs the
ffi impact at the enJrance.of cr. 300 to colorado-Sta-tg--------
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar- BOCC 8/10/09
There is no requirement in lJLtJRfor surfacing the internal (loop) roads of a
campground, only that the tacNties provide for adequate drainage and are kept free of
ruts and mitigated for dust. t7-806(D)l on-going management for safe travel and dust
mitigation wilt be r"qrii"O ,t , .onOition oiapploval if the roadway is not going to be
prr"O. Jim Rada's comments call for on-going dust abatement to satisfy APCC
iegulations and requirements (Exhibit M )
2,0nce the operation is underway, at pealr operations, there is a liltelihood that the private roads internal to the RV Park
will exceed tre cDpHi ApCc nigulation t loo vehicle per day threshold, thereby kicking in the requirements.fordust.
mitigation lor the intemal roads. t did not see any ptan dr uust'mitigation on this site. ln light of increasing PM 10 levels
in the parachutelBattlement Mesa area, I recomrnend that the apphcant provide a.dust control plan that , at minimum
meets the requkements of CDPHE APCC Regulation 1.
lll.D.2.a. Roadways
ttt.D.2.a. (i). l) n P aved
tlt,D.2,a.(i).(A). Appkabitibl - Attainment and Non'attainment Aroas
tl l. D.2.a. (i). (B) - G e neral Re guirerne nt
Any owner or operator responsible far construction or maintenance of any (existing or
new) unpaved roadway whicn-iis vehicle traffic exceeding 200 vehicles per day in
attainment areas or ll}yefiicles per day ln non-attainment areas {averaged aver any
consecutivi iii".p*iod) fro; *ini"n figitive.particu{ate emissions witt be emitted shall
be requirei ti ,ulr'ail aviitabt*, prriti"gi metioaswhich are technologically feasible and
,ronrnioitty iaionabte in oAer b minimize emissions resulffng from the use of sucit
roadway iiliioririr" iitn tn, requirements of Secfion ttt.D. of this regulation.
The Garfield County project Engineer's comments (Exhibit L ) addresses the need for
dust abatement during construction :
. Plan Sheet l:
O To note-ft8--qdd:\/'and a State Air Pollution Emission Notice
(APEN)'
have must have at least one(ii) To note #6. add: 'Contractor must t
Qu*tnning dust suppressionwater truck on-site at all times
"when groiirg is occurring. At the Countyb request, and even
if no grading is occuruing, the Contractor will operate an
adequate number of dust suppression water trucks to mitigate
dust.'
staff recommends that a condition of approval shall be that the Applicant shall add the
20
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar- BOCC U10/09
note to the plan sheet 1, and incorporate that condition into the general requirements
foi operation as tong as ihe road remains unpaved and the traffic level meets the
general requiremenis in lll.D.2.a.(i) (B) above, thal being occupancy in 34 sites' Staff
calculated this as 150 (vehicles per day, above) divided by4.38 trips (as per lTE,
standard for camPgrounds.)
This standard shall be incorporated into the revised Maintenance Agreements for both
the EmergencyAccess Road and the Main Entrance Road. At present, this standard
has not been met.
EmeroencvAccess Road
Because the accels road exceeds the recommended length for a dead end public
access, "n "r"rg"n.y r""".s shall be created to provide EMS/Fire response and
egress, should the actess road become impassable. The emergency access road must
meet the requirements for a 'secondary access', aS per the road standard table on page
7-48 of ALUR as well.
The emergency route was reviewed and approved by the Grand Valley Fire Protection
oi.tri"t (cVrpbl ii*niuit p ). This approvat'is stating that the road will accommodate
their fire-fighting apparatus and ambulances, and that the response route appears
viable. Legal ""."ri, driveway and roadway permits, however, are not issued by the
fire servicJprovider, but by GarCo Road & Bridge Department.
The access point connection to a public road (cR 300) has b-een determined and
proper access permits secured. tnls is confirmed by GarCo Road & Bridge Department
Rdrinirtrrtive-Foreman Jake Mall in comments attached (Exhibit J)'
Regarding access connections, GarCo Road & Bridge DepartmentAdministrative
foieman, Jake Mall, stated in an earlier email letter:
'These driveway accesses are for this application only-'
Regarding the existing access road's grade, the.road does not meet the standards set
forth in 748 for rr*iilu, grade. The-Applicant has requested a variance under 7-
20g(H) whereby the BOCCmay considei granting a variance to the grade requirements
if the fire serrice frorio"r or Sheriff's office approves of the request. The Applicant
provided a letter of "ppror"l
from the GVFPti, but the letter did not contain an issue
date. (A replacement letter has been submitted- Exhibit M.) This standard has been
met, if aPProved bY the BOCC.
Staff recommends that the build conditions and timetable be set forth at the discretion
of the Garfield County Project Engineer, in concert with the GVFPD and Road & Bridge'
Staff does not recommend that the facility be made available to the public before the
access road and a turn-around is completed with chip seal and safety devices, such as
guardrails. At present, this standard has not been met'
21
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D.Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
ln the latest set of comments from the Garfield County Project Engineer (Exhibit L),
surfacing the access road (Main Entrance Road) is required within 18 months of the
date conltruction begins. As a condition of approval, the following requirements shall be
satisfied:
'The access roadfrom CR300 to the RV Park main entrance will be
chip-sealedwithin 18 months of the date that construction of the RV
Park begins. The chip-seal specification and application method shall
be reviewed and approved by the County Road and Bridge Department
prior to being installed.'
This standard has not been met.
. section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards.
Response
tne proposed park site is not located in an area that has been inventoried
for natural hazards, but the submittal requirements state that it is not located on a land
form that presents natural or geologic, such as mudflow, fault line or alluvial fan. Soil
types will require appropriate engineering measures be taken in the construction of
structures and facilities, as per the Soils Report.
The naturalhazard identified by Staff is that of low to moderate wildlife risk,
compounded by the fact that the access road is a dead end with some excessive grade
challenges. This standard has been met, if the BOCC approves the request for a
variance to the road standards for grade.(See map in Section 7-209: Wildfire Hazard
below.)
DIVISION 2 - GENERAL RESOURCE PROTEGTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE
CHANGE PERMITS
' SectionT-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands.
Response
The proposed park is situated on a hillside with limited agricultural value. lt
is a sloping, non-irrigated hillside and the soil and vegetation type do not lend
themselvei well to agricultural production. Historically cattle were wintered in the area,
but they were supplemented with hay (produced elsewhere and brought in.) There is
very limited, if any, net loss in agricultural lands here. This standard has been met.
. SectionT-202 Protection of Wildlife HabitatAreas.
Response
22
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar- BOCC 8/10/09
The area is identified on county Gls wildlife maps based on colorado
Division of Wildlife (OOWI habitat data as being in general range' migration areas' and
areas identified ,. *int",
"oncentration
areas ind severe winter range for both mule
deer and elk.
The area is arso in overarr range for brack bear. Bears are attracted then habituated to
human foodstuffs, if made ava-ilable. Proper management of human food and waste
products will help to prevent the habituation of OIaJX bears' Bear-proof dumpsters shall
6e a conOition oi approval recommended by Staff'
The proposed park site will modify the acreage and bring people onto the site for
extended o""rprn"y. Wnif" the plrk does not propose to allow pets in extended stay
scenarios, the traveiing JrOfi" may have pets tiavelling withthem'.lt is.proposed that
the animals will be restrained and noi adversely affect wildlife on the site, but behavior
off the 36-acre sitl may be difficult to control' fhe Applicant has developed an
operations pran and handouts to dissuade the park rrsers from ailowing their animals to
harass wildiife otf rit", ,nd to foster keeping human foods from animals'
The BiologicalAssessment confirms that there is no adverse impact anticipated for the
identified iensitive species, Canada Lynx and Bald Eagle'
Unress fenced, the fire pond may serve as an attractant to wildlife and human beings,
alike. As it is a source of fresh water, there is no need for overhead netting to prevent
birds from using the pond, but a .ri"iy feature to a]!ow for the safe egress for an animal
or person that might inadvertentty tatlinto or enter the pond neels t9 bP incorporated in
the design of tneiacility. Fencing tor the pond enclo-sure and other facilities that are
part of this use shall conform to the;wildliie friendly fencing standards' of the DOW'
Staff has recommended that the fencing selected ilso be visualty compatible with the
rurar nature of the area, and recomr"n-d, tail 2 x 4 non-crimbabre mesh 'horse fence'
rather than chain link. (This fence type is also deemed acceptable by the DOW') The
Applicant has agreed; this standard has been met'
Ronge /migrotion (orrows)Winter concentrotion oreos (blue), ronge (green)
Severe winter ronge ore those cross-hotched
/r+-yt 1{'Ftl
23
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
rather than chain link. (This fence type is also deemed acceptable by the DoW') The
Applicant has agreed; this standard has been met'
.SectionT.203ProtectionofWetlandsandWaterbodies.
ffi,"o*edparksitedoesnotaffectorincludewetlandsorWaterbodieS
onsite. Natural ,rrio* tro, the site d;;iiavet towards the draw that has an ephemeral
stream that eventuaily drains to the c;ioraoo River. A sound erosion pran can prevent
problems, ana snalt oe required as a condition of approval' Recommendations from the
Garfierd county project Enginee*h"ilb" considered conditions of approval by staff' At
present, this standard has not been met'
Asaconditionofapproval,theinstalledwaterbodythatisthefireprotectionpondshall
be managed to ,.Li conditions of "t'"t",
Federat ind local regulations. staff
recommends and the Appricrnt ,grl"d-io an annuar inspection of the fire protection
pond annually by the fire'servic" p.riO"i as a condition of approval' and the Applicant
agreed. This standard has been met'
'sectionT.2o4ProtectionofWaterQualityfromPollutants.
ResPonselrffi-*ntities of waste water and pollutants from the wastewater
treatment pran courd pose a tnreat.lne system isto be permitted.and administered in
suchawayaStomeetconditionsofstate,Federalandtocalregulations.RVsmayleak
limited amount of oil and fluids onto th";iound and.roadways' As a condition of
approval, a spill containment and "J"rn.il
plan shall.be part of the management
strategydefinedinthestormwate'-pr"n.nt'present,thisstandardhasnotbeenmet.
.SectionT.205ErosionandSedimentation., Section 7-206 Drainage'
' SectionT'Z}7 Stormwater Run-Off'
Response to these tjrrqe reguifemqnts:
The Garfieto county@mented earlier:
ER}SI2NC2NTR2L:(Inlessnotedotherwise,allofthepointsbelowshouldbe
addressed prior to approval. These cannot be conditions of approval'
The submitted plans lack erosion control plans and detalls' The erosion
control- srrn pti" must show the location of temporary and permanent
erosion control measures. The erosion contril detail sheet must provide-
detailed drawings of the erosion control measures and notes regarding the
construction qnd upkeep of the measures'
24
2.
3.
MIR High Mesa RV Patu - D'Dunbar- BOCC U10/09
l. Limiting site Disturbance: In order to prevent erosion and limit the loss
oJ'native vegetation, I recommind that constructionfencing be
placed aroind the areas that will not be disturbed' In such a
way,pocketsofnativevegetationCqnbepreservedwithinthe
site.
state swMP Permit: since the site is greater than one acre, the
applicantwillneedtofileastormWaterManagementPlan
awuplwiththeStateDeptofPublicHealthandEnvironment.
This must be a condition of the County's approval'
ErosionCautgl;Plansneedtoshowalltemporaryandpermanent
ffinn ,ontrol mectsures and show irrigation for re-vegetating
disturbed sloPes-
GRADING AND DRAINAGE: The counQ's drainage requirements are outlined in
Land (Jse code section 7-206. The-se standards also apply to the grading
and drainage for the access and emergency access roads'
,. Rood Culuert STA+80: Rip rap o| another permanent erosion control
measure is neeiedihn u this culvert discharges onto a 2: l
slope.
2. Detention Basin Easement: Easement are neededfor drainage detention
- U^i", o"iafou"t properties. Obtaining and recording the
easements should be a condition of approval' If so' as part of
the application the county still needs a letter from the property
owner stating that they plan to offer the easements'
As these items were not mentioned in the Engineer's most recent comments (Exhibit L )
Staff recomrenoi tnat as a condition of appr6val, th.at plans for drainage, site
disturbance and erosion control ptans ne submitted by ine Rppticant to the satisfaction
of the Garfield county Project Engineer prior to site disturbance' At present' this
standard has not been met'
' Section 7-208 Air QualitY'
ffiononwoodfiresoutdoorswillhelpinpreservingtheairquality
in the area, as will a surfaced access road and internal roads' The soils in the afea ate
powdery ano tinelgirin"o, .o ,rrr3.inj*ill go a long,way to improving air quality from
dust. constructioridust shail ue anatJ thro-ugh conditions set forth by the Project
Engineer (discussed earlier) and dust relatedlo heavy site use shall be abated through
conditions set forth by the Environmental Health Maniger. At present, this standard
has not been met.
25
. Section 7-209
Areas Subiect to Wildfire
Hazards.
ResPonse
The site is located in an area
depicted as having a low to moderate fire risk'
Egress in the event of a fire warrants the
lnitrll"tion of the emergency access road'
*nin is a condition of approval for the park'
This standard has been met'
. section 7-210 Areas subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic
Hazards.
ffinotlocatedinanareaidentifiedasbeinginventoriedfornatural
or geological hazards. The soiltypes are depicted in the map/information below'
POTTS{LDEFONSO.VALE';;p',;,;ii;;rd,'i;mylirying to steep so's onmesas' dluvld lbns' leflaces
and Dencnas.
MORVAL.VILLA GROVE'i$,iat
a,iiii.,nodelatdysl+ng to moderatey step solls 0n mesas'
m{,rnlahs0es ald dluvi al hns.
ffiineeredfoundationsandtheinstallationofwallsandponds,aswell-r-f,:^-^ ^3+r.^ Qailo Panrrrt Thi:Jfffiffi"ri?i['i"t;r; incorporated in the recommendations of the soils Report' rhis
standard has been met.
, sec tionT-211 Areas with Archaeological, Paleontological or Historical
lmPortance.
ResPonse
The Applicant has provided a record search of cultural /historical /
paleontologicat resJJrce ir*"y. tnai-f,ar" reported the area to have no significant
resources that would be adversely affected by the proposed use. This standard has
been met.
. SectionT-212 Reclamation'
ResPonse
Asaconditionofapproval,staffrecommendsthat.theApplicantbe
required to have " rrii"nfl reclamation plan and post appropriate security to ensure
26
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar- BOCC 8/10/09
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar- BOCC 8/10/09
that either the development is built to standards and Gonditions, or the county has
adequate financiar resources to restore the site to its pre-buird condition. This standard
has not been met.
Measures detailed by the Garfield county Project Engineer (under 7--20? through 207'
above) detail gorl. ih"t will help the Afplicanf red-uce the amount of reclamation
necessary for the ,ii", nrr"ry hinimiing the surface disturbance and implementing
sound erosion "ontrol'merrrre"
during Jonstructiorr'. Comments from GarCo
Vegetation Management Director, Stev"e Anthony (Exhibit K ) state that the weed
management prails aoequate and cite the requirements for re-vegetation security:
Noxious Weeds
rhe applicant's description of the noxious weeds located on site is
or""j*u\". The weed management plan is acceptable.
Revegetation
The applicant has quantified the area of surface disturbance as 7'35
acres.
Staffrecommends a revegetation security of $2500/acre for a total of
$18,377.00
The security shall be held by Garfield county until vegetation has been
succe:ssfuliy reestablished iccording to the Reclamation Standards in
the Garfield County Weed Management Plan' It is the responsibility
of the applicant to contact the county, upon successful revegetation
establishment,torequestaninspectionforsecurityrelease
consideration'
TheReclamationstandardsatthedateofpermitissuancearecitedin
section 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfietd county weed Management
Plan (Resolution #2 002-94)'
staff recommends the above comments be conditions of approvar. The Applicant
agrees to negotiate the requirement at hearing' This standard has not been met'
DlvlsloN3-SITEPLANNTNGANDDEVELoPMENTSTANDARDS
. Section 7-30{ Gompatible Design'
Effiffiity in this Division refers to how well the project's design related
27
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
to the site and with adjacent land uses. lt states 'the design of the development
associated with the rand use "n"ngiinail
be compatibre-with, and enhance the existing
character of adiacenf uses.' This ,t" p"ilission can be made compatible with the
existing neighborhood character proiif,"J ii it properly mitigated with conditions that
result from the rvrrfoilrpact Review- The Appiicant agrees; the standard has been
met.
