HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report & Exhibits 09.05.2017High Mesa RV Park — Extension Request - Exhibits
Major Impact Review
Applicant is High Mesa Partners, LLC, James and Monique
Speakman and Daybreak Realty, Inc.
September 5, 2017
Exhibit
Number
Exhibit Description
1
Extension Request Letter from Jerry Rusch, Dated July 31, 2017
2
Resolution 2015-55 — Resolution of Approval for Extension, Dated
September 21, 2015
3
Resolution 2009-72 — Resolution of Approval for High Mesa RV Park,
Dated September 21, 2009
4
Minutes from Public Hearing for High Mesa RV Park, Dated
September 21, 2009
5
Staff Report for High Mesa RV Park, Dated September 21, 2009
6
Memo from John Niewoehner, former Garfield County Project
Engineer, Dated September 15, 2009
7
Project Status sheet listed by Condition of Approval number, Dated
August 7, 2017
8
9
10
11
12
13
BOCC 9-5-17
DP
PROJECT INFORMATION
REQUEST Extension — High Mesa RV Park
PROPERTY OWNER High Mesa Partners, LLC, James and Monique
Speakman and Daybreak Realty, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE Jerry Rusch — Rocky Mountain Steel Structures
LOCATION
Subject property is located off a well pad access
road off CR 300, approximately 1 mile south of
Battlement Mesa
I. BACKGROUND
High Mesa RV Park was originally approved via Resolution 2009-72 on September 21,
2009 (See Exhibit 3) under the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008. The Applicant (High
Mesa Partners, LLC, James and Monique Speakman and Daybreak Realty, Inc) have
requested five time extensions since their original approval in 2009 to meet conditions of
approval. The basis of these extensions were poor market conditions. The project's last
extension was reviewed in September of 2015 and was granted a two-year extension by
Resolution 2015-55 that will expire on September 21, 2017. This Resolution includes the
following Finding # 5 (See Exhibit 2):
The Board indicated that it would not be in the best interest of the health,
safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield
County to approve additional extensions beyond September 21, 2017.
The High Mesa RV Park was approved with 18 conditions (and 49 sub -conditions). The
Applicant has provided a spreadsheet indicating the status of completion for each of the
Conditions of Approval (See Exhibit 7). This spreadsheet demonstrates that the Applicant
is actively working to complete the Conditions of Approval.
The Applicant has requested a sixth extension to December 31, 2018.Through the summer
of 2017, the property owner's representatives have been in contact with Community
Development Staff regarding the fulfillment of the conditions of approval.
Through the review of the requirements outlined in Resolution 2009-72, it has become
apparent that the intent of the approval is that the facility be completely built and ready for
operation before the Land Use Change Permit may be issued. While this scenario is
unusual, the reasoning for this decision was described at the public hearing on September
21, 2009 by then Assistant County Attorney Deborah Quinn (See Exhibit 4). Essentially,
the purpose for requiring the facility to be fully constructed and ready to be open to the
public prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit is a form of security that the facility
will be built to the required standards and as represented in the application. This
procedural security was accepted by the BOCC in lieu of financial security.
It is worth noting that while financial security is not required by Resolution 2009-72 for the
construction of the project, a Restoration security of $291,333 and a Revegetation security
in the amount of $22,603 are to be collected prior to soil disturbance (grading permit). The
Restoration security is to allow the land to be restored to pre -construction conditions
should construction of the park not be completed between issuance of the Grading Permit
and the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit (completion of construction) for any
reason. The Revegetation security is to be held from the time of soil disturbance until
disturbed areas are revegetated without weeds and is verified with an inspection by the
Garfield County Vegetation Manager (typically four growing seasons) (See Exhibit 6).
The purpose of the requested extension is to allow the applicant time to construct the
facility prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit and fulfillment of the Conditions
of Approval. The applicant has stated that the final design and water / wastewater
permitting is underway and has represented that the intent is to move straight into
construction.
Pursuant to Section 4-101.I.(3), the Board may grant additional extensions prior to the
expiration of the current approval.
The applicant has provided a letter of explanation (Exhibit 1) that states that "We apologize
for the confusion regarding this resolution and are diligently working on all the conditions
for your review... Unfortunately, as we have discussed, satisfying all the conditions of
approval will not be possible by the current deadline of 9/21/17 and therefore request one
final extension until 12/31/18. This gives us adequate time to construct the park as outlined
and satisfy all the conditions of approval."
II. AUTHORITY
The Board has the authority to grant extensions pursuant to Section 4-101 I. of the LUDC,
which states:
I. Extension of Conditional Approval.
It is the Applicant's responsibility to timely satisfy any conditions of approval. Prior to the
expiration of a conditional approval, however, the Applicant may request an extension of
the expiration date as follows:
1. Supporting Documentation. Application shall be made to the decision maker
that issued the original approval and shall include a written explanation of
the reasons why the conditions have not been met and the estimated
timeframe in which the conditions will be met or completed.
2. First Extension.
2
a. Extensions of 1 year may be granted for all conditional Land Use
Change approvals, and Subdivision or Conservation Subdivision
Preliminary Plan approvals.
b. Exemptions and Final Plat approvals may be extended by a period
of 90 days.
3. Additional Extensions. Requests for longer periods of time, or additional time
extensions following the first extension, shall be made to the decision maker
that issued the original approval, prior to the expiration of the current
approval.
4. New Application Required. If an Applicant fails to timely request an
extension as set forth in section 4-101.1., the approval will be void and the
Applicant must submit a new application for the desired Land Use Change
or division of land approval notwithstanding the foregoing, the BOCC may
grant an extension of an otherwise expired approval upon a finding by the
BOCC that the failure to file for an extension was due to extenuating
circumstances and that it benefits the public interest to grant the extension.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Considering the excerpt from the LUDC, Section 4-101.1., above, the Board has two
general options.
1. Approve the requested extension. This option would allow the applicant to continue
to work to satisfy the conditions of approval and construct the facility. As requested,
this extension has been requested through December 31, 2018.
2. Deny the requested extension. This option would mean that the approval issued
under Resolution 2009-72 would expire on September 21, 2017 unless the RV park
facility is constructed to the standards outlined in the approval and ready to open
the public by that date. As construction has not yet begun as of the writing of this
memo, it is understood that a denial would give the applicant two options since it is
unlikely this timeline can be met.
a. Allow the approval to expire as of September 21, 2017 and resubmit a new
application for a Campground / RV Park at this location under the current
LUDC. Under the current LUDC, a Campground / RV Park is a Major Impact
Review in the Rural zone district and would require a public hearing with the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
b. Request a Substantial Amendment to the approval that would require a
financial security be provided along with an Improvements Agreement that
would be signed by the BOCC and property owners. This application would
need to be submitted and deemed complete by September 21, 2017. As the
request is a Major Impact Review in this zone district, the amendment would
3
require noticed public hearings with both the Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners.
Provided the unusual nature of this approval outlined in Resolution 2009-72 requiring that
the facility be completely built and ready to open to the public prior to issuance of the Land
Use Change Permit and the demonstration that the applicant is making a good faith effort
to comply with the Conditions of Approval, Staff recommends that the Board grant this
sixth extension for the High Mesa RV Park. The approval would expire on December 31,
2018 if the conditions are not met.
4
1111 IfirdIi',si AtIrlitil till), 11 11!
Receptionfl: 868370
09/23/2035 04:31-35 PM Joan Alberieo
01 3 Rae ree S0.aD Doo Foo.0 0❑ GARFI L.D ra11NT'1 co
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
County of Garfield
EXHIBIT
2 -
At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County,
Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building, in
Glenwood Springs on Monday, September 21x5, 2015, there were present:
John Martin
Mike Samson
Tom Jankovskv
Tari Williams
Jean Alberico
Kevin Baelder
, Commissioner Chairman
, Commissioner
, Commissioner
County Attorney
, Clerk of the Board
, Acting County Manager
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION NQD
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A NEW 2 -YEAR
EXTENSION FOR THE LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT FOR THE HIGH MESA RV
PARK TO COMPLETE REQUIRED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
Parcel ID: 2407-193-00-189 (RV Park Site)
2407-193-00-162 (Daybreak Realty, LLC)
2407-244-00-124 (,lames and Monique Speakman)
Recitals
A. On September 21, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield
County (the Board), Colorado, approved with conditions a Land Use Change Perrnit
Application submitted by High Mesa Partners, LLC, Daybreak Realty, LLC and James
and Monique Speakman (the Applicant) to construct a 119 space RV Park as
memorialized in Resolution 2009-72.
B. The subject property is Located off a well pad access road off CR 300,
approximately 1 mile south east of Battlement Mesa Planned Unit DeveIoprnent (PUD).
C. On August 16, 2010, the Board approved the first 1 -year extension to
September 21, 2011 to complete conditions of approval as approved in Resolution 2010-
66.
3
1111 114 k E 144 1110111,161h161, 11111
Reception4: 858370
09/23/2mi5 214-31.35 PM Jean Plharico
2 of 3 Ree Fee:$3.80 Coo Fee:0.00 GPRFIEL0 COUNTY CO
D. On May 16, 2011, the Board approved a second I -year extension to
September 21, 2012 as approved in Resolution 201 1-30.
E. On August 20, 2012, the Board approved a third extension of 2 years to
September 21, 2014 to meet the required conditions of approval as approved in
Resolution 2012-77.
F. On September 15, 2015, the Board approved a fourth extension of 1 year
to September 21, 2015 to meet the required conditions of approval as approved in
Resolution 20154-54.
G. Consistent with Section 4-101(1)(1) and (3) of the Land Use and
Development Code, as amended, the Applicant submitted a request on August 27th, 2014
for a fourth extension to meet the required conditions of approval.
H. On September 14, 2015, the Board considered a request from the
Applicant for a fourth extension to meet conditions of approval for the High Mesa RV
Park to September 21', 2015 upon the question of whether the request should be granted,
granted with conditions, or denied at which meeting the public and interested persons
were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said
Application;
1. The Board of County Commissioners closed the public meeting on the
September 14, 2015 to make a final decision;
J. The Board, on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the
aforementioned public meeting, has made the following determination of facts.
1. Proper public notice was provided as required for the public meeting before the
Board.
2. The public meeting before the Board was extensive and complete, that all pertinent
facts, matters and issues were submitted and all interested parties were heard at those
hearings.
3. The request for an extension was properly set and heard before the Board pursuant to
Section 4-101(1)(1) and (3) of the Land Use and Development Code, as amended.
4. The additional 1 -year extension plus an additional 1 -year extension has been
determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order,
prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
5. The Board indicated that it would not be in the best interest of the health, safety,
convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County to
approve additional extensions beyond September 21, 2017.
6.
2
1t11 FilLngNit44i 5mtv «Cfai:ilia IWyi111I1
Reception$S_ 068370
0912312015 04.31:35 P11 Jan niberioo
3 of 3 Roo F$) 00 Mao Fee .0.00 GRRF I ELO COU'!TY CO
RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that:
A. The forgoing Recitals are incorporated by this reference as part of the Resolution.
B. A 2 -year extension to complete conditions of approval for a Land Use Change Permit
for the High Mesa RV Park is approved and the new deadline for completion of
conditions of approval shall expire on September 21, 2017.
Dated this c f + day of 4nVe. -ht_ , 2015.
ATTEST:
rY7
=rk of the Board
GARFIELD COUNTY
BOA RD OF
COMMIS : S,
GARFIE D COUNTY,
CO • R DO
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the
following vote:
John Martin , Aye
Mike Samson , Aye
, Aye
Tom Jankovsky
3
1111 h'� � ��T' '�a�LM, '� ' 1 � 1+�1'�l,�+i�l� �ti` `�I�"� 1i 111
Reception#: 776298
10++17009 10 44 08 nm Jean 0lberica
1 of 13 Rec Frc. S0 00 Doe rev, 0 90 GRRF1ELI) COUNTY CO
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Garfield
}ss
)
EXHIBIT 1
At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County,
Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building, in
Glenwood Springs on Monday, September 21, 2009, there were present:
John Martin , Commissioner Chairman
Mike Samson , Commissioner
Tresi Haupt . Commissioner
Deborah Quinn , Asst. County Attorney
Jean Alberico , Clerk of the Board
Ed Green (absent) , County Manager
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-72
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A LAND USE
CHANGE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AN RV PARK KNOWN AS THE
"HIGH MESA RV PARK"
Parcel IDs:
2407-193-00-189 (RV Park Site)
2407-193-00-162 (Daybreak Realty, LLC Property)
2407-244-00-124 (James and Monique Speakman Property)
Recitals
A. The Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado,
received a Land Use Change Permit Application from High Mesa Partners, LLC,
Daybreak Realty, LLC and James and Monique Speakman (hereinafter Applicants) to
construct a 119 space RV Park as reflected in the Site Plan attached as Exhibit A to this
resolution;
13. The subject property is generally located off a well pad access road off CR
300, approximately 1 mile south of Battlement Mesa PUD and is legally described as
shown on the accompanying Exhibit 13;
C. The subject property is Ionated in Study Area III of the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan of 2000 and is designated as Outlying Residential on the Proposed
Land Use Districts Map and where a Land Use Change Permit for an RV Park requires a
Major Impact Review process as stated in the Garfield County Unified Land Use
Resolution of 2008, as amended;
1
flllrtUPAIV: iii„111 II I
Receptiord1_ 776289
to/13J2009 10 44.06 AM Jean 01bc' 0w
2 of 46 Roc Fag $0 00 Cloc F.w 0 00 CFRFt£LD COUNTY CO
D. The Planning Commission opened a public hearing on May 13th, 2009 on
the proposed Land Use Change Permit Application for an RV Park upon the question of
whether the Application should be granted, granted with conditions, or denied at which
hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their
opinions regarding the issuance of said Application;
B. The Garfield County Planning Commission closed the public hearing on
the May 13th, 2009 and recommended "Approval with Conditions" for the Land Use
Change Permit Application for an RV Park to the Board of County Commissioners;
F. On August 10, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners (the Board)
opened and continued a public hearing for the proposed Land Use Change Permit
Application for an RV Park to September 21, 2009;
G. On September 21, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners (the Board)
opened the public hearing and on the proposed Land Use Change Perrnit Application for
an RV Park upon the question of whether the Application should be granted, granted with
conditions, or denied at which heating the public and interested persons were given the
opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Application;
H. The Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing on the
September 21, 2009 to make a final decision;
I. The Board, on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the
aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of facts:
1. Proof of proper public notice was provided as required for the public hearings
before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
2. The public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters
and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at those
hearings.
3. The Land Use Change Permit Application for an RV Park has met the
requirements set forth in the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of
2008, as amended;
4. The above stated and other reasons, the proposed Land Use Change Permit
Application for an RV Park has been determined to be in the best interest of
the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield County.
2
Rectptiont1: 776298
]p/13f200n 1n c4 09 PM Jean Ribericn
3 of 4& Rmc FAn SO 00 Dot Fee.0 00 GARFIEILD COUNTY CO
RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that:
A. The forgoing Recitals are incorporated by this reference as part of the Resolution.
B. The Land Use Change Permit Application for an RV Park is hereby approved subject
to compliance with the following conditions:
All representations of the Applicant, either within the application or stated at
the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), shall be
considered conditions of approval unless explicitly altered by the BOCC.
The operation of the facility shall be performed 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 Statutes for residential standards assessed at a location of
350 feet from the park or at a point 25 feet beyond the parcel (RV Park
parcel) boundary, whichever is lesser.
4. The High Mesa RV Park shall be operated so as to comply with all Federal,
State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards for emissions,
heat, glare, radiation, fumes, smoke or other emanation which substantially
interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a
public nuisance or hazard.
5. The Applicant shall comply with the fire protection provisions included in
the comments of the Grand Valley Fire Protection District as follows:
A. 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 25 MPII rural 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 states 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 requirements.
3
•ii F T'iiVA fili'i 'rif4.1M1I Ifii134.144 II III
accept **nil: 776298
111f13L2009 iO 44 CR EIN Jean Siber'1Cd
q of 46 Rec Fee SO 00 Our. Fee 0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY GO
13. The District has 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 property and then
empties onto County Road 300 approximately 200 yards east of the
Main Entrance. These roads wills have chains and locks which will
ensure 24/7 access in the event of an emergency.
C. The fire pond shall be full at the time construction begins. This will help
the Fire District have a water supply on site for any initial mitigation of
any Wildland fire and/or initial attack of buildings under construction.
D. The Fire pond must be able to maintain the minimum 50,000 gallons of
water storage at all times.
E. It is the responsibility of the owner to make sure the building complies
with the International Fire Code 2003 Edition.
6. An y signs associated with the use shall be designed to comply with the
Garfield County Sign Code.
7. No storage of heavy equipment is proposed or permitted on this site, with
the exception of a machine or vehicle for 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 center and shaded to prevent direct reflection on adjacent property.
9. All equipment, structures and light fixtures on the site shall be painted with
a neutral shade of tan or sage green non -reflective paint to reduce glare and
make the site more inconspicuous. Structures designed to mimic barns,
agricultural structural or false -front western storefronts may be either neutral
colors or faded barn red, but the surface must be a non -reflective surface to
reduce glare.
10. ] Prior to the acceptance of the Maintenance Agreement, the Applicant shall:
F. Revise all sections to comply with the limitations for access for the use
and level described in the application, that being a 1 19 -unit RV Park
with related infrastructure including: easements, a wastewater treatment
facility, water treatment facility, ponds for fire flow storage and
stormwater detention, shower/laundry facility, dump station, storage
building and campground/ office building;
4
■III117.11,0114,V11,11111,1k% WILIAttilk
R : 13 i 20 onq - s 4 06 g pRs � Eta COUNTY CO
56+t3 +6a 09 10F 56 09 art Jew, 0 0055a
S a1 46 PPC Feu Skl +7f} S1oc
G. Revise all statements to comply with the following comments from the
Garfield County Road & Bridge Department:
i. Driveway access permits have been issued for this application. One
driveway access permit is for the main entrance in and out of the
RV Park. The other drive other driveway access permit is for the
emergency entrance only and will have a gate with a knock off
system;
ii. The emergency driveway access shall not be considered complete
until all conditions of the driveway access permit are complete and
approved by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department;
iii. These Driveway accesses are for this application only. The traffic
volume increase caused by this application will impact all of Cr.
300 roads from the point of entry to 1-70 through Battlement Mesa.
The application has the potential to add the traffic impact at the
entrance of CR300 to Colorado State I-Iighway 6 at Una. This
intersection is already a point of great concern and is requiring
improvements. These comments are for this application and traffic
impact only.
iv. All vehicles hauling equipment and materials for this project shall
abide by Garfield County's oversize/overweight permit system.
All vehicles requiring oversize/overweight permits shall apply for
them at Garfield County Road & Bridge Department,
v. No signage other than the approved driveway access stop signs
shall be placed within the County ROW without approval of
Garfield County.
Prior to any disturbance of land, the Applicant shall provide to Garfield
County Building and Planning Department:
A. Verification of permits issued to serve the High Mesa RV Park for the
two (2) commercial wells; and
B. Any notification and tests required by Garfield County for the wells.
Prior to the any disturbance of land, the Applicant shall:
A. Design the roadways to meet the following standards:
1. Minor Collector road standards, with an allowable exception of
foot shoulder widths, and 10% grade provided safety features are
installed on curves; and
5
101 l'rilln.1/JA'.1114111J.liirliiiriii, LP3'Witliiiii 1 111
HeceptAonu: 775298
Mi 111240D 10 68 08 F1I1 leer. ALber eco
6 oI 48 Ron Foe SO 1C0 Doc Fee 0 00 ofl -IEL0 cow,/ Co
2. Design additional safety and drainage enhancements as per
Garfield County Project Engineer on curves (guardrail, culverts);
B The Applicant shall provide adequate recorded casements for the
public (rather than private) without charge to Garfield County, that
being: 60 feet for the main access road, and 20 feet for the emergency
access road.
Have in place a plan for chip -sealing of the main access road;
E If adequately secured, the Applicant may delay chip -sealing the
main access roadway to a date no more than 18 months from the
DCC date of approval (9/21/09), or 30 days after EnCaiia .
energy _ eve menu -ruing oversized a ui me ejds,
v tc ever c ,
2. Prior to chip -scaling, the access roadway shall be built to the
standard required by the Garfield County Project Engineer's
specifications,
3. During all phases (construction, pre -chip -sealing and afterward)
the road shall be maintained to meet Garfield County and State
air quality standards with a dust mitigation plan, as stated by
Garfield County Environmental Health Manager. Prior to chip -
sealing the main access road, the Owner shall apply rnag-
chloride to the main access road every two weeks to control dust.
Have in place all required plans, agreements, and securities including,
but not limited to:
1.
2.
d„tt ‘I 4.
I� 5.
CETh. Have all
the State
Reclamation
Dust mitigation (to meet Colorado Air Pollution Control
Commission Regulation 1)
Improvements Agreement
Maintenance Agreement
Securities for reclamation, re -vegetation, and chip -seal
required plans and permits required by Garfield County and
of Colorado, including, but not limited to:
1. Road & Bridge for oversized/overweight vehicles and traffic
control;
2. Environmental Health for dust mitigation [Control Measures
as per APCC Regulation 1. III.D.b.(iv)1 incorporated into the
plan and an Air Pollution construction permit (State);
6
1111 toii,i.be hi. 1 111
Receptsant*: 776298
10/ 43/2009 TO 47 09 RM Joan A lbor lco
7 of 49 gee Fvn =.t 00 Floc nee 0 00 GHRF IELO col rNTY co
3. Planning Department Project Engineer's requirement for
cordoning off areas to minimize land disturbance;
4. State Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE)
required Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP);
5. Record updated easements for the north and south storm
water retention ponds, lower fire flow pond, upper fire flow
pond, High Mesa storm water retention pond on the RV Park
parcel, if applicable, and submit a revised Site Plan depicting
all necessary easements.
F.) Prior to any disturbance of land, the Applicant shall provide a GPS
`shapefile to the satisfaction of the Realty Specialist of the Glenwood
Springs Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management to determine
the land status of the ingress & egress to the project.
I3. Regarding the fire protection systein, the Applicant shall provide the
Building & Planning Department with the following information to the
satisfaction of the Garfield County Planning Department Project Engineer
prior to any disturbance of land:
A. Proper recorded easements for the Upper Pond, design of the ditch or
pipe conveyance to the lower fire flow pond, and any maintenance road
for the Upper Pond that may be required, and amend the Site Plan
accordingly;
B. Well system details (design specifications, easement and maintenance
road requirements) if the wells are to be used to fill the fire flow pond;
C. If the Applicant proposes to use water from the potable water system to
serve the fire flow pond, the Applicant shall provide a statement from
SGM revising the volume of water to be processed through the system to
ensure that the water system is adequately sized;
14 Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall
provide a letter from the Grand Valley Fire Protection District to the
Garfield County Building & Planning Department acknowledging
acceptance of the design and proper installation of the following:
A. The fire flow pond including its water delivery system(s), easements,
and maintenance roads from all impoundments and wells required for
its operation;
B. The emergency access road, its knock off gate, and its surface;
7
111111016PriMilliwil.itl N1:I404 116I
Receptior4: 776298
10i13/2009 10 44 00 AM Jean AlbarJca
0 a f 45 Rec tea 30 00 Dor. Fee r+ 00 GAF i FI ✓; COUNTY CO
C. The fire safety and response plan including the annual inspection
date(s) of the fire flow pond;
D. An assessment to account for water at the end of spring runoff season
to confirm the ready -status of the Upper Pond and Fire Flow Pond, to
determine whether additional ground water pumping will be needed,
and to initiate an'angements to obtain replacement water from the West
Divide Water Conservancy District (WDWCD).