. Section 7-302 Building Design'
. seciion z-sos Designind scale of Development.
Response to theqe. two rgq'uirements-:
Theproposedparkisi-ocateoin-cateoinanareawithfewstructurestowhichthe
development woufi uE .orrirred to determine compatibility' ln this void' Staff falls
back to the description of the Rural z*" oirtrict, and goalslonlectives set forth in the
-Ciiiiiiiirtu" itiii ii zooofor areas outside communitv limits'
Froml0.0UrbanAreaoflnfluence,theComprehgn$..ivePtanof2000inobjective10.5:
'Retain rural character outside of community limits''
The general provisions of Rural Zone District ltJLuR,3-1010(A)l state:
,Uses, densifies and standaisisiaOtiffitr this zone district are intended to
protect the existing character of the area"''
ln the area south of Parachute/Battlement Mesa, there are many still productive
agricultural operations. Buildings associated with these operations include barns and
obvious ,ag, structurei sucn aJsi.s anJ ioiting sheds. St.tF tind" that architectural
elements of these buildings, etement!'su"n "i"brel rooflines' cupolas' and muted
iaim nuifOing colors ,re pirt of the rural character of the area.
The steel structures proposed for the store, laundry/shower building and water facilities
of this RV park incrudes serve ,, " torii.iousiness. staff identifies architecturar
erements of the adjacent municiparitll tn"LL o"ing Town of parachute 'ord rown'false-
front buildings.
The scale and surface treatment of the structures are required to reduce the visual
impact on adjace;fi;;lr. st"tr recommends non-reflective paint in neutral colors to
reduce glare
"no
r"|r"n the visual impact of the buildings on the hillside'
signs shall comply with the Garfield county sign code, and be designed to 'be
compatibre with, ind enhance ffie iisting'chalacter of adiacenf uses.'The Applicant
agrees; the standard can be met'
.SectionT-304off.streetParkingandLoadingstandards.
ffirkwillaccommodateallitsparkingon-site.Parkingforpersonal
28
MIR High Mesa RV Pa*'D'Dunbar- BOCC U1409
vehicles shall be accomplished on the RV pad sites and in parking s!1c:s provided' All
parking spaces and areis shall satisfy the requirements set forth in 7-304 as to design'
dimension, surface, demarcation, nrrb"r, use and prohibitions, and Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The Appticant agrees; the standard has been
met.
Under this section, the number of site and parking spaces required to meetADA
requirements for t'zo camping sites is 5. The Appficant has proposed 10 sites (campsite
numbers gO-1Oo) *O nrt loiated them adlacent-to tle Laundry/shower facilities'
These spaces shall conform to CABO/ANd1 nttZ.t This standard has been me1
.SectionT.305LandscapingandLightingstandards.
ResPonse
Lighfi-ting * the site is proposed to be limited to where necessary and the
lighting proposed is iowncast to direct it to the site. GarCo Environmental Health
Department Manager comments:
'tigitting at the park should be the type that directs light in a manner
thai has-minimil impact with regard to light pollution''
The lighting fixtures selected may contribute to the preservation of 'rural character''
The randscape site assessment was done to identify native vegetation that might be
incorporated into the site. Trees selected to serve to provide shade and contribute to
the site,s aesthetics should be browse-resistant or be provided protection from browse
by mule deer and elk. The Applicant agrees; the standard has been met'
. Section 7-306 Snow Storage Standards'
ResPonse
The elevation of the proposed park is between 5300' and 5400'' While this
is not considereo to ue a rocation rir"iv to see rarge accumurations of snow, it will have
snow periodically. Designated snow storage areas are shown on the site plan; this
standard has been met.
. Section 7-307 Roadway Standards'
ResPonse
hilp-roposed roadway designed to serve this development will serve as
the roadway associated with tuture levefJpment. Thought ha9 p9e1 given in its design
so that it can serve future land use "h"ng"r,
such as la-nd subdivision' Awider right-of-
way width has been created to ensure thlt a road need to serve larger traffic volume
ge;erateo by future development can be built without modifying the park'
Design standards and requirements set forth in the previous comments by the Garfield
county Project Engineer in7-108 address the requirement here' At present, this
standard has not been met'
29
MIR High Mesa RV Park- D'Dunbar- BOCC U10/09
.SectionT.30sTrailandWalkwayStandards.
ResPonse
The Fiofosed park features soft-surface pathway.s between the loops
connecting to the Laundry/shower racility. These paths are fully contained on-site'
need an 8'easement, shall be gtrr"ioihard surfaced, no less th-an.S feet in surface
width and be rO"qrri"lyiuumiti"ted with downcast lighting (7-806'F)'
The walkways that are to serve the ADA-compliant sites, however, must comply with
CABO/ANSI A11t.1 standards. They must be installed to provide safe access between
the camper sites and the Laundry/sho*"r buirding. These standards have been met.
ResPonse
When agreements on design are ma{e with Holy Cross Energy, the
following will be satisfLd, and shall be conditions of approval:
Easements have been depicted in a map document.(Exhibit R ) and shall be recorded
prior to site disturbance. At the time of this writing, there was no signed contract with
H-oly cross Energy to serve the site, but there was a letter of intent'
standards specific to campgrounds/New RV park stated and considered in 7-806 shall
be conditions of apfroval, ai well. These standards have not been met'
30
3't
MtR High Mesa RV Pa* - D'Dunbar - BOCC A10/09
7-806 ADDITIONAL STANDARDSAPPLICABLE TO CAMPGROUNDS
'
NEW RV PARK:
A. Site lmProvements.
t. ffi* rn" park shalt have access to a public roa!.
2. Drainase: The park shall be located on a well'drained site that is
gradTor drained and is free from stagnantpools of water
3. Landscapinq: The site shatl include a landscape plan that provides
ro, @rascaping to provide huffering from adiacent uses and
roadwaYs and to Prevent erosion'
ResPonse
The proposed park has one access to a public road, that being CR 300' The park
site is designed to be graded in such a way inrt n will have adequate drainage for the
site, and adverse drainage effects will not-be allowed onto adjacent properties'
Buffering the site from adjacent properties is a difficult undertaking as the site is on an
open hillside readily viewed from across the draw and cR 300' There is one residence
on an adjacent parcel, that being the home of one of the partners' Th.e inventory for the
land suitability analysis showed very few trees that met the caliper standard for
inventory, but the grading plan has
-be"n
revised to be more sensitive to the site'
Landscaping trees are proposed, but will have to be individually enclosed to prevent
browse by the deer in the area, and watered to ensure their survival'
";r aft of the unit would
obstruct or block any portion of the roadway orwalkway'
Response
The RV sites themselves are intended to accommodate parking olthe camper/RV
vehicle itself. The pad site would need to accommodate any other vehicles associated
with the unit, incluiin! s"conO vehicles, motorcycles, and vehicles of any visitors to the
site. There rr" ror"-parking spaces associated with the Laundry/shower building' the
future store, dump station and storage area, but no additional parking spaces along the
ioof ,o"0". The Park Management Flan includes management of these limitations on
parking so that obstruction ii minimized. (ln some cases, the additionalwidth of the site
being wider than minimum requirements of 20'can allow vehicle to be stored on the
side of the pad.) ADA sites and their associated walkways shall not be allowed to be
blocked. signage may be required to enforce this. These operational items have been
incorporat"i in1n" oierations plan. These standards have been met'
c. Minimum Facilities for Recreational vehicle spaces.
Response
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar- BOCC A10/09
Each RV site shall have a picnictable, fireplace (t9 9" provided bythe operator) and
a levet parking p"O. Ur".supplied dii;;y te used, bui outdoor fires are prohibited'
Barriers at the end of the pad to prevent roil-off have been incruded in the design.
These standards have been met'
D.Easements,Rlghfs.of.Way,PublicopenSpaceandCommonAreas.E. DrivewaYs.
F. WalhtaYs.
Th"@,"q,i.".entsofthesesectionshavebeensatisfiedinthesubmittalor
addresseuinz.togandT.30s.Thisstandardhasbeenmet.
G Maintenance.
M. Refuse Handling'
N. Pesf Control.
O. Pet Control.
P. SuPeruision-
ffinalplanthataddressestherelationshipsandobligationsofthepark,
including maintenai." n". been oer"lopeo and su.bmitted to GarCo Planning' The
design and tocation for refuse nrnorrg ill"tiont and screening has been incorporated
onto an updated site plan "no .uuriitted to the Garfield county Project Engineer'
These standards have been met'
H. Water SuPPIY and Distribution'
t. Sewage DsPosal'
K. Electrical Distribution and communication wiring.
ffin"*n*eshavebeenaddressedandrecommendationsmadein7-1o5,7-1o6
and 7-30g. staff recommenos tnaia condition of approval-!e. that specific designs
unique to this ,""tion be incorpor"Lo-in ptrns submitted in sufficient detair to satisfy the
Garfield county Project Engineer. At pr"""nt, the standard has not been met'
J. Fire Protection'
ffi,,""*ionofapprovaltheApplicantwasrequiredtoworkwiththefireservice
provider to addiess camper site ani'park protection measures' and to submit a fire
safety and response plan tor tne pIiX tn,t includes equipment' emergency and
evacuation planning, annual inspections for equipment and fire protection pond' to the
satisfaction of the Grand Vailey rire Frotection District. The retter in the application is
not dated, uut stafr nas confirm"o iG date from GVFPD. This standard has been met'
32
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar- BOCC A10/09
l. Senrice Buildings
ffio,o'oanthaSagreedtoobtainallnecessarygradingor.buildingpermits
required for the installation oistructuies on tn" park site. TlreApplicant has agreed to the
incorporate wherever possibre the. recommendations rerated to design compatibility
deta,ed in 7-301,302 and 303, and non-refrective surface treatment or paint to reduce
glare and make the structures less conspicuous has been agreed to' This standard has
been met.
vl.
1.
2.
REGOMMENDED FINDINGS
proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before
the Planning Commission.
The meeting before the Planning commission was extensive and complete' that all
pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were
heard at that meeting.
The above stated and other reasons, the proposed land use change has. been
determined not to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience'
order, prosperity and welfare of the "itt"nt of Garfield County' as at present' it does
not meet all the required standards'
the Garfield CountY Unified Land 2008, as amended (ULUR)
3.
4. The application has not metthe require-m91t99f Malor !mq1ct.Rw'rew' including but
noilimited to: Sections 2-1 01, 2-roo, i-306, 3-501, ql}l,4-102,4-1 06' 4-501' 4-502 of
VII.PLANNINGcoMMISStoNREGoMMENDATIoN
The plannirg ail;ission heard this matter on 5.13.09 and forwarded it to the
BOCC with a recommenOation torapprovalwith 14 conditions recommended by
Staff that are also stated in an exceijt of the meeting minutes (Exhibit Q):
l,AllrepresentationsoftheApplicant,eitherwithintheapplicationorstated
at the hearing netore- ine 'ilanning commission, shall be considered
conditions of approval unless explicitly altered by the Commission'
2. The operation of the facility be done in accordance with all applicable
Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of
facilitY.
3. Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the
Colorado Revised Statuies for residential standards assessed at a location
of 350' from the p"iX ot aBA point 25' beyond the parcel boundary'
whichever is lesser'
4.
5.
MtR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar - BOCC 8/10/09
TheHighMesaRVParkshallbeoperatedSoaStocomplywithallFederal,
State and County air quality laws, relulations and standards for emissions'
heat, glare, radiatiJn,i;;;;, .*of"'ot oin"t emanation which substantially
interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a
public nuisance or hazard'
The Applicant shall comply with.the fire protection.provisions included in the
comments of the Grand Valley rire pioieltion Distritt lcvreo)' develop a fire
safety and respo.;;;"i; ine satisiaciiln ot tne GVFPD and arrange for the
Grand Valley f ir" Fiotection Districtto perform an annual inspection of the fire
protection pond at their convenience'
6. Any signs associated with the use shall be designed so as to be compatible
with, and enhance the existing "hai""t"r
of adjicent uses' and comply with
the Garfield CountY Sign Code'
7. No storage of heavy equipment is proposed or permitted on this site' with the
exception ot, ,r"nine or venicL'tor snowplowing, which shall be parked in
the storage area or inside a structure'
8. Any lighting of the site shall be pointed downward and inward to the property
cente*no "nJ"Jto prevent direct reflection on adjacent property'
g. All equipment, structures and light fixtures on the site shall be painted with a
neutral shade of tan or sage grz"n non-reflective paint to.reduce glare and
makethesitemoreinconspicuous.StructuresdesignedtoTili"barns,
agriculturar ,iir.trr"l or false-fiont *"tt"rn storefrontJmay be either neutral
colors or faded barn red, but the surface must be a non-reflective surface to
reduce glare.
10. Priorto site disturbance or construction on this project' the following shallbe in
FlTfr '""."ssary Buitd i ng Department p_ermits, including g rad ing. permits,
G. permits from GarCo norf,a Bridge'Department for all over-sized/over-
weight vehicles to be used on site'
H. All necessary traffic "ontrJ
prrnr ,"qrir"d with GarCo Road & Bridge
DePartment,
l.Allnecessaryfinancialsecuritiesrelatedtoconstruction,re-vegetation
and reclamation,
J. All ,"q,i,",n*ts for engineering design and related plans set forth by the
Garfield County Project Engineer'
11. Prior to site disturbance or construction on this project' the following shall
besubmittedtotheGarfieldCountyVegetationManagement
DePartment Directort 34
14. Amendments to this permil T."y be cons.idered with Major lmpact Review
Amendment process of the UniLJ taii Use Aesotution 6f ZOOA under which
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar - BOCC A10/09
A..soilmanagementplan,(either.stand-aloneoraSacomponentofthe
rectamatio. pili[riiriu" required of the Applicant to include:- i. provisions for salvaging tie topsoil' , .---iii. a timetable for the incorforation of topsoil and aggregate
Piles into the landscaPe
iii.aplanthatprovidesforsoilcoverifanydisturbancesor
stocxpiteswillsitexposedforaperiodof90daysormore.
B.Re-vegetationplanwillberequiredoftheApplic-antandwillinclude:iv. an accounting of the surfac" OiiirtU"ncb of common areas' road
cuts, utilitY easements'
v. based on th" ,iorementioned accounting, a re-vegetation
security shalt be determinei;.d p;";"tt"g. according to standard
GarCore-vegetationrequtrementsdetailedincomments
(attached)
vi. a suppteriental irrigation plan for tree and shrub plantings.
c.lnventoryofnoxiousweedsandcorrespondingm.apneedtobe
developed for weeds that appeai". inL Garco Noxious weed List'
Wildlifesafetyshallbeaddressedwiththefollowingconditions:
a,Fencingshallmeet.wildlifefriendly'fencingstandardsoftheColorado
DOW, and be that in r""[!n!'wi*r ttie _rural character of the
neighborhooJr non-"limbabteTi"x 4" mesh horse fence with orwithout
barbedwirestrandsatthecrest,nolessthan60',inheight.
b.Thedesignandconstructionofthefirepond.shallincludebothfencing
to prevent "1""* nv wildlife and human beings, and safe egress
measures forwildlife ano rruman ueings that might inadvertently enter
the Pond.
c. Bear-proof waste receptacles shall be used on-site'
An operational plan that addresses the relationships and obligations of the
park incluoing mrnt"nrn"" snal [e'o-"*r"p"o and submitted to Garfield
County Planning
-pr'ror
to the issuance of the permit'
12.
13
35
it will be administered'
I
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D'Dunbar- BOCC 8/10/09
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The nppficani fails to satisfy the all the requirements of the lJnified Land Use
Resotuiion of 2008, as amended (ULUR) namely, components of:
7-lo4SufficientLegalandPhysicalsourceofWater
7-105 Adequate Water SuPPIY
7 -106 Adequate Central Waier Distribution and Wastewater System, 7-806
H, I Campground standards for water supply and Distribution,
Sewage DisPosal
7-107,7-309 Adequate Public Utilities contract
7-1OB Access and Roadways
7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies
7-2o4ProtectionofWaterQualityfromPollutants
7-2OS Erosion and Sedimentation
7-206 Drainage
7-207 Stormwater Run-off
7-208 Air QualitY
7-212 Reclamation
7-307 RoadwaYs standards
Staff recommends the Board of county commissioners not approve the request for
approval of the High Mesa RV Park tb be granted a Land Use Change Permit to
operate under the requirements set forth as a result of this Major lmpact Review'
36
I
EXHIBIT
May 14,2009
Dusty Dunbar
Garheld County Building and Planning
108 8th Street Suite 401
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
RE: High Mesa RV Park, waiver of Bocc Public meeting time frame requirement
Ms. Dunbar:
Relative to the High Mesa RV Park, we would like to formalty waive our right to a Public
hearing by the go*Joic*n v commissioners within rortv (+ol calgldg days of the date of the
planning Commission recommenautio. u, ,tifuhted in seciion 4-tOO'g'z'u of the Garfield
County Unified Land Use Resolution'
The waiver request is being made to allow our team sufficient time to provide materials to meet
the conditions set forth by the pranning-co;irrion and toalow the county staffadequate time
to review the submiued items'
Graham
ith any questions or comments'
time frame 5' I 3-09.docxWaiver of
igh Mesa RV Park
Page I of I
GARFIELD COI.INTY
Building & Planning DePartment
Review AgencY Form
EXHIBIT
Date Sent: JulY 9,2009
Comments Due: JulY 30r 2009
Name of application: High Mesa RV Park
Yl,i:
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project' Please-notirylh'
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline' This form
may be-usedfor your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
,r"""rr*y. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed' or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staff Contact: Dustin Dunbar
109 8m Street, Suite 301
Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments:
Counf ROW without approval of Garfield Countv'
ffiw ao"t "ot
p'"r""tly ""itt fo. c!. 309 u *{p qf !14_:3,9:lll1:; ;;
Nameofreviewagency:GarlreldCountyRoadandBridgeDept
By: Jake B. Mall Date JulY 23' 2009
Revised 3130100
MEMORANDUM lK
To: Dusty Dunbar
From: Steve Anthony
Re: High Mesa RV MIR2509
Date: July 29,2009
Noxious Weeds
The applicant's description of the noxious weeds located on site is acceptable. The weed
management plan is acceptable.
Revegetation
The applicant has quantified the area ofsurface disturbance as 7.35 acres.
Staffrecommends a revegetation security of $2500/acre for a total of $18,377.00
The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished
according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to contact the County, upon successful revegetation establishment,
to request an inspection for security release consideration.
The Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance are cited in Section 4.06,4-07 and 4.08
of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution #2002-94).
To: DustY Dunbar, Senior Planner
From: John Niewoehner
Project Engineer
Date: JulY 28, 2009
RE:HighMesaRVPark-EngineeringCommentson6-24-09PlanSet
rllrllrtr!trll.llllltrltrltrlll..llll.rllrtlrltrtllt.ltlrtlrl.rtrrllllllr
Dusty--Here,saSummaryofmycurrentconcernsregardingtheHighMesaapplication.
Some of these might be duplicates of comment already made by the county Attorney's
office and Yourself.
1. Easements: Code Section 7-806 D 2 states that the .Applicant shall submit a
warrantf:deeJor fite a plat of the site to assure the dedication of all
easementsandpubliclandspriortotheapprovalofthelanduseapplication,.
It is my preference to see a plat on which all easements are clearly visible' lf
thereisnoplat,theeasementsneedtobeaccuratelydepictedonthesite
plans anO taOeieO with reception numbers' (TO DO)
Easementsthatneedtobeshownincludethefollowing:
oMainAccessRoad(includingcutandfillslopes)
.e*e,g"ncyAccessRoad(includingcutandfillslopes)
. Off-site Drainage Ponds
o Wastewater Treatment Plant
o Wells and Associated PiPelines
o Water and Sewer Pipes to Treatment Plant
oEmergencyTurn-aroundwithUndergroundWaterStorageTanksand
Water PiPes
o Fire Storage Pond and PiPe
. HolY Cross
2.securitiesNeeded(i)ConditionofApproval.Priortothestartof
construction, the nppficani musiproviO6 County with Letters of.Credit to
serve as financial securities. (ii) Main Access Road - No-?9"1'i1y necessary'
condition of Approvar' in" bb*t' =n'rr;-'ttv =n'rr not'"tto* the RV Park to operate
untiltheMainAccessroadiscompletedandas.builtsreceived.
Garfield Coun
The
TO DO: The cost estimates provided in Appendices LL and W of the application
need to be refined. The appiicant's engineer needs to provide detailed cost
calculations in a form that can be reviewed the county. These cost estimates
must ne signed and stamped by a professional engineer. Three cost estimates
and Letters of Credit are needed'
tifies the area that will need to be re-
u"g"t;t"O when gre nV Park is constructed. The applicant must provide
OelaiteO cost calculations for re-vegetation, slope stabilization (erosion
controt matting) and weed management. (((This se_curity will be held by
the County uniilvegetation is re-established; typically two growing
seasons.)))The
d cost estimate for the Potential
return of the RV Park and supporting improvements (i.e. ponds and
to open for business.)))
The County needs a cost
emergency access road) to pre-development contours if the project is
abanloned. This cost estimate/security does not need to include the
cost of removing buildings and pipes and does not need to include the
ie-vegetation/wEed manZgurent areas already part of Security #1. The
cost istimate needs to inc-iude the placement and compaction of subsoil,
topsoil and re-vegetation. (((This security will be held by.the county until
the infrastructure is comple$, the bath house built, and the Park is ready
lof
effi24-footwide main access road that
conforms to the County;s chip-seal specification. (((Thig security will be
held by the County untit cnip-5eal is installed to the satisfaction of the
County Road and Bridge Department.)))
NOTE: Page 24 of the narrative portion of the application says that the applicant
is willing tolrovide 91.2 million in a letter of credit. Althoug the amount might be
"d"quri",
the County needs to know the cost break-down so the County release
or withhold portions of the letter of credit.
3. Request for Variance from Standards
The entrance road has the following lengths
tn"t "r."Ed
tO%-@ - 10% slope on a!'S'_c-urve
with radii of 147 tee -1Oo/o
slope on straight Portion of road.
. Countv Code: (1) Per Code Section 7-307, the maximum slope allowable
is g%. CJOe Section 7-209 'Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards' allows
roads to have a 1oo/o grade on straight sections of the road.
Unfortunately the 10oZ grade on the proposed access road is on an 'S'
curve. The Code Section 7-2Og states that steeper grades are allowed
subject to approval by the fire district and sheriff. (2) Per Section.T--307,
the minimum'horizonial radii (indicating the sharpness of the turn).for
Minor collector Roads (401-2500 trips/day) is for 185 feet. Thus the
proposed 145 foot curve radius on the main access road is sharper than
irre tgs foot curve radius allowed by county standards.
2
4.
. Staff Recommendation: Condition of Approval.'As long as the
applicant provides letters of approval from the Fire district and Sheriff, the
Staff recommends the approval of the road design with a posted 25 mph
speed limit. TO DO: Applicant must provide Staff with letters form Fire
District and Sheriff.
lmprovement Aqreement and/or Conditions of Approval (partial checklist)
. Financial securities
. Need for Chip seal; specification for chip-seal?
. Maintenance of Detention Ponds
. Dust Control. Maintenance of Access Road
. As-builts
Each Plan Sheet. Plan Sheet 1:
(i) To note #8 add: 'and a State Air Pollution Emission Notice
(APEN).'
(ii) To note #6, add: 'Contractor must have must have at least one
functioning dust suppression water truck on-site at all times
when grading is occurring. At the County's request, and even if
no grading is occurring, the Contractor will operate an adequate
number of dust suppression water trucks to mitigate dust.'
(iii) Replace Note #18 with: 'The access road from CR300 to the RV
Park main entrance will be chip-sealed within 18 months of the
date that construction of the RV Park begins. The chip-seal
specification and application method shall be reviewed and
approved by the County Road and Bridge Department prior to
being installed.'
Plan Sheet 2: (i) TO DO. Add bearings and distances to property
boundary. (ii) TO DO: Add names of abutting property owners.
Plan Sheet 3. ok
Plan Sheet 4: Main Access Road (i) TO DO: Revise culverts such that
the culverts discharge into the channels of existing drainages. (ii) TO
DO: Revise culverts such that inverts match grade. (iii) TO DO: Revise
culverts such that culverts do not discharge onto fill slopes. (iv) TO DO:
Maximum slope of cut and fill slopes is 2:1. (v) TO DO: Easements
must include cut and fill slopes.
Plan Sheet 5: Emerqencv Access Road (i) TO DO: Easements needed
for wells. (ii) TO DO: Maximum slope of cut and fill slopes is 2:1. (iii)
TO DO: Easements must include cut and fill slopes.
Plan Sheet 6: Road Profiles ok
Plan Sheet 7: Road Profiles See 'Request for Variances from Standards'
Plan Sheet 8: Road Sections ok
5.
Plan Sheet 9: Road Sections ok
Plan Sheet 10: Water and Sewer Plan ok
Plan Sheet 11 Sewer Profiles: ok
Plan Sheet 12 Water Profiles: ok
Plan Sheet 13 Gradinq and Drainaqe: The Applicant and the Applicant's
engineer are liable for the design and functionality of the drainage
structures. (i) Does the Applicant want runoff to flow over the road at the
west end of Road A? (ii) lmprovements Agreement needs to state
something like: "detention ponds will be inspected monthly to ensure that
no debris is present that might clog outlet pipe. Vegetation inside of
detention basins will be kept at a height less than six inches". (iii) TO DO:
Fire Pond drain valve is labeled as being both a check valve and a gate
valve. I assume they want a gate valve.
Plan Sheet 14 Detail, Drainase. Road Sections: (i) TO DO: Based on the
recommendation of the County Road & Bridge Dept and County
Engineering Dept, the Applicant shall use Road Section 'Alternative B'for
the Main Access Road with a 6" thickness of Class 6 road base (instead
of the 4" thickness of Class 6 currently shown on the plans). (ii) TO DO:
Show maximum cuUfill slopes of 2:1. (Per my memo dated September 18,
2008, the maximum cuUfill slopes are 2.1, not 1.5:1. See also the
December 2007 geotechnical report.) (iii) TO DO: Detention basin dam
re-vegetation comment should reference correct plan sheet - - the
landscape plan. (iv) lmprovement Agreemenf.'Prior to the application
of chip-seal, a dust control product must be applied to the road surface at
least two times per year. (v) lmprovement Agreement: Chip-seal
needs to be re-applied, at minimum, every five years. All chip-seal
applications must meet the current specifications of the County. (vi)
lmprovement Agreement.'Annualweed control must occur along the
roads. Barrow ditches and culverts shall be cleaned, as necessary, to
ensure drainage.
Plan Sheet 15 Details: (i) Re-vegetation needs to be done in accordance
with a project specific re-vegetation plan that is reviewed and approved
by the County; not the SWMP. TO DO: Steve Anthony needs to approve
a re-vegetation plan.
Plan Sheet 16 Details: As required by County Code, each space needs
to have a picnic table and a fireplace/fire circle. TO DO: Remove the
label 'by others'.
Plan Sheet 17: Landscape Plan: Steve Anthony needs to review and
approve the re-vegetation plan. The information on Sheet 17 may be
inadequate. We need to make sure that the lmprovement Aqreement
adequately addresses re-vegetation.
Plan Sheet 18. Stormwater Plan: This sheet duplicates information
shown on Sheet 13.
4
7.
8.
6.Water:WaterrightsreviewedbyCountyAttorney,so{i.gAcursoryreview
reveals two things: tijWeff p"rrit doesn't uses 5b gpd/site instead of100
gpo/riL. tii) Litt6 ini6rmatidn given on the right to release water from an
Eiiiting impoundment above the site to the fire pond'
wastewater Treatment: condition of Approva.I; No construction can begin
until the Applicant r!-ceives final approrai irom the State for the Wastewater
ireatmeni Plant design and proposed discharge'
. Desiqn Flows: The design flow is 10,000 gpd- Per County's RV Park
water supply r"qrli"m"nis, the watei demand by the RV Park is 15'400
gpd.lfthisamountofwaterisactuallyused,thewastewatertreatment
fiant caPacitY would be exceeded'
o Enclosed rreatment plant . condition of Approv.at:. .l recommend that
the County stipmhat the The County snbutO decide if the treatment
plant will need to have a cover'
As-builts:lmprovementAgreementPriortotheRVParkopeningfor
business, the Engineer-of-{ecord must provide the.County with as-built
drawings and a fetiei certit,ing that all improvements have been constructed
as designeO. ln aiOition, a lefter is needed from a geotechnical engineer
certifying tne struciuiaiiiaoirity and.compaction of the roads, including the
main access roaO.' pioriOing as-builts witt Ue a condition of Security #2
(describe
Dunbar
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Aftachments:
Jim Rada
Sunday, August 02,2009 8:58 AM
Dusty Dunbar
mark. kadnuck@state.co.us
FW: MIR 25Og - High Mesa RV Park
Jim Rada (1rada@gaii"iJ-"or"tvi"m).vcf; imagegg1.gif; Jim Rada (jrada@garfield-
county.com)2.vcf
Dusty,
Regarding the above referenced application, I offer the following comments:
1" The narrative indicates that this project will not generate dust, vapors etc. During construction it appears that the
applicants will be dist;rbing a suustanilal area of lind. I could not find an exact number but I did see a reference to
roughly s0% of the parcel till remain op"n ,prl". That-s-aid, there could be disturbance of 15-18 acres' The soils report
indicates that the topsoil contain a substantial amount of fine .rtoirt. CDPHE APCC Regulation 1 requires an air
pollution construction permit as noted in the excerpted language betow. This permit must be obtained and control plans
i"r"iop"o and implemented before construction/land disturbance begins'
tll.D.1.b- New Sources
Every owner or operator of a new source or activity that is subject to this Section lll'D' and which is
required to obtain ,n #iirtn permit under Regulation_No 3 sh.all submit a fugitive particulate
emission control plan meeting the requirements-of this Section lll.D. at such time as, and as part of'
the required permit
"ppii*iio"n.
such'ptan shall be approved or disapproved by the division in the
course of acting to approve or disappiove tne permii application and no emission permit shall be
iiueo until a figitive particulate emission control plan has been approved'
t t l. D.2. b. Construction Activities
llt.D.2.b.(i). Appticabitity - Attainment and Non-aftainment Areas
I t t. D. 2. b. (ii). Gen e ral Req ui rement
Any owner or operator engaged in clearing or leveling of .land or owner or operator of land that
has been cteareo o,t greaier'than five acris in aftainient areas or one (1) acre in non-aftainment
areas from wnicn iu{itive particulate emissions witl be emitted shatt be required to use all
available and practia! methods which iie technotogicalty feasible and economically reasonable
in order to minimizesuch emrssio ns in accordance witn ihe requiremenfs of Secfio n lll.D' of this
regulation.
2.once the operagon is underway, at peak operations, there is a likelihood that the private roads internal to the RV Park
willexceed the cDpHE Apcc Regulation 1-ioo venlcte per day threshold, thereby kicking in the requirements for dust
mitigation for the internal roads. t-oio not see Lny ptan for dust mitigation on this site. tn light of increasing PM 10 levels
in the parachute/Batflement Mesa area, I recommend that the appli'cant provide a dust control plan that , at minimum
meets the requirements of CDPHE APCC Regulation 1'
lll.D.2.a. RoadwaYs
ll l. D.2. a. (i). U nPaved
lll.D'2.a.(i).(A).Applicability-AttainmentandNon-attainmentAreas
I I l. D.2. a " (i). (B). General Requirement
Any owner or operator responsible for construction or maintenance of any (existing or
new) unpaved roadway which has vehicle traffic exceeding 200 vehicles per day in
aftainment areas or 150 vehicles per day in non-attainment areas (averaged over any
consecutive 3-day period) from which fugitive particulate ernissions will be emifted shall
be required fo use all available, practical methods which are technologically feasible and
economically reasonable in order to minimize emr.ssions resulting from the use of such
roadway in accordance with the requiremenfs of Secfion lll.D. of this regulation.