1
15/Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall
provide, along with any notification and tests required by Garfield County,
verification of permits, licenses, decrees and inspections required for the
facilities to serve the High. Mesa RV Park, in specific, for the following:
A. Two (2) commercial wells
B. Wastewater treatment plant
C. Water treatment plant
D. Operator's license(s)
X16.Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, all components
required for the operation of the RV Park must be completed, including but
not limited to:
A. Roadways for access, emergency access and maintenance
B. Water, irrigation, and fire flow systems
C. Restrooms & shower facility
D. RV dump station and wastewater system
E. Recorded easements
F. Facilities to meet ADA requirements
G. Operational plans and agreements
H. Securities, permits, licenses, notifications, and tests including water
decrees for two storage ponds.
17. Conditions of Approval must be satisfied within one (1) year of BOCC
approval date, as per 4-103(G)(8) of the Unified Land Use Resolution of
2008, as amended.
18, Amendments may be considered in accordance with the Major Impact
review Amendment process of the Unified Land Use Code Resolution of
2008, as amended, under which it will be administered.
8
.111111 i onNxi clootplaimi 4,aiiim 011Ot'I ? i 111111
Rereption#: 778298
toot312009 10 44 08 AM! Jean A1ber:0o
4 of 46 Rer. rue $0 00 Doo Fee: 0 00 0PRFIELO COUNTY CO
Dated this ► a " day of 1 hjA.#, A.D. 2009.
ATTEST:
GARFIELD
BOARD
CO
G
CO
IELD
RAD
COUNTY
OF
ONERS,
COUNTY,
erk of the Board
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoiri
the following vote;
John Martin
Mike Samson
Tr$si Houpt
ut
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Garfield
}
)ss
, Aye
, Aye
, Aye
opted by
I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the
Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby
certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the
Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my
office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 2009
County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
9
• terAliflin0ii1.010110MILIN 111H
RecoptioAA: 776295
101i7,7005 10 44 OS PM JRaR AlbatIOD
'001 46 USG rob $0 00 Dec 1ipm..0 OD GARFIELD 4011147.f
High Me
Constructi
Located on parcels of land i
Range 96 West and Section
West, County of G
Vieliiity ?AV
with ?Arinbe Pfaxelies
S .3ft Lao'
sa RV Park
on Drawings
1111 riirillhi iNIFBrLIPLWILlW 11 it l
Recepttonll: 778298
10+13)2000 iO as 06 PA Jean P1C.re4e.
11 of 116 Poe F.. 10 00 Oaa Fee • 0.50 SPRF]EL0 COUNTY G9
n Section el, Township 7 South
19 Township 'x South Range 95
rfieid, State of Colorado
i,
OWNER
Boli Gress
High Mau Partnere, LLC
400 Ps0.lninl Road
Reno, NV B5as 1
ENGINEER
8e11 Con.Ylling, LLC.
P.O. Rcs 8
RIBS CO atm
9/0-m-9l1s
SURVEYOR
hfwhediangi tree, PLS
NaokeliffSurney Smokes. ins
lea E ssd$L
Rifle, OD 919511
reaac4$r7a
Index to Sheets
Sheer n,..-ril.rlO
1. Cover
!, Eu.ling Cosd1tinm
�. Internal Road Plan
▪ Aa s Road Plan
5. Energiser') Auraa Road Plan
11, Inettgii Road ihofira
7, Amba Ra.d Profee
O Amer Road Section+
A Emergency Road Profile
10. Water and &.e+ Pian
11, &mer Profiles
Water Pra81es
is. Grading and Drainage
14. Denila, Read and Drainage
IS Derails, Lit.lStica
le. Detail., Drainage 5MP'a
la, Landscape plan
I!1 Ston. Water Conceptual Slap
••....
f"'ir w.•.a..»++a o'nY «u r r....+h I. �rsuE
RIMS Ix ....1•41, aM or4Y Wpm.
• taw...r o•aor rr.r ry .ta,w.....41y nr.rrr••.y r.......
r•
..r.mpiYrr•..=r.MOmade. dey®:ewa All ...harr
.Kr4rd r r.0.w ..^•••••••0=••1•..=•...1••••= A4 7r aarr..+.
• Moi w~rr.'r.rfri/�I a. arra: Wad.] tl w.e.M••el r.•.abw wit
• Mr
raMr.y1, w.a.tiroam., w..S.
ayo-ev..r•...'rlrer...
1.0xemrMs r...rr r A.. rertrr�
Yr▪ ••� Y n V.4.. 041 4,01.• ra w.
p� wwa• ww ro rRr�.rr• •••16.
. Aa.r4K
• 1.r .WO.. 0.m••••114 rrurr1r. •rya r..arm W5.5I ....v....
• ryrrodee os..w+n o w.dw lw.01 .• w..�.... wp�.v}r�+ � est,
a..ora.rtl�ry.e.or• N lV.•rf...f .r
• tw.Fa� eager maul swum r7ae.r..al r a ar..r.r..r+e.a
era.w..;..e..smerr.+mwdera
gr.r<oaa•
w w... r'---xl.a.m.e..w A*am�.r• .A..letr.....l,rowrebw
.rr dCYWewWrar n••4 Owar data. .
✓ rwyvw_�.••••r
.MO km.
.Y. ..W4aqorY My .14=10,610o iw
r.w/•••••w.�avrml0 14 .I1.16a
trry.rl.r..r ...MAIMS .1.•1 ,rrpm.
Jib
AL Y a.Ve.r/ we... a}rr Wrr.0.i.ra • .. I!W+Ywaa.4t
.
Y.
r▪ .�..� r odemks r..a•••i-••a rrrraw »r..r+wrrm. Dararw
u Y+..e..e.w/SO rry., r�.wrrrr.ti..rr a.wrtrrwnv..1rre
a-rrpq.._•_c�.rpIICrr.. Ne.... r.•e..•4►++Alls.nrf...w
..a ro1...,.ae1 aaurwertee
ra uaw.trr..w....w.a.4tl..ry woar..eq...rr 11Yr..w ea.s..r
i. u..r.Adn. ..o...res.•14..rey—.wa.sm.r..iamwwn �.�.r.
s wwr=YAM ..ccraso•A .w+t.ewd.K �r
11. fY♦g9 iee% LL 0.66 rMn.+..o+a,.rt.d leYnr raprmw ..wap.[..
r�1.. #r.F.n...n1..1..
F5 Tr ...m Iwo Cars.....v rTr .Wvnew.irO.T. Wi..e.AV a.Y
..l �e+J.1. wY rn'.p.+ ir.}r.l Yi4.+W.1liaM+rW �M...ti
:: .
0•....5-,-si^�...at4 .smo • r
M1Ta+'wl l.fp.Y.Y.I rw. �sla
13•0••• plErWIAS
a....w lo M rsw.rt
1.. 5...wr. r..l.+k.ia.a.wa.,ygr.1.Nam ea lobs ..wyL..-.erae.A.r
LEGEND
Overhead Lieea c —
P
Paws Rae
aW IITn
Mak
'Ua
5lopee Tobla
•Y4••• ap
•etinmm Yloye
e
uP
n ew
▪ Rear K.rl rJr
Ilkeendary
Liar
Sir cilr
1
't(7171—--- ��_' _ r' ri
rI /,.///yf� tit I rf
C r' -L.
�,,_ f_ r_
Sp�a$rrtrin, gene Mnriig . - i '/•--•--- -
---.7,692-• - i .d ' p.
r-1 J . ,• ._ 'L ! -' 1
..f%tt t
_ ',./ \ 1
! .;
If 7 ' tf •- ,---- - --"..,-,:.:....-----/... -- - -_`- 1 I
.. f / .. _ -- y� •.
1 r,._ f O; . �...� ,
\.....- ..-- -f !
• ! ! r
'y t _ 1' �` f _ :• f • r
.�_ ., . ( rl•rl r rr I'd
.'a -•
1) --�•• tet• _ /:, Ir
• - �"7 ; F 1 ..••
%-.i1 `�
__ (4. -'.../fes. —
Woe
J
j .
•
(`" t'1011%-11"04...
r13 -
S 88°39`44" W
763.06
•i s' CA& sa,Lh /LADY cLerior
lrw. Eev.-5340.3' reax ALnhum•
igeu-5ar
Bureau of La.
.... • \ '
. '
•
...
' ' '.-
. . • .: ' ' r / .. ..•*1 '' ... '
. ...'
•
'',..... .
/
F ... . i, • .• :
. . .. .
• 4 • 4.
/ • • .
1. ri ' . . 1 .. . i . j • . .1 . , • .".. .
/ /. / r ,---........— -
' o. • ' / . ' . 7 . o----".
' \ II .1 ' .. ' i : ' 1 ''-' i • i.".-Frj .-.. .
..- \,' •47'-'" ?
: J 1 C.::
....----,
.... 4•:-.-------'
• `.....4. .---...... 4-
...---------7--.....:
1...)f1 ...-
.61„. __... - -".. 4.-- t ..--.. -....,:•-.. ,------1'---
-,
--:.1' 1
•--..,_
.... ----._, ...N,.. '`----- _I --7.:- -,, \-,
- ...., ..-. •.
i
' I •
`;:111--y. •
1.
. •
OZ6
DTI 'lime DiDadtifirkT
rkmoirlterlim•
.........moommamms:mxim• •
.40
*WM
MN. 1.31K4
o000
BELL CONSILTNQ, LLC
kr, 0.1•444.41.444
V44- rienlij 011 Ned 101...1143
LJ
•
. ,
' *--...
'-' :- r /
, i i 1 .1 I .
it I ( 2
- ; 1 /
t.6,% ...._ ......s ....--::% - N. N
: ' '1 ft-tl'-'1Z. ',- %------ ..." -.---
I, 0,--1---9•Nt... \--. '"-• ' .1
i
' f
N., is
' \ i -:.'... - \
i 4_,..,•—• a -C---- . ,,...., .
‘ 1 •---t...,--
144c.::...11 cl-9.N: -:--t.-.--", \\•::\'•••
:,:z: co ''',. '---,. -'`------.."‘,
-„.• - ./' ,...
:-. s.
A gf ,-' _.------ "--
- IL ,....7:7- _.....- ,_,-,..-r----'
J
-
...1.... .. .... .r..............-
I/
,-...........,,---_-,..--,----,.......
-'"..,.........._
es= Bob Graham
High Mesa Partners, LLC
aeo P =mini Road
Reno. NV 313821
ONaTRY
Existing Conditions
11.
H igh MaSa Rv Pa*
itrateirliciou IniwtiorrivIoNKI.111111
RocaptiOON: 77629.8
101137.7901 19 44 OS AN 144,. Alb-io
13 of .45 Noo .• PO Doc Foe 9 04 04161V-T4L.9 COUNTY CO
■fll11%lei kl ' ILEI VI&le'1.411 .1.41.111111
Reception4: 776298
1011312009 $0:44 OB AM duan Riberico
•4 of 45 Rec Few:SO.04 Onc Fee 10Q GFRFIELD COUNTY CO
1111111(11111111111111(1111H1111/111
111111,111511V110[111€[1111140111
Ti
A
ali
CTG. s
e -d s
air► 2
aor�
0
jtsVP
tiV
`4 er ..• _, �
(< 8
n
....--,,,,k,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,,,.....____ (1( ;
- f 1-----------------'"N" V 2 - - - -- - ----- - - -- - - - - .... - .
..._-_ ,..-__ ---- .;fi
,.. x
•
0)
1r-
rrwwr m01 mi
rsour+a�r r.w
HELL CONSULTING. EIC
tnn&3
1a, fid.far
P
.a. f*usn>s�r . �muas-aces
1
Bob Graham
High Mesa Partners, LLG
100 Fan LrrJrn Reed
Reno, YV 8o52t
INTERNAL
ROAD PLAN
..1 7,1.04 Om • J00.4401,
>;iqh Mesa RV Park
rte • - -....w'..r.« (
u!II t4'i ,�[Klfi� i�M l [II 11i4M11�4�,1��'1�Nfl 1'E i lifl k 11111
Paceptlonli: 775295
}Ito,2005 10:14 08 RR J.an Alboricn
15 at 45 Raz Fe. $O 00 Doc Fae!0.50. GARFIELD COUNTY CO
,./.'fMfr
•
*Ns '
PM a.r.
. r 1A.
lw.M .►7
few
7.
a:�ar ung,' =-- _:•-
-41Fr Ommmmm. w.MS...
4121:3711".s.
•
MOA40NT4 �GPAR� GALEA FEET
11717:„,'/.4
M9
int
III
Ifif
1111
ti
11
Gw1dwM 1mm
Ww41re
3
a..
Ararnmsi 11•5:4Wed.da filo f rpm -Rot 94,91
m r. w•.• dipiPal
hs a WCC.+.g., r ar Va .1..164—.+
BELL COI &IL71NG. LLC
•.0. I
Ric AM
Yyt!fliC f11� ~I.c1•+W{SLnu
°"'f Bob Graham
HIgh Mesa Partners, LLC
400 PsiumhM Rand
Ren,. NV 18852}
ACCESS
ROAD PLAN
Hiph Mess RV Rafk
r
sd — .....i wow......
1111 101"1Ii1PfL 14I L4I 111 W6 4#IIkI.lIf41I!I
Receplionk: 776298
1(111712000 10.44:09 AM .loan Rlherica
+7 n! 46 Rec Fee -;0.00 Dec Fee 0 00 GARFIELD COL.HTr CE
1111 Ei. NI Pi 11 At f
R.ceptivnifir 77629B
IOf$3+7008 10.04 00 uM Jean Wino Lop
ie or 46 Pec F.. 10 00 Pec Fe.:0.00 ORRFIEL.O COUNTY CO
fr
oie MO.
,`Alp
owl Preowl•
Omodby
011..r1..P....
J
JMNIII OWL: ' ( Ill
f -mss
:.? 1111 = -_ ,,���
r i� � 7 —'
JAW 70011.
1.1.7„, 1,1
I
r>�
.1WNW.
BELL CO9.i.V C ac
PA, Gwi S1„¢
+mac• lunts,111 fm !70!1]1.1143
ID.x 147{1 14.1 * X..3..111
Bob Graham
High Mesa Partners, LLC
400 Panarnlm Road
Rrna. NV 89627
EMERGENCY
ROAD PLAN
High Mesa RV Park
r
■III r l i iiri il1W ,iii ,tillia104`41.:110;$1.Nf°l II II I
Rwcupt30nal: 776299
10113!2009 la 4+l OB N1 lean 641 Pi, r} co
x0 ar
1.00
3190
a. m
Main Loop Drive Profile
(Ste. 14+00 - End)
Road A Profile
111.ww.r rAr
-rrr r._
Sewer Access
Road Profile
+e„9.01e0w r.0
x.ai.r+a�r rra
SIX
+w9
..m
Main Loci Drive Profile (Sia
Hrks.r+s r.raw
a.m
1.90
14.03
Hm
Fe0
...:E_.�m
=
--
minsffinii
mou
amammemuii�_amargm_
L
.
IniTimEgbi,
MINEEIIMUIP11••
• MEMOIRS-
maz.
aCa===3_ia
mama immurAm
m-
_--ttE20
Ig=EKEmE2m-
gm mp.A.akK-
sa
._im
^
:
mac
�°——�—�'
.I
�R"'
p.
rlls
r
ryY
1.00
3190
a. m
Main Loop Drive Profile
(Ste. 14+00 - End)
Road A Profile
111.ww.r rAr
-rrr r._
Sewer Access
Road Profile
+e„9.01e0w r.0
x.ai.r+a�r rra
SIX
+w9
..m
Main Loci Drive Profile (Sia
Hrks.r+s r.raw
a.m
1.90
14.03
Hm
Fe0
1
a8
0
111114 111 L.
11(II11111;11111
Ii !Bill!!!
1111111111111
I If
111111111
11111111'1111
•11111111 01,11
1111111 111111
IIII 11111
i1111111!!!I!"
1mull 111
III1!IR; �l 111
1I1111111IIlR1I
11E1P
MCI
/PEI / ';I1IIlNull!!I11111
a
h.A.ib elOXC Wr}
■;rid CNW eg. SwF •••• t.m.
e11wi>MIMI
111 Ir•uu 111 IIN
!P1I111WIU
M1 I i1it 11I!1
N1 1111 1111101
11
111011 11111111111111M
11111•1111111 1511
II1MIrl 1111M
11111111
w: VIII 41
1111:1111111
111" kPii,I111
1111111111
'I111uu�u
M111 1111111 111
1E01111111111N MI
g w?Tf'1rr1 a1 m1111$$$$
lit 1/ 1 1 1 1
2444
1-6141
r.Y Hi.
114411
BELL CONSULTING, 1 C
•e Time
4W,C•ima alfw
POK25 H'.1.l 1..3,10/V1.91 P1
lama
f
8
cs^ Bob Graham
High Mena Partners, LLC
400 Pen amen! Road
flan N 0967!
1. �1a 1�[! u1lllwl� 1 ■111111
[IMI11I K;II INN 1 1111
111 �I!1I 1 M11111
1 MIPI111H1 AMI 1 11111
I11�1111I11 1111 MIM 111111
II 11111NI11IIIlI1
1111111111111111,"1:::''; q1ai�
IIIIiIII 111113111 111
I:r111111:uI
WM1I1I1111:w,11111111Ill
11I11111111ifU11
� �111111I r11111111II
1111111111111I111■ 1111
11t11M11111
1111111111MM 111
Il#111I111I�1
11I 11 1
111111" 1l .71MII
1wammo
rftBqmo
111!.
111 IMI1111I171,=
11 11IfMirM t '
Ul IiiM1111M11II11
111•11111 lie !14111 11
111111111111111i1M111111
111111111111 V 111111 Mw fl l l
1IMIIII111NI I1M1I 11
NEIN' 11111111 ■111Il
11111111Mi11MM11N11I# I
111E1 11111111.11111 I111
111111 11111111111•1111111
ROAD PROFILES
lwwe
ree -1 High Mesa RV Pgsk
1111 re.61114111'411, llt 1fi1nqiiirf riC1 1iU,111+L 11 111
Receptinnti776200
56/13/2009 10:44 DB Rr Jean 01berlen
21 Pr 46 Reim Fee. SO 00 Doc roe 00 GWRFIFLD COl(P1TY C0
111..` - ==�`=====._=^== 1= =.a_a • flint,_„,
Ws-MM:MME�■M2-3.•
— -.II.
TM millmEME MEM
" e an1& ._3 a111IIIII11- II IIIA
u I i—i.—Yi � �ma� lts
min
r -^'
mm_.
1�—76i�rJi»C Cl muni -C M�i
•===e,co.
301,1
II II 3
1.00 1100
5.011
-+00
siti0.--i
zt
7100
5.00
-
6q7
a
17.00
15.00
19.00
i
22.00
.!
01.70
7µO9
75.00
sw •
MI
1f
����ii��1�1
- - - M~7rIJ
•Vu
OA. EMI
mop WS
!4400
30.90
53407
37100
39.m
30.00
fi
41.00
•2
Access Road Profile (Sta. 0+00 -46+
.31
00
I}lj
1 1
9
ill111111
1111
1111111 111111
II MII 111
I 11111111
11.1111
II
j
_,...s X1111
i1.miiii ii
11Y111111 II1
11 Ilia 11
ztc ; 5ti III ionic 11
Iia ii i 1 111
IIII.LID!1
1i•' 1. 111111
11111 1�
III f IINl1!
111 !s1lm`II1
111 +• 710 'IA 11
Ilf I
111 I1wl1f� l 1 I .`
1 mill MI ;
III NM
1 t,NN1
I111 ilii!
11111111: • _ • I I
sea
I;
ti
1Y ay..
14.
III
1141
h
Ill111J111I1111111I 11111111�tiI; 111
wu 1111111111111 #� L':l; I
�1111111IM . a;Ia11111111111
ruP.1-
ri.SNI
II -:
ll I
ti!, Ski I
i tr 6 K 3
.111141s"k11I i ifff. 11.11.Il11ir fie1i I ll 41.1 M1 111
Receptkanp• 7762.98
10J sae 2309 t0. 44. 09 PA Jean Alba -Arm
23 0' ae Rrc Kee EO o0 C Foe 0 20 6ARFIEL0 cowl- l CO
Sob Graham
r+igh Masa Partners, LLC
400 Pani R6..
Rano. M/89621
H Mesa RV Park
era
ACCESS
ROAD PROFILE
oliymirlooNnonki
u
X0-
8
E
lir
12;
k
t▪ i00
a E8
to▪ u.
Er
eti
31.00504
Ir Y
MB
1441
- 004010-0010 0 10 20 31 000
-5/340. .111-10 0 10 00 30 4010
A1�
50.40-35-20.10 0 10 R 30 40 30 -4040»110-10 0 10 003040 70
r
-70-40.30.10-10 0 10 20 70 4070 -50-10-3425-400 1010 30 4050
4%•5050191 lan.gam}
u4 -w► 4+r
ir▪ k
- 30-.0.3670.100 10 m 40 4000 -70.45-5323100 10 201340 30 -50-40-50-50-50 0 10 00 30 40 00
10140941 r1.Oa0C1
-22.5-050.50-100 10 30 30 4020
Is.o2sJ6
G EM
- 0010-10.00.106 10x0304070
r, m
- 50,4.56»100 *20x1050
METZ
-3-.0.31-29-10 0 10 10 .11 1050
MEM
-551655 95-10 0 10 3010 40 00
f e:4v rot
- 30-.45520-10 0 10 20 50 40 90 -20-40-0120 10 0 10 20 20 40 50
LL�?Q4i1 —
- 30-15-7611w0 1020200000
61+421mnia151
r PP •11 Orll00
-1p40-00.2/100 43 20 30 4010 -030.150100 1010 30.050
-W40.2020100 1050004050
L
-50-10-5520-10010 70.50 44 00
w
00
04
-5F40562o-10 0 l0 z4 x 40 00
ta,.02.w-
.011
-9o-0.fam-100 to 20 3040 XI
fte.ore
1111`i rioukrimiti lA1fi4ilfilit 10011''101144.If1
accept 2ontl: 776298
1677012009 .0.44 00 RK Joon Rlhor Ica
25 of 46 Roc Fes SO 00 Doc F..-0 00 GRRFIELO COLANT0 00
177X—°n°11
..
4040i070100 ,070101015
-01140.01,201* 0 107v 504000
14.3030
5005 ]520.10 0 ID iQ SO 10 50
-061674-7610 4 10 20 a0 4010
MEO
-504030 20 -*0 0 10 30.7040 70 -»4D0'0100 15 24 w w 50
5010020,0c 103330320 so
C••01 cal
.. .. ..} .. r ..
55.0367 ]010710 -06499020140 10 20 50 10 0 -30032-20100 102030.010
u.46bb] p b 000o1
.. r -
-3011,11.1+1.a 10144*V X. 50.00]0-1001000]04050 -30.0.3420-100 10**,00
00.00 0,31
-0/976)510 0 14 20 3040 50
59401020100 *3039 1016
IF.7r1 —OCR]
-101070.7610 0 10 30 30 4000 -50-.953.20 10 0 10 10
re, Or! Mal
111.1
012 .1
-5040502610 0 19 20 SO 40 So 3020220 10 20 50.010
•
01
VIII Ir�i�EC4:l i'��E�l'�i�iE�l���I{I�CI�i��w �ia'�II 11111
Recaptionu: 776288
1x13312009 1O.00 00 R17 Jean RIbsrlc0
21 a1 00 Roc Foie SO 00 0oc Fsa 0 00 GRRFiF10 COUNTY C0
1+00
0.001
4+ PI
7407
0.00
pi's --:eco
*1» Z a rr
ror
_________
wFr !1Q'�
. �� ..�siias�L�a���
sem: .>.....G= �7
z
;
17+90 101.0.1 19.00 x0400 21404 a1400 i3 2.4t00 00.00
]4+m
07.00
7!100
42.00
Emergency Access Road Profile/Sta. 0+2
1.xm.ran4c,'r9
WII. Fa. Y.y
aw u
11111 fp
1 11 rid IN
111N1:1 ' ::111ill
1 ;..1111Nw
111 11111
NMN 11
III!. I l l t 1 I I!! r'
RR111R1R111
11
_
Vwflotat
1
1
a
31•011i
!1M
n
U "SOW WIN
1d NI1IIU11111II
MIS II1�111 IIII1111I1111
I i 1r rill ill 1111111
IliW 1111 i'l1 Mil 1111W
N 111. 1'1 11111 111111
N 111111111!1111111
M 1111111 11 111
11 11111i:=211' :E
■
1111!
wf�f�s ii i
.11: : ' ;18,.1111liu111#n
ii r,lt 1111Imom
111 1111 i;i111111111111
1(IIii!. H1111
111 11 11C 4'111
IN 1111111 VIII 11 -1!!..P,
11 1 11111► !o" 11.1111
11 11 i 1111 1141111
N 4I1lflhII1iar�k:k..'ll!!
II 1 all! 11111111
e
tik
11
11111111 ;"!.1111'-
111111131111111111111
1111111E 1111111111
1111111111II111
1111111 1111 11
1Ili 111111111
11NI 111111 1111/111 1
11 11111111 III11111
11 11 1111111111 11:1
M 111111111111 '111''';
111111111111111 M1 ll
111111IIi11I111 1' !AIM'
1111N111111111! 11' P11111
0111 41:
1►1°ik
1NIIr111:[ki :,1 "K Ai1111
1111111111111101 1111111
t
w. m• n
.rr r 0nP4111..11• frrARMI.M (MOWN.
BELL CONSULT/NG. LLC
Po. 4r/
VS, flvF4F 0
YeIMflI, I]I1 pti-nwl]nTl1e
o.. 11414 IP, Y ,2=:.111.
S
Cdl
a l;i»i la
11111111MIMIIta1111
1■111i11111PMI1111N
I P1 1 11111111 N 111111111
1111 HIEN
IllII1Iii11111NIN
111111111 111/111111
11Cl11NI! 1111111 11
11111111111 1111111111111
11C'Il�irl ii, I1 IlNIIN
11111111111111111111'111111�nn11 111
,1l11111!!•'11
IN Iii k It
N
:in ' lin
i1IH•I11II ��{{
Ila N1111j11Nkl
1111111*IHIN11
GFNII I1+11Mi!�Mi1 i'!1
111l NIA I III l i
11 111::.
1i 1111611111
'MOM:11l 1iM1
II 1-141:111111
1 Ii:IIli!illllLl 11ii11
■C1IIIIII IFS490111
N1111111111N'111111
VIII NII 111A1111111
MIi11N11 ! ;UIIIN1111
NI1lIw. = iI1NIIII1I11M
1011111 11€1111.024 !
11k1111111111�...1!4' lc}
11111111 I I111I� NiI11111I
111111111 111W1111111111
Beb Graham
High Mesa Partners, LLC
490 Panamint Road
Rano. AN 99521
7 a
EMERGENCY ACCESS
ROAD PROFILE
Fan
h Mesa RV Park
Iww. Mns
11 107,
Ill hiris'CH% KIK 4ettie141«'1, 111,1 II 111
Reception : 776298
•DiZe ci 46RIM Fop fa Dun,Joe.
4coA RRFtELD COIHY► C6
1 I'
%,%114."4. -
Itis
\ .�� `�1/Y��••�-- \;1R�1H1U1\iRti� }� �i7►�Zy �����a�3�twe►s la 4 kJ
a1:ww.116/11 ti511
PlhAid10111 HI. .11101 1"I
1q11111'11111
hi I
to
BELL CONSULTING, LLC
a.o ly.i
AN, moo
Ycit•TIM 1[]ll Fan rWi14.111
Bob Graham
High Mesa Partners, LLC
4PQ Partin Irl Road
Reno . NV x8521
H . h Masa RV Park
WATER & SEWER
PLAN
.0[4.P.1%.•••••• .PFw•w ••••••wchM
■II! il'i �t i#ll i�i��itFl�I II h�.lwFl X5:14 l4111+1Il1011. •Illi
Roc•pt ono. 776700
10013/2009 tD 44 OR An Joan Albarr4aCARF IELO CQuHTY CQ
3Q of 4S Roc Fa• fa 00 Doc
A -Line
Sewer Main Profile A-1
NMso11YYt r.4
was roc 1,4•1
Caine
Sewer Main Profile A-5 to C-2
a ..a.1e.• I' we
B-ine
Sewer Main Profile A-;
I10s•011c0. 4IP
wrtyalac ...SI
A-line
Sewer Main Profile A-4 to D-1
IY..rasd. It rr
w_._r..
�lfl l�'�'�tKli,l 13+iI 1 1�* IWLi 4�#rlili'1,', rn'L II+L U ill
Recap tSonq: 774248
tD113120n9 10 14 08 M Joon R1hor1.•u
3' n! 4$ age Feo $0 OM! Dov ra4 0 C1 CRp1 IELO COu!!TY CO
{ io E3-9
E -line
Sewer Main Profile B-8 to E-1
1. 41r
VolcaMft .10
F -line
Sewer Main Profile B-8 to F-1
G-Iine
Sewer Main Profile B-3 to 0-2
x.r.irl_ r Yc
wum- 1,61,
SEWER PROFILES
f
High Mesa RV Park
1
11111k141111111N11111161141111.1Ali 5111
Rlc6ptlon$- 776298
10e 13+2009 10.44 OU Aft Jun A164r4o0
32 of 46 RAC For =E7 OB goo F.r!0.00 9ARFIELO COUNTY CO
3400
4+00
6100
1.00
1►r
r a.1. n.
Water 1 Profile
awn.ra� ree
rnrerk r.w
0400
15+00
114 C0 I/.CO
16.00
1Y•
4.00 5400
Water 2 Profile
w..• r...•.
7«01
1111 hY+'ilihi iiNILVJ dW i« 10.1.« ii1,'f 410,U 1E111
Rocept i anti: 776298
7011317000 10 44 00 AM .40, 010.11...
33 of 46 00C C46 S9 03 Doc F.& Q Q0 GARF=ELD C0W1YY CC
maw
9
10. LO
1.00
121-00
11+00
14+e0 n.00
16.21
17100
CES
00.
�_arraa=wa:w� as ar
m=mm-m=mmeil; iSm =raj=mwmamm===QR[M
70+00 21400
0402
0,01
22+00
4+00 95.00 10.ro 27,00
Water 1 Profile (continued)
04400 WEirr u.>w•W.
300 a a`n
r.eo
Vw0/9rt r.r
la
WATER PROFILES
Ji
egg
4
3
12
■#I! ri lig i1 X41444 LAi'ri*rl1 Nf l II 111
Roc eptsanq: 778Z9B
I0+t312009 1O 44 D@ AM desn RL4ertc4
31 P' 64 Rsc Fee SO 611 Coe Fee.a CO GARFIELD COWTV CO
a...._.
wf� wtr-.w.
arraaistEtr r.1,44
1
kin...
rwiaa�l
op 4.41
;vii 1 CONSUL7iNCJLLC
1-d .%
R. MSC
Yrm fla1UI .r! 11 For Tfwnul115
Bob Graham
High Mesa Partners, LLC
rO PanarIM Road
Nom. NV 89321
GRADING AND
DRAINAGE PLAN
rww
High Mesa RV Park
rs. wic..r.a.r.w.r..r......-rr
VIII �1 i��l4liiYl��'�II � i , IY.III 1:14iiI:LIi l imILW.J 11 II
RecepE lonk: 77G298
l4ri3.12004 10 44 ❑9 RM Jean nlbrrloo
3f. 4f 46 Pec Fee SO DO Doc Fre 3 DO GARF1£LD COUNTY C6
ar
•r F.rwarf
0.r4 fl..e.41
Access Road
Typical Section
Alternative A
WO u..Y••••• ..
r..YlYr�a.V..
MOM Immr.nap
Main Leap Road and Emergency Access Road
Typical Section
Alternative B
+r 'Owl...*
•
Main Loop Road and Emergency Access Road
Typical Section
AIlernative A
frr•••••-• Mir
1.••60.1141.
•w
eV.
r.r r.
....MRV./
• IMP
—�
Nnn
Wastewa
L .=...r...
Wastewater Treatment i
Typical S
Memel
..1
Wald.
.6410..
+l! 400.4404i.,ii: iirVA:i:wi:1;01:. :64.•:.ai'.ia?Fir ■!..,111(•.�
erereepue
S4
ran
Main Loop Road with RV Parking Areas
Typical Section
Alternative B
}
•
anakma
.roar..
crirmalamaa
Main Loup Road with RV Panting Areas
Typical Section
Anemaiive A
121:
44.
1flridgti'iiitlPOPCAllelikANIC1!'11iIA"111111
Ricept4ona. 776298
SO/13770OD 10 44 06 Ar /ran AL bor10
17 of 49 Rad Fay f0 00 Doc Foo 0 00 GORFIEL0 COUNTY CO
.1.2raui rel
•wMM
et Treatment Facility Access Road
Typical Section
Attemalive t3
acilily Access Road
Ian
A
1r
am,r_.:1
:,rimer R
..1•••••••.#4., ',�
- wr RWrrr�
ww I�rS
Access Road
Typical Section
Alternative/73
�.r••mlan`
11w
it r
,__�._�w.0'
—
..
nedriwd Ir..�.
• rye w,k1
m
otl
m c
0) ea 2
O
a t5
e
❑ [[pp
ui
Q
fivE
S
Slope Stabilization
��.._ .... Typical Section
N
N..
w�
Ir
40, 11•1wm
•
D.11W.4
min xm•
imam
•TS
w.
;
..._._..r -.
1 m.
•
Water.
Typical Trench
40.1•••• .•� :.�
rl..wt
MOW.
WPM
md•whie Nerd,
te...., c.,..
Pm••"
Tmw
Water,
Typical Fire
Hydrant
Cm. wwqmpl•Ppm P.m
i a•••••
n.......r.�...r
l f�-""
prw I.m}rlw..I.rt.
mr� W .tom aY ff �. ~r4
ti l...'+1 1
F�
RV Sewer dump Station
Water,
Typical Gate
Valve
w•y
rr .C.lafr nwrdgllplm
{to WWI
Wafer,
Typical Rlr Vacuurn Valva
wrtir
.Hr
s 1 r..lal=ilillli \.-..--
Ppm
IIY�
mos ml
RV Sewer dump
Station Blow-up
i
MN
wY may...
lim•fthlM.�
Water.
Typical Service
Sewer,
Typical Service
�...,
0100.0100
04.6
04 1
RV Site
et Water
Hydrant
1114
GAL
Sewer, Typical Manhole
w''
W
..d:
Ell ri II IIMlRIMIVIIAV 1101141411141191111111
= P.c pllanR' 776288
tor33r7049 10 46 08 414 Jean Alrberlao
ma nr 46 Roc Fe* $O BB floc Foe O.CO GaRr1FL0 COQNTr GO
re..+
1'3=
Do led arab
na▪ l
n n
Pim
VON
...Fee
trerNiNe
V.•••
Strew /Hey
Check Darn
Do Not Salle
Dempster
Area
Do Nn! $circ
1.1re herrn
Protected Swale,
Typical Section
WEN
Tempera
Check
ea erect
1 ▪ M▪ IwAMM___z1 .F.
i I.wW� ern lr Pew•Fle�
3 bower 1•e•I..p_ lib•
NOW • •. rr.re
�EeI.. . Mme
r- •
is �.,�-•'bias, ,;•a*.
Typical Culvert
Qutfail with Riprap
Section View
Typical Culvert
00311 with Rlprap
Front View
"1111111'
i�'
iii
Zf
bi
tI 191 E
ag
no
r
---
k
w
BEIL Ca
Ca;a.MOM
rd. 1x31411-9114 wa IVIUM�s
Bob Graham
High Mess Partners, LLC
400 Panamint Rawl
R•nc, NV 69524
HIAA Mesa RV Park
:M Vigo
Details, Misc. &
Drainage BMP's
1
111110.4111111AMI1 Ill l + I 11114'InilloMIi !i 111
Recegtkanit! 776298
10+13+2040 10:44:OB PM dean ASberico
AP or 46 Roc Fas•$O m0 Doc Fp 0.«0 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
c
>lnr�ir.�r»1rrr�ir�`�wr� svrr►����v*--
ilk �
■r+s�..wr reg
r.Nr. Rrl6GE 1r..Ft �+ w .r Ewe
MU CONSULTING, LLC
v...,.
Va�f700.15-nal h, mils .715
Bob Graham
High Mesa Partners, LLC
WO Panrrsird Road
Rana. NV 69521
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
Prof...
Nigh Mesa RV Park
FIN
11]11 RI'it1SI TTI%Y%iT'11114141i LYA`R1T I rh' i1011 11 DI
ReceptIor.tt: 776298
10l13 +0-ea.pg An jaw, Plberica
63 of 46 Rsc F4440 OV Doc FQe 8.80 Gr'1RFLELD COOK -Y GO
■III "♦ ��lhr P A 11r � 11��1�1�9�i�{i�i ' +IL ��� 11 it I
RecsptSOfE: 778298
50ii812000 10 AL 08 AM J. Albrrice
44 a! 46 *re Fn SO DG Lqc Fa 9 SC OA4FFELC COUNTY CO
11r^••••
nr wd
�dA.rp� w.w.
rlrc crl�+.
y
r
meaUa.�J
BELL CONWTING, LLC
YNs
011$21,111] Foe f11, 41 91�
Sob Graham
high Masa Partners, LLC
415D Panariert Rv.1
Rano. NV AS621
AM TM
Storm Water
Conceptual Map
cAr La,,A ++ Omani
Hich Mesa RV Park
11.1 •• re..
ID! r i l i'4iI ,ti4�I.Ifi���l �hN l 'i �L
Recepti*nit : 775298
14+13!2009 10.4 CA AA Joan Rierrico
+5 a1 46 Rx Fm..SA B0 Doc f.r.0.00 6RpFt LD'OUNTY 1'¢
fi
IIII I ',110110iP/11L i 1Ihd ilFl Ir111Mdr104'II IiI
R,c.ptlnn0: 778239
10l.312009 10,40 01 AM lean albs,[.O
45 01 40 R.. F'4. 16 00 hoc F.u. C.00 0ARFIELO COUNTY CO
terr• LLG01MA 1:
A sau 0 P 41 .0l.d i4 nY 0► 11 A4.+rw 1a l i rbdt
4� 11.1. >•Lnuci Ftiwa. �Vwfdfi RYIIY.M WltitP•. aH pr�•In
ary .MO...YA.aOAr1.a'w[
T 4014#Wl i1 l •M.. r46..Mr1¢►~. Hnl wvw 101A91i.•l"•yr r�:•w.
ivy 3li.�A. we iir.w v .Z�.I 00 I ..•1..k.� 0:�O"`r
•.1AACI +a�.1.�&wird.% "MAL rs.�.r41 ».err l+rlP
4 rrp &. 00.110 0.r4.0.ari4..re.4. 4r r. Pds 40ro0Mq SAa»a l4W
04 MOS!' Mea 0011 e• 1401
A MAisu. pNomM411.4 SOD P01.42.14 .1. Wpm. mg
B10'11=14 Te arodma 1 Pharr 0Y 44.+ eM we O.K.1
I>•rinr Pm* LIC AW,A4•
A...� YL,..* M L1.4Mvr I1.MV. 40#. }Pp.....1 1144 -.4PomPW.. nlfM
M.S Mtrw.• inEk 1.yy1.w+��p., p.mimd 4ly.4r GA
6•61 "mei s1..e r. pow. 4M ***1.* e.... la.►pp 42
*WAIF. AA*C dx ape...
Mb.tlAar .bs cP14•••• iMr
*NOW
ISt114nai 4M4140151711 5•n 44.4 S� 114 01 4C.144
4..780 to116ka .Ia 11 * .17.777 Yrd..M An•140 MMryAN*M
lNAjIV AlTOoSAr"N,•2
NO4oNMotAtoe
■.de re.,.. 1r, 2P44W ae11.77 1 oo.* 14-1 4Il
ywn 1 11 * 1. 1.R. (111..0nm.1 ao4 NI�p�il-F11r1� 1 1 1 4 '►RO 11.4.1
i*2A11r. {1AANo1A AAA.. y146.tl^ rO144
O � 41Lll Amd .4* 1710.nfpr 1732731wf�lp Olnr.f�d
G*�.M. �AMy MY00(1711 s..sN 14214 p77F.0w 111!.1{4/ oyM
44'414(7111 OI1f dyw..e. CNybb 44-711771 Mmile%4.01.11.*4&AmM
WAVE AAAMO k lyde. 1�.ey 11.4-MF116~S.41 a * AGI* r . orod i14i1 MI.
pall_ tdi* 16.6,0 a. 1E 01 i.=l7. wriawv 711.1i.yngil A,
0... se i -,Niro=. 241011. *M 04,.4 (011[ 771..fI. ilV 41KS1
daA•ANZ
1 �Wt1r7.�l.4.4. 14......0�pl 1 14 11..0,1*.( 4�....4Mr�I"...440-
141W1p.�!1/�/�i����FyA11�� wY.1.•C-BiM.. *4 lr�x7SN?>^iVl.q1 11
444V41*M�La fwd. 1414 Y urn 74 6i 1AM A=y1 w.�
171V7714 N 1. 4(414 iO•
FEW 0...7k r. 14 1•
914 64 A.r4 MA 711..4 Mild 6.64 •1(11.444.1 M Moire, .411.1 . EDiw„i1KA4 as 01%61%*(
* Arid Imam •6 F 10.01414.., ■ ..M imam ]R 1.0*.1WSre W 1314A71.1 W V S..
In. a• RN WA LEA el tel Naeleo= lo A W1A ANN ad AnimAlt.
FAA
IA
A*0 Arm, AIN A loInO maw IN No
KM 141014*... r W 414. MIA**•XM VIgO 6.1 wry Pa
fO 146**0 wi6 &.a0.n It
7N1r�.. ..401.0.4444. 11.177.11 a.r: T7..
▪ •1.101r.01 0• wti =Rewire%, NA1446. 1144 1.41114 T' 11/*24'%*
..4<1.1......... m r rr r ria 41s4144444
41.1. 47.1 WA r1.•••~46.44•6.6••••61.4
. .M M 1M11,. 10.�w�...9 4. ll.j.. 444 !rpm
RM
a.4n'4ard 1.••'4 •4114441.44 M ra.M.(.r.^r ..d 41 .......>e ..... ANA ham 444
Awe t14 y.W�
.r Hw
e.. 7r1•4a”,0}0.4.14.444a
RTP.adgp46401 ■Or4-S.* AAA l NA. IMY. .. Nwy YM 411 04.04
tlryiq Ali 101* 4.Rtl111.4M1g4 44...4444
.41=.14lrn r4044h41)444 1 4N11....Iw•. 404110 rr
6Mr.ld'MIR •er0 4.4114.. MANAMA mAM WYYG.014l,n an iw..
Y► 7 4R. 4•P A Wr141. M P 4, Cnwr .147.44. 1b. *10.6w14
*d'.:ray.**
* q. ...i.lW 1.44 H,Fin AAA PEASE 04 Add ScIc*4 tramad. 444.11411
4 4.1114.6
61ona•A 66.
rrr 171NQ '1 I.�y .Is6a 1.y MYXw[MAO 472 44 f Y 1'F76'�J
:- 4414.444. •a 44 wed Sri... 1421*.. 4110(774.l./rW
r.ry WLlW[bM.So* Y16.v....I1.d.ri4.J/MA* IR . Y 424 W.Y.wi
.4.. T..1u 101-16N414.11.*1•466/411.4441124*. ANA** h.
FWA44414/44 p4 o•d.441 MND 16.111 - wow*IM
461 742 il4 lit YSA 4*44-w°.+nuy�[.rW i� 1r aw1141 �00,4.404•6pj 4-.%.iii.AAAnA
.r ... ra
1.n.sA IAAnew** I. F... NON*. fry 044
C innissioaet I foupt - This is saying you will have everyting in s year. The conditions allow you to use tcmpor
ant you have it completed.
Lur t Ptescon said this is confusing; we wanted to permit thr existing structures su they ran be used until a 11
built nreture. Staff had indicated a well in place must be viable and long term and then later when building stick
built •n it would be applied. It is ultimately proposed that OXY bring current structure into compliance a d then
intplc nt the permanent structure.
Dusty - is makes it difficult: these types of applications do not have phasing.
Daniel - e are trying to get it permit for the temporary facility; this is self -reporting effort that we di not have a
permit to -e the facility.
Commissio Houpt- We cannot permit a permanent structure.
Loren Fresco said it was not stipulated to us that we only had one year in which to build the pc anent structure.
Deb - Code pr vides the same condition of 1 year; it does include the provision of prior to the adline the applicant
can request au c ension and may requesta one-year. The opportunity is there but you have a • e -year timeframe.
We do not approv - these with the intent to build.
Chairman Martin as d if we need to discuss this in executive session,
Dusty The applicant ever represented they had a limited time Far the permanent and di • ndicate this was a
transition for the tempo ry. She was able to condition this and satisfy the applicant's re • est. They cannot apply
for something other in thi application that should he included which is the permanent cility, the water, the ISDS,
keeping one trailer at 19 p ons and the guidance in the application slanted it that w • . The applicant is expressing
that they trying to make sure ey can continue to have the temporary and we are a ing them to commit to a
timeline they do not have.
Daniel - At the request of staff, c applied for both at one time. It is our intent t get the current site in compliance
and ready to build a permanent at turc.
Commissioner Haupt- Something to compliance must comply with Cade. he way it has been Presented, you
want to build a permanent structure file using the temporary facility.
Chairman Martin - This gives you one ear.
Deb -Focus on long term not temporary.
Chairman Martin -We can either deny or a applicant can withdraw b- again we cannot get there.
Motion to continue and that would mean no . ing. The requirements
scope changes, then it would have to be a pub a hearing and start a
Notice was for a professional office net a le • • . ry office.
Commissioner Samson - Does not agree with th • ; he favored
instruct by our staff to do what they arc doing; he . id no one i
are doing. He would soon get it done.
Commissioner Houpt - The problem is the applicant t h
asking for a permit for our temporary facility, and we d
Cammisisoner Houpt reiterated, what we received is net
Daniel said he tried to break this out but he did not thee
Daniel requested this be continued for a few weeks. D ni
compliance.
Dustystated she was happy to work with applicant a address se challenges,
Commissioner Houpt made a motion to continue is until Qeto • • 19 at 1:15 p.m.
Commissioner Samson - The Board should do r job and the tna then looks out for us. We could have done with
what staff asked and he has no problem
Chairman Martin seconded.
Cali for discussion.
Commissioner Samson - My question is cy have come here and have d • c everything they have been asked to do;
they have some concerns; they were try' : to work them out; there i$ not g • ing to be a big problem and it seeing to
me we are talking about semantics a • molest which drives me up the wall oat of the time. I think we need to go
forward. get this done, get it out oft • way, and get an.
Commissioner Houpt-1 think it •ukd benefit the applicant if we continued ill because they just received these
conditions of approval and there +s been confusion about what the focus of the - , plication was all aboul and they
could end up with some conditi a that really do not help them at all. It is not far • in the grand scheme of things
and t think you have somethi - on file that everybody understands instead of trying ordsmith everything at the last
minute.
Daniel -I feel more comfn • ble having work session with the planner and getting so thing figured out that
everyone on the Hoard c. id be more comfortable with it,
Chairman Martin - I fe - we need to have things that support our findings and 1 do not Thi we have everything so
we do not want a 106 tion for a challenge.
Commissioner : - My questions, what are we going to do so that this does not happen the fulure; we have
to trust ourselves a • do not take it the wrong way but I feel we just wasted 2 -hours.