3.There appears to be a conflict between the water system design volumes and the wastewater treatment system design
flow numbers. The water system calculations are based on 120 sites, 100 gpd/site, 10 washing machines at
2S0/machine/day and an office at 90 gpd. This calculates to just over 15,000 gallons per day peak use. With 10%
consumptive use, the wastewater treatment plant could need to process in the order of 13,500 gpd. The preliminary
\ A//TP design is for 10,000 gpd. I have not received the formal review request at this point from CDPHE for either the
WTP or \ A /TP. I am copying Mark Kadnuck on this email to alert him to this concern. A couple of local precedents come
to mind regarding this issue. The Camper Park in CR 319 had to design an ISDS capable of managing waste flows from
a 100 gpd/site water system. Also, Elk Creek campground, modified to provide oil and gas housing showed families
moving in to the site long term, creating a much greater chance that higher volumes (greater than 50 gpd/site as proposed
by the \ A/VTP design engineer) of water will be used.
4. The remaining comments on my original review of this application (below) still apply.
Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in this process.
Ji. (rdr, KLHS
Environmental Healih Manager
Garfield Counly Public Health
195 W l4ti Street
Rifle, CO 81650
Phone 970-625-5200 xB1 1 3
Cell 970-319-1579
Fax 970-625-8304
Email irada@garfield-county.com
Web www.qarfield-county.com
From: Jim Rada
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:46 PM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Subjectr MIR 2509 - High Mesa RV Park
Dusty,
I offer my comments regardingthe referenced project:
1. The store facility will require a License to Operate a Retail Food Establishment in the State of Colorado.
ln orderto receive a license, priorto construction of the facility, the applicant will be required to
submit to a plan review along with any associated inspections by the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, Consumer Protection Division. The retailfood program lead for Garfield
County at this time is Leann Duinn, 303-692-3422.
2. The application indicates that the potable water system is under review by CDPHE. 7-401.A(3), Page 14
of the narrative, indicates that water quality tests will be made prior to occupancy. Water quality tests
are generally required for submittal with applications for the potable water system so that the WQCD
can determine adequacyof thetreatmentsystem design. To date, lhave not received a watersupply
design for review and signature regarding this system as is standard procedure for pubic systems. I
recommend that CDPHE approval for the water system be obtained before site disturbance is allowed.3. The application indicates that the wastewater treatment system is under review by CDpHE. To date, I
have not received a wastewater treatment design for review and signature regarding this system as is
standard procedure for pubic systems. I recommend that CDPHE approval for the water system be
obtained before site disturbance is allowed.4. No discussion of solid waste management is included in the proposal.5. No discussion of dust mitigation during construction or after operation begins.6' I count about 12 light poles for the park. Lighting at the park should be of a type that directs light in a
manner that has minimal impact with regard to light pollution.7' No mention of obtaining a stormwater permit from CDPHE. Construction drawings indicate that the
owner shall obtain a stormwater management plan from CDPHE. Under an approved stormwater
permit, the owner must develop and maintain (update as needed) a stormwater management plan.
Thanks for the opportunity to review this application
J;", (.d", KLHS
Environmental Health [\,1anager
Gadleld County Public Health
195 W 14th Street
Rifle, CO 81650
Phone 970-625-5200 xB1 1 3
Cell 970-3'19-1579
Fax 970-625-8304
Email irada@garfield-countv.com
Web www.garfield-county.com
STATEOF COLORADO
Bltl Rltter, Jr., Govemor
DEPAR.TMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Sincerely,
#a.rd
HHtstr
€ffi
t >T /10,"*L/rs
JT Romatz:ke
Area WildlifeManager
Colorado Division of Wildlife
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, HANiS D. ShETMAN. EEC{N,VE DiTEtiOT
WLDLIFECOMMISSION, BrEd Coors, ChsiloTim Glenn,Vlca Chair. Dennis B{Jectller, Secretary
Members, Jeffiey Cra ford r Dorotrca Fanis o Roy McAnally r John Snglehry o Mark Smih . Robert Steeter
Ex Offiob Menrbers, Hanis Sherman and John St'tp
ForWldlife-
For Peopb
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Thomas E- Remingrton, Dlrector
6060 BroadwaY
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1 192
wlldlife.state.co.us
August 3,2009
. DustinDunbar
StaffPlarmer
Bldg #2060,0375 CR 352
Rifle, Colorado 81650
(e7o) 525-s903
Re HigbMegaPartners LLC lMIRzsog/RVPark/ Grrfield county
Dear Dustin Dunbar:
Thankyou for the oppornrnity to commsnt on tho proposed High Mesa RV Park. The approximately 36-acre site is
located west of the town of parachute on the south sirG of CR ioo i" the S % of Section 19, Townshi;p 7 South, Range 96
Werq arra the NW % ofthe SW % of Secrion 19, Township 7 South, Range 95 West ofthe Sixth Prin,cipal Meridian, in
the County of Garlield and State of Colorado.
The mission of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) is to protec! preserv'e, enhance, and manrrge the wildlife and
their environment for the use, benefi! and enjoyment of the people of Colorado and its visitors' One ofthe ways we
achieve our mission is to comment on land uie proposals such as the requegt we have received from yow agency, Otu
goal is to provide complete, oonsistent, aua timity information to all entities who request comment o:n matters within our
statutory authority and our mission.
On April 19, 2009, the Colorado Division of Wildlife submitted a written comrBent on the High Mesa RV Park (File
Nrrmue, r,niusog). A-fter reviewing the Major Impact Review dated July 9, 2009, cDow has no additionar comments
on impacts to wildiife or wildlife habitat.
Thank you agnin f6p the oppornmity to commert on the proposed High fuf:f lV Park. Please do not hesitatp to contact
us about ways to continue managing the propefiy in order to maximize wildlife value while minimizing potential
conflicts. If you have fi.rrther qr[sti--onr please cortact Disrid Wildlife Manager Dan Skinoer at (970) 255'6124
900/200d rxp00:0f 6002 E 8nu !II9-99U-016 xDl ll ll0-l llrl J0 ',\ l0
Dunbar
From:
Sent:
To:
Subiect:
Lis, Craig [Craig.Lis@state.co.us]
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:56 AM
Dusty Dunbar
MlR2509 Hlgh Mesa RV Park
This referral is for a Major lmpact Review, and does not appearto qualify as a subdivision of land as defined in Section
30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S. As such, this office has no statutory responsibility to review the subject land use action.
However, we have performed a cursory review of Appendix A - Water Supply Plan Evaluation, and note that although
that well permits may be available pursuant to the West Divide Water Conservancy District Substitute Water Supply Plan
this office cannot assure the issuance of well permits absent submission and review of the necessary applications, fees,
and supporting documentation. Furthermore, please be aware that this office is not providing an opinion regarding the
validity of the water supply plan.
lf you have any questions in this matter, please contact me at this office.
Craig M. Lis, P.E.
Colorado Division of Water Resources
1313 Sherman St Rm 818
Denver CO 80203
303-855-3581
GRAND VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
1777 S. BATTLEMENT PARKWAY, PO BOX 295
PARACHUTE, CO 81635
PHONE: 285-9 I I 9, FAX (97 0) 285'97 48 EXHIBIT
7
JuJy 29,2009
Dusty Dunbar
Garfield County Planning and Building Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Subject: Review of the High Mesa RV Park Main Entrance request for variance
Ms. Dunbar,
I have reviewed the Main Entrance Road plan for the High Mesa RV Park. The
developers of the High Mesa RV park are requesting a variance allowing for a section of the
Main Entrance Road to High Mesa RV Park to have a curve radius of 145 ft. as opposed to the
185 ft. The developers stated that the road is not intended to be a 35 MPH road which would
require the 185 ft radius. The road is intended to be a 25 MPH rural road which would
accommodate the 145ft radius. The developer stated that it will be signed accordingly and it will
be park's staff responsibility to monitor for compliance. The decrease in radius will not
appreciably affect our ability to respond with the Districts current and projected fleet of response
apparatus. The Grand Valley Fire Protection District has no objection to the developer's request
for a variance to the minimum required road radius requirement.
If you should have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 970-285-9119
Rob Ferguson
Deputy Fire Chief - Operations
Cc: Chief Blair
File
GRAND VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
1771 S. BATTLEMENT PARKWAY, PO BOX 295
PARACHUTE, CO 81635
PHONE: 285-91 I 9, FAX (970) 285-97 48
JuJy 29,2009
Dusty Dunbar
Garfield County Planning and Building Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Subject: Review of Fire and Emergency Access to High Mesa RV park
Ms. Dunbar,
I have reviewed and approved both of the project's Access/Egress roads: The main road
enters into the project from County Rd 300 near the Metcalf residence. The Metcalf residence is
directly across the street to the northwest from the Main entrance into the RV Park. Also
approved is the secondary Emergency Road that leaves the North side of the RV Park and ties
into the Speakman properly and then empties onto County Road 300 approximately 200 yards
east of the Main Entrance. These roads wills have chains and locks affixed to them. The Fire
District will have its own lock as one of the locks, which will ensure 2417 access in the event of
an emergency.
If you should have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 970-285-9llg
Rob Ferguson
Deputy Fire Chief - Operations
Cc: Chief Blair
File
Excerpt from the Minutes of the Planning Commission 5.13.09
The next item on the agenda is a public hearing request to review a Major Impact Review
application for the High Mesa RV Park/Campground. The subject property is located off a well
pad access road off of CR 300 approximately one mile south of Battlement Mesa. The applicant
is High Mesa Partners, LLC.
Present for the applicant are Bob Graham Manager of High Mesa Partners, Mark Williams also
one of the partners, and Nathan Bell Engineer and Planner for this proposal. Bob Graham also
owns the adjoining parcel.
Phil Vaughan reviewed the process we will follow for this
Deborah Quinn will review noticing requirements and Bob Graham will respond to her
questions. Proof of Publication was provided showing date notice was published in the
newspaper on April 9,2009. Notice of hearing included a legal and practical description of
property, a description of what is being applied for, the time, date, and location of hearing. She
was also given a copy of the written public notice with return receipts indicating they were
mailed and received. Per Bob Graham the notice was mailed to all adjacent property owners and
mineral owners specified. Property was posted on April 12,2009 by Pam Paul's of Rocky
Mountain Structures. Posted sign is visible from CR 300 and is still in place today. Deborah
Quinn said based on representation by the applicant and documentation provided it appears that
notice was properly done.
Phil Vaughan swore in all speakers for this item.
Dusty Dunbar is the County Planner for this proposal. Dusty entered exhibits into the record:
Exhibit A: Proof of Mail Receipts
Exhibit B: Proof of Publication
Exhibit C: Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008
Exhibit D: Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended
Exhibit E: Application
Exhibit F: Staff Report
Exhibit G: Staff Power Point Presentation
Exhibit H: Email from Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept. Administrative Foreman Jake
Mall, dated 5/5/2009
Exhibit I: Email with attached comment letter from Garfield County Vegetation Management
Department Director Steve Anthony, dated 4/23/2009
Exhibit J: Letter from Garfield County Planning Department Project Engineer John Niewoehner,
PE, dated 3/2712009
Exhibit K: Email from Garfield County Environmental Health Manager Jim Rada, dated
412012009
Exhibit L: Email with attached comment letter from Grand Valley Fire Protection District,
Deputy Fire Chief Rob Ferguson, dated 41812009
Exhibit M: Email with attached comment letter from Grand valley Fire protection District,Deputy Fire Chief Rob Ferguson, dated 2/24/2009
New Exhibits handed out tonight:
Exhibit N: Response from consulting Engineer Nathan Belr dated May l r,2009Exhibit O: Applicants power point presentation.
Exhibits A - O are accepted into the record.
Dusty Dunbar will present the project information and staff comments next. This application isfor a Major Impact Review ror^anhv _Pgk/camng;;;; f". property identified as parcel number2407-193-00-189 and.owned by High Mesa PartnJrs, iic. rn" subject properry is locatedapproximately one mile south orguftt"-"nt Mesa off of a well pad road off of cR 300. Theexisting zoningon this parcel is Rural and adjacent r""i"g is public Lands.
A location site map was shown of the property and some of the surrounding properties were also
:x3ffr"ffT';JX1$:i:ffi:" out and disclssed. rhere is a rooped or"-'*Iy road. A project
The campground would consist of 120 back-in parking spaces for RV,s with full hook-ups andutilities' No tent spaces are proposed. on site servicei iould include laundry, shower facility,
ffi:;J;:"#J::t" receptacles, with a campsround store and storage racitiiies proposed in the
This application was referred out to a number of review agencies. The Town of parachute wasone of those review agencies- that application was sent to For comments and none were receivedfrom them' other agencies tt ut *" aia receive comments from are included within the staffreport.
A Major Impact Review application is defined in the Unified Land use Resolution of 200g as .,aland use considered having a significant impact". rrr" comprehensive plan designates this areaas outlying Residential' Th.e usl requested lies within ttre rrree Mile sphere of Influence forconsideration of the compatibility wittr the Town of parachute,s comprehensive plan.
Five ADA compliant sites are required. The applicant proposes r0 ADA sites.
Article III standards apply to this request. section 3-306 also list the guidelines and standardsfor an RV Park/campground and these are related to zoning issues that speak to the average sizeof the lots, acreage, setbacks and buffering. --- -^c
challenges to the general purpose standards in Section 7-r0g which speak to:o The access to public road ways. A secondary access is required..
:;rji:T:i:;ly**.:are required. Road h;,o;;;rade and tum design challenges that
o Road needs tomeet requirements of a residential road. Road was originally built for wellpad use only' The county Road & Bridge o"p"rt-""t has made ro-i.""o.-endations.
o Sections 7-lO4 & 7-105 talk about the legal and adequate source of water. An error was
made by Dusty in which she thought the Attorney's office had said that the applicant
could meet the requirements of sufficient legal and physical source of water. This project
originally came in under the old code and has gone back and forth thus creating sornq
confusion.
o The water supply for the fire flow ponds is proposed to come from storage. tn the
process of going through water court so this is not in place at this time. Augmentation
water for the fire flow pond is proposed to be contracted water which has not been
deemed by Garfield County as a perpetual supply.o Requirement for water sufficient in quality, quantity and dependability and availability
has not been met at this date and time.o The Project Engineer has numerous requirements for supply system that must be satisfied
prior to approval. These are all listed in his memo (Exhibit J).o Conditions listed by Jim Rada (Exhibit K) are to be included as conditions of approval.t Adequate central water and waste water treatment has not been met as of this moment
and time.
Under Division 2 - General Resource Protection Standard challenges in Section 7-204 - 7-207
are related to engineering comments that are needed:o Protection of water quality from pollutants and sedimentation.o Drainage and Storm Water runoff.o Permits and securities are necessary.o Reclamation- Project Engineer made some comments that need to be addressed.o Vegetation Manager also listed his comments (Exhibit I) that need to be included as
conditions of approval.
Under Division 3 - Site Planning and Development Standards. These are more of design
standards related to the project. The first three items listed are Compatible design, building
design, design and scale of development.o Compatible design can be satisfied with the conditions recommended by staff.o Building design and design and scale of development. Staff has made some
recommendations.
' Standards for off-street parking. Applicant has met the design standards for parking
sites and shall meet the standards for accessible ADA compliance.o Landscaping and Lighting. Lighting at the Park should be the type that directs light in
a manner that has minimal impact with regard to light pollution.o Snow storage standards. No designated snow storage areas are shown on the site plan.
This needs to be shown as this will be a public facility and snow can happen in this
area.
o Roadway standards. Section 7-108 addresses the requirements here.o Trail and walkway standards must comply with CABOiANSI AllT.l standards. Must
be installed to provide safe access between the camper sites and the laundry/shower
building.
o Utility standards. Holy Cross made some comments that have to be incorporated.