Chairman Marti . I understand but it is also a worthwhile education for this Board under the n • Land Use Code
as well as the e unity and learning what our staff is going through trying to interpret every le ' I of that Land
Use Code.
Commisiso r Samson - My questions is what arc we going to do to make sure this is not repeated-
Commiss er Haupt - Well, perhaps you do not try to put two different issues together to help you a . because it
may hu •u. I do not know but we can learn from these experiences as we move forward and co cation
bctwe the applicant and the planner is key. 1 do not want to put blame on any of the parties.
Co fission Samson agreed, 1 have not put any blame, [ think Dusty did what she thought was m the best 1
anthe applicant did what they were asked to do.
I favor: Haupt -aye Samson - aye Mania - aye
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT THROUGH THE MAJOR IMPACT
REVIEW PROCESS FOR A 'CAMPGROUND/RV PARK' ON A 36.637 ACRE PARCEL SOUTH OF
BATTLEMENT MESA AND PARACHUTE OFF CR300 IN THE RURAL (R) ZONE DISTRICT_ (THIS
continuing would be unless the continued
ge ahead and not address the legalities. We should
the audience was protesting. They know what they
d in one direction, the applicant said, no wait we are
know when we are going to build our permanent.
hat you are requesting.
c c staff reports until today.
el'- • reference is to allow the facility to be into
terest
455
ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM 8110109) APPLICANT IS HIGH MESA PARTNERS, LLC - DUSTY
DUNBAR
Dusty explained it needed ndjuccxtt panels to be - treated as a new,
Dusty Dunbar, Deb Quinn, Nathan Bell, Nick Hillborn SGM, Pam Holmes, Eugene Speakman, Mark Williams, Bob
Graham and Jerry Rush were present.
Chairman Martin swore in the speakers,
Deb Quinn reviewed the noticing requirements and determined they were timely and accurate. She advised the
Board there were entitled in proceed with the hearing. Chairman Martin swore in the speakers.
Dusty submitted the following exhibits for the record: Exhibit A - Proof of Mail Receipts, Exhibit B - Proof of
Publication; Exhibit C - Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended; Exhibit D - Garfield
County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended; Exhibit E - Town of Parachute Master Plan of 2002; Exhibit F -
Application; Exhibit G- Staff Memorandum of 8.10-09; Exhibit 11 - Exhibits issued from augur 111, 2009; Exhibit
! - Leiter, applicant request for Waiver for right of public hearing within 40 -days; Bob Graham, dated 5-14-09:
Exhibit J - !=mail Garfield County Road and Bridge department- Administrative Foreman. Jake Mail. dated 7-9-09;
Exhibit K - Email - Garfield County Vegetation Manager Department - Director. Steve Anthony, dated 7-29-09;
Exhibit L - Email Garfield County Planning Department - Project Engineer, John Niewoehner, P.E., dated 7-28-09;
Exhibit M - !deme!!, Garfield County Environmental Health Department, Director Jim Rada, dated 8-2-09; Exhibit N
- Email l)ivisioo of Wildlife Division - Game Officer, Dan Skinner for 1. T. Romaiakc, Area Wildlife Manager
dated 8-3-09; Exhibit 0 - District Email, Colorado Division of Water Resources- State Engineer, Craig M. Lis, PR,
dated 7-29-09; Exhibit P - Letters, Grand Valley Fire Protection District, Rob Ferguson, Deputy Fire Chief -
Operations. re: Variance to road configuration/access, dated 7-29.09; Exhibit Q • Excerpt, Minutes. Planning
commission meeting of 5.13-09; Exhibit R - Applicant supplied: Easement map document (Bookcliff Survey);
Exhibit 5 - Applicant supplied: letter re: 7.806 (h) standards (SGM); Exhibit T - Applicant supplied: Revised
Preliminary WWTF Engineering report (SGM); Exhibit U - Applicant supplied: Revised WWTF; CDPII
application - SGM; Exhibit W - Applicant supplied: NO! to Construct Non jurisdictional Water Impoundment,
West and East Ponds, Revised (CO Division of Water Resources Office of the State Engineer) Exhibit X -
Appticant supplied: Improvements Agreement Drell (H. Graham); Exhibit AA - Email - Garfield Cuunty
Vegetation Manager Department - Director, Steve Anthony, dated 9-15-09; Exhibit B13 - Email Garfield County
Road and Bridge department - Administrative Foremau, Jake Mall, dated 8-31-09; Exhibit CC - Email Gnrficld
County Oil and Gas Liaison. Oil and Gas Administrative Assistant. Wendy Swan, dated 9-1-09; Exhibit DD - Email,
Garfield County Environmental Health Department, Director Jim Rada, dated 9-4-09; Exhibit EE- Email, Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPH) Mark Kadtinek, P.E. dated 9-4-09; Exhibit FF - Letter
Grand Valley Fire Protection District, Rob Ferguson, Deputy Fire Chief- Operations, dated 9-15-09; Exhibit GG -
Email Garfield County Planning Department - Project Engineer, John !Niewoehner, P.E., dated 9-15.09; Exhibit Hf
- Email, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Field Office - Realty Specialist, Carole Huey, dated 9-
15-09; Exhibit 11- Email Colorado Divisinn of Water Rennurece - State Engineer's Office — Mike Render, tinted 9-
16-09. Exhibit J1- handout - single sheet - applicant's response to land use change response. Not submitted as an
exhibit part of power point. - Worksheet
Chuirman Martin entered Exhibits A — 11 into the record.
Dusty explained this is a Land Use Change for a "Campground/RV Park" through a Major impact Review for High
Mesa Partners, LLC; Daybreak Realty, LLC: James Eugene Speakman, Monique Teresa Speakman on property
located off a well pad access road off CR 300, approximately 1 utile south of Battlement Mesa in the Rural;
Adjacent; Public Lauds (BLM). Tlie campground would consist of 119 back -in parking spaces for RVs with full
hook-ups and utilities with no tent spaces proposed.
The applicant has revised their application based on comments provided by the County Planning StaffRcport and
the Planning Commission. The applicant has requested that main access roadway that provides access for the public
to be surfaced (chip -sealed) prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Penne. EnCana Oil and Gas (USA) has
several well pads to the south of the RV Park and the applicants states until heavy rig equipment is removed, these
oversized pieces of equipment may damage the road surface that will be instalied to serve the RV Park. The
applicant request that Garfield County accept a security and allow the chip sealing to Take place 18 months from the
start of construction.
StalTCondilions of approval 11-10) were those recommended by the Planning Conunission and agreed to by the
applicant. The conditions of approval 10- 18 are those recommended by staff, based on review of the updated
materials supplied by the applicant, with new referral agency continents (Exhibits AA - Exhibit 11).
Staff recommendation is for approval with the conditions recommended.
Unlike subdivisions, This does not have phasing. 1l is handled in such as way and has adequate security so Garfield
County will not he exposed to picking up the tab if the land is disturbed. It behaves like a subdivision, almost
permanent occupancy as the Board took away the 180 -day requirement in the new Land Use Code. Ongoing water,
road maintenance, for RV Park ground and the chart talks about the recommended flow within land use resolution to
satisfy and meet the conditions of -approval_ All 14 condiuons however, 1-9 came from the Planning Commission
and wore unaltered. New condition No. 10 might share the applicant has to address. Conditions 11, 12 and 13 - staff
has gone beck through the applicant's additional response for conditions in the Innd use code for approval.
No. 10 - Speaks to the maintenance agreement and includes language for that permission. The applicant :seeds in
comply with the aecess and use of the road
No. 11 - Disturbance of land has been discussed with the applicants and it meet the requirements in such a way they
can put the application forward. The Planning Commission was very specific with language to allow the step-by-
atep approval to take place.
Condition 12 - Exceptions for laundry and shower; conditions for an RV park require public showers and restraoms
an these have to be a part of approval of the park and they need to satisfy these before the land use park can be
issued the permit.
Dusty - No. 10 is the maintenance and how the park will be maintained prior to disturbance to the ground.
Limitations for access road limitations include the following and are listed on the acmes pemiit. Wastewater, ponds,
dtintp station etc. and the road use matches what they will be removing. All statements to the opportunity on the
limitation for access for the use and the level described in the application requirement as per Garfield County Road
and Bridge. No. 11 - Provide verification to serve the park with two wells. Confusion as to when the wells will have
455
permits. They have submitted ell of the pupui work; the walls are drilled and exial. A vcrifrcatieus of permits issued
to serve the High Mesa RV Park will aced to be submitted.
No. 12— Prior to any disturbance of the collector toads and doaigii for additional safety inetuding curves. guardrails:
and culverts.
teem A - Meet the following requirement for mad right-of-way 1 and 2 and the road right of way is 30-feet.
Commissioner Houpt was confused; it is a request nota requirement_ So she suggested to spike Condition 120 2
Dusty - Misspoke.
Now Dusty gave the stuff axion.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission heard this matter on 5.13.09 and forwarded it to the BOCC with a recommendation for
approval with 14 conditions recommended by Staff that are also stated in an excerpt of the meeting minutes (Exhibit
Q)
1. All representations of the Applicant, either within the application or stated at the hearing belbre the Board
of County Commisoncr (BOCC), shall be considered conditions of approval unless explicitly altered by
the BOCC.
2. The operation of the facility shalt be performed in accordance with all applicable Federal. State. and local
regulations governing the operation afehis type of facility.
3. Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards tet forth in the Colorado Revised Statues for
residential standards asseascd at a location of 350' from the park or at a point 25' beyond the parcel (RV
Park parcel) boundary, whichever is lesser_
4. The High Mesa RV Park shall be operated to comply with all Federal, State and County air quality laws,
regulations and standards for emissions. heat, glare, radiation, fumes, smoke or other enwnation which
substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or
harard.
5. The Applicant shall comply with the fire protection provisions included in the comments of the Grand
Valley Fire Protection District (GVFPD); develop a fire protection pond at their convenience.
6. Any signs associated with the use shall be designated to comply with the Garfield County Sign Code.
7. No storage of heavy equipment is proposed or permitted on this site. with the exception of a inachinc or
vehicle lot snowplowing, which shall be parked in the storage area or inside a structure.
8_ Any lighting of the site shall b pointed downward and inward to the property center and shaded lo prevent
direct reflection on adjacent property.
9. All equipment, structures and light fixtures on the site shall be painted with a neutral shade often or sage
green non-reflective paint to reduce glare and make the site more inconspicuous. Structures designed to
mimic barns, ugrirntturiti stnielare or false-front western alnrefmnts may he either neutral colors or laded
barn red, but the surface must be a non-reflective surface 16 reduce glare.
10. ani
A. peernits; irwtaedine-gradrreg at
R. nd-Bridge-f3apanrnanrftx xized+evaFwei
C.Alt }enol- tanriertaired--%m..:,t< r_..-r., o....a ....., n_:d. a n._...trt .. tents,
D. Asil-nteessttt=y-ii . . . _., __ .._._._Dari,
E. All--regaerements-foratrgtsieenug-design-and-reisted-phsas-set--inrHe-by-the-Garfaesld-E'etentp,Prajeet
Esigineen
For continuity, all (tithe conditions of farmer No. 10 have been incorporated elsewhere.
Preceding conditions of approval (1-tfl) were those recommended by Planning Commission and agreed to by the
applicant.
The following conditions of approval (10 - 18) are those recommended by staff, based on review of the updated
materials supplied by the applicant. with new referral agency comments (Exhibits AA - 11).
1. As above
2. As above
3. As above
4. As above
5. As above
6. As above
7. As above
8. As above
9. As above
10. Prior to the acceptance oldie Maintenance Agreement, the applicant shall:
A . Revise all sections to comply with the limitations for access for the use and level described in the
application, that being: one (1) 114-unit RV Park with related infrastructure: WWTF. WTF, 4 ponds,
1
shower/laundry facility. dump station, storage budding and campground/office building with
casements on three parcels:
B . Revise all statements to comply with the limitations for access for the use and level described in the
application requirements. as per Garfield Counry Road and Bridge;
11. Prior to any disturbance of land. the applicant shall provide to Garfield County Planning:
A Verification of permits issued to serve the High Mesa RV Park for the two (2) cantmercial wells;
B. Any notification and tests required by Garfield County for the wells.
12, Prior to any disturbance of sand, the applicant shall:
A.Design the roadways to meet the following standards:
I. Minor Collector road standards, with an allowable exception of 4-foot shoulder widths, and 10%
grade provided safety features are installed on curves,
2. Design additional safety and drainage enhancements as per Garfield County Project engineer on
curves. (guardrail. culverts)
B. Meet the following requirements for road right-of-way and signage:
I. Provide adequate ROW recorded fur the public (rather than private) without charge to
Garfield County, that being:
457
n. 60 -fel from the mein names rued,
b. 20 -feet for the emergency road
2. Additional acreage ncrscxuuy On (1rn prujewt purcals. tuouduty along CR 300 is requested
to bring the ROW to a full 30 feet From centerline for future mad improvements.
C. Have in place; a plan for chip -sealing of the main access road;
I. lfadequately secured, the upplicant may delay chip scaling the main access roadway to a date no mom than
18 -months from the BOCC date of approval (9-21-09), or 30 -days after EnCan.'s energy development
requiring oversized equipment ends, whichever comes first,
2. Prior to chip -sealing, the access roadway shall be built to the standard required by the Garfield County
Project Engineer's specifications,
3_ During all phases, construction, pre -chip -sealing and afterward) the road shall be maintained to meet
Garfield County and State air quality standards with a dust mitigation plan, as stated by Garfield County
Environmental Health Manager.
D, Bove in place an roquircd plans, agreements, and securities including, but not limited to:
1. Reclamation
2. Dust mitigation (to meet Colorado Air Pollution Control Commieloner Regulation 1),
3. Improvements Agreement,
4. Maintenance Agreement,
5. Securities for re -vegetation ($20,549), restoration ($249,036), access road security ($108,906) & chip -seal
security ($5$,304).
E. Have all required plans and permits required by Garfield County and the State of Colorado, including.
but not Iimited to:
1. Road and Bridge for oversized/overweight vehicles and traffic control,
2. Environmental Health for dust mitigation (Control Measures as per ADCC Regulation 1, I1I.I7.b.(iv)1
incorporated into the plan and an Air Pollution construction permit (State).
3. Planning Department Projoet Engineer's requirement for cordoning offareas tn minimize land disturbance,
4. State Department of Public Health & Environmental (CDPHE) required Storm Water Management Plan
(S W MP),
5. Record updated easements for the north and south storm water retention ponds, fire flow pond, High Mesa
storm water retention pond on the RV Park parcel, if applicable, and revise the Site Pian to depict all
necessary easements.
H. Prior to any disturbance of land, the applicant shall provide a GPS shape tile to the satisfaction of the
Realty Specialistofthc Glenwood Springs Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management to determine
the land status of the ingress & egress to the prnjert
13. Prior to any disturbance of land, the applicant shall provide to the satisfurtinn of the. Garfield Crnmry
Planning Department Project Engineer.
A. Proper recorded casements for the Upper Pored, design of the ditch or pipe conveyance to the fire flow
pond, and any maintenance road that may be required to the satisfaction of the Garfield County Planning
Department Project Engineer. and amend the Site Pfau accordingly.
B. System details (design specifications, easement and maintenance road requirements) if there is to be an
augmentation system from the potable water storage tanks.
C. A statement from SGM revising the volume of water to be processed through the system to ensure the
water to be processed through the system is adequately sired, if water for augmentation of the fire flow
pond is to be processed through the water treatment facility.
14. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the applicant shall provide a letter from the Grand
Valley Fire Protection District acknowledging acceptance of rhe design and proper installation of
A. The lire flow pond including its water delivery system(s), easements, and tnaintcnancc roads from all
impoundments and wells required for its operation.
B. 'fhe emergency road, its knock off gate, and its surface,
C. The fire safety and response plan including the annual inspection date(s) oldie fire flow pond,
D. An assessment to account for water al the end of spring ninon' season to confirm the ready -status of the
Upper Pond and Fire Flow Pond, to determine whether additional ground water pumping will be needed. and
to initiate arrangements to obtain replacement water from the West Divide Water Conservancy District
(WDWCD).
l5. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. the applicant shall provide, along with any
notification and tests required by Ciartield County, verification of permits, licenses, decrees and
inspections required for the facilities to serve the High Mesa RV Park, in specific, for the following:
A. Two (2) commercial welts,
B. Wastewater treatment plan,
C. Water treatment plant,
17. Operator's license
16. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, all components requited for the operation of the RV
Park must be completed, including but not limited to:
• Roadways for access, emergency access and maintenance
• Water/irrigation/fire flow systems,
• Laundry/shower facilities
• RV dump station and wastewater system
• Recorded easements
• Facilities to meet ADA requirements
• Operational plans and agrccrnents
• Securities, permits, licenses, notifications, and tests.
17. Conditions of approval must be satisfied within one l l 1 year of BOCC approval date, as per 4-103(g)(8) of
the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended.
458
18. Amendments inuy be considered in accordance with the Major impact Review Amendment process of the
Unified LAM U elkesolulion of2008 as amended, tinder which it will be administered.
Dusty slated the Appiicuui flus udisfied 19 requirements; they would like not to add the laundry and restrooms at
this lime, however, it is required to have restroomsand those are not optional.
Jinn Rada- If there will be fond sales as part of the entrance, they would have to satisfy the health guidelines. He
understands they are not proposing it as campground store and it would only he for basic operational use only.
Cnmmieeioner Huups - Will the storage arca at the entrance ....
Dusty - Vehicle storage and staff would recommend if there is any Food. they could amend the land use change
permit. Other components: There are two cemn erciat wells; She applicant is applying forcontmcreial wells at
Division of Water Resources and from the West Divide Conservancy they have 2-acre feet to he allotted. They will
have an augmentation plan for the particular use of the water for the 36-acre site. It is linked with an easement and
scaled with the maximum use that would be at peak demand; the highest occupancy would be in the summer and
they will need to have showers and water facilities. Features related wastewater plan, the treatment facitily plan has
two containers of 20,000 gallons each and it takes about 12-hours to fill. It would run through a water treatment to
feed into the sites and shower. The irrigation is accomplished through ponds. The pond in question is the fire flow
pond located to the south: it is a lined reservoir. It is on the Daybreak Realty parcel, 98.000-gallons speak to the fire
flow requirements. The applicant's intention is to use the well water 50.000 gallons. Thr applicant will fill the upper
pond to adequately maintain a reserve_ There needs to be stereo water rnanegcmens plan as port of this that has to do
with features subject to design in the works and they have not yet completed safety on the access read off CR 300.
This was originally as a well pad road but has been bolstered to he more. Road not permitted with this RV Park in
mind. it is for access. They will chip scat the roadway; EnCana is still working with heavy equipment and one of the
reasons the applicant waists to put chip seal to occur after the permit has been issued is to snake sure it docs not
receive damage.
Applicant: Jerry Rush - No power point and stated that Dusty covered the application. We feel this is a good project
and have addressed every issue regarding the mads, the waste treatment facility. the water treatment facility, tate
ponds, the irrigation and we are pretty much are presenting a self-continued as you will, RV Park. We think there is
a need for this kind ofa park in the County. Other adjoining counties that will get benefit from this. it is un the i-70
corridor. and it is a great location. We have taken a lot of time on the layout and location and the amenities that go
with this project and we think it has a int to offer in both the public and the County. We hope that it will receive a
favorable vow. We have at this time agreed to all the conditions of approval as Dusty has mentioned and she has
briefly mentioned a few of them that we would like to discuss with the Board.
Nathan in keeping of the layout of park and presentation of the various stems as we have gone through this process
and Dusty laid out for road purposes, the EnCana road has been redesigned to comply with the completety the
requirements and discussions with John Nirwnehner the item related to that road, the County road standards that are
required for a minor collector, when the road grades to 8% we're requesting a variance on this road up to 10%
through portions of is. It comes up throve,h s eteep, through a gully to gra In the mesa over here and like our
discussions in planning and John Niewochner review; i think that he has recommended that is an acceptable
variance for the road grade. Then the safety items, culverts, things tike that, I believe in my estimation and reading
ofJohn's report is that we have an acceptable design far that road. Leaving the RV Park, which Dusty is showing up
as the purple line, we have our emergency access road, which ties hack around to CR 300. That was put in place and
designed based on the requirements, International Fire Code given to us by the Grand Valley Fire Protection District
of 20-feet wide, alt weather surface, 10% grade, 50-fool radius curves, the standard IFC Code. Therefore, the
emergency access road has been designed.
Chairmnn Martin - With break through gales, etc. so it is nun open generally for the public.
Nathan - Yes, in accordance with that. Then of course. that road will serve as our maintenance road down to the
wastewater facility as well as that is where the water treatment is going to be totaled.
Chairman Martin - Do you have a license to operate for that particular function?
Jerry Rush - It is a condition of approval in the staff report. It will have a licensed operator for both wastewater and
water system.
Chair Martin - Do you have him on staff now?
Nathan - Bob Pennington. SGM.
Chairman Martin -11 would be a requirement; itis a stale requirement as well.
Nathan- As far as within the site all the pads; we have 5 sites and the note on the plans state that 96 - 106 this side
critic road are ADA accessible RV sites so it is not 10 sites, Itis 5 sites on that side and they are directly linked to
the restroom facilities through hard surfaces.] wanted to clear this up so when it was built the County would not be
looking for 10 when it is only to be 5. Dump station. water station all meets the requirements for safety for fids,
water tight, separated, wetter service facilities from the actual dump station. The storage building was intended to he
just a small storage building out there as a way for people to put things shat were staying on-silo that did not need to
he right in their campsite.
Chairman Martin - The utilities are underground?
Nathan- The plan includes a standard detail for each RV site, which luckily my parents happen to spend shout 6-
months out of the last year in an RV park so we had some good references on what works and docs not work.
Chairman Martin - The hard surface for the vehicle itself and entrance way or it is graveled.
Nathan - Graveled.
Chairman Martin - How about any green spaces around each one.
Jerry- There is green space on the back and in-between each site. The sites themselves will be tiered down, we can
have a variation of several sites from several level sites, they are to 25 to 30 feet wide to sixes that tier down the
mountain, and those will have slopes in-between them. Three to one and four to one slopes in-between those sites.
We have a 25-foot pad with a 5-foot buffer between each one. Oversiize's for SI.5 rigs corning in. A standard site is
20 x 45fcet and our typical site is 25 x 50 with an overlay of 5-feel so we Stave a standard 30 x 55 site versus a
25/45.
Commissioner Haupt asked the applicant to address the laundry and restroom facilities as it seems in most
residential applicants and 1 know this is different, arc you going to have the entire infrastructure in place before
people start slaying at this facility. Infrastructure including restrooms and shewcrs-
459
Jetty - We ked is included doing ally of the building at this point. if the laundry and shower facility is required, we
will do it. We went to.specify and make sure that it is the public restroom that is tate requirement so the building is
constructed and die public:'esteeottl is provided then we have met that requirement. The laundry facility and laundry
machines are in the planning.
Commissioner Houpt - Unless at the end of the day that is pan of the requirements. If we do riot make that part of
the requirement.
.ferry - The rogalalions state that a public restroom is required but I do not believe the state has a laundry room
required. We will bring in laundry later.
Chairman Martin - No, it is a public restroom.
Nathan - If that is a public restroom building then I think that is what we will want to have to bring in the !sundry
facilities. We are not going to build two pads; the building will be there but...
Chairman Martin - At the entrance station are you going to go ahead and have an employee there or someone in
charge ofthe site itself.
Nathan - It will be temporary station there until main facility is built but there will be someone there on site 8 -hours
to 10 hours per day.
Chairman Martin - That would be a requirement.
Pam — l believe in the upending manual it is stated it will be open Isom 8 am to 8 pm.
Chairman Martin The office, but the site will be 24 -hours.
Nathan - The chip scat requirement to complete the road aspect of it, chip seal for the access road is being requested
that this is allowed for one year to 18 -months so that EnCana is not run large equipment over it and breaking it up,
so that was one variance request on requirements as well. On the other items that we have in here well all.
Chairman Martin - Will allow the audience and you have the right to respond.
Audience
Jay Haygood. a residence of Tamarisk Meadows Subdivision in Battlement Mesa, address 112 Mineral Springs
Circle and my homes backs onto Store Querry Road, direetly opposite the proposed site_ 1 have concerns about
many things to this project. Ilowevcr. I do not object in principle to the establishment of such a facility. There arc
issues that worry me. Regarding the impacts during construction and operation or existing homes in the arca. I )
Constreetion- how long it will be' noise and dust' during heavy truck traffic as a health and wetfare issue; 2)
Concerned with odors from the wastewater treatment facility located on the property; 3) Health and welfare issues
regard diesel fumes, issue °I -traffic and fire safety issues during the construction phase; 4) Operations noise with
RV generators. a pump for the well facility - these are just examples; 5) Dust from traffic, traffic safety at the entry
way to Stone Quarry CR 300; fir) Odors from sewage plant; 7) Any diesel exhaust from say operations or visitors to
the site; 8) Welfare issue concerned about light, lighting of the site, I trust and hope that is will only be downward
pointing but inward pointing because the site is above the level of my home and our whole subdivision and we will
be more exposed to their light than if we were at the same level; 8) Concerned from a healthy, safety and welfare
point of view about fire there hes been a firs in that area 20 years ago god the hillside is steep and much vegetation
seplicidal to Fre in dry limes and outer times as well; 9) A welfare issue is visual pollution and I would appreciate if
the facilities are painting and camouflage to look rather like nature, brown and green; 10) There will be tremendous
impact from the visitors vehicles and there is not control of that; 11) Concern from a welfare standpoint of view on
domestic animals puniculsr dogs because there is un established wildlife on that hillside, I have lived there for 10 -
years and have observed is herd of deer all these years in that immediate area. Mso, they move from high mesa down
to the gulch to drink right through several of those revenues: 12) Concerned about electric power whether there will
be a sight generator or commercial power obviously noise is produced by a generator. 1 am concerned under any
circumstances water being hauled to site either to Sl1 ponds or for any other reason, either as a back-up or a
supplement to the existing plaits; 13) Will there he a backup water system. a backup power system, a backup sewage
system and 14) At what point will occupancy begin - how much construction must be completed, how many permits
must be achieved before occupancy can begin. 1 will mentioned that this site. this property in general in the past has
been used for high power rifle target practice, it has also been used for ATV; recreation and there is an established
loop not far at all from this site on this property where ATV's have been ridden extensively in the past.
Ronald Jensen - 64 Mineral Spring Circle - gave a handout of his remarks. 1 also live in the same subdivision and
back up to this sae. lie presented a handout of what he is going to say. Several things of concern and some
highlights and he proceeded to summarize a copy clam letter he received. 1) This is a copy of the letter he
received, 3 pages of legalese survey type description of property that I know from experience, 90% of the public
does not krnow hearts what that means. Had they seen a picture or a map of the location of this, this room would be
filled. Fortunately, with my 30 yearn with the federal government I know about these things. Hut neither did I have a
reference trap so I did go lo the planning office and did look over the report and the maps provided by the applicant
and also like to say with regard to that letter. several of my neighbors who are severely impacted did not receive that
letter. One In particular by the name of Woody Harmeyer, his front door. his living room window and the garage
they sit in every evening to enjoy the cool breezes looks straight at the site. 2) Although the applicant was not
supposed to do any construction work prior to the permit process they did bulldoze a road that road in purple that
gats from the site down to the location oldie proposed water treatment facility, wastewater treatment facility. was
done before permits were approved. You can see from that map on the wall that is a very steep hillside. All of the
facilities with the exception of the wastewater treatment plant are from 100 to 300 feet in elevation above the
subdivisions, Tamarisk Meadows and Tamarisk Village and it is not just those that are within 150 feet, we have at
least 300 homes that this site will be visible to_ I know that the lighting as approved by the county planning office
says brut it will be duwuward facing lighting but because of that elevation difference, it will still be visible. The
landscape plan for that entire 36 acres shows only 16 trees. That is barely enossgh to cover half-dozen of the lights.
As a minimal recommendation, 1 would think the County should require the applicant to put trees all along the lower
edges ofthose three tiers so that it blocks the view of that facility_ 3) The proposal for the wastewater treatment 1
walk pity dog everyday up Stone Quarry Road and if l were to stand at the guardrail along Stone Quarry Road, just
opposite Rainbow Trail. I could Throw a rock and hit the wastewater treatment plant. It is right there. There is draw
that goes along right next to Stone Quarry Road at that location but the plant is right there. In addition, we have
great concerns about odor from that plant and prevailing winds come through the south and the southwest they will
go over site and into subdivisions. 4) Location of the wastewater treatment plant at that location I believe will
severely impact our properly values which in turn would certainly influence the taxes collected by the County. 5) I
4601
also know the reason for Battlement Mesa rejecting the applicant's requcat to tic into the Consolidated Metropolitan
District Wastewater Facility, which runs right down war, previous agreement made betweca Battlement Mesa and
ri,nsolidated Metropolitan District to prohibit them from providing services outside the PUD until the PUD is f stly
developed, which is unlikely to acct* for many years. 5)1 would suggest the applicant pursue a more vigorous
response to the legality of that agreement and the opportunity to tie into existing treatment facilities that are right
there.6) Perhaps it is not an item for decision except for the applicant and that is the demographics they used to
justify This facility were done in 2007 at the peak of the gas drilling boom, which is gone now. 50% of the rental
properties within Battlement Mesa are empty, there is a significant reduction in the economics here. and [ wonder
about the justification for the facility at all. There is already an RV Park there are the south end ofl0attlernent Mesa,
which has many empty spaces.
Chris Cole- Balcomb and Green and counsel to Battlement Mesa Partners. We would reiterate the eortcems
expressed by the last two individuals on this particular project and also wanted to speak briefly to the Board's matter
of record and that is the way the regulations are configured there was no traffic impact study that was needed to be
performed on this particular project. At full build -out, it showed 2500 trips a day in and out of that particular facility
that is proposed here. Battlement Mesa pm -meta as you are aware, was instrumental in causing the Interchange
Improvement Project al I.70 in Parachute to be created essentially. We provided seed money for all the traffic
engineering and by the time it was done. a significant amount of money that they put ie, north ofS300,000.
Primarily what I have been asked to do is to be here and Io say when the time comes there will be more development
in the subdivision process that this be remembered and considered. The other issue is the postponement of the chip
scaled. We tlpprcciatc the fact that having that road chip scaled right now might create a situation where that would
be damaged and hove to be repaired but in the alternative to the extent that road base or some other form of dirt.
loose material or whatever is used for the toad in and out of that RV park, we are going to probably be impeded at
Battletnent Mesa by the dirt that is going to be drug back and forth. So, from our standpoint we would like to put the
County on notice that we would very much apprc iate rhe County's attendance to keeping those road cleaned up and
for the folks who live there already.
Applicant response.
Nathan - First of all Mr. I laygood and Mr. Jensen's initial objections are primarily addressed through the
requirements in the list efeauditions of approval. During construction we are required to mitigate by County and by
state requirenrents, all dust foreign astbome particles we ate required to mitigate and one that wax not mentioned
was erosion impact, the slormwater management plan, application for the State ofColorado to address any of those
surface erosions, fire with the Grand Valley Fire Protection District review. approval and recommendations on this
dunag the construction phase. during the operational phase. once again, we have item 3 of the condition of
appmvals addressing noise, Item 4 addressed nl1 air quatity standards - county, state regulations we are to comply
with; item 8 deals with light sighting being required to point downward and inward to the property and I guess we
will note the light sighting we nre proposing is we have gone away from this light up the whole hillside type
ideology that you saw for a while, is very minimal to needed area - the dump atatioa, the public resnooms, Itis
minimal, Our power conies from on-site power from Holy Cross Electric and there are no generators. No water is
proposed being hauled to the site at Al. Domestic animals are regulated through the Code on lease and not allowed
to roam fret - those types of things, Addressing the notification, requirements on notification are state law given
that we have to notify in this manner and that is what we do. As far as Mr. Harmeyer not being notified, he said his
garage and those types of things - look at this site. If you go across the road and then across the rural lots and then to
the street on the lots that may face this, my guess is we are outside the 20O -foot realm. V isuafly trying to know
everyone who may be impacted on this. As far as the property having work done on it. the road coming down the
hill, a road was constructed down that hill by the property owner prior to all of this happening that is not actually the
road that we are using for this at all. t guess that would be a farm road. As far as the sewer plant and its issues, that
sewer plant is located in bottom of the valley. They said they we are 300 feet above then, this is 200 feet below the
site. 1 am going to guess 150 feet below Stone Quarry Roud at this point, and visually they will not even be able to
see this plant unless they are walking along the mad en the south side of the road I believe it is 200 feet from the
road so it is not raised up anything like that - it will be completed contained within a building and meet all
requirements. As far as Chris Cole's comments. a traffic impact study was performed for this and how we came up
with our minor collector road designation on the entrance. We have our permits in place from Road and Bridge for
access with our site distance requirements, all of those have been complied with. As far as the dirt back and forth, it
will be maintained as a graveled road and there is a maintenance agreement that will be on that road and then
bringing it tip once to any requirements before we put the chip seal down on it. I believe through the conditions of
approval and to the Code requirements, we are essentially addressing all concerns that may occur outer than the -
yes, there will be something across the hillside from these houses now. Just as those houses are across the hillside
from this property.
Commissioner Houpt - Have you looked at landscaping and buffering.
Nathan - We actually, in the landscaping plan, vete of the notes that there were only 16 trees in there, if you look at
the landscaping plan there is actually Pinon Juniper stands throughout and there are areas of non -disturbance
between any of the wide stnps between any of these RV sites and the slopes associated with them. Our areas of non-
disturbanee they are to remain with all vegetations including those Pinon Juniper so we did not do a specific tree
count on what is in those strips but there are a significant amount of trees that will remain in those areas 30 - 40 foot
buffer strips,
Commissioner Houpt - Requested the photo of the hillside - did you walk over to. This is transit active use, not a
regular residential erea so give me some perspective as to the Stone Quarry Road.
Pam - The yellow circle is our site.
Dusty stated the photo Commissioner Houpt requested to be shown on the screen was taken on Stone Quarry Road.
Nathan - The limit - this is an existing ranch road across the bultom that is going to be upgraded to the emergency
access road. The sale primarily within the circle and stays all above the drop off lip which woutd be the bottom edge
of that - and if you go to very far left of the picture, just above that tree, that hole down in the bottom and off to the
fell a little bit is the proposed sewer plant location. The homcsites are behind.
Dusty - Actually o the other side the guardrail it drops very significantly, On the south side of the road.
Nathan - Dircelly behind you would be Stone Quarry Road, the landscape buffer, and the fence, the cedar picket
fencing and then the housing begins. Approximately 100 foot right of way in there to the fence.
461
Dusty - Another photo is looking back towards Stone Quarry Ruud. The puwcr lila: slwwn is light down tluuugh the
center of the 36 acres. A continuation of photos and explanations were given per Dusty's power point.
Pant- Clarified that residents were notified within 200 feet ufthc Spamknwn and Iiigh Mese putcel and the
Daybreak parcel, The Daybreak and Speakman parcels are between County Road 300 and the High Mesa RV Park
parcel; Pam actually notified people 250 feet of the property boundary. Any parcel that touched within 250 feet
around the entire panels owned by alt three of those people were notified.
Jerry -Mentioned regarding the buildings, when we designed these buildings we arc going to make them so that they
are very earth tone and environmental friendly so they are not going to be sticking out and looking ugly like it was
suggested anti the time frame, we expect construction to be 9 - 10 months by the time we start.
Commisioner Haupt asked what will be in place or what would anticipate being in place when you open it up for
folks to park as far as everything.
Nathan - We hope to open with just a temporary building for reception, check in and checkout that son of thing and
then the laundry or bathroom facility if you require us to do that, that is really all the building we will have at the
itme. Roadways will be I place and evcryting infrastructure wise will be in place.
Jerry - The staff requirements arc everything will he constructed in place, wastewater treatment facility, water
treatment, the wells are already there and have been tested and water tanks will be in place. fire pond will be in place
and constructed so all landscaping, lights. storm water mitigation and all other issues would be required before
opening.
Deb - Wanted to explain about the Improvements Agreement and how we are contemplating to address construction
of improvements for this park. As Dusty indicated. this is not a subdivision so it is not the typical you secure
everything up front before you start because we arc not selling lots and we have had quite a number ofdifferent
discussions about how to properly require security For the development of this RV Park. Where all staff agrees and
the applicant as well is that everything that our Code requires as standards for RV parks has to be in place before the
parkas open. "'hat we are doing from the Improvement agreement in that is I had discussions with the attorney, Mr.
Williams about the Improvement Agreement and they did submit a draft that will require some work and waiting to
see what the actual conditions are before we finalize it, but what we intend to do is not require annsec 3tfoe
every/ling that is required by our Code for this park to operate That would be the shower facilities, all of the other
infrastructure. sewage treatment, wastewater plant, etc. Ifthc Board does permit the chip seal to occur later. we
would require security for that iii terms nfa letter of credit or other security acceptable to the Board because there
are so many conditions that Have not yet been satisfied we have remkts ed that there be security for actual restoration
in the event that f atrvsu tasem"the.parkevcr gctabuilt but they start it and the permit never issues then at the
euettiii certain lints frame we want to them !o restore t it property to its current con�_ liar[.. Therefore, we are
requiring some security $uta main securi:v for seeing that all the acture is in p11Cr1r, the permit will not
actually issue until that occurs and !ant drafting this agreement so that our •rte eel engineer has the ahilit 10 review
the acme cons firearm rril restructure to ma c sure tt coo • tcs lei the re • esentations t . re made t at have an
F i : neer s certificate saying that rt w.. .ns. c e' is arca arae with t e p ans similar to a subdiv t ion
but not we eta e r y4,1 . • .ii t issues u s . one.Clamlintarcr issue, as you knew HB 1141 that
is sot C. 1 1 in new Land Use Code requires the Board to detetminc there is adequate water supply for all new
development and in this case the last I heard the commercial well permits had not actually been submitted to the
state engineer office. The state engineering did after insistence from Ms. Dunbar provided comments to us about this
application and there is no guarantee on his part that those permits will issue. ?'bat is one of the reasons ] think that
we have required those permits be in place before they start any land disturbance. There is also a requirement 1
believe in the conditions that the upper pond that has been mentioned that will supply some of the fire flow water
has to be included i the site plan and we want a site plan that show all easements and they have done a realty good
job of showing all of the easements except for that one. Therefore, we will need to sec that one.
Commissioner Haupt - historically an adequate water supply has been a critical need to obtain an approval.
Chairruan Mattis - it would be required that we have water as well. if they do not produce that perutit or could not
produce it through their testing, it would not be valid.
Dusty - They cannot get started without it. Many of the things that if you take a look at the top sheet, prior to the
disturbance of ground or the securities, the management and improvement agreement the water decrees and the
permits the things that Counsel has been very specific about saying what absolutely had to happen prior to
disturbance of land so we did not get ahead ufgranting permission outside of securing those.
Cotnmisisaner Ifoupt - What is confusing to Inc is that typically these applications come to us with those Things in
place.
Dusty - In the application that was submitted, there was a well permit submitted, it was the wrong kind of wet/
permit and then the next stack that came forward is that they drilled the wells and then they went forth and had an
adequate test, that tested adequate and evidentially the resubmittal to submit for the right kind of well to change it
from an observation well to a commercial well for those two wells that are drilled, viable, tested and pump tested
has not oecurrrd.
Chairman Martin - And the applicant has an answer to that so let's allow him to do so.
Pain -1 sent this by overnight this morning their guarantee to the County by the Division of Water Resource by
noon tomorrow. Jerry - 1 can speak to the adequacy of the water supply plan if you would like, as Ms. Dunbar
mentioned the wells were drilled, tested as per the requirements, 24-hour test, water supply was written by our office
and is included in this report. 1 think what happened here was when original wells were drilled, the well driller put
on the application an observation well and that needs to be reclassified as a commercial well. So there is no issue
with the physical wells or the physical water supply or the legal water supply aside from the feet that the well permit
need to be resubmitted to the state as commercial wells as opposed to observation wells and that process is
underway.
Nathan - Before we finish that, the augmentation from the West Divide Conservation District also covers the water
is those wells. Therefore, everything is done with the wells except the permit from the state that says commercial
well on it.
Chairman Martin - Your application verifies the different water rights that you have with the testing done, who did
it. etc. and when they were done. The application is here from the State Water Engineer, Fire Department, and Water
Resources.
Pam- i actually sent this by overnight those today.
962
Chairman Martie - And the locations of those wells.
Jay Heygood - I would like to bring up an issue regarding disturbance of the surface. He distributed some photos
slwwieg this to the Board_ "nese were taken from my back patio and you cuss sec my haute, this se at normal view
magnification. You see my fence, you ran see Stone Quarry Road through the Fence and then you sec the major
power line, the minor power line with the right of way going up to she right, and you sec the treat area whore I
understand this RV Park will be. I would like to point out that last May the surface was disturbed in this tower point
when a loop was mode, a small road and a number of trees were pushed down by a bulldozer and 1 am wondering
what the County considers disturbance of surface and when that occurs.
Eugene Speakman - l'm a landowner plus a full partner in the RV Park but actually that road was cut into get dowse
to die bottom just s;o l could clear some sagebrush because I board horses on me and on Bob so a couple of years
before that even west of that t went in there and cleared a bunch of sage brush and that was an 1 could gel more cheat
grass.
Chairman Martin- Under the agricultural use is what you are saying.
Eugene- That is what I was using it for Ag,
Chairman Martin - Do you still use it for Ag at all.
Eugene - Well. my land the rest of Bob's 1 do but
Pam - That was done in May and we did not add him to the application until last month.
Chairman Martin - Under our grading permit. Agricultural use is usually exempted from permit, is that correct?
Dusty-Yes. Depending upon the amount of disturbance.
Nathan - Agricultural use is exempt.
Jay - i would request the Planning Commission or the County visually survey the site and see who pushed down a
small loop of trees in addition In the road mentioned by Mr. Jenson that went down to the test well site or some
water site down in the gulch.
Nathan -None of which is actually on the RV parcel.
Chairman Martin - On the site that you...
Nathan - Ow- RV parcel is this 36-acres, those are on the adjacent parcel.
Pam- The Speakman parcel.
Nathan - The RV parcel ends at that big power pole in the corner, right in the middle if you can imagine a line
paralleling the fence at that big power pole. Directly over the cedar picket fence. This would be the lower or north
edge olthe RV Park site.
Commistsoncr Iloupt - We will people ire accessing the access road from Stone Quarry?
Nathan - The access road is, see the horizontal cut about the middle of the page in the photo. that is the existing
EnC'ann existing gess road that we wilt be improving arid it heads off to the right side of our page - that is where it
disappears and then goes down around and approximately from the site entrance to Stone Quarry Road is
approximately a mile,
Darty Both of the entrances arc on Stone Qisarry road, the emergency access road bas a knock down gate on it and
is only intended to be used for emergency aecass by the fire department. This is not going to be used by the public; it
is to satisfy a requirement because the main access road that comes in along the bottom part of this image here from
Stone Quarry Road further to the west was longer than our road requirements allowed and in order to satisfy using
that as an access road. they had to provide a secondary access for emergency access and itis gated off and approved
by She by fire department For the fire department. i just wane to shed light on what is required is to be in the
shower/laundry facility. Showers are required as well as restrnoms but it does not speak that laundry Facilities are
there. Sa the building has to be there to provide those particular item, so it may he a label change rather than a
significant change.
Commissioner Iioupt- We stopped you in the middle of the conditions of approval.
Chairman Martin - I would like to go ahead and close the public hearing so we can discuss those items and do it in
deliberation and then actually have a decision.
Commissioner Haupt - But we cannot discuss them with staff
Chairman Martin - Yes you can, staff is allowed to go ahead and put their comment in.
Commissioner Haupt thought Dusty was going to give a presentation on the conditions. This has been a scattered
discussion.
Chairman Martin - If we wish to follow the recommendation with staff of the conditions we can go ahead. close the
public hearing, discuss those, and then ask that for clarification"
Commissioner Samson - If we close the Public Hearing, then we cannot hear from the applicant or the public. 1
want Them to be able to comment.
Dusty proceeded to rapidly zip through the conditions as listed in this report" We had gone through 1 - 11 and
number 12. the appllcant has agreed to meet the conditions set by staff and we went through the road portion of
Condition No. I. Because this is an unsurfaced road, it needs to meet CDPHE APCC regulation one requirements
for dust.
Chairman Martin - That was the recommendation, not the requirement.
Commisioner Haupt - But if it is a condition it is a requirement.
Commissioner Haupt- For this process does it seem norms' that so many conditions are still outstanding?
Dusty - Part of it is that [he permits are not generally an occupied quasi subdivision. While it does seem spine are
outstanding. some are outstanding because it is a nature process, The wastewater Iraattncrtt plant for instance,
normally you do not build one and then go apply for permit. You apply for a permit to design and see what you need
and Ihen another permit to build it and then dnolher so it has about four permits assoeiated with it The same thing
wish water in subdivisions. We have not required subdivision appticanls to punch the wells and confirm the welts
prior to their application if they can verify the likelihood of a nearby well and its production to give us an indication
that itis likely. Before the final plat is recorded. they have to satisfy it and are able to sell lots. There are things that
ttu"uugh a normal permit process normally sake the baskct and take the basket and say, these are the things to satisfy
she land use requirements. But because this is behaving like a subdivision and without being a subdivision, in a
permit process that does not readily allow for this kind of for phasing and 1 hesitate to use that word, it has been
pushed with the proper securities and the proper sequence of events can behave to answer those conditions. If they
cannot meet the conditions of approval, they cannot get their land use permit.
463
Cuuunissiurrer Houpl - it is an RV Park and we did away with the 180 -day rule. Therefore, what does that does Is it
turns it into a regular subdivision
Chairman Mdrliu - Nul necessarily,
Commissioner Haupt - Another subdivision we should look at.
Chairman Martin - I see an RV Park opened 365 days a year not I BO.
Dusty - It has presented some very interesting challenges and that was one of the things that I pestered the state
engineers office about that we did need to have some comment because no it is not a subdivision, it is walking and
quacking like a subdivision.
Commissioner Samson in the old land use code, RV Parks were only allowed to operate IRO days.
Commissioner Haupt- Because they are recreational, they are parks.
Deb Quinn - They could operate year round btu there was a tendency resident requirement of only 180 days and we
found it was impossible to enforce, People would leave for a day, come back, and slap it over again, sa we just
eliminated it.
Commissioner Haupt - Which makes it impossible in another way.
Deb - It is very much like a subdivision. It could be permanent, residential area for all of these 119 spaces.
Chairman Mtutiu - A matter of philosophy, a necessity, need and lifcaryle and what you are doing, you are just
putting that label on it and it has to conform to the subdivision period. Otherwise, you cannot have R. This is a
different lifestyle, different use of land, it is not for sale, it is for rent and the spaces are for rent fur a chart period of
time or a long period of time. II is a business, not a subdivision,
Commissioner Samson - For our attorney, there arc three reasons why we would not or legally could not or would
not appmve this, would you explain those to me again.
Cheirrnan Martin - Reasons why you could deny the application would be....
Dela - If the application faits to meet any of the standards that are within our Code, you could deny; if it is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, you could deny.
Commissioner Houpi - l f it is not consistent with the culture of the neighborhood is the third. If it poses a problem,
does not fit into, or has not been adequately mitigated_
Commissioner Samson made a motion we close the public hearing.
Commissioner Haupt seconded the motion.