Section 7-806lists additional standards that are specific to that use which is Campgrounds/RVParks. Site improvements related to access, drainage, landscaping.
Staff recommends a management plan for operations and obligations of the park.
Concerning fire protection, staff recommends that the applicant be required to meet with theGrand Valley Fire Protection District to develop *a rrl-it a fire safety and emergencyresponse plan which includes an annual inspeciion of the fire pond as a condition of approval.
Water supply and distribution is a recommended condition of approval listed by staff.
Staff recommendations are included on pages 26-29 of the staff report. Staff is recommendingthat the Planning commission move forward a recommendation oiupprorul to the Bocc for theHigh Mesa RV Park with the conditions listed by staff. Conaitions l-14 were read iinto therecord by Dusty Dunbar.
Cheryl Chandler asked how they are going to fix this road. It's not really a road it,s aneasement' Dusty Dunbar replied it is a substantial well pad road. EnCurr."po.t"dly spent over$1 million dollars on this stretch of road.
John Niewoehner said road is about 20' wide. we are looking for a wider road for long rangedevelopment' It is also steeper than the county recommended-development uito*r. Emergencyaccess road is needed. Need two accesses into the site. Road will be maintained by applicant butopen to the public.
Phil vaughan asked, has staff been able to review Exhibit N "response from consulting EngineerNathan Bell"' Dusty Dunbar said in a cursory sense only. What she got from that is theapplicant felt confident about there response to these issues.
Ygutl to the applicant for their presentation next. Mark williams introduced himself first. Heis the General council for Bob Graham. Bob Graham will speak first. Applicant is applying fora Major Impact Review application to construct an RV Park with a total of noRV spaces. Thisproperty is located about '/a miles off of CR 300. They put in a lot of time and energy to come upwith the design of this project. The property is currentiy zoned for agricultural use. The parcelis 36 acres' This parcel il Rut together by property thatihree of us own. others are in the projectwith us to hopefully provide some financi"g. ac"ess is off a private road and all the neighboringproperty belongs to the applicants.
A vicinity map was shown. slides were shown of the surroundin g area. A slide of the view areafrom CR 300 was also shown.
Initially this RV Park was proposed to accommodate oil and gas workers. A long-term RV parkwill support visitors to the area who are pursuing recreationafopportunities.
o The RV Park will beo Plan to have a smallo Laundry facility.
ADA compliant.
store to supply daily needs for guests.
o Will have storage facility at the RV park.
o No signs for facilities.o Will have a Management Plan that talks about how long people can stay at the park andPark rules.
Bob Graham says he has owned the property for l0 years. This property was previously used asgrazing land with open fields and trees. Will try to ireserve as much as the natural foliage thatthey can.
Applicant was denied use of the Battlement Mesa water system and waste water treatment.Applicant will builda.public water supply system for the
-Park.
Water system will be permittedby the State. A combination fire and inigation system is being construcied. We have waterrights and are in the process of adjudicating surface water righ"ts on the oaybreak property. Wehave holding ponds up on High Mesa and those ponds can feed water into pond for fireprotection. Irrigation water is coming from righis they own. There will not be that muchirrigation needed. Have submitted an application to the State for waste water treatment facility.
concerning access road, they are designing roads to minor collection standards. Roads will beupgraded to County standards. Will chip and seal the road once the gas company is finished inthis area. Applicant thinks there is no impact to CR 300 due to the location of the park.
will build Park in Phases. phases 1 will be the infrastructure for the park.
Phase 2 is the building and that's when the road will need to be completed.
Bob Fullerton asked Bob Graham what are his opinions with the County conditions of approval.Bob Graham said they agree with most of them and they have been *oikirg closely with staff onthese.
Phil Vaughan has a question related to the fire pond. Bob Graham said they have water rightsand irrigation rights and from what he understands that water cannot not be diverted to their firepond' The surface water as he understalds can be adjudicated to be used for the fire pond.
Because we have large ar_eas up on High Mesa and most of the agricultural area is his propertywe can collect the water from that and then that water will flow do*. into the fi.e poni. i,addition we are entering into a water contract with the water company to ensure if there is notadequate water that we can st
Dusty Dunbar said we were aware and have had many discussions about the water.
Mark Williams spoke next. Mr. Graham's water rights for irrigation can be used to fill the pondsif necessary. Daybreak Ranch the bulk of it sits or-uigt Mesa. Can use adjudicated ponds forimpoundment of water to supply water for fire requireirents. Water EnginJers have told Mr.Williams that there is plenty of water for fire rr'rpply.
Phil Vaughan said this Major Impact Review application should be at apoint that this is all inplace. Mr. Williams said he would like to trave ifre permit in place before they put out thefinancial requirements. Phil Vaughan said he understands that but Code requires items to beaddressed' It appears that the applicants reply under Exhibit N, says you wiil deal with all of this
stuff before we get to the BOCC. Nathan Bell said the long and short of it is yes some of these
issues will be handled by the Bocc hearing but others may not.
Phil Vaughan has a question about chip and seal. Do you plan to mag-chloride the road until
then? Bob Graham said they hope EnCana will be out of here fairly quickly. They have been
applying mag-chloride to the road and will continue to do so.
Phil Vaughan asked do you all know what the Town of Parachute thinks about this. Bob Graham
said he had discussions with the Town of Parachute they said we are outside of their area of
influence so they didn't care about the project. Nathan Bell said that was brought up because of
the drainage and that will not be flowing towards town.
Cheryl Chandler asked is the well a commercial well. Bob Graham said yes it is.
Moved out to the public for comments next. None were received so we came back to the
Planning Commission.
Cheryl Chandler asked is there a recorded easement with Noel fuchardson? Dusty Dunbar saidno. That is an access connection for emergency access and that has not been determined. Bob
Graham said before Noel owned the property it was an historical roadway that was the access
road to the property that he bought from Daybreak. We basically had an agreement in place to
have access to the property. Not for large developments but for access to tle property. Noel was
informed of that with closing documents. In the event there are any issues theie, we have a
secondary access that they are working with the fire district on which actually crosses Battlement
Mesa property' Mr. Williams said they feel confident they can get a secondaiy access to the
county road. we are confident that we can meet the conditions.
Dusty Dunbar said this access permission through Noel Richardson's property you mentioned
that it was not for public to use. Does that satisfy the requirements for the road condition access
or does this only satisfy emergency nature of that. Bob Graham said their plan for the road is for
emergency access. Dusty Dunbar brought up conversations with Jake Mall at Road and Bridge
and something about permission options were discussed.
Nathan Bell said we are proposing that the emergency access will be used for emergency access
only and not an access road opened to the general traffic. Nathan Bell said they will construct
roads to accommodate RV's. Dusty Dunbar thinks we are having a little bit of confusion here
between use and the road itself. Yes the use is proposed to be closed off and to be used only for
emergency purposes but because this road is the only alternative connection for the public tt get
out of the RV Park. It needs to be designed not to the fire district standards but to the Road &
Bridge Department standards. John Niewoehner said that Land Use Code says roads must be
constructed to meet road standards. We don't want a bunch of dead end roadsln the county.
Needs to be built so it could be upgraded to a public road.
Phil Vaughan said requirements of emergency access road are going to meet Garfield County
Code and the International Fire Code and or in regards to mainienance of this road in the wintertime. Nathan Bell said we will have to maintain that road.
Fred Jarman referred to Section 7-307 concerning roadways standards are fairly specific to this
issue on emergency access egress. Fred Jarman read those standards into the record. Fred
Jarman has a question. Fred Jarman worked on the Noel Richardson project and he recalls a
piece of that road crosses BLM property. Bob Graham said he thinks there is a small part on
BLM and we can talk to them and get the appropriate permission.
Fred Jarman asked what are the permits that you have with the BLM on that road and the second
question is if you are required to do improvements to meet the terms of the IFC for emergency
access what's the BLM's stance on allowing that. Nathan Bell said there is no BLM crossing.
Dusty Dunbar said as long as the applicant satisfies Jake Mall with Road & Bridge requirements
and standards and his ability to permit then its okay. Nathan Bell said he has actually had a
discussion with Jake Mall about his options.
Cheryl Chandler has a question about well permit. Bob Graham said it is a commercial well
permit and a copy was sent over to the County today. It was inadvertently left out of the
application. Dusty Dunbar said she has seen the permit and it is valid through July of this year.
Phil Vaughan said staff is recommending approval with conditions. Do you all feel comfortable
meaning Planning Staff and Legal Staff standpoint and from the applicant as well that you all can
work on this and that we can get this all squared away before the BOCC hearing. Deborah
Quinn said part of the problem she has with this is that the applicant does not want to expend a
lot of funding before they get approved. Unfortunately, there are State Law requirements,
standards and regulations that require these items be addressed. There is inconsistency within
the documentation submitted. Ms. Quinn said she does not know if they can meet the conditions
to get BOCC approval.
Phil Vaughan said when he sees this level of items that still need to be addressed he has some big
concerns.
Bob Graham said there was some confusion related to water. Nathan Bell said a lot of the issues
here have been implemented. They do have completed surveys into and out of the park in both
directions. Bob Graham said they will fix road deficiencies at their expense and deal with
EnCana later. Nathan Bell thinks they can certainly complete these items in a timely manner.
Dusty Dunbar said there are substantial risks and there is a lot of detail that is needed.
Dusty Dunbar would like Ms. Quinn to speak about the time period for application to go to the
BOCC. Deborah Quinn said regulations say 40 days to get to BOCC and because of needed
publication time limit by the Citizens Telegram will need waiver from the applicants. Nathan
Bell said they can provide a letter to waive time limit requirements.
John Niewoehner said he is personally skeptical that these issues can be addressed by July 6,
2009. He will need time to review any items that are submitted and the planner will need time to
produce a staff report.
Fred Jarman said what Nathan Bell said is correct. If they waive the time limit to the BOCC then
the date is totally a moot point. Staff will decide on date of hearing later after we see how
applicant has satisfied the conditions.
Phil Vaughan said staff member is recommending approval with conditions and applicant is
willing to waive time limits to go to BOCC hearing. Application here has not complied with the
Code in his mind. This is heavy in conditions. Thinks we are not seeing a ful1 plan today.
Jock Jacober agrees. Is this a deficiency in the Code in regards to that review or is this going to
become the standard practice.
Phil Vaughan asked is it fair to move this forward? Dusty Dunbar said this is her first Major
Impact Review application that she has done but at the same time often times the SUP's permits
that came in were not necessarily good had many things that were outstanding shall we say that
were technically complete but caused staff concerns about there mitigation which caused it to be
heavily conditioned. Dusty Dunbar said this application is a very complex application. It is not
a simple application by any means.
Jock Jacober said maybe an RV Park doesn't belong here and should be reviewed perhaps as a
Preliminary Plan. Dusty Dunbar said there are a lot of standards for this type of review.
Cheryl Chandler said they need a knock down gate on the emergency access road. She thinks
this proposal for an RV Park is something that Garfield County needs.
Adolfo Gorra asked do we need additional conditions such as one for a letter from the applicant
to waive 40 day time limit. Phil Vaughan said they have already agreed to that. Adolfo Gorra
asked what about water shed permit. Fred Jarman said that condition number 2 catches that
requirement.
Phil Vaughan asked about access issue under condition 10B. Dusty Dunbar said that is for
oversize and overweight vehicles for construction traffic which is a standard from Road &
Bridge. Phil Vaughan said the other is emergency access road. Wherever that happens are we
conditioned out well enough to cover that issue. Dusty Dunbar said the way she has looked at
this whole thing is that it pretty much says you need to answer Jake Mall's concerns, our
Engineers concerns, the Fire Districts concerns and the Code.
Bob Fullerton made a motion to recommend approval of the Major Impact Review application
for the High Mesa RV Park to operate under the requirements set forth as a result of the Major
Impact Review with the conditions numbers 1-14 that are included in the staff report. Adolfo
Gorra seconded the motion.
Bob Fullerton wanted to make some comments. During the presentation there seemed to be
several alternatives that maybe you were seconded guessing as to where you were going. He is
in agreement with Phil that hopefully as this process revolutionizing this will become more
complete. Need a more complete application.
A vote was taken on the motion made and it carried unanimously.
tq
CNtr
R
F]
=H
F]X
Tn.1
t-I{l\ra
W
\H
\U
ciG
a
,o
to
a.
h
u
o
Zo s'
Ss)R3
\ooOrJ
-(t
^\Hd\o*Q
-n i\
H'8gLIg
bB
\J rr
P" qi
Fg
rl. .fJ$xxa
ot
Rv,ful€€a (t'<- (/)
Qs
:il s.
$s'}.01
k8
o<
,o (/)
8soN)X(lr
i\S
(r)I
Elo't
(,
15\
v)o
Ls
EEEEEHEEEEFEBFEEEIE
EgEmEctEElEEHIlE
EEHEEH*HxEqEgELIF
eugHtteEExeegegIn
EHH3H3:$FEqSI; RE
:HBHqSEEH*EEE iEHSsudXEq!*8sE !iH
gEHHE'E$EiEE" EE{b c H- !ar-
T
q
EEEE E*E
EEEEE BEH EB
EEH
H lBB
-
iiglH-EEEHEEEEEEEEEEEEEIE
lsg-EEEuTE
[E-EEEEHEEEBEEEEEEEB
otr
!F
E\eE
E6
s
HEIHI*11
En83
O\ : I
HH S:.;P o PH6&h
IEHBE
5Hlo
IE
tbtd
IE
>3
-Eabts
H
s
oIo
F.U
o
ti
5
8
5
I
6
*
E
v
s{
u
a
F
3
E
HF
o
*
F
E
o
(-+
\
\s
Ig
ls
IE
It:IE
l8tx
IEt:x
EE;iEiEirlri;HIgEE$EEEEH ln
EEEErEE sEEEEE;EiiEgcffi E IE
EIHXEEEEEXEEE'5IEE5EIE$ IS
;Ei;E$;u$;[[- gEEEiEEIE
lE
EiEfiEiEEEEEEEEEE$HE
FFF-sliEEEIHEEEEI
HSHEISEHEf;HSEEE
gEEEIg3EsEEEE$E
$ S $ EEI EI$} FSEEE
sE$EEESIiEEHEE$q { q {Y f 'oE=
s
-L-l'
lii n.i B:i lii e8ilFrt
lln
dtEs(Fi I
:c
g
d
EEE}
tiSda
!HIIE
;EiH9g;E
;;E^d
tsi 3
;l dBH EJE E
IH
l*
l14
la
IE
IE
ls
IEl!
t;
ta
ts
E
sEEEEE sx;Es$*sEi
EEHEiEE$EEiEEiEE
EEETEE E*B{cB{qBg
Eg!5Tg SEESEE*EB:
'EiH$EEHEiHriEiE
Er$EEElgslIs
HEES*ESIEi$i
EiEE$EEEE
orgE.J Bt I I
SEE*E eh E E
EHE.qF E00 R [id9d
o\, \.
\LdI 5S ""| ,-(c \ \I x- \ \its$ ii-i O. t!i ,i:'==T'lt l/ t I| //I tt I :t ii lil..lr l\i;\\\\)--t:il - *I i il r \. 1I f \ iilsIE \ IFFi \\ iElii )) " iil$
\,rii Fi$-l\\ d iI \\ tt i
i)) r'i I
I -jfozo'
*
ls\ Fll'\,Hi:\\tir$lel
I lll irlfl!lllri| ,t !rrJi-, ,it, *ij ,'f-l i FsI duuE iiiI r --=tf etsi l-I : ,,}AF itiiJ {{$ isI i lil 3!F igil,i d i:
t] (,Fg ,i it r I !!tFE t$t | ,
i''i.*l(ry i$fi i*lll:l$\\ -i l'i
iil K,iiEi i
Itr,
H lo-o13
uls
=ll
;1il
ot9
!1.
rl
il
il
fil
<g
e
*E
94
He
\\
!