In favor. Haupt - aye Samson - aye Martin - aye
Deliberation:
Commissioner Samson - There is a ton of conditions.
Commissioner Haupt- The one that I have great concern over is the chip scaling because thus going to add not only
a great deal of traffic during construction period Lind whatever time is beyond that when people are coming to reside
in this area, but it adds to the already existing oil and gas traffic and it is just uphill from an existing neighborhood l
am not sure 1 suppose you could make sure that you mitigate that on a daily basis but the road posses a real problem
with the heavy traffic.
Dusty stated it is not proposed to be a dirt road; it is a graveled surface to meet the dust mitigations for Regulation
One.
Chairman Martin - Air quality control.
Conunissioncr Samson - As 1 was taking notes, I think the applicant has answered most of the objections by the
three gentlemen that spoke. (Inc thing that all three mentioned is the dttst and that was a bug problem. if they were
required to chip and seal the road from the beginning that would take care of that concern.
Commissioner Haupt - Some of the conditiwls that were not read and were raised were to the lighting on the site
was to he downward and inward to prevent the reflection The other issue we need to address in a condition to
approve is how you mitigate that when you are uphill from everyone else.
Commissioner Samson -- I do not know how you do that unless you have some very tall trees.
Commissioner Houpt - There needs to be some mitigation that would work for that, but it does not do any good to
direct it downward right into the neighborhood.
Dusty - It is also required to be inward.
Commissioner Samson - You will not totally get away from that problem if the people are living down from the
development. You will do your best but you cannot avoid that issue unless you have a total barrier.
Chairman Martin - It is the same with Parachute looking up to Battlement Mesa, you cannot hide all of the light that
is on Battlement Mesa.
Commissioner Samson - They are doing the best they can with the fighting unless you have a better solution.
Dusty - The only thing I could recommend is that you could recommend direction of light to be uphill - you put the
light on the other side of the road.
Chairman Martin - 119 parcels plus your public facilities even though you may be looking around, you will have to
have your lights on at your public Facilities where you are in and out, ADA and safety reasons.
Commissioner Samson - using the criteria the way 1 understand it we cannot deny the application. i think they have
met the requirements.
Commissioner Haupt if you determine it is compatible with the neighborhood; if you find that it is not compatible
with the neighborhood then that is not true. There is an RV Park in the Battlement Mesa PUD.
Chairman Martin - In line of sight of this.
Commissioner Haupt - So that would be difficult to do.
Commissioner Samson- Plus is this not across the street from a trailer park. There is both a trailerpark and an RV
Park in Battlement Mesa so for us to argue that it is not within the scope of the neighborhood - it would be lough to
justify that_
Chainnan Martin- So the Chair moves to go ahead and approve the application with the 14 different requirements
as submitted by staff and the changes of the wording that we went through.
Commissioner Houpt - Are you going to do something about the road
Commissioner Samson the chip and seal. l think that is a major concern of the people who came here today and I
think that would be something we could hopefully address and help Them.
Commisaioncr Haupt - Condition No. 12 ICI.
Conmsissioner Samson - So we need to strike Cl and say it has to be clip and seal.
454
Conunisisoncr Ilnupt I would agree with that begin= of the uuluunt of uaffic anticipated and if EnCana would help
tbcm with that, it would be a nice neighborly thing to do. There is going to be quite a lot of activity on that road.
Commissioner Samson - Chairman Martin arc you willing to bead a little your Dation so i snit se.'und it?
Chairman Martin - tt is a waste of money, it's a waste of resources, it is a waste and I understand what you are
tyring to get to, but a good gravel road with somc treatment would serve the same purpose. You are talking S25,00t)
just to start out with in reference to it will be desuoyed by heavy equipment within a couple of weeks and you will
require them to pave that - 1 understand. it is a great philosophy but in reality it is a waste of time. They are not
going to he able to take 100,000 -pound rig across that chip and seal on a turn, on the first tum it will separate on
you. lfyou want to include that, it is okay.
Commissioner Samson -1- car me out here, is that the cost of doing business.
Chairman Martin - if there is a road maintenance agreement and they have to make an adjustment, you just require
them to do such with a large dollar ticket.
Commissioner Samson moved to reopen the public hearing. Conunissioner Houpt second. Carried,
Jim was asked by Commisisoncr Samson 10 give us some idea how much dust if properly graveled and taken care of
the way the Board may require it to be done. 1 have no idea Jim said. Based on regulations talk about vehicles per
day using the road and if dust is generated from those vehicle& they have to implement a dust control plan. I could
not quantify how much dust as it all depends on the surface materials.
Commissioner 1ioupt - if you look al the regulations, Regulation One on the air pollution. What does that mean?
Jim- Just as 1 just stated, it say based on the number of vehicles op that unpaved private road per day they have to
control emissions of dust from that surface through an approved dust control plan. So they would have to submit a
plan and if we agreed that would address their dust issues then we can approve that and they have to implement it
You would want to address an a complaint basis. My hope would be if you were going to the trouble of developing e
plan, they would implement it. A similar regulation is applied to County roads - we have to follow the same
regulations. Any County road that has 200 or more vehicles that is an unpaved road has to do what is necessary to
control the dust from that
Commisisoner Houpt - This has been one of the major complaints that people have across the County.
Jim uddressed it due to PM issues we are experiencing in the Battlement Mesa/Parachute arca.
Chairman Martin - Then we have to have natural material to go ahead and pave every road in the county and every
private road and driveway, etc. If we had a requirement, we would. That is the problem.
Jim - Water, mag chloride, other surface mitteris's.
Chairman Martin - If you have a dust mitigation plan approved by the County you do not have to pave it - you are
wasting somebody's money having them pave it and then to keep it paved during the time that the heavy equipment
is going across it or you could have a dust mitigation winch is recoromendcd here to meet the menden!.
Commissioner Haupt - If that were the ['newer to all the problems that we ser- in this County when it enmea to dual.
I cannot even begin to tell you how many complaints we receive on roads that hive dust mitigation plan.
Chairman Mantic- City streets that the street sweeper gars and it creates suet a dust that you cannot see the street is
also a violation and we see that on a daily basis as well even though they are paved.
Jerry - The cost associated with that section of road, approximately a mile worth of road to chip seal was
approximately 566,000 one time to put et down and that is what we are proposing within in this as one of our letters
of credit to order to complete that when we need to within the time period.
Chairman Martin - Are you stilt sharing the road with EnCana?
Jerry - Yes.
Chairman Martin - What is their timeframe is reference to the time they pull out of there.
Nathan - All we know is they have lessened the traffic on that road in the last year considerably. The dust frum our
construction is going be less than what they have already created in the last year.
Nathan - The only other comment, if you arc considering this chip seal as having to be done prior to issuance of the
permit or completion of construction, that type of thing, then we nerd to make sure that is removed from the security
requirement in 12d.
John M, - Yes, if they put down this 566.000 worth of chip seal, it will he gone because of the construction vehicles
and jell building the RV Park alone, Perhaps there is a cheaper alternative that we can prescribe that they can put
mag chloride down every two weeks or every months and that would have zero dust with that amount of mag
chloride on that road. A much stronger requirement than the County actually does on their roads to keep the dust
down, Ynu can require them to do overly control duet control.
Chairman Martin - That is lim's recommendation. dust mitigation plan that would eliminate that to Regulation One.
Commissioner Houpt moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Samson second. Carried.
Chairman Martin let his original motion die.
Chairman Samson made a motion to approve the major impact review process for the Campground RV Park on
36.637 acres parcel south of Battlement Mesa in Parachute olTCounty Road 300 with the conditions of approval
submitted by staff and in place of'12 c. 3 we put a dust mitigation pian, which will require the applicant to apply
mag chloride Twice a month.
Chairman Martin - The dust mitigation pian will also do that and also...
Commissioner Samson - It is there now.
Chairman Martin - Just to let you know that it has to meet the regulation; tine, it does not matter how often you ally
if, it suit may not meet the regulation and take rate of the dust mitigation.
Commissioner Samson - No this will take care of it.
Chairman Martin- That is a lot of mag chloride for avec.
Dusty - Point of clarification, we have talked about removing the word laundry from the condition,
Commissioner Samson - Thank you.
Commissioner Houpt - From "slash shower facility,"
Commissioner Samson - So tell them where that is.
Dusty - Everywhere it occurs.
Conunissioner Samson - Okay, wherever that occurs, so that is my Motion.
Commissioner Houpt seconded the motion.
Chairman Martin- You would be better off with the dirt mitigation meeting; even that is extremely strict
455
Conunissioncr Samson - You know what, the applicant said they could live. with it and they were happy with it so if
they are happy with it, i am happy with iL
In favor; Houpt - aye Samson - aye Martin - aye
EXECUTIVE SESSION - DISCUSS Don requested an Executive Scsaion to discos live items that need legal
advice and direction: I) Concerns the Aitpon Park PUD and legal advice concerning the status of that subdivision
and development of the airport; 2) Provide legal advice concerning application on oil and gas mitigation in the Corm
of Resolution; 3) Discuss and provide legal update on an internal personnel Investigation in the Treasurer's
Department; 4) Update and receive any potential direction concern missing funds in the
Clerk's Office and 5) Carolyn needs to talk to you about special conditions on FAA Airport, Several kens will need
public direction.
Commissioner Samson moved to go into an Executive Session, Commissioner Haupt seconded. Motion carried.
Commissioner Samson moved to come out of Executive Session. Commissioner Haupt seconded. Motion carried.
Action taken
Henry Building Security Evaluation
Don stated we need direction to one member of the legal staff to contact the County Manager to make a security
evaluation for security for fiscal purposes at the Henry Building.
Commissioner Houpt so moved. Commissioner Samson second.
In favor: Houpt - aye Samson - aye Martin - aye
Airport Land Partners PUD - Cogeneration
Carolyn stated we need authorization for Chairman Martin to sign a grant agreement prior to the Cogeneration Plan!
and Mr. Howard, co -application to amend the PUD and request publicalty to waiver of fees and application fees for
planning review.
Commissioner Houpt so moved and asked that legal staff bring back the costs. Commissioner Samson second.
In favor: Houpt - aye Samson - aye Martin - aye
ADJOURNMENT
Attest: Chairman of the Board
OCTOi3ER 5, 20419
PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
The regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners began at 8.00 A.M. on Monday, October5, 2009 with
Chairman John Martin and Commissioners Tresi !loops present. Also present were County Manager Ed Green,
County Attorney Dun DoFord. Carolyn Dahlgren and Jean Albetico Clerk & Recorder, Commissioner Samson was
absent.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Martin calked the meeting to order at 8:00 A.M.
PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS NOT ON THE AGENDA
CLEAN ENERGY COLLECTIVE
Paul Spencer representing the Clean Energy Collaborative. We have been working with Holy Cross Energy to build
the first clean energy collective here in the valley. which will be the first one in the nation and we would like to
locate that in Garfield County_ We have had considerable community support as well as interest and ownership of
the Clean Energy Collective and therefore we are trying to have a quick timeline and we are trying to shoot for the
end of 2009, which will allow individuals to utilise some of the tax credit for clean energy in 2009. Research and
coordination with Holy Cross Energy as welt as CLEER has shown that the first site really needs to be visible,
accessible as well as prominently located within the community to be comununity based and a community
demonstration. We hove worked with staff primarily Ed Green and his team to look at possible sites within the
County. Filling the criteria, we have only found one and that is a private parcel offered to use by TCI Lane Ranch,
which is a PUD that has been approved a month ago. It is about 3 -setas they have offered out of 10U -acre
development and located between Blue Creek Ranch and the Waldorf School ,just off Highway 82 near Catherine's
Store. Based on varying views we have received from staff, we wanted to bring it to you today and respectfully
request that the Board provide us some direction as to going forward in Iwo ways: 1) if that is a supportive
community site in the Board's mind; and 2) if it would be possible for TCI to proceed with the necessary source
PUD and Preliminary Plan amendment by Administrative Process in a timely fashion.
Commissioner Houpt - This is difficult because our planning director has worked with you on this and he is not in
the room now. It would have been important for him to be a par of this discussion.
Chairman Martin - The is a great project and good support; Holy Cross has extended their suppon as well as would
like to see if we could move in that direction. We aced to allow CRMS and allow their array to be there as well
going through the same process. I would like to see if we could gel this coup to take care of that particular arca. It is
a great array and yes it is visible off Highway 82 but it is not unsightly. We can ask Fred il'we can put this under his
approval instead of going through the Planning Commission. you will stip have to have a public hearing and this in
front of the IIoard.
Commissioner Houpt - "There has been some concern about maintaining the integrity of the TCI application. What
was so wonderful about that application was the fact Ihat you retained the cultural component of Ag land in from
and we worked on the environmental concerns around tlic area and that really made it a wondcrtiul development. f
do not think today that I could iell you without having more information in from of me that I could support the
location because it will change that dramatically.
466
Exhibit
Letter
(Ato7)
A
Proof of Mail Receipts
B
Proof of Publication
C
D
E
F
G
H
.1
K
Garfield County Unified Land Use Regulations of 2008, as amended (ULUR, the
Zoning Code)
Garfield County Comprehensive Plein of 2000. as amended
Town of Parachute Master Pian (2002)
Application
Staff Report 8.10.09
Exhibits 8.10.09
Excerpt, Minutes, Planning Commission meeting of 5.13.09
Staff Report 9.21.09
Staff Powerpoint
AA
BB
E mail, Garfield County Vegetation Management Department- Director,
Steve Anthony, dated 9.15_09
E-mail, Garfield County Road & Bridge Department -Administrative Foreman,
Jake Mall, dated 8.31.09
CC
E-mail, Garfield County Oil & Gas Liaison, Oil & Gas Administrative Assistant,
Wendy Swan, dated 9.1.09
DD
E-mail, Garfield County Public Health Department- Environmental Health
Manager, Jim Rada , dated 9.4.09
EE
E-mail, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPI.IE)- Mark
Kadnuck, P.E., dated 9.4.09
FF
Letter, Grand Valley Fire Protection District (GVFPD), Rob Ferguson, Deputy
Fire Chief- Operations, dated 9.15.09
GG
Letter, Garfield County Planning Department- Project Engineer, John
Niewoenher P.E ., dated 9.15.09
HH
E-mail, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Field Office- Realty
Specialist, Carole Huey. dated 9.15.09
II
Email, Colorado Division of Water Resources- State Engineer's Office -Mike
Bender, dated 9.16.09
• BOCC Exhibits (9/21/2009)
(Major impact Review- High Mesa RV Park- High Mesa Partners LLC)
•
•
EXHIBIT
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
TYPE OF APPLICATION
APPLICANT
SITE INFORMATION
LOCATION /ACCESS
EXISTING ! ADJACENT ZONING
1 DESCRIPTION
OF THE PROPOSAL
The application is for a Land Use
Change Permit through the MIR process
for a recreational vehicle (RV) Park.
The site is shown on the map at right,
and is 3/. 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, with no tent
spaces proposed.
To support the facility:
➢ access road
➢ emergency access road
➢ wastewater treatment plant
➢ water treatment plant for potable water
➢ easements for facilities off the RV Park parcel
➢ fire flow pond
➢ retention ponds
➢ irrigation impoundment
BOCC 9!21109 DO
Land Use Change for a for a 'Campground /
RV Park' through a Major Impact Review
High Mesa Partners, LLC; Daybreak Realty
LLC James Eugene Speakman,
Monique Teresa Speakman
2407-193-00-189 (36.637 acres) RV Park
2407-193-00-162 (614,713 acres) Daybreak
2409-244-00-124 (103.25 acres) Speakman
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)
II. PROCESS
A Major Impact Review is defined in 2-106 of The Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008
(ULUR) as 'a land use considered to have a significant impact'. The Planning Commission's
review is sought to consider the project's relationship to The Comprehensive Plan of 2000.
A recommendation from the Planning Commission is sought; the application shall then be
presented to the Board of County Commissioners for decision.
ere
MIR High Mesa RV Perk- D.Dunbar- BOCC 9129109
G111lluil1W1
Site Pian
Wastewater
Facility (offsite)
Storage Facility
Water treatment
Facility (offsite)
W.RON'w wl1i !CK[gma
h YCC'
krpukry
2
MIR HO Mesa RV Park - D OLInbar— £ OCC 9r''it09
NOTE TO BOCG: STAFF IS PROVIDING YOU WITH A STAFF REPORT WITH THE
APPLICANT'S RESPONSES AND COMMENTS INCLUDED IN RED FOR YOUR REVIEW.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE SEVERAL SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY
THE APPLICANT (BINDER CALLED `UPDATFf) INFORMATION ONLY'}
111. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS
SINCE INITIAL REVIEW, STAFF ALSO RECEIVED REVIEW COMMENTS FROM THE
FOLLOWING ENTITIES, ATTACHED AS THE FOLLOWING EXHIBITS:
• (EXHIBITAA) E-mail, Garfield County Vegetation Management Department
Director, 7.29.09, revised 9.15.09
• (EXHIBIT BB) E-mail, Garfield County Road & Bridge, 8.31.09
• (EXHIBIT CC) E-mail, Garfield County Oil & Gas Liaison, 9.1.09
• (EXHIBIT DD) E-mail, Garfield County Environmental Health Manager,
9.4.09
• (EXHIBIT EE) E-mail, Colorado State Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE), 9.4.09
• (EXHIBIT FF) Letter, Grand Valley Fire Protection District Deputy Fire
Marshal, 9.11.09
• (EXHIBIT GG) E-mail, Garfield County Planning Department Project
Engineer, 9.15.09
• (EXHIBIT HH) E-mail, BLM, Glenwood Springs Area Office, 9.15.09
• (EXHIBIT II) tetter, Colorado State Division of Water Resources, State
Engineer, 9.16.09
No response received from Town of Parachute, Colorado Division of Wildlife,
Garfield 16 School District.
IV. APPLICANT RESPONSE
In summary, the Applicant has revised their application based on the comments
provided by the County Planning Staff Report and the Planning Commission:
1. Regarding deficiencies of 7-104 (Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water):
Applicant has:
a, re-applied to correct error in application for the two commercial wells,
b. agreed to provide proof of issued permit for the Iwo commercial wells prior
to issuance of Land Use Change Permit;
2. Regarding deficiencies of 7-105 (Adequate Water Supply):
Applicant has
a. stated that ilhe Upper Pond is no longer b my considered a pari of the fire
flow pond water supply, and therefore system details, easements and
maintenance details are not needed,
b. revised West Divide Water report that provides proper calculations and
states that it implies a perpetual water contract;
c. provided copses of corrected well permit applications;
3
MIR High Mess RV Park - D.Dunbar — BOCG 9721109
3. Regarding deficiencies of 7-1O6 (Adequate Water Distribution, Wastewater Systems)
Applicant has:
a. provided an application for an appropriately scaled wastewater treatment
system; Applicant agrees that permits for this system shall be in place
prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit;
b. provided an application for an appropriately scaled central water treatment
system; Applicant agrees that permits for this system shall be in place
prior to issuance of the land Use Change Permit;
c. provided proof that the two wells being considered for commercial permits
have adequate quantity and dependability, as per a required 24-hour
pump test; Applicant agrees that permits for this system and wells
shall be in place prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit;
d. represents that CDPHE approval will be secured for the systems and be in
place prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit;
e. provided proof of appropriate system design features required by Garfield
County:
f. agrees to satisfy requirements of the fire service provider related to fire
flow system and a sign -off letter shall be in place prior to issuance of
the Land Use Change Permit;
4. Regarding deficiencies of 7-107 (Adequate Public Utilities)
Applicant has-
a. provided a signed contract from Holy Cross Energy, and has agreed that
proof of recorded document shall be provider prior to issuance of
Land Use Change Permit;
b. have agreed (with Garfield County Project Engineer) that satisfying 7-107
also serves to satisfy 7-309.
5. Regarding deficiencies of 7-108 (Access and Roadways)
Applicant has
a. agreed (with Garfield County Project Engineer) that satisfying 7-108 also
serves to satisfy 7-307
b. agreed (with Garfield County Project Engineer) to standards for the
project, those being-
• Minor Collector Road design standards
▪ Shoulder width of 4 feet
N Allowable grade of 10% with additional safety enhancements
as per GarCo Project engineer on curves (guardrail)
w Adequate ROW recorded for the public (rather than private)
c. agreed to provide adequate securities for site re -vegetation, reclamation,
and to secure chip -seal improvement (in order to delay chip -sealing
the road for 18 months from the date of construction);
d. agreed to provide a dust mitigation plan that meets the conditions set forth
by GarCo Environmental Health Manager.
4
MIR Hiyi+ Mesa RV Park - O.Dunbar— BOCC 9127/09
6. Regarding deficiencies of 7-109 (No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards)
Applicant has:
a agreed that if the BOCC approves the exceptions rec;onimended by Staff
to grade, and if the fire service provider provided a sign -off letter for the
fire flow requirements and emergency access road, that wildland fire risk
is adequately mitigated.
7. Regarding deficiencies of 7-202 (Protection of Wildlife Habitat areas.)
Applicant has
a. agreed to conditions recommended by Staff.
8. Regarding deficiencies of 7-203 (Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies)
Applicant has:
a agreed to include recommendations of the Garfield County Project
Engineer in the Stormwater Management Plan;
b Applicant has agreed to add a section to the park guidelines to deal with
minor spills from RVs and other vehicles;
9. Regarding deficiencies of 7-205 (Erosion and Sedimentation) 7-206 (Drainage) and
7-207 Stormwater Run -Off)
Applicant has:
a. agreed to limited site disturbance as per Garfield County Project Engineer
recommendations;
b agreed to file the required Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) with
the State Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) prior
to disturbance;
c provided updated plans and updated SVVMP that incorporate all temporary
and permanent erosion control measures and depicts irrigation for re -
vegetating disturbed slopes;
d provided updated easements for the north and south storm water
retention ponds and the fire flow pond, and shall record these
easements prior to disturbance;
e. provided updated easement information for the High Mesa storm water
retention pond on the RV Park parcel, and has agreed to revise and
execute the Final Easement plat upon County Staff approval,
f agreed (with Garfield County Project Engineer) that satisfying 7-205. 206.
and 207 also serves to satisfy 7-806 (H), and (J)
10. Regarding deficiencies of 7-208 (Air Quality)
Applicant has.
a agreed to meet State standards during construction;
b updated the maintenance manual to comply with GarCo Environmental
Health Manager;
11. Regarding deficiencies of 7-212 (Reclamation)
Applicant has:
5
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D,Denber— BOCC 9121109
a provided an updated Engineer's estimated construction cost spreadsheet
with Letter of Credit items;
b agreed that re -vegetation security in the amount of @2500/acre fora total
of $18, 377.00 as per GarCo Vegetation Manager shall be in place
prior to disturbance;
c. agreed that all securities (re -vegetation, reclamation, chip -seal ) shall be in
place prior to disturbance:
12. Regarding deficiencies of 7-806 (K) (Electrical Distribution/Communication wiring)
Applicant has provided updated plans.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THAT BOCC APPROVE THE
PROJECT WITH THE 14 CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
1HE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AS
STATED AT PLANNING COMMJSSION HEARING 5.13.2009, AND RE -STATED IN
THE PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE BOCC ON FOR
HEARING ON 8.10 2009: CON011IONS 1-10. and 14
THE APPLICANT HAS RESPONDED TO CONDITIONS 11-13 WITH STAFF RESPONSE
FOLLOWING.
V. STAFF RESPONSE
1. Staff Response to Section 7-104 and 7-105 specific to potable water supply:
The Applicant has applied for a correction for the two wells on the Speakman property
(as commercial wells to serve the High Mesa RV Park.) At the time of this writing, there
have been no corrected well permits issued.
This standard has not been met.