;q
I
i,
i.
s
E
t;
,d
lg
rlir *H
i rE
l6rFr
IBi9
tq
htr
E
=H
tqX+{|+l-w\H
N
cio
hqI
U')
$
a
o
4JS C/)*8
\ooOrI
4(hN:0Dv
.o:J-'r ii
R'8
co' -
R'aii.tr
J',
oll
U\I
H. rats9a.\
i..s-$x
otRpJulG.=aGq. CD
!ro
:)p.9q's;
k8o:t
RJ Y.oo
ss
O t\)X(rr
o-QoJ'a.
C^)I
El
e
U)
\
A)o
L
EEsEE*fiiiEEEEEEEEEgHiE
B
i;
:F3
tssE
ct!9.
t q1-
"{3-L
"-E
rlF:lirl*
HII
slx
ilI
Fl;eHm,
F
:
d
uf;
a
fi
gESFEEEg
E
EEcEEiEE E
EiilEl$EE$
tEsiflHEA
EEHEqIEgi
sHEEEc5H
H::*EBEE
;EIsxEgE
EEEHEEEi
dEEX;IE
$*5HEEEiSPkE<i
s"sE$EE6 -j-Eu
l8
l$
IE
9
Rtt
!s
*F
s
3
a
Ftq
*2
.E
DESCRIPNON
N"r); I l\a
Wi'i i i 'f
i/ r\r I I r.E r\r ltii; \\\ lti; \g tri\\_]_t
r':----)fg!.
. -/fr---i--tt
ldrr I
"'\. i,ir''
la
,J.
irF-;
.'l'N
fi,ft-/fl {'Ijrlli
ltil,
,\lvl,Zfl(
-ts.\\Ii\
I
I
artf-r
t: s;i s
i€
ll
\ I'r\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
$s$ltE8
Ete|gEE
E8&rei6QEqs:8
EEHEEEq€BE*rsB:3U:
EEiEBE
EEEEEH
Ei9Efitr
EgEEi:fq:rfi9tlrgsd!<
tsH!!:
8
E
E
E
s
E
E
H
s
*t
B
EiEgIB;g;F
$EEEE
HgFEg
igdEB
EEEBS
EEEEH
FEEEE
E}E6E
siEEE;ts838
E!xEB3.:B;gEd!XE
$EEEi
E$EEE'9
JEFFY RI,EICTI
353 E VISTA DR
SILT, C.O 81652
SCHMUESER I GORDON I ME/ER ,:;i i,.fr.i,.i,ri:, ri,rlirl,r:, '.:;iri:'l
ENGTNEERS & suRVEyoRS llBw'6ff'sum2oo P'o'Bo(2155
qr}*EO9PFrC,OO8l60l ASPEX, Co 8l6l e
97@4+tOO4 97@"5<727
ilt 97Oe4*5948 il 97@25'4t57
sEcTloN 7{06.H
Additional Standards Applicable to Camporoundlilew Recreational Vehicle RV
Park and Additions to an Existinq Camoqround/Park
Since the High Mesa RV Park is outside of the Battlement Mesa Consolidated Metro
District service area, the applicant is proposing the use of an on site well or wells for the
source of potable water. An applicaUon has already been filed by Westem Water, and a
copy of this permit is attached hereto.
It is anticipated that a buried fiberglass tank will be used for potable water storage. The
tank has been preliminarily sized at 25,000-30,000 gallons. The water storage sizing
has excluded fire flow and irrigation components, as the applicant is proposing the use
of a raw water pond for these items. A copy of the water augmentation plan and the
water allotment contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District has been
additionally attached for review.
The proposed development is currently applying for a permit through the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for a transient, non-community
water system. Previous correspondence with County Staff has indicated that it is
possible to approve a Land Use Change contingent upon State approval of the water
system.
Water System Galculations:
RV Sites
(119 sites) x (100 gpd/site) = 11,900 gpd
Laundrv Facilitv
"Assumed 0.5 EQR/machine
(0.5) x (350 gpd) x (5 machines) = 875 gpd
Bathhouse*Assumed 0.5 EQR/toilet or urinal, 0.3 EQR/shower, 0.2 EQR/sinko Men: 2 toilets, 2 urinals, 2 sinks, 2 showers (3.0 EOR)o Women: 2 toilets, 2 sinks, 2 showers (2.0 EOR)
(5.0) x (350 gPd) = 1,750 gqd
Average Day = 14,525 gpd
Max Day = 2.0 x AD = 29,050 gpd
EXHIBITIe
Tank Sizing:
Tank = Equalization + Emergency + Fire Flew
gq = (PHF-MDD)-I
PHF= Peak Hour Flow (3 x MDD)
MDD= Maximum Daily Demand
t= Duration
=(2MDD-MDDft
= l(2x 29,050 gpd)-29,050 gpdl x (6 hr/ 24filday)
= 7,263 gal.
EM = 1.04D
= 1.0 x 14,525 gal.
= 14,525 gal.
Tank= 7,263 gal. + 14,525 gal. = 21,788 = 25.000 qal
l:\2006\2006-374\001\01 Water Svstem\Water Suoplv Letter.do(
e
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
For the
High Mesa RV Park Wastewater Treatment Facility
Prepared for:
High Mesa Partners, LLC.
1860 Lousetown Rd
Reno, NV 89521
Prepared BY:
Schmueser Gordon MeYer, lnc.
1 18 West 6th, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) e45-1004
August,2009
I :\2006\2006-374\00'1 \02 \ M/TF\SGM-PER.doc
Preliminary Engineeing RePort
High Mesa RV Park WWTF
Garfield County, CO
SERVIGE AREA
The proposed wastewater treatment facility will be located south of the Battlement Mesa
p.U.b. on a portion of the property owned by Daybreak Realty as expressed in attached
legal description. The facility will serve the proposed recreational vehicle park
co-nsisting of 1 19 vehicle pads, a central laundry facility and bathhouse. This facility will
only servL facilities owned and operated by Daybreak Realty, LLC. and will not receive
waste from other operations.
LOADINGS
The proposed RV park consists of 1 19 vehicle pads, 5 coin operated washers and a
shower iacility. The flows from the shower facility are taken into account in the 50
gpd/site. Oeiign loading assumes full capacity. The following demonstrates the
expected flows:
119 Sites .........100 gpd x 119 ..." 11,900 gpd
5 Washers 400 gpd/machine x 5........... 2,000 gpd
Bathhouse:
Shower
Flush Toilet
Sink
Urinal
Men Women
222222
2
Duration (hr/dav) Flow (qaUhr)
3 100 1,200 gPd
1 36 144 gPd
1 15 60 gPd
1 10 20 qPd
Anticipated DailY Flow 15,324 gPd
19,155 gpd
Organic loadings are domestic in nature and are estimated to be 300 mg/lfor BODs
(aiO fSS) totaling 25 lbs. BOD' per day. Values for anticipated flow qu_antities derived
irom Table 1 of the CDPHE Guidelines on lndividual Sewaqe Disposal Svstems.
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES & CONSOLIDATION
Other methods for the treatment of wastewater for the High Mesa RV facility were
limited to those that could easily be removed and mitigated according to requirements of
the Preliminary Effluent Limits (PELs). Leach fields were ruled out because of the
topography ofine site. The Consolidated Metropolitan District has denied service to the
p.pErty bLcause the proposed development is outside of the District's planned service
area. fnis denial of service was formally expressed via email, which is included in the
Appendix.
Preliminary Engineeing RePort
High Mesa RV Patu\iAMTF
Garfield County, CO
PROPOSED TREATMENT FAGILITY
The proposed High Mesa RV Wastewater Treatment facility will be a Sequencing Batch
Reactoi provided by Sanitaire; Brown Deer, \Msconsin. Said plant will be preceded by
headwori<s and metering; followed by UV disinfection pursuant and a polishing pond to
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Design Criteria'.
Attached to this report are schematic SBR drawings in addition to a preliminary Site
Plan. More detailed drawings will accompany the Process Design Report,
Headworks
The headworks shall consist of a manual bar screen for preliminary processing. A
bypass with a redundant manual bar screen will also be included in case of a surge, or
in ine event that the primary screen becomes clogged. The headworks facility will be
designed in order to prevent large objects from entering the treatment tanks that may
clog subsequent pumps and piping systems.
lnfluent Meter
A Parshallflume will be installed between the headworks and the SBR in order to
monitor and document the influent flows coming into the plant.
Treatment Facilitv Basins
The principal structures shall include:
Sequencing Batch Reactor
One Aerobic Digester/Sludge Holding Tank
The proposed ABJ lntermittent Cycle Extended Aeration System (ICEAS) process is a
modification of the conventional Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) package plant
systems. The ICEAS process provides the ability for biological oxidation, nitrification,
de-nitrification, phosphorous removal and liquids/solids separation to occur in one
basin. Continuous inflow of wastewater to the basin results in no interruption of influent
during the settle, decant or any other time during the operating cycle, and therefore
eliminates the need for primary and secondary clarifiers, as well as the need for return
sludge pumps. The SBR package plant is to be provided by Sanitaire.
The Aerobic Digester/Sludge Holding Tank shall provide the environment for waste
sludge stabilization. Conditioned sludge shall be removed on a periodic basis and
hauled to an appropriate biosolids disposal site by a certified hauler. Digester is
1 Design Criteria Considered in the Review of Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Policy 96-1
Preliminary Engineering RePort
High Mesa RV Park VWTF
Garfield County, CO
anticipated be aerated, and have the ability to return microorganisms to the SBR in the
event the microorganisms are lost.
Alltanks are to be equipped with two-rail guardrails and toe plates, will be installed in
the ground with 12to 18-inches above finish grade. The tanks are buried to retain as
muc-h heat as possible during the winter months, therefore, keeping the process working
efficiently. Caifrodic protection using magnesium anodes will be installed to prohibit
corrosion should further soils investigation exhibit the necessity. Finat analysis to
determine if the tanks will be buried is to be determined based on finished grading and
site topography. Due to the proximity of habitable structures as depicted in the attached
1000 ft. ridius-map, it is anticipated that all tanks will be covered in some fashion.
Further economic analysis wilidetermine what the final product will be. This information
will be provided in the Process Design Report.
Disinfection
It is anticipated that the effluent disinfection will be an Ultraviolet system (horizontal tube
type) manufactured by Trojan Technologies housed within a stainless steel channel.
The effluent will be diichaiged directly to Spring Gulch. Preliminary Effluent Limits
(PEL's) have been received from CDPHE and are attached hereto.
FLOODPLAIN
The 1g0-Year flood plain for this vicinity is depicted in the attached Flood lnsurance
Rate Map in the Appendix. The proposed site location falls within the floodplain
designation "Zone'i" . Zone C is described as an "area of minimal flooding (no shading
shoin)". The proposed facility is outside of any anticipated flood events or other natural
hazard areas.
GEOTECH NICAL IN FORMATION
Hp Geotech performed preliminary site investigation and summarized their findings in
the report daied Decem6er 14,2007. Soil borings were drilled and the associated
laboratory testing was performed for the proposed grading and foundations. Once
excavation for th-e plant base slab occurs, additional geotechnical information will be
obtained for final backfilling and compaction efforts. A copy of the geotechnical report is
located in the Appendix.
LEGAL
Copies of the deeds demonstrating that Daybreak Realty, LLC owns and controls the
propefi for the treatment facility are located within the Appendix.
Preliminary Engineeing RePort
High Mesa RV Park IA/AITF
Garfield County, CO
FUNDING
The proposed treatment facility capital, operational and maintenance costs are being
funded privately by Daybreak
-tRealty,
LLC and have appropriated funds specifically for
this purpose. tbtters pioviding assurance that the project has adequate funds are
attached in the Appendix.
IMPLEMENTATION
It is anticipated that the project will be constructed as soon as permitted by the local
jurisdictions and CDPHE anO witt require 60 to 90 days to construct pending weather
and manufacturing delays. A full-time employee will operate the facility or a contract
operator certified z to tne Class C at a minimum will be the ORC until the operator is
certified.
Once the facility is under construction, the Discharge Permit Application will need to be
completed and submitted to CDPHE (six months prior to discharge).
SUMMARY
The proposed facility is intended for use solely by Daybreak Realty, LLC and their
proposed RV park. A Sequencing Batch Reactor facility was chosen for wastewater
ireatment primarily as a result of Battlement Mesa Consolidated Metropolitan District's
rejection oi service. Additionally, the variability of influent flows based on occupancy of
the RV Park contributed to the flnal decision on the SBR treatment method.
Leach fields were initially considered, though ultimately abandoned due to site
topography, setbacks constraints and anticipated flow quantities.
2 Regulation 100, Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Requirements, April 30' 2006,
Section 100.5.2 Classification Table, Page7.
Preliminary Engineeing RePoft
High Mesa RV Park WWTF
Garfield County, CO
APPENDIX
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Site Application Completeness Checklist
Applicaiion for Site Location Approvalfor Construction of New Domestic
Wastewater Treatment Works
PEL-0200205, High Mesa RV \A l/TF
SpecialWarranty Deed
Financial Commitment Letters
Geotechnical Study HP Geotech, 12114107
11x17" Site Plan, Sheet 1 of 5
1 mile Radius Map
5 mile Radius Map
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC IIEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530
(303) 692-3s74
Applicant: Davbreak Realtv. LLC Phone: 408-391'7473
Address: 1860 Lousetown Rd.
City, State, Zip: Reno. NV. 89521
Email Address bgraham@rideellc.com
Primary Contact (for project inquiries): Bob Graham Phone: 408-391-7473
consulting Engineer: Schmueser Gordon Meyer. Inc.. Robert w. Pennineton. P.E.
Phone: 970-945-1004
Address: I l8 West 66 Street. Suite 200
City, State, Zip: Glenwood Sprines. CO 81601
Email Address bobp@ssm-inc.com
Summarv of information regarding new site application:
Proposed Location (Legal Description):
-
%,
-
1/4, Section
-Township 75 Range: R96W. R95W County: Garfield
Lat. 39.422N Long. 108.048W for Wastewater Treatment Works
Type and capacity of treatment facility proposed: Major Processes Used Activated Sludee. Extended Aeration with
Hydraulic 0.010 MGD (maximum monthly average) Peak Flow 0.020 MGD
Organic 75 lbs. BOD5/day Present PE: New Design PE: 200
%o Domestic: IOO %Industrial 0
3. Location of Facility:
Attach a map of the area, which includes the following:
(a) S-mile radius: all sewage treatment plants, lift stations, and domestic water supply intakes.
(b) l-mile radius: habitable buildings, location of public and private potable water wells, and an approximate
WQCD-3a (Revised 6/06)Page I of4
A.
l.
2.
(Section 22.4. Regulation No. 22)
4.
indication of the topograPhY.
Effluent disposal: Surface discharge to watercourse (name) Sprine Gulch
Subsurface disposal: N/A Land Application: N/A Evaporation: N/A
Other (list):
Preliminary Effluent Limitations received on: September 4. 2008 PEL0200205 (date)
Will a State or Federal grant/loan be sought to finance any portion of this project? No
Present zoning of site area? Rural
Zoningwithin a l-mile radius of site? Rural.Public Lands. Incorporated City or Town
What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest domestic water supply intake? aoprox 13 miles
5.
6.
7.
9.
10.
(De Beque)
Name of Supply: Colorado River
Address of Supply: 2155 45 Rd.: Debeque. CO:81630
What is the distance downstream from the discharge to the nearest other point of diversion? 1500 ft
Name of User: Euqene Speakman
Address of User: 198 Tamarisk/ Parachute. CO 81635
Estimated project cost: $350.000
Who is financially responsible for the construction and operation of the facility? Applicant
Is the facility in a 100-year flood plain or other natural hazard area? No
If so, what precautions are being taken? N/A
Has the flood plain been designated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources or
other agency? Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Panel 080205 17058
(Agency Name)
If so, what is that designation? Zone C: "Area of minimal floodine (shading not shown)"
11.please identifr any additional factors that might help the Water Quality Control Division make an informed decision on
your application for site location approval. The proposed facility will serve a recreational vehicle park consistinB of 128
c - rtrL- --,:lt ^-l-- ^^-.^ f^^:t:+:^^ ^..,--,{ ^-,{ ^--..+ad h*, Pirloc
WQCD-3a (Revised 6/06)Page2 of 4
(Attach a separate sheet ofpaper ifnecessary)
12. Public Notification procedures complied on
-
(date)
B. If the facility will be located on or adjacent to a site that is owned or managed by a federal or state agency, send
the agency a copy of this application for the agency's review and recommendation.
C. Recommendationofgovernmentalauthorities:
The application shall be forwarded to the planning agency of the city, town, or county in whose jurisdiction(s) the
treatment facility is to be located. The applicant shall obtain, from the appropriate planning agency (agencies), a - .
statement(s) of consistency of the propoiit *itt the local comprehensive plan(s) as they relate to water quality (subject to
the provisions of 22.3(6).
The application shall be forwarded to the water quality planning agency (agencies) for the.area in which the facilities are
to be constructed and for the area to be served by those facilities. The applicant shall obtain, from the appropriate
planning agency (agencies), a statement(s) of consistency of the proposal with any adopted water quality management
plan(s).
If you have any further comments or questions, please call (303) 692-3574.
I certify that I am familiar with the requirements of the "Site Location and Design Approval Regulations for Domestic
Wastewater Treatment \{orks,,, and have posted the site in accordance with the regulations. An engineering report, as
described by the regulations, has been prepared and is enclosed.
Date
Rob.n GtuhHarr a,,=,Signature of Applicant *Typed Name
*The applicant must sign this form. The Consulting Engineer cannot sign this form.
Recommend Recommend Signature of
Date Aoproval Disaonroval Comment Representative Twed Name
Management Agency
2.
County
3.
city or Town (If site is located within 3 miles of the boundaries of city or Town )
4.
Local Health Authority
WQCD-3a (Revised 6/06)Page 3 of4
l.
5.
208 Planning Agency
6.
Other State or Federal Agencies
(Iffacility would be located adjacent any land owned or managed by state or federal agency)
WQCD-3a (Revised 6/06)Page 4 of4
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
303-866-3581
EXHIBIT
tt
-coo6
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DAM NAME NO._ WATER DIV: _ DIST:_
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSTRUCT A NONJURISDICTIONAL
WATER IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURE1
This notice is required per Section 37-87-125, C.R.S. (1998).
This notice must be submitted to the Division Englneer's Office a minlmum of 45 days prior to construction.
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NOTICE)
OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Daybreqk Reality, LLC Telephone:( 480 ) 391-7473
Address: 400 Panamint Rd Reno NV 89521
Street / P.O. Bo, Rural Route City State Zip Code
Responsible Person: Robert Graham Jelephone: (_ 48o __) 391-7473
Address: 400 Panamint Rd Reno NV 89521
Street / P.O. Box/ Rurat Route City State Zip Code
Contractor Telephone: ( )
STRUCTURE INFORMATION
Name of Dam. UPPer Po!,9 05
tega!!o!2:. Option 1
OR
. Option 2--->
Dam Dimensions: Vertical Height3: g.5 ft., Length: 250 ft., Slopes: U/S: 3 H:1V, D/S 2 H:1V
Reservoir: Surface Areal: 0.36 acres, Capacityl. 2.55 acre feet, Drainage Area. N/A acres
Emerqencv Spillwav: Width: 6 ft., Side Slopes: H:'lV, Freeboarda:-19-ft
Outlet Drain: Type: PVC C-900 , Size: 6 inches, Location: 'l ft above base of pond: mid-dam
Stream Name or Water Sources: Number One Ditch (lD 708): water source - Drv Creek (West)
Proposed Water Use: Store and provide water to Fire Pond No. (lf applicable)
'3o'
Date
DIVISION ENGINEER'S REQUIREMENTS:
Water Division:Water District:45
% t%Secl'. % of the NW %; Sect 30 , Township: 7 S , Range: -.1Qf$l--, 6ih P.M.
Distanceofdamfromsectionlines 962 ftfromxN S, 2,040 ftfrom E xW
Utilizing GPS: Set to UTM Datum. Measured on crest of dam above streamline/outlet.
Northing .m. Easting
Nole: GPS settrngs must be NAD83 CONUS.
owR (03/07)
Signature of Division Engineer Date
1
A 'NonJurisdidional Strudure' is a dam crcaing a resemir with a capacity of 'l0O aclded or less and a surfac€ area ol 20 acres or less erd a wrtical height (see
, foolnde 3) of 10 feei or lss.
-Pleas se effple on rewr* side (or paga 2) of this tqm.
'"l"rlird Huighl' i" *rsu.ed Iom lhe eleEtion of thc lMst pdr* of the natural surfae of Ihe g.ound whcrc that Point @.s along lhe longitudinal centerline gf tha dam
up to itE 6esl ol the ffigensy splhEy o( ihe dam.
{ -Fr6b@rd' is lhe wrli€l distane from th€ bottom of spilley to the @st ot the dam.
5lf ondruaion In rcemir inte@pts gmundwater, e wcll pemil ri EquiEd. (w€ll pemit appli€tiils €n be found at m.wdcr.statc-@.uJpubs/fms.asp)
LOCATION SPECIFYING EXAMPLE
Section 36, Township 2 North, Range 67 West, 6th PM
(s36 T2N R67W)
Dam is located in the SE% of the SE% of Section 36
1,000 feet North of the South Section Line
1,500 feet West of the East Section Line
26 25 30
35
NW NE
31
- NE% ofthe SE%
,- 1,000 ft.
J
T2N
SW
NW a-
SW SE
,l-
2
,/ :-
Dam Location 1,500
R67W
T1N
6
R66W
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
303-866-3581
NOTICE OF INTENT TO GONSTRUCT A NONJURISDICTIONAL
WATER IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURE1
This notice is required per Section 37-87-125, C.R.S' (1998).
This notice must be submitted to the Division Engineer's Office a minimum of 45 days prior to construction.
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NOTICE)
OWNER INFORMATION
Name: High Mesa Partners, LLC
Address: 400 Panamint Road
Street / P.O" Box/ Rural Route
Responsible Person: Bob Graham
Address: 400 Panamint Road
Street / P.O. Box/ Rural Route
Contractor: To be determined
STRUCTURE INFORMATION
Name of Dam: High Mesa Detention Pond ft l,;i ,, , ,,
Reno
City
8952'1
Zip Code
89521
Zip Code
Reno
City
Telephone:
Water Division: Water District:
Location'
. Option
OR
. Option
2.. ,,
1./
)a,
Dam Dimensions: Vertical Height3: 9.25 ft., Length: 56 ft., Slopes: U/S: 3 H'1V, D/S 3 H:1V
Reservoir: Surface Areal: 0.036 acres, Capacityl: 0.078 acre feet, Drainage Area: 95.88 acres
Emerqencv Spillwav:Width:4 ft., Side Slopes: 2 H:1V, Freeboarda: 1 ft
Outlet Drain: Type: ADS N-12, Size: 15 inches, Location: Approx. center of dam.
Stream Name or Water Source5: unnamed drainage tributary to Colorado River.
proposed Water Use: Storm water runoff detention Water Court Case No. (lf applicable)
Signature of Owner
DIVISION ENGINEER'S REQUIREMENTS:
Date
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
NO.-WATER DIV:
-
DIST:-
Telephone: ( )
NV
State
Telephone: (77 5) 847 -7 O3O
NV
State
/^ I To Sect NE % of the sE %; Sect: 24, Township: 7 South, Range: 96 West, 6th P.M.
Distance of dam from Section lines 497 ft from JN X S, 615 ft from X E lW
Utilizing GPS: Set to UTM Datum. Measured on crest of dam above streamline/outlet.
Northing m. Easting m.
Nofe; GPS seffings must be NAD83 CONUS.
DWR (03/07)
Signature of Division Engineer Date
1A.Non-Jurisdictionalstructure"isadamcreatingareservoirwithacapacityoflOoacre-feetorlessandasurfaceareaof20acresorlessandaverticalheight(see
footnote 3) of 1 0 feet or less.
2 P1"""" """ example on reverse side (or page 2) of this form.
t
"/"rtiol Height' is measured from the elevation of the lo/vest point of the natural surface of the ground where that point occurs along the longitudinal centerline of the dam
up to the crest of the emergency sPillway of the dam.
4'Freeboard" is the vertical distance from the bottom of spillway to the crest of the dam.
5
lf construction in reservoir intercepts groundwater, a well permit is required. (Well permit applications can be found at www.water.state.co us/pubs/forms.asP)
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISTON OF WATER RESOURCES
303-866.3581
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DAM NAME t{O.- WATER DIV:
-
DIST:-
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSTRUCT A NONJURISDICTIONAL
WATER IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURE1
This notice is required per Section 37-87-'125, C.R'S. (1998).
This notice must be submitted to the Division Enginee/s Office a minimum of 45 days prior to construction-
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NOTICE)
OWNER INFORMATION
Name: High Mesa Partners, LLC
Address: 400 Panamint Road
Telephone:
Street / P.O. Box/ Rural Route CitY
NV
State
Telephone: (77 5) U7 -7 O3O
NV
State
Reno
Reno
89521
Zip Code
89521
Zip Code
Responsible Person: Bob Graham
Address: 400 Panamint Road
Contractor: To be determined
STRUCTURE INFORMATION
Name of Dam: South Detention Pond
Street / P.O. Box/ Rural Route CitY
Telephone:
Water Division: Water District:-
Locationz: ,@/
OR
. Option 2-+
Dam.Dimensions: Vertical Height3: 9.25 ft., Length: 55 ft., Slopes: U/S: 3 H:1V, D/S 3 H:1V
Reservoir:SurfaceAreal: 0.073 acres, Capacityl:0.218 acrefeet, DrainageArea: 6.88 acres
Emerqencv Soiltwav:Wdth: 4 ft., Side Slopes: 2 H:1V, Freeboarda: 1 fi
Outlet Drain: Type: ADS N-12, Size: 15" wl 4 inch orifice, Location: Approx. center of dam.
Stream Name or Water Sources: unnamed drainage tributary to Colorado River.
Proposed Water Use: Storm water runoff detention Water Court Case No. (lf applicable)
Signature of Owner
DIVISION ENGINEER'S REQUIREMENTS:
Date
% t%W: NE % of the SE %; Sect 24, Township: 7 Sotrth, Range: 96 West, 6th P-M.
Distanecof damftom Section lines 108ftfiomX N ! S,183ftfom X E nW
Utilizing GPS: Set to UTM Datum. Measured on crest of dam above streamline/outlet.
Northing m. Easting m.
Note: GPS seffings mud M NAD83 COruUS.
D\ /R (0U07)
Signature of Division Engineer Date
'A"Non-Jrrirdi.iionalstructunfisadamcreatingaresendrwithacapecityoflO0acre.feetorlessa/dasurfacearead20rcresorlessatdaverticalheight(see
footnc(e 3) of 10 feet or less.
'Pl""aa "o .omde on re\rcrse side (or page 2) of this form.
up to the crest of the emergency spillway of the dam.
o 'Fr*bo.rd' i" the r/€rtical distance from the bcttom cf sfilhray to the crest of the dam.
5
lf construciion in reservoir intercepts groundwater, a well permit is required. (Well permit applications can be found at www.water.st€te.co.uypubs/forms.asp)
()
E'(HIBITx
High Mesa RV Park
IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
THIS High Mesa RV Park IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT is made and entered into
this _ day of _,2009, by and between High Mesa Partners LLC ("Owner")
and the BOARD OF COI-INTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARIIELD COUNTY, COLORADO,
acting for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, as a body politic and corporate, directly or
through its authorized representatives and agents ("BOCC").
Recitals
1. Owner is the owner and developer of the High Mesa RV Park (the "Project"), on real
property legally described in the deed recorded at Reception Number 759300 of the real
estate records of Garfield County, Colorado and incorporated by this reference.
On 200-, the BOCC, by Resolution No. , recorded at
of the real estate records of Garfield County, ColoradoReception Number
and incorporated by this reference, approved a Land Use Change Permit for this Project
which, among other things, would allow for the development of an RV Park (the "Permit
Approval").This RV park will be on the High Mesa Partners LLC parcel with water and
waste treatment on the Daybreak Realty Parcel and the wells on the Speakman Parcel.
As a condition precedent to the issuance of the Permit approved by the BOCC and as
required by the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, Owner wishes to
enter into this IA with the BOCC.
Owner has agreed to execute and deliver a letter of credit or other security in a form
satisfactory to the BOCC to secure and guarantee Owner performance under this
Agreement and has agreed to certain restrictions and conditions regarding the development
of the Project, all as more fully set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the mutual covenants
and promises contained herein, the BOCC and Owner ("Parties") agree as follows:
Agreement
1. PERMIT ISSUANCE.
The BOCC hereby accepts and approves the issuance of the Permit, on the date set forth
above, subject to the terms and conditions of this IA, the Permit Approval, and the
requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 and any other
governmental or quasi-goverrrmental regulations applicable to the Project. Issuance of the
Permit shall be in accordance with this IA and at the time prescribed herein.
2. OWNER PERFORMANCE AS TO PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS.
a. Completion Date/Substantial Compliance. Owner shall cause to be constructed and
J.
4.
J.
installed the project improvements, including off-site improvements, identified in the
Exhibits defined in subparagraph 2.a.i, below at Owner expense, including payment
of fees required by Garfield County and/or other governmental and quasi-
governmental entities with regulatory jurisdiction over the Project. The Project
Improvements [IF REVEGETATION REQUIRED: except for re-vegetation,] shall be
completed on or before the end of the first full year following execution of this IA
(Completion Date), in substantial compliance with the following:
i. Plans marked "Approved for Construction" for all Project Improvements
prepared by Bell Engineering & High Mesa Partners, LLC and submitted to the
BOCC on _,2009, such plans being summarized in the list of
drawings attached to and made apart of this IA by reference as Exhibit "A"; the
estimate of cost of completion, certified by and bearing the stamp of Owner's
professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado, attached to and made a
part of this IA by reference as Exhibit "B", which estimate shall include an
additional ten(10) percent of the total for contingencies; and all other
documentation required to be submitted prior to issuance of the Permit under
pertinent sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008
and the Permit Approval ("Permit Documents").
ii. All requirements of the Permit Approval.
iii. All laws, regulations, orders, resolutions and requirements of Garfield County
and all special districts and any other governmental entity or quasi-
govemmental authorities with jurisdiction.
iv. The provisions of this IA.
b. Satisfaction of Project Improvements Provisions. The BOCC agrees that if all Project
Improvements are constructed and installed in accordance with this paragraph 2; the
record drawings have been submitted upon completion of the Project Improvements,
as detailed in paragraph 3(c), below; and all other requirements of this [A have been
met, then the Owner shall be deemed to have satisfied all terms and conditions of the
Permit Approval, the Permit Documents and the Garfield County Unified Land Use
Resolution of 2008, with respect to the installation of Permit Improvements.
SECURITY FOR PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS (EXCEPT RE-VEGETATION).
b.
a.iect Imorovements Letter of Credit and Subslilute reqUatglal. The Owner anditute
County agree that in the event of a failure to complete the project the RV Park would
be deconstructed and the land revegitated. As security for Owner obligation to
deconstruct the Project Improvements llF REVEGETATION REOUIRED: other than
re-vegetation,] Owner shall deliver to the BOCC, on or before the date of issuance of
the Permit for the Project, a Letter of Credit in the form agreed to be acceptable to the
BOCC, attached to and incorporated in this IA by reference as Exhibit "C" ("LOC")
or in a form consistent with the Uniform Commercial Code, C.R.S. $ 4-1-101, et seq.
and approved by the BOCC. The LOC shall be in the amount of $1,055,854,
representing the fulI de-construction cost of removing certain facilities, including
water and waste treatment facilities and re-vegetating the Project Areal, with a
suffrcient contingency to cover cost changes, unforeseen costs and other variables
(not less than lTYo of the estimated de-construction cost and as approved by the
BOCC) as set forth and certified by Owner's Engineer on Exhibit"B" , to guarantee
removal of the Project Improvements. The LOC shall be valid for a minimum of six
(6) months beyond the Completion Date for the Project Improvements set forth in
Paragraph 2.a., above. The BOCC, at its sole option, may permit the Owner to
substitute collateral other than a Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the BOCC,
for the purpose of securing the completion of the Project Improvements subject of
this Paragraph 3.a.