.1.andition at Approval (11) shall road:
• Prior to any disturbance of land, the Applicant shall provide,
A. verification of permits issued to serve the High Mesa RV Park for
the two (2) commercial wells,
B. any notification and tests required by Garfield County for the wells.
2. Staff Response to Section 7-104 and 7-105 specific to fire flow requirements:
Fire flow requirements are to be set forth by the fire service provider, as per 7-104
(A)(5). As represented to Planning Staff, water to fill and maintain the fire flow pond is
to come from the Daybreak Realty LLC (Graham) parcel, as surface runoff, augmented
with water from the two commercial wells, The Applicant represented that enough
surface runoff would channel to the fire flow pond, and that the Upper Pond would not
6
MiR High Masa RV Park - D. Dunbar - 9)CC 9121109
be used as part of the system. Therefore, the Upper Pond was not included in the fire
flow system and no easement to it was included in the application.
At present, there is no system relationship depicted or stated between the Upper Pond
and the Fire Flow Pond for delivery of water, only an application to legitimize an existing
non -jurisdictional darn. Further, there is no system relationship depicted or stated
between the two commercial wells and the Fire Flow Pond for delivery of water.
The Amended Water Supply Report, Page 1 states that the commercial wells
will be used for domestic water and fire protection, and that:
`The Upper Pond will be constructed on the terrace above the RV Park as
shown in Figure 2 The pond will be used to store precipitation runoff in
priority and irrigation water delivered to the property under the Applicant's
existing irrigation rights. An application has been filed with District Court,
Water Division 5 for the Upper Pond.
• The abovementioned report also says that 'up to 50,000 gallons of water per
year will be pumped from the wells for fire protection'.
• The application materials for the water impoundment application for the
Upper Pond states that its use is to 'store and provide water to fire pond,'
• The Water Supply Report from SGM states that the water storage tank
capacity does not include fire flow and irrigation. There is no information
provided that determines if there is adequate water beyond the potable water
demands to serve as fire flow. In conversation with the report's author,
Engineer Bob Pennington, he stated that there is ample supply from the
wells to fill the two 20,000 gallon potable water tanks in 12 hours, and that
the demand was scaled for a summer's day when the park would be likely
full and the water demand at its peak.
in discussion with the Grand Valley Fire Protection District, Deputy Fire Marshal Rob
Ferguson and Chief David Blair both stated to Staff that it was their understanding that
water from the Upper Pond is used to augment the fire flow pond, and that water from
the potable water tanks would also be used to augment the fire flow pond. (Exhibit FF)
As the fire service provider is the authority that sets the standard for fire flow [as per 7-
104(A)(5)], Staff recommends that verification from the Grand Valley Fire Protection
District be provided that the system they require is the system that has been put in
place. Staff recommends the Applicant provide a letter from the fire service provider
that verifies and depicts:
a. the fire flow pond including its water delivery system(s), easements,
and maintenance roads from all impoundments and wells required
for its operation,
b. the emergency access road, its `knock off gate, and its surface,
7
MIR Nigh Mesa RV Park - ❑.Dunbar— BOCC 17.0 1109
c. the Fire safety and response plan including the annual inspection
date(s) of the fire flow pond.
The Upper Pond is both part of the irrigation system and part of the water supply for the
fire flow pond. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the Applicant be
required to present to the Garfield County Planning Department Project Engineer:
• proper recorded easements for the Upper Pond, design of the ditch or pipe
conveyance to the fire flow pond, and any maintenance road that may be
required to the satisfaction of the Garfield County Planning Department
Project Engineer, and amend the Site Plan accordingly,
• system details (design specifications, easement and maintenance road
requirements) if there is to be an augmentation system from the potable
water storage tanks,
• a statement from SGM revising the volume of water to be processed through
the system to ensure that the water system is adequately sized, if water for
augmentation of the fire flow pond is to be processed through the water
treatment facility.
In comments from the Colorado State Division of Water Resources, State Engineer's
Office (Exhibit II), there is considerable comment about water for fire flow, decrees and
permits for the RV Park.
They state that the well change permits to commercial use have not been filed with their
agency, and the impoundment decree for the Upper Pond and Fire Flow Pond has not
been issued. Their analysis of the augmentation plan for 2 acre feet from the West
Divide Water Conservancy District (WDWCD) equals enough water to fill the fire flow
pond once to 50,000 gallons, which is the minimum standard set by the Grand Valley
Fire Protection District_ (Exhibit FF)
Their assessment of the proposal indicates that the Fire Flow Pond is expected to be
filled to 50, 000 gallons with spring run-off and augmented during the year from the
Upper Pond, assuming approval from the Water Court for the storage rights application.
They state that the Applicant proposes to fill and maintain the Fire Flow Pond with
ground water from the commercial wells.
As this is not a subdivision application, there is no objection to the proposal using a
pond as a fire flow reservoir, but they have recommendations about permitting and
managing the fire flow system to operate within requirements from the State and
WDWCD.
Their comments direct the Applicant to include provisions in their plan to:
■ Amend the well permit applications to account for the additional use of the
commercial wells to fill and maintain the Fire Flow Pond is inadequate,
8
MIR High Mess RV Park - !J Dunhill' -- BOCC 9121/09
• Provide for the amount of replacement water that will need to be supplied
to the West Divide Water Conservancy District (WDWCD)if pumping from
the well increases beyond the planned amount,
• Provide an annual assessment to account for water at the end of spring
runoff season to confirm the ready -status of the Upper Pond and Fire
Flow Pond with the fire service provider, to determine whether additional
ground water pumping will be needed, and to initiate arrangements to
obtain replacement water from the WDWCD.
The Applicant can satisfy these requirements, and in some circumstances, the
Applicant has the response action underway. Staff recommends making these
recommendations a condition of approval.
This standard has not been met; Staff recommends that it be included as a Condition
of Approval prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit.
Staff recommends that a letter of acceptance by the Grand Valley Fire Protection
District for the fire protection system be a condition of approval, as well. The letter of
acceptance shall state the Grand Valley Fire Protection District's sign -off for the
following: fire flow pond and its water augmentation system(s) from Upper Pond and/or
commercial wells, fire flow pond maintenance plan, and emergency access road.
Conditions of Approval (13) shall read:
Prior to disturbance of land, the Applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of
the Garfield County Planning Department Project Engineer:
A. proper recorded easements for the Upper Pond, design of the ditch or
pipe conveyance to the fire flow pond, and any maintenance road that
may be required to the satisfaction of the Garfield County Planning
Department Project Engineer, and amend the Site Plan accordingly,
B. system details (design specifications, easement and maintenance
road requirements) if there is to be an augmentation system from the
potable water storage tanks,
C. a statement from SGM revising the volume of water to be processed
through the system to ensure that the water system is adequately
sized, if water for augmentation of the fire flow pond is to be
processed through the water treatment facility.
Conditions of Approval (14) ,hail read:
Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, theApplicant shall provide
a letter from the Grand Valley Fire Protection District acknowledging
acceptance of the design and proper installation of
A. the fire flow pond including its water delivery system(s),
easements, and maintenance roads from all impoundments
9
MIR High Mesa RV Park - ❑. Dunbar — BOCC 9124109
and wells required for its operation,
B. the emergency access road, its knock off gate, and its surface,
C. the fire safety and response plan including the annual
inspection date(s) of the fire flow pond,
D. an annual assessment to account for water at the end of spring
runoff season to confirm the ready -status of the Upper Pond
and Fire Flow Pond, to determine whether additional ground
water pumping will be needed, and to initiate arrangements
to obtain replacement water from the WDWCD.
3. Staff Response to Section 7-106 (Adequate Central Water Distribution and
Wastewater System, 7-806 H, 1 (Campground Standards for Water Supply and
Distribution, Sewage Disposal) requirements:
The Applicant has revised applications (to correct errors in capacity) and they have
been submitted to the State for permits for the systems required for the operation of
the RV park for wastewater treatment and water treatment. It has been expressed in
comments from the State Engineer's Office and the State Department of Public
Health & Environment (CDPHE) (Exhibit EE) hat the operator of such facilities must
have a license.
While some of the proposed buildings are not necessary for the operation of the RV
Park, the laundry/shower building and dump station are components that are related
to the permitted levels of potable water and sewage. They are, therefore, required
structures. No issuance of the Land Use Change Permit may be allowed without
these components.
Prior to granting the Land Use Change Permit from Garfield County that would allow
the Applicant to open the RV Park to the public, the Applicant shall submit to Garfield
County Planning copies of all inspections and reports required by the State or
County, and submit copies of all required State or County permits, decrees or
licenses.
Conditions of .Appravai (15) shall read-
►/ Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall
provide, along with any notification and tests required by Garfield County,
verification of permits, licenses, decrees and inspections required for the
facilities to serve the High Mesa RV Park, in specific for the following:
A. two (2) commercial wells,
B. wastewater treatment plant,
C. water treatment plant,
D. operator's license(s).
10
MIR Hugh Mesa RV Park - D Dunbar — BOCC 2 1ID9
Conditions of Approval (16) shall read
Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, all components
required for the operation of the RV Park must be completed. including but
not limited to:
• roadways for access, emergency access and maintenance,
• water/irrigation/fire flow systems,
• laundry/shower facility,
• RV dump station and wastewater system,
• recorded easements,
▪ facilities to meet ADA requirements
• operational plans and agreements
• securities, permits, licenses, notifications and tests
4. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-107 (Adequate Public Utilities):
The Applicant has provided a signed contract from Holy Cross Energy, and has agreed
that proof of recorded document shall be provided prior to issuance of Land Use
Change Permit.
This standard has been met.
5. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-108 (Access and Roadways):
Applicant has agreed that by satisfying 7-108, requirements for 7-307 are met. The
Applicant has agreed to standards for the project, as per GarCo Project Engineer
(Exhibit GG):
A. Minor Collector Road 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 12 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/day/unit,
the ITE trip generation standard for RV Parks.)
B. Shoulder width of 4 feet
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.
C. Allowable grade of 10% with additional safety enhancements as per GarCo
Project Engineer on curves (guardrail)
The County Project engineer notes that the 10% grade on the main access
road occurs on a curved part of the road. The combination of the steep
grade and the curve increases the risk to those using the road. Per the
County Code, the maximum grade of such minor collector roads is 8%.
The Applicant proposes to mitigate the excessive slope by posting a speed
11
MIR Nigh Mesa RV Park - D. Dunbar - BOCC 9/21/49
limit of20 mph. The Code allows BOCC to approve excessive slopes
(Section 7-209 FIS. The Staff recommends that should the BOCC approve
the access road slake, that no additional development will occur prior to
the road being reconstructed to meet County roadway design standards.
Adequate ROW recorded for the public (rather than private.) Applicant has
agreed to this, and this can be met. (Contrary to GarCo Engineer's
comments, easements must be in place for facilities on parcels that are to
serve the RV Park, from the owner to High Mesa Partners, LLC to serve the
RV Park, as the other individuals are party to the application for the off-site
facilities only.)
Regarding right-of-way along CR 300, GarCo Road & Bridge recommended that the
Applicant be prohibited from placing signs other than approved driveway access signs
atop stop signs without GarCo permission. Any signs to be installed shall have proper
Garfield County permits and meet the sign code_ (Exhibit BB)
ltio sienaze other than the approved driveway access stop signs shall be placed within the
County ROW without approval of Garfield County.
Ifa 60 -foot deeded ROW does not presently exist for Cr. 300 a strip of Land 30 -foot
wide from rhe renter ;me of the existinst road the entire length of the property involved in
this application shall be deeded to Garfield County for future road improvements.
Further, Staff recommends the Applicant also be requested to deed to Garfield County
the acreage necessary along its frontage on CR 300 to bring CR 300 to a full 30 feet
from centerline, with no financial consideration or exchange required.
The Applicant has agreed to provide adequate securities for site re -vegetation,
reclamation, and to secure chip -seal improvement (in order to delay chip -sealing the
road for 18 months from the start of construction.) For re -vegetation and reclamation,
those requirements are as follows:
E. Re -vegetation security shall be as stated by GarCo Vegetation Manager
Steve Anthony (Exhibit AA):
Staff recommends a re -vegetation 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 Count, upon successful re -vegetation
establishment, to request an inspection for security release consideration
The Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance are cited in
12
MIR Hig4 Mesa RV Park - D Dunker— BOCC 9/71109
Section 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield Counts' Weed Afanagernent Plan
(Resolution #2002-94).
The discrepancy between the estimated re -vegetation security of $18,377 and $20, 549
is based on the Applicant's engineer's estimate, which includes other exotic species
found as a result of the new wetlands study provided that were not originally included in
the earlier estimate.
E. Reclamation security shall be as stated by the GarCo Project Engineer,
John Niewoenher, P.E.:
Security Type
Amount
Minimum
Expiration
Date
Release of
Security by
County
Purpose
Restoration of
$249,036
Note #4
18 months
after BOCC
approval
After RV Park
receives County
LUC Permit
Guarantees the restoration
of land to pre -development
conditions (excluding
re -vegetation)
RV Park and
Appurtenances
Note #1
Access Road
$66,304
Note #5
2.5 years
after BOCC
approval
After Chip -seal is
approved by
County
Guarantees Applicant will
perform chip -seal by March
2012; one year after RV Park
receives LUC permit.
Chip -sea!
Note #2
Re -vegetation
$64,900
Note #6
3 years
after BOCC
approval
_
After re -vegetation
is approved by
County
Guarantee adequate
re -vegetation w/o weeds.
Note #3
The Applicant has requested that main access roadway (that provides access for the
public) not be surfaced (chip -sealed) prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change
Permit. EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. has several well pads to the south of the RV
Park, and the Applicant states that until heavy rig equipment is removed, these
oversized pieces of equipment niay damage the road surface that will be installed to
serve the RV Park. The Applicant requests that Garfield County accept a security and
allow the chip -sealing to take place 18 months from the 'start of construction'.
Staff recommends that because 'start of construction' is not a date certain, that the
BOCC consider the following conditions regarding the Applicant's request to delay chip -
sealing the access roadway:
G. If adequately secured, the Applicant may delay chip -sealing the main
access roadway to a date no more than 18 months from the BOCC date of
approval (9/21/09), or 30 days after EnCana's energy development
requiring oversized equipment ends, whichever comes first.
Security shall be as stated by the GarCo Project Engineer, John
Niewoehner, P.E., that being $66.034.00,
13
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D.Dunbar - 6QCC 9121109
Prior to chip -sealing, the access roadway shall be built to the standard
required by the GarCo Project Engineer's specifications, and during all
phases (construction, pre -chip -sealing and afterward) the road shall be
maintained to meet Garfield County and State air quality standards with a
dust mitigation plan, as stated by GarCo Environmental Health Manager.
In the Maintenance Agreement for the roadways, the Applicant has stated that the
owners shall not prohibit access to new parcels. The access permissions for the main
access road and the emergency access road are limited to the use described in this
application as per comments from GarCo Road & Bridge Department:
Driveway access permits have been issued for this application. One driveway access
permit is for the main entrance in and out of the RV Park. The other driveway access
permit is for the emergency entrance only and will have a gate with a knock off system.
The emergency driveway access shall not be considered complete until all conditions of
the driveway access permit are complete and approved by Garfield County Road &
Bridge Department. These driveway accesses are for this application only.
Staff recommends that the access permitting be limited to the use described in the
application only. The clauses in the Maintenance Agreement shall be revised to
eliminate stated permissions to future additional parcels:
#3. Road that includes the language: Appendixes A & B shall be revised at any time that
additional parcels have been created that have access to the road.,
#4. Association that includes the language: The association agreement that is in
Appendix D shall come into force at such time as a 4th Parcel is created., and
#2. Owner that includes the language: In the event of any subdivisions, `owner' shall
mean the owner of the newly created parcel or parcels...
Staff recommends that because this road is being considered in its present proposed
design, with surface timetables and design exceptions related to a defined and limited
traffic count, allowing permissions in the Maintenance Agreement language may
remove Garfield County from adequately guiding revisions or restrictions to the
roadway, its access and impacts in the future. Staff recommends following the
restrictions set forth in comments from Road & Bridge, and eliminating any implied
permissions for access and road use beyond that of the Application itself.
No signage other than the approved driveway access stop signs shall be placed within the
County ROW without approval of Garfield Comity.
If a 60 -foot deeded ROW does not presently exist for Cr. 300 a strip of Land 34 -foot
wide from the center line of the existing road the entire length of the property involved in
this application shall be deeded to Garfield County for future road improvements.
Staff finds that some of the traffic emerging from the RV Park will travel westward on
CR 300, and may travel through the intersection of CR 300 and SH 6 Frontage, that is
14
MW? High Mesa NV Parrs - D []unbar - GCC 921109
presently being evaluated for improvement obligations,
The traffic voltune increase caused by this application will impact all of Cr. 300 roads
from the point of entry to 1-70 thronuh Battlement .11•1csa. This application has the
potential to add to the traffic impact at the entrance of Cr_ 300 to Colorado State
Hiahwav 6 at Una. This intersection is alreadv a point of areal concent and is requiring
improvements. These comments are for this application and traffic impact onlh.
All vehicles hauling equipment and materials for this protect shall abide by Garfield
Countv's oversize:'overwciQht permit system. .All vehicles requirins oversize ovemcilit
permits shall apply for them al Garfield Count Road & BridQe Department.
As this is not a subdivision, there is, at present, no assessment required from Traffic
Impact Fees.
Finally. comment from the BLM Field Office made a request to have the Applicant
provide a GPS shapefile of the main access road to confirm its location (BLM
manages the neighboring parcel to the south ) (Exhibit HFI)
Conditions of Approval for access and roadways (10, 12) shall read
1 Prior to the acceptance of the Maintenance Agreement, the
Applicant shall:
A. Revise all sections to comply with the limitations for access
for the use and level described in the application, that being:
one (1) 119 -unit RV Park with related infrastructure
(WWTF,WTF, 4 ponds, 1 shower/laundry facility, dump
station, storage building and campground/ office building
with easements on three parcels;
B. Revise all statements to comply with the limitations for
access for the use and level described in the application
requirements, as per GarCo Road & Bridge;
Prior to the any disturbance of land, the Applicant shall:
A. Design the roadways to meet the following standards:
1. Minor Collector road standards, with an allowable
exception of 4 -foot shoulder widths, and 1O% grade
provided safety features are installed on curves,
2_ Design additional safety and drainage enhancements
as per GarCo Project engineer on curves (guardrail,
culverts)
B. Meet the following requirements for road right-of-way and
signage:
1. Provide adequate ROW recorded for the public (rather
than private) without charge to Garfield County, that being:
15
MIR High Mesa RV Parr - D. Dunbar- BOCC 9/11109
50 feet for the main access road,
20 feet for the emergency road,
2. additional acreage necessary on the project parcels'
boundary along CR 300 is requested to bring the ROW to
a full 30 feet from centerline for future road improvements.
C. Have in place a plan for chip -sealing of the main access road:
1. If adequately secured, the Applicant may delay
chip -sealing the main access roadway to a date no
more than 18 months from the BOCC date of
approval, or 30 days after EnCana's energy
development requiring oversized equipment ends,
whichever comes first,
2 Prior to chip -sealing, the access roadway shall be
built to the standard required by the GarCo Project
Engineer's specifications,
3. During all phases (construction, pre -chip -sealing
and afterward) the road shall be maintained to meet
Garfield County and State air quality standards with
a dust mitigation plan, as stated by GarCo
Environmental Health Manager.
D. Have in place all required plans, agreements, and securities
including, but not limited to:
1. Reclamation,
2. Dust mitigation (to meet Colorado Air Pollution Control
Commission Regulation 1),
3. improvements Agreement,
4. Maintenance Agreement,
5. Securities for re -vegetation ($20,549), restoration
($249,036), access road security ($108,906) and
chip -seal security ($66,304)
E. Have all required plans and permits required by Garfield
County and the State of Colorado, including, but not limited to:
1. Road & Bridge for oversized/overweight vehicles and
traffic control,
2. Environmental Health for dust mitigation [Control
Measures as perAPCC Regulation 1, III.D,b.(iv)]
incorporated into the plan and an Air Pollution
construction permit (State),
3. Planning Department Project Engineer's requirement
for cordoning off areas to minimize land disturbance.
16
MIR)-frgh Mesa RV Park - D.Dunbar - BOCC Q/21/09
Prior to any disturbance of land, the Applicant shall
provide a GPS shapefile to the satisfaction of the Realty
Specialist of the Glenwood Springs Field Office of the
Bureau of Land Management to determine the land
status of the ingress & egress to the project.
6. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-109 (No Significant Risk from
Natural Hazards):
Applicant has agreed that if the BOCC approves the exceptions recommended by Staff
to grade, and if the fire service provider provided a sign -off letter for the fire Flow
requirements and emergency access road, that wildland fire risk is adequately
mitigated.
Staff recommends the conditions to satisfy 7-109 have been previously
discussed in 7-108. if 7-108 has been met, this standard has been met.
7. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-202 (Protection of Wildlife Habitat
areas.
Applicant has agreed to conditions recommended by Staff, those being:
Wildlife safety shall be addressed with the following conditions;
a. Fencing shall meet 'wildlife friendly :fencing standards of 'tile Colorado
DOW, and be that in keeping with the rural character of the
neighborhood: non -climbable 2"x 4" mesh horse fence with Or without
barbed wire strands at the crest, no less than 60" in height.
b, The design and construction of the fire pond shall include both fencing
to prevent access by wildlife and human beings, and safe egress
measures fcrr wildlife and human beings that Wright inadvertently enter
the pond.
c. Bear proof waste receptacles shall be used on-site.
This standard has been met.
8. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-203 (Protection of Wetlands and
Waterbodies)
a. Applicant has agreed to include recommendations of the Garfield County Project
Engineer in the Stormwater Management Plan;
b. Applicant has agreed to add a section to the park guidelines to deal with minor
spills from RVs and other vehicles;
Conditions of Approval for protection of wetlands and waterbodies (12.D)
shall read
Prior to any disturbance of land, the Applicant shall have updated the
SWMP and the park guidelines to the satisfaction of the Garfield
17
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D. Dunbar - BOCC 9121109
County Planning Department Project Engineer to address minor spills
from RVs and other vehicles, incorporate erosion BMPs, and secure
a State SWM P.
9. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-205 (Erosion and Sedimentation),
7-206 (Drainage) and 7-207 Stormwater Run -Oft)
Staff recommends the Applicant be required to satisfy the Garfield County Project
Engineer. There are requirements that must be satisfied before disturbance to the land
occurs, and requirements that must be satisfied prior to the issuance of the Land Use
Change Permit.
▪ Prior to land disturbance, the Applicant has agreed to:
✓ limit site disturbance and cordon off areas that will remain
undisturbed as per Garfield County Project Engineer
recommendations;
• agrees to file the required Storm Water Management Plan
(SWMP) with the State Department of Public Health &
Environment (CDPHE);
▪ shall record updated easements for the north and south storm
water retention ponds and the fire flow pond, if applicable,
and revise the Site Pian to depict all necessary easements;
• shall revise and execute updated easement information for
the High Mesa storm water retention pond on the RV Park
parcel upon County Staff approval;
Conditions of Approval for Erosion, Sedimentation, Drainage and
Stormwater Run -Off (12.E.) shall read
Prior to land disturbance, the Applicant shall:
Have all required plans and permits required by Garfield County and
the State of Colorado, including, but not limited to:
3. Planning Department Project Engineer's requirement for
cordoning off areas to minimize land disturbance,
4. State Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE)
required Storm Water Management Pian (SWMP),
5. Record updated easements for the north and south storm water
retention ponds, fire flow pond, High Mesa storm water
retention pond on the RV Park parcel, if applicable, and revise
the Site Plan to depict all necessary easements.
10. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-208 jAir Quality)
Staff recommends that while the Applicant has agreed to meet air quality standards
during construction, there are specific local and State requirements that must be
satisfied for operation of the RV Park. These stated requirements appear in the
18
MIR High Mese RV Park - D.Dunbar- BDCC 9/21/09
comments of the GarCo Environmental Health Manager.