LOC Requirements and Plat Recording. The LOC required by this IA shall be issued
by a state or national banking institution acceptable to the BOCC. If the institution
issuing the LOC is not licensed in the State of Colorado and transacting business
within the State of Colorado, the LOC shall be Confirmed within the meaning of the
Uniform Commercial Code, Letter of Credit, '4-5-101 , el seq., C.R.S., as amended, by
a bank that is licensed to do business in the State of Colorado, doing business in
Colorado, and acceptable to the BOCC. The LOC shall state that presentation of
drafts drawn under the LOC shall be at an office of the issuer or confirmer located in
the State of Colorado. The Permit for the Project shall not be issued until the
security, described in this paragraph 3 IIF REVEGETATION REOUIRED: and the
security for revegetation described in paragraph 4, below] has been received and
approved by the BOCC.
Extension of LOC Expiration Date. If the Completion Date, identified in paragraph
2.a., above. is extended by a written amendment to this IA, the time period for the
validity of the LOC shall be similarly extended by the Owner. For each six (6) month
extension, at the sole option of the BOCC, the face amount of the LOC shall be
subject to re-certification by Owner's Engineer of the cost of completion and review
by the BOCC.
Unenforceable LOC. Should the LOC expire or become void or unenforceable for
any reason, including bankruptcy of the Owner or the hnancial institution issuing or
confirming the LOC, prior to the BOCC's approval of Owner's Engineers
certification of completion of the Project Improvements, this IA shall become void
and of no force and effect and the Permit shall be revoked pursuant to the terms of
this IA.
c.
d.
1 lf on" LoC used
Partial Releases of Security. Owner may request partial releases of the LOC, and
shall do so by means of submission to the Building and Planning Department of a
"Written Request for Partial Release of LOC", in the form attached to and
incorporated by this reference as Exhibit D, accompanied by the Owners Engineers
stamped certificate of partial completion of improvements. The Owners Engineers
seal shall certify that the Project Improvements have been constructed in accordance
with the requirements of this IA, including all Permit Documents and the Permit
Approval. Owner may also request release for a portion of the security upon proof
tht l) Owner has a valid contract with a public utility company regulated by the
Colorado Public Utilities Commission obligating such company to install certain
utility lines; and 2) Owner has paid to the utility company the cost of installation as
required by the contract. The BOCC shall authorize successive releases of portions of
the face amount of the LOC as portions of the Project Improvements, dealt with in
this Paragraph 3, are certified as complete to the BOCC by the Owner's Engineer and
said certification is approved by the BOCC.
BOCC's Investigation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon submission of the
Owner's Written Request for Partial Release of LOC, along with Owner's Engineer's
certificate of partial completion of improvements, the BOCC may review the
certification and may inspect and review the Project Improvements certified as
complete to determine whether or not they have been constructed in compliance with
relevant specifications, as follows :
i. If no letter of potential deficiency is furnished to Owner by the BOCC within
fifteen (15) business days of submission of Owner's Written Request for Partial
Release of LOC, accompanied by Owner's Engineer's certificate of partial
completion of improvements, all Project Improvements certified as complete
shall be deemed approved by the BOCC, and the BOCC shall authorize release
of the appropriate amount of security.
ii. If the BOCC chooses to inspect and determines that all or a portion of the
Project [mprovements certified as complete are not in compliance with the
relevant specifications, the BOCC shall furnish a letter of potential deficiency to
the Owner, within fifteen (15) business days of submission of Owner's Written
Request for Partial Release of LOC, accompanied by Owner's Engineer's
certificate of partial completion of improvements.
iii. If a letter of potential deficiency is issued identifring a portion of the certified
Project Improvements as potentially deficient, then all Project Improvements
not identified as potentially deficient shall be deemed approved by the BOCC,
and the BOCC shall authorize release of the amount of security related to the
Project Improvements certified as complete and not identified as potentially
deficient.
iv. With respect to Project Improvements identified as potentially deficient in a
letter of potential deficiency, the BOCC shall have thirty (30) days from the
date of the letter to complete the initial investigation, begun under subparagraph
3.f.ii., above, and provide written confirmation of the deficiency(ies) to the
Owner.
v. If the BOCC finds that the Project Improvements are complete, in compliance
with the relevant specifications, then the appropriate amount of security shall be
authorized for release within ten (10) business days after completion of such
0b'
investigation.
BOCC Completion of Improvements and Other Remedies. If the BOCC finds,
withinthe thirty(30) day period of time, defined in subparagraph 3.f.iv. above, that
the Project Improvements are not complete, or if the BOCC determines that the
Owner will not or cannot construct any or all of the Project Improvements, whether or
not Owner has submitted a written request for release of LOC, the BOCC may
withdraw and employ from the LOC such funds as may be necessary to de-construct
the Project Improvements in accordance with the specifications, up to the face
amount or remaining face amount of the LOC. In such event, the BOCC shall make a
written finding regarding Owner's failure to comply with this IA prior to requesting
payment from the LOC, in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII of the
-Garfield
County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (the "ULUR"). In lieu of or in
addition to drawing on the LOC, the BOCC may initiate enforcement actions under
Article XII of the ULUR for the Owners failure to adhere to the provisions of this IA
and the conditions of the Permit Approval regarding Project Improvements- The
BOCC shall provide the Owner a reasonable time to cure any identified deficiency
(ies) prior to requesting payment from the LOC.
Finaf Release oi Securit)r. Upon completion of all Project Improvements, other than
revegetation, and including off-site improvements, Owner shall submit to the BOCC,
through the Building and Planning Department: 1) record drawings bearing the stamp
of Owner's Engineer certifying that all Project Improvements including off-site
improvements, have been constructed in accordance with the requirements of this IA,
inciuding all Final Plat Documents and the Permit Approval, in hard copy and digital
format acceptable to the BOCC; 2) copies of instruments conveying real property and
other intereits which Owner is obligated to convey or any statutory special district or
other entity upon completing construction including the requirements of the Grand
Valley Fire Depart*"rt ur detailed in the plans submitted to the County Planning
Commission.; and 3) a Written Request for Final Release of LOC, in the form
attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit E, along with Owner's Engineer's
stamp and certificate of final completion of improvements.
The BOCC shall authorize a final release of the LOC after the Project
lmprovements are certified as final to the BOCC by the Owner's Engineer and said
final certification is approved by the BOCC. If the BOCC finds that the Project
Improvements are complete, in accordance with the relevant specifications, the
BOCC shall authorize release of the final amount of security, within ten ( I 0) business
days following submission of the Owner's Written Request for Final Release of LOC
accompanied by the other documents required by this paragraph 3.h.
Per agreement with the BOCC the chip seal for the entrance road will not be
applied until after the road is no longer in use for drilling activities accessed through
the road. BOCC will retain 566,304 of the above amount until such improvements
have been made to the satisfaction of the County Road Department.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon Owner's Written Request for Final
Release of LOC, accompanied by Owner's Engineer's certificate of final completion
of improvements, the BOCC may inspect and review the Project Improvements
certified as complete. If the BOCC does so review and inspect, the process contained
in paragraph 3.f., above, shall be followed.
If the BOCC finds that the Project Improvements are complete, in accordance
h.
4.
with the relevant specifications, the BOCC shall authorize final release of security
within ten (10) days after completion of such investigation.
If the BOCC finds that the Project lmprovements are not complete, in
accordance with the relevant specifications, the BOCC may complete remaining
Project Improvements, or institute enforcement action in accordance with the process
outlined in paragraph 3.g., above.
SECURITY FOR REVEGETATION.
a. Revegetation LOC and Substitute Collateral. $25,700 of the face amount of the LOC,
specifred in Paragraph 3a above, shall be allocated to revegetation of disturbed areas
within the Projeci (A Re-vegetation LOC), the cost for which is detailed as a Project
Improvement in Exhibit B. The Revegetation LOC shall be valid for a minimum of
two 1Z; years following recording of the Final Plat. The BOCC, at its sole option may
permif ih. O*rr., to substitute collateral other than a Letter of Credit, in a form
acceptable to the BOCC, for the pu{pose of securing the completion of revegetation.
b. Revegetation LOC General Provisions. The provisions of paragraphs 3.b., 3.c. and
3-d., ubor", dealing with Letter of Credit requirements, extension of expiration dates,
increase in face amounts, permit issuance and enforcement, shall apply to the
Revegetation LOC.
c. ReveEetation Review and Notice of Deficiency. Upon establishment of revegetation,
the Owner shall request review of the revegetation work by the Garfield County
Vegetation Management Department, by telephone or in writing. Such review shall
be for the purpose of verification of success of revegetation and reclamation in
accordance with the Garfield County Weed Management Plan 2000, adopted by
Resolution No. 2002-94 and recorded in the Office of the Garf,reld County Clerk and
Recorder as Reception No. 580572, as amended, and the revegetation/reclamation
plan titled and dated for the Project submitted
as part of th-e Pennit Documents. If the Vegetation Management Department refuses
apiroval and provides written notice of deficiency(ies), the Owner shall cure such
deficiency(iesj by further revegetation efforts, approved by the Vegetation
Management Department, as such efforts may be instituted within the two (2) years
following recording of the Permit.
Single Request foi Release of Revegetation LOC. Following receipt of written
ffioval of th" Vegetation Management Department, the Owner may request release
of th. Revegetation LOC and shall do so by means of submission to the BOCC,
through the Building and Planning Department, of a Written Request for Release of
Revegetation LOC, in the form attached to and incorporated herein by reference as
Bxhibit F, along with certification of completion by the Owner, or Owner's agent
with knowledge, and a copy of the written approval of the Vegetation Management
Department. t1 is specifically understood by the parties that the Revegetation LOC is
nof subject to successive partial releases, as authorized in paragraph 3.e., above'
Further, the Revegetation LOC and the BOCC's associated rights to withdraw funds
and bring a court action may survive final release of the LOC securing other Project
Improvements, defined in paragraph 3.a., above'
BOCC's Completion of Revesetation and Other Remedies. If Owner's revegetation
efforts are deerned by the BOCC to be unsuccessful, in the sole opinion of the BOCC
upon the recommendation of the Vegetation Management Department, or if the
d.
5.
BOCC determines that the Owner will not or cannot complete revegetation, the
BOCC, in its discretion, may withdraw and employ from the Revegetation LOC such
funds as may be necessary to carry out the revegetation work, up to the face amount
of the Revegetation LOC. In lieu of or in addition to drawing on the Revegetation
LOC, the BOCC may initiate enforcement actions under Article XII of the ULUR and
shall follow the procedures set forth in Paragraph 39. The BOCC shall provide the
Owner a reasonable time to cure any identified deficiency prior to requesting payment
from the Re-vegetation LOC.
WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER COLLECTION.
As stated in paragraph 7, below, prior to issuance by the BOCC of any certificates of
occupancy foi any ."iid".r""r or other habitable structures constructed within the Project,
Ownir shall instail, connect and make operable a water supply and distribution system for
potable water, fire protection, non-potable irrigation water, and a wastewater/sewer
collection system in accordance with approved plans and specifications. All easements and
rights-of-way necessary for installation, operation, service and maintenance of such water
supply and distribution system(s) and wastewater collection system shall be as shown on
the Site Plan. Owner shall deposit with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder executed
originals of the instruments of conveyance for easements appurtenant to the water and
wastewater system(s), for recordation following recording of the Permit and this tA. If a
third party water or sewer- service entity requires warranty of the system(s), Owner shall
provide proof to the BOCC that such warranty is in effect and, if necessary, has been
assigned.
INDEMNITY.
The Owner shall indemniff and hold the BOCC harmless and defend the BOCC from all
claims which may arise as a result of the Owner's installation of the Project Improvements
[including off-site improvements and revegetation] and any other agreement or obligation
of O*r"r, related to development of the Project, required pursuant to this IA. The Ovuner,
however, does not indemnifu the BOCC for claims made asserting that the standards
imposed by the BOCC are improper or the cause of the injury asserted, or from claims
which may arise from the negligent acts or omissions of the BOCC or its employees. The
BOCC shall notify the Owner of receipt by the BOCC of a notice of claim or a notice of
intent to sue, and the BOCC shall afford the Owner the option of defending any such claim
or action. Failure to notifu and provide such written option to the Owner shall extinguish
the BOCC's rights under this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to
constitute a waiver of governmental immunity granted to the BOCC by Colorado statutes
and case law.
BUILDING PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY.
As one remedy for breach of this IA, the BOCC may withhold issuance of building permits
for any residence or other habitable structure to be constructed within the Project. Further,
no building permit shall be issued unless the Owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Grand Vaiey Fire Protection District (District), if the Fire District has so required that
there is adequate water available to the construction site for the District's purposes and all
applicable Dirtri"t fees have been paid to the District. No certificates of occupancy shall
issue for any habitable building or structure, including residences, within the Project until
6.
7.
8.
9.
all Project Improvements, except re-vegetation, chip seal of the road, and including off-site
improvements, have been completed and are operational as required by this IA.
RE,VOCATION.
In the event the Owner fails to comply with the terms of this IA, the BOCC shall have the
ability to revoke the Permit for the Project.
ENFORCEMENT.
In addition to any rights provided by Colorado statute, the withholding of building permits
and certificates of occupancy, provided for in paragraph 7 above, the provisions for release
of security, detailed in paragraph 3, above, ffid the provisions for permit revocation,
detailed in paragraph 8, above, it is mutually agreed by the BOCC and the Owner, that the
BOCC, without making an election of remedies, shall have the authority to bring an action
in the Garfield County District Court to compel enforcement of this IA. Nothing in this IA,
however, shall be intemrpted to require the BOCC to bring an action for enforcement or to
withhold permits or certihcates or to withdraw unused security or to revoke the Permit, nor
shall this paragraph or any other provision of this IA be interpreted to permit any person to
file an action against the BOCC.
NOTICE BY RE,CORDATION.
This IA shall be recorded in the Office of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder and shall
be a covenant running with title to all lots, tracts and parcels within the Project. Such
recording shall constitute notice to prospective purchasers and other interested persons as
to the terms and provisions of this IA.
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS.
The obligations and rights contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit
of the successors and assigns of the Owner and the BOCC.
12. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND NOTICE PROVISIONS.
The representatives of the Owner and the BOCC, identified below, are authorized as
contract administrators and notice recipients. Notices required or permitted by this IA
shall be in writing and shall be effective upon the date of delivery, or attempted delivery if
delivery is refused. Delivery shall be made in person, by certified return receipt requested
U.S. Mail, receipted delivery service, or facsimile transmission, addressed to the authorized
representatives of the BOCC and the Owner at the address or facsimile number set forth
below:
10.
11.
w/copy to,
13.
BOCC:Board of County Commissioners
of Garf,reld County, Colorado
c/o Building & Planning Director
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Phone: (970)945-8212
Fax: (970\ 384-3470
AMENDMENT AND SUBSTITUTION OF SECURITY.
This lA may be modified, but only in writing signed by the parties hereto, as their interests
then appear. Any such amendment, including, by way of example, extension of the
Completion Date, substitution of the form of security, or approval of a change in the
identity of the security provider/issuer, shall be considered by the BOCC at a scheduled
public meeting. If such an amendment includes a change in the identity of the
provider/issuer of security, due to a conveyance of the Project by the Owner to a successor
in interest, Owner shall provide a copy of the recorded assignment document(s) to the
BOCC, along with the original security instrument. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
parties may change the identification of notice recipients and contract administrators and
the contact information provided in paragraph _, above, in accordance with the
provisions of that paragraph and without formal amendment of this [A and without
consideration at a BOCC meeting.
COUNTERPARTS.
This IA may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and
all of which, when taken together, shall be deemed one and the same instrument.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION.
Venue and jurisdiction for any cause arising out of or related to this IA shall lie with the
District Court of Garfield County, Colorado, and this IA shall be construed according to the
laws of the State of Colorado.
14.
15.
9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this IA to be effective upon the date of
Final Plat Approval for the Project.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: OF GARFIELD COUNTY' COLORADO
By:
Clerk to the Board Chairman
Date:
OWNER
By:
(Name and Title)
Date:
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD )
Subscribed and swom to before me bY
representative of
200-.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
an authorized
Owner of the Project, this day of
Notary Public
10