Dust mitigation will be actively conducted throughout the park at all times,
utilizing the most appropriate best management practices including but riot
limited to those recommended far private roads as part of Colorado Air
Pollution Control Commission, Regulation 1.
C.unditions of Approval for Air Quality (12.1 .2) shall read
Prior to land disturbance, the Applicant shall:
Have in place all required plans, agreements, and securities including, but not
limited to:
2. Dust mitigation (to meet Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission
Regulation 1)
11. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-212 (Reclamation)
The Applicant is proposing that Letters of Credit be used as securities for the project.
Staff recommends that other forms of securities are more readily administered, namely,
cash deposits and bond. Whatever the agreed-upon security, Staff recommends that is
be in place prior to any disturbance of land and in the amounts set forth by Garfield
County:
• Applicant has provided an updated Engineer's estimated construction cost
spreadsheet with Letter of Credit items;
Applicant agrees that re -vegetation security in the amount of @2500/acre
for a total of $20,549, as per the Applicant's Engineer estimate shall be in
place prior to disturbance;
• Applicant agrees that all securities (re -vegetation, reclamation,
improvements, chip -seal ) shall be in place prior to disturbance;
Conditions of Approval for Reclamation (12.D) shall read
f Prior to land disturbance, the Applicant shall have securities in place for re -
vegetation, reclamation, improvements and chip -sea!)
(This condition includes G, H, and 1 from Page 12 that are the Garfield
County Planning Department Project Engineer's securities.)
12. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-806 IK) (Electrical Distribution/
Communication wiring)
Staff has confirmed that the updated plans provided by the Applicant are adequate.
This standard has been met.
19
MIR High Mese RV Park - D.Dunbar - BOCC 9,21a29
VI. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
i. Proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting
before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC).
2 The meeting before the BOCC 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 to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals,
convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield
County, as it does meets all the required standards.
The application has met the requirements, or can meet with conditions
recommended by Staff in the Major impact Review process, including but
not limited to: Sections 2-101, 2-106, 3-306, 3-501, 4-1101,4-102, 4-105, 4-
501, 4-502 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008,
as amended (ULUR),
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the BOCC follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission for approval of the High Mesa RV Park with conditions recommended by
Staff (revised, as follows):
All representations of the Applicant, either within the application or stated at
the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), shall be
considered conditions of approval unless explicitly altered by the BOCC.
2. The operation of the facility shall performed in accordance with all applicable
Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of
facility.
Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the
Colorado Revised Statutes for residential standards assessed at a location of
350' from the park or at a point 25' beyond the parcel (RV Park parcel) boundary,
whichever is lesser.
4. The High Mesa RV Park shall be operated so as to comply with all Federal, State
and County air quality laws, regulations and standards for emissions, heat,
glare, radiation, fumes, smoke or other emanation which substantially interfere
with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance
or hazard,
20
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D Dunbar- OCC 9i21109
The Applicant shall comply with the fire protection provisions included in the
comments of the Grand Valley Fire Protection District (GVFPD), develop a fire
safety and response plan to the satisfaction of the GVFPD and arrange for the
Grand Valley Fire Protection District to perform an annual inspection of the fire
protection pond at their convenience.
Any signs associated with the use shall be designed to comply with the Garfield
County Sign Code.
7. No storage of heavy equipment is proposed or permitted on this site, with the
exception of a machine or vehicle for 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
center and shaded to prevent direct reflection on adjacent property.
9. All equipment, structures and light fixtures on the site shall be painted with a
neutral shade of tan or sage green non -reflective paint to reduce glare and make
the site more inconspicuous. Structures designed to mimic barns, agricultural
structural or false -front western storefronts may be either neutral colors or faded
barn red, but the surface must be a non -reflective surface to reduce glare.
Prior to site disturb o-r-GO-F1-st413stion-on this project, the fftLewwwg-shin
plase;
A_ Al; --ries ar liding-IDepartment per s-inciu g -grading pet its
a. Permits -from -Go rC o Road-&-Bridge-Depart a #l-ever--sizediever-
weig# vehisle� tie union site, {
C. All necessary traf€ie-control plans regui�'���
faBridge
Departme-
D_ All necessary--finanoi al-seeeritiesrelated -eo ask noon, re -vegetation -and
-reelarnation7
E. All requirements for engineer+rig-design-anthelate-d-pIans-set f t
Garfield County -Project Engineer.
(For continuity, all of the conditions of former #1O have been
incorporated elsewhere.
Preceding conditions of approval (1-10) were those recommended by
Planning Commission, and agreed to by the Applicant.
The following conditions of approval (10-18) we those recommended by Staff,
based on review of the updated materials supplied by Applicant, with new
referral agency comments (Exhibits AA -II .)
21
MIR Nigh Mesa RV Park- D.Dunbar— 80CC 9,29109
10. Prior to the acceptance of the Maintenance Agreement, the Applicant shall:
A. Revise al! sections to comply with the limitations for access for the
use and level described in the application, that being:
one (1) 119 -unit RV Park with related infrastructure: WVVTF,
WTF, 4 ponds, 1 shower/laundry facility, dump station, storage
building and campground/ office building with easements on
three parcels;
B. Revise all statements to comply with the limitations for access for
the use and level described in the application requirements, as
per GarCo Road & Bridge,
11 Prior to any disturbance of land, the Applicant shall provide to Garfield
County Planning:
A. verification of permits issued to serve the High Mesa RV Park for
the two (2) commercial wells,
B. any notification and tests required by Garfield County for the wells.
12. Prior to the any disturbance of land, the Applicant shall:
A. Design the roadways to meet the following standards:
1. Minor Collector road standards, with an allowable exception of
4 -foot shoulder widths, and 10% grade provided safety
features are installed on curves,
2_ Design additional safety and drainage enhancements as per
GarCo Project engineer on curves (guardrail, culverts)
B. Meet the following requirements for road right-of-way and signagei
1. Provide adequate ROW recorded for the public (rather than
private) without charge to Garfield County. that being:
a. 60 feet for the main access road,
b. 20 feet for the emergency road,
2. Additional acreage necessary on the project parcels' boundary
along CR 300 is requested to bring the ROW to a full 30
feet from centerline for future road improvements.
C. Have in place a plan for chip -sealing of the main access road:
1. If adequately secured, the Applicant may delay chip -sealing the
main access roadway to a date no more than 18 months
from the BOCC date of approval (9/21/09), or 30 days
after EnCana's energy development requiring oversized
equipment ends, whichever comes first,
22
C.
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D.Dunbar- BOCC 521149
Prior to chip -sealing, the access roadway shall be built to the
standard required by the GarCo Project Engineer's
specifications,
During all phases (construction, pre -chip -sealing and
afterward) the road shall be maintained to meet Garfield
County and State air quality standards with a dust mitigation
plan, as stated by GarCo Environmental Health Manager_
Have in place all required plans, agreements, and securities
including, but not limited to:
1, Reclamation,
2. Dust mitigation (to meet Colorado Air Pollution Control
Commission Regulation 1),
3. Improvements Agreement,
4. Maintenance Agreement,
5. Securities for re -vegetation ($20,549), restoration
($249,036), access road security ($108,906) & chip -seal
security ($66,304)
E Have all required plans and permits required by Garfield County
and the State of Colorado, including, but not limited to:
1. Road & Bridge for oversized/overweight vehicles and traffic
control,
2. Environmental Health for dust mitigation [Control Measures
as per APCC Regulation 1, III. D.b.(iv)] incorporated
into the plan and an Air Pollution construction permit
(State),
3. Planning Department Project Engineer's requirement for
cordoning off areas to minimize land disturbance,
4. State Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE)
required Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP),
5. Record updated easements for the north and south storm
water retention ponds, fire flow pond, High Mesa storm
water retention pond on the RV Park parcel, if applicable,
and revise the Site Plan to depict all necessary easements.
F. Prior to any disturbance of land, the Applicant shall provide a GPS
shapefile to the satisfaction of the Realty Specialist of the Glenwood
Springs Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management to
determine the land status of the ingress & egress to the project
23
MIR High Mesa RV Park - 0.Qurrbar - BOCC 912109
13. Prior to any disturbance of land, the Applicant shall provide to the
satisfaction of the Garfield County Planning Department Project Engineer;
A. proper recorded easements for the Upper Pond, design of the
ditch or pipe conveyance to the fire flow pond, and any
maintenance road that may be required to the satisfaction of the
Garfield County Planning Department Project Engineer, and
amend the Site Plan accordingly
B. system details (design specifications, easement and maintenance
road requirements) if there is to be an augmentation system from
the potable water storage tanks,
C. a statement from SGM revising the volume of water to be
processed through the system to ensure that the water system is
adequately sized, if water for augmentation of the fire flow pond
is to be processed through the water treatment facility.
14. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall
provide a letter from the Grand Valley Fire Protection District
acknowledging acceptance of the design and proper installation of:
A. the fire flow pond including its water delivery system(s),
easements, and maintenance roads from all impoundments and
wells required for its operation,
B. the emergency access road, its knock off gate, and its surface,
C. the fire safety and response plan including the annual inspection
date(s) of the Fire flow pond,
an assessment to account for water at the end of spring runoff
season to confirm the ready -status of the Upper Pond and Fire
Flow Pond, to determine whether additional ground water
pumping will be needed, and to initiate arrangements to obtain
replacement water from the West Divide Water Conservancy
District (WDWCD).
15. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall
provide, along with any notification and tests required by Garfield County,
verification of permits, licenses, decrees and inspections required for the
facilities to serve the High Mesa RV Park, in specific, for the following-
A. two (2) commercial wells,
B. wastewater treatment plant,
C. water treatment plant,
D. operator's license(s).
24
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D.Dunbar— BOCC 9121/09
16. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, all components
required For the operation of the RV Park must be completed, including
but not limited to:
• roadways for access, emergency access and maintenance,
•
water/irrigation/fire flow systems,
• laundry/shower facility,
■ RV durnp station and wastewater system,
• recorded easements,
■ facilities to meet ADA requirements
• operational plans and agreements
• securities, permits, licenses, notifications, and tests
17. Conditions of Approval must be satisfied within one (1) year of BOCC
approval date, as per 4-103(G)(8) of the Unified Land Use Resolution of
2008, as amended.
18 Amendments may be considered in accordance with the Major Impact
Review Amendment process of the Unified Land Use Resolution of
2008, as amended, under which it will be administered.
VIII. RECOMMENDATION FOR MOTION:
"I move to approve a Land Use Change Permit through the Major Impact Review
process for the High Mesa RV Park with conditions recommended by
Staff."
25
MEMORANDUM
To: Dusty Dunbar
From: Steve Anthony
Re: High Mesa RV M1R2509
Date: September 15, 2009
EXHIBIT
1 Ak_
Below are my comments from July 29, 2009. As purr ease resubmiitni, the applicant has provided a
Wetlands Report that was done after my initial comments. The Wetlands Report indicates that two
County listed noxious weeds, Russian -olive and tamarisk are located on site. This information was not
included in the original vegetation map and vegetation plan.
Staff recommends:har the applicant treat the Russian -olive and tamarisk !Healed on site prior to the
issuance of a permit Please forward treatment records to this office al:
Garfield County Vegetation Management
P08 426
Rifle CO 81650
July 29, 2009 comments:
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 of surface disturbance as 7.35 acres.
Staff recommends 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 revegctation 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).
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Name of application: High Mesa RV Park
Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge
EXHIBIT
8g
Date Sent: August 31, 2009
Comments Due: September 11, 2009
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline_ This form
may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staff Contact: Dustin Dunbar
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield County Road and Bridge Department has only these
comments to add to the original comments for this project.
The completed emergency driveway access will have to be approved by Garfield County
Road and Bridge Department prior to any occupancy in the RV Park.
As stated in the earlier comments this application has the potential to add to the traffic
load at the intersection of Cr. 300 and State Highway 6 & 24. High Mesa RV Park could
be asked to contribute to the reconstruction of this intersection. This would be an issue
Building_and planning would be involved in.
Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept
By: Jake B_ Mall Date August 31. 2009
Revised 3/30/00
Dus Dunbar
From: Wendy Swan
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:48 PM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Cc: Judith Jordan
Subject: High Mesa RV Park - GarCo Major impact Review
EXHIBIT
I
Hi Dusty,
The Garfield County Oil & Gas department does not have any significant comments to add to the Major Impact
Review of the High Mesa RV Park.
I put the CD back in your hog: as you requested.
Thank you,
I111 \G11t,uiot.11\r. ViNoi#rli
l iarfteiti f nuutty
111-5 [ irllflly t;ll,idw7.
[ituldlta 200
Htt�r, CO Kltrili
tris (i21 5'111 I-9rrri.t
'1`11 62:i i934 1' t
I
Dusty Dunbar EXHIBIT
From: Jim Rada 3)7)
Sent; Friday, September 04, 2009 2:48 PM (J
To: Dusty Dunbar
Subject: FW. MIR 2509 - High Mesa RV Park
Attachments: Jim Rada (jrada@gartiield-county cam).vof; image001.gif; Jim Rada {jrada@garfield-
county.com)2.vct; Jim Rada (jrada@a garfield-county.com)3.vcf
Dusty,
I've reviewed the updated materials you gave me relative to the issues 1 noted on my last comments
about this application (see below)
1
Regarding dust mitigation:
1.Bell Construction Specification makes no reference to obtaining an Air Pollution construction permit. If
greater than 5 acres will be disturbed, a permit will be required; not just filing an Air Pollution Emission
N oti ce.
APCC Regulation 1(WE are an attainment area for Particulates)
111.0.1. b. New Sources
Every owner or operator of a new source or activity that is subject to this Section 11ID and which is
required to obtain an emission permit under Regulation No. 3 shall submit a fugitive particulate
emission control plan meeting the requirements of this Section III D. at such time as. and as part of,
the required permit application. Such plan shall be approved or disapproved by the division in the
course of acting to approve Or disapprove the permit application and no emission permit shall be
issued until a fugitive particulate emission control plan has been approved.
111 D.2.b. Construction Activities
111.D.2.b.(i). Applicability - Attainment and Non -attainment Areas
III.D.2.b.(ii). General Requirement
Any owner or operator engaged in clearing or leveling of land or owner or operator of land that
has been cleared of greater than five acres in attainment areas or one (1) acre in non -attainment
areas from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all
available and practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable
in order to minimize such emissions in accordance with the requirements of Section 111.D. of this
regulation.
II1.D.2.b.(iii). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline
Both the 20% opacity and the no off -property transport emission limitation guidelines shall apply
to construction activities; except that with respect to sources or activities associated with
construction for which there are separate requirements set forth in this regulation, the emission
limitation guidelines there specified as applicable to such sources and activities shall apply.
Abatement and control plans submitted for construction activities shall be evaluated for
compliance with the requirements of Section 111.11 of this regulation.
[Cross Reference: Subsections e. and f. of Section 111 0.2. of this regulation.]
111. D. 2.b.(iv). Control Measures and Operating Procedures
Control measures or operational procedures to be employed may include, but are not necessarily
limited to, planting vegetation cover. providing synthetic cover, watering, chemical stabilization,
furrows, compacting, minimizing disturbed area
art Ilse winter, wind breaks and other methods or techniques approved by the division.
2. The RV Park Operating Manual Indicates:
d. Periodic Maintenance, park, access road and emergency road
i. Dust mitigation must be in place throughout the park. This will be per the state requirements as
defined by the Environmental Health Manager and Colorado DOT.
The Road Maintenance plan makes a similar reference. I'm not comfortable with this language. Perhaps a
better way of putting this would be to say something like....
...Dust mitigation will be actively conducted throughout the park at all times, utilizing the most
appropriate best management practices including but not limited to those recommended for private roads as
part of Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission, Regulation I.
APCC Regulation 1(WE are an attainment area for Particulates)
111.D.2. a. Roadways
111.D 2.a.(r). Unpaved
111. D, 2. a. (i). (A). Applicability — Attainment and Non -attainment Areas
111. D.2. a. (i). (B). General Requirement
Any owner or operator responsible for construction ar maintenance of any
(existing or new) unpaved roadway which has vehicle traffic exceeding 200
vehicles per day in attainment areas or 150 vehicles per day in non -attainment
areas (averaged over any consecutive 3 -day period) from which fugitive
particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available,
practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically
reasonable in order to minimize emissions resulting from the use of such
roadway in accordance with the requirements of Section M.D. of this regulation.
111. D.2. a. (i). (c). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline
The nuisance emission limitation guideline shall apply to unpaved roadways.
Abatement and control plans submitted for unpaved roadways shall be evaluated
for compliance with the requirements of Section 11I.D. of this regulation.
111. D. 2. a. (r), (D). Control Measures and Operating Procedures
Control measures ar operations procedures to be employed may include but are
not necessarily limited to, watering, chemical stabilization, road carpeting, paving,
suggested speed restrictions and other methods or techniques approved by the
division.
111 D.2.a. (1). (E). If the division receives a complaint that any new ar existing unpaved roadway is
creating a nuisance, it may require persons owning or operating or maintaining such
roadways to supply vehicle traffic count information by any reasonable available means
for the purpose of determining if they have sufficient traffic to subject diem to the
requirements of this Section 111.0.
i11. D. 2. a. (ii). Paved
iII.D.2. a. (h). (A). Applicability - Attainment and Non -attainment Areas
111. D. 2. a. (ii). (B). General Requirement
2
Any person who through operations or activities repeatedly deposits materials
which may create fugitive particulate emissions on a public or private paved
roadway is required to .submit a control and abatement plan upon request by the
division which provides for the removal of such deposits and appropriate
measures to prevent future deposits such that fugitive particulate emissions
which may result are minimized,: except that sand, salt or other materials may be
dropped on snow or ice covered
roadways for the purpose of safety and such deposits shall not be required to be
removed on a more frequent basis than the community's normal street cleaning
schedule except as otherwise provided in an applicable SIP provision.
III. D. 2. a. (iij. (C). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline
The nuisance emission limitation guideline shall apply to paved roadways.
Abatement and control plans submitted for paved roadways shall be evaluated
for compliance with the requirements of section 111.0. of this regulation.
11(0. 2. a. (ii). (0). Control Measures and Operating Procedures
Control measures or operational procedures to be employed may include but are
not necessarily limited to, covering the loaded haul thick, washing or otherwise
treating the exterior of the vehicle, limiting the size of the toad and the vehicle
speed, watering or treating the load with chemical suppressants, keeping the
roadway access point free of materials that may be carried onto the roadway,
removal of materials from the roadway and other methods or techniques
approved by the division.
Regarding the water and wastewater facilities:
saw the flow calculation changes and am satisfied that this new information makes wastewater flows more
consistent with potable water flows. I have not been asked at this point to review the water and wastewater
applications to provide local health authority approval to CDPHE to proceed with permitting but I anticipate
this will happen some time after the MIR is completed.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to review this application_
Jim E.acla, KL l5
Environmental Health Manager
Garfield County Public Health
195 W i4r^ Street
Rifle. CO 81650
Plwne 970.525-5200 x81'13
Cell 970-319-1579
Fax 970625 8304
Email eradaCa�garfeld-county.com
Web www.garfreld-county.corn
From: Jim Rada
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 8:58 AM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Cc: 'mark.kadnuck@state.co.us'
Subject: FW: MIR 2509 - High Mesa RV Park
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 disturbing a substantial area of land. 1 could not find an exact number but I did see a reference to
roughly 50% of the parcel will remain open space. That said, there could be disturbance of 15-18 acres. The soils report
indicates that the topsoil contain a substantial amount of fine material. CDPHE APCC Regulation 1 requires an air
pollution construction permit as noted in the excerpted language below. This permit must be obtained and control plans
developed and implemented before constructionlland disturbance begins.
4
l I1. D.1. b. New Sources
Every owner or operator of a new source or activity that is subject to this Section I]I.D. and which is
required to obtain an emission permit under Regulation No. 3 shall submit a fugitive particulate
emission control plan meeting the requirements of this Section IH.D. at such time as, and as pail of,
the required permit application. Such plan shall be approved or disapproved by the division in the
course of acting to approve or disapprove the permit application and no emission permit shall be
issued until a fugitive particulal:e emission control plan has been approved.
ill. D.2. b. Construction Activities
111.0.2.b.0). Applicability - Attainment and Non -attainment Areas
111. D.2. b. (ii). General Requirement
Any owner or operator engaged in clearing or leveling of land or owner or operator of land that
has been cleared of greater than five acres in attainment areas or one (1) acre in non -attainment
areas from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all
available and practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable
in order to minimize such ,,missions in accordance with the requirements of Section 111.D. of this
regulation.
2 Once the operation is underway, at peak operations, there is a likelihood that the private roads internal to the RV Park
will exceed the CDPHE APCC Regulation 1 200 vehicle per day threshold, thereby kicking in the requirements for dust
mitigation for the internal roads I did not see any plan for dust mitigation on this site. In light of increasing PM 10 levels
in the Parachute/Battlement Mesa area, i recommend that the applicant provide a dust control plan that , at minimum
meets the requirements of CDPHE APCC Regulation 1
111.122.a. Roadways
111.1).2.a.(i)_ Unpaved
11!.0.2. a. (i). (A). Applicability — Attainment and Non -attainment Areas
111.1).2.a.0). (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
attainment areas or 150 vehicles per day in non -attainment areas (averaged over any
consecutive 3 -day period) from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall
be required to use all available. practical methods which are technologically feasible and
economically reasonable in order to minimire emissions resulting from the use of such
roadway in accordance with the requirements of Section 111.0. 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
250/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
WWTP design is for 10,000 gpd I have not received the formal review request at this point from CDPHE for either the
WTP or WWTP. l 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 1SDS capable of managing waste flows Frorn
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 WWTP 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.
5
�un Kana, K1 h5
Enwiromm$Drttal Hr,,ilth Manager
Garfield County P,-II]lir. i�;�alfh
195 W 14"' Sired
Rifle, CO 81650
Phone 970.5255-5200 45113
Cell 970-319-15f!i
Fax 970-625.8304
Email hada@.garfield-cuunty-com
Web www-garfreld-county.com
From: ]lm Rada
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:46 PM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Subject: MIR 2509 - High Mesa RV Park
Dusty,
1 offer my comments regarding the referenced project:
1. The store facility will require a License to Operate a Retail Food Establishment in the State of Colorado.
In order to receive a license, prior to 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 retail food 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 WOCD
can determine adequacy of the treatment system design. To date, I have not received a water supply
design for review and signature regarding this system as is standard procedure for pubic systems. 1
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.
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
Kacla, K 115
EIIJii-onoleotal Health MaiiayF'r
Garfield County Pubik. Health
195 W 1d"' Street
Rifle CO 815.50
Phone 970 52.5-52011 011
6
DustyDunbar
From: Mark Karinuck frnakadnucasmtpgate.dphe.state.co.us]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 4:23 PM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Subject: High Mesa RV Park
EXHIBIT
Based on the information provided the system will be considered a public water system and the wastewater
system will be state regulated_ The water system must go through our plans review and approval process and
the wasterwater system must go through our site application and design review and approval process. Both
systems will require licensed operators. Design approval from the state is required before construction can
begin on both the water and wastewater systems.
Mark A. Kadnuck, P.E.
CDPHE-WQCD
222 S. 6th Street, Rm. 232
Grand Junction, CO 81501
ph: 970-248-7144
fax: 970-248-7198
email: mark.kadnuckEslat.e.co.us
' V Atte,
GRAND VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
1777 S, BATTLEMENT PARKWAY, PO BOX 295
PARACHUTE, CO 81635
PHONE: 285-91 19, FAX (970) 285-9748
September 11, 2009
Dusty Dunbar
Garfield County Planning Dept —Rifle Airport Office
0375 County Rd 352 —Building #2060
Rifle. Colorado 81650
Subject: High Mesa RV Park
Ms. Dunbar,
EXHIBIT
FF
I have reviewed the High Mesa RV Park Major Impact Review Application. The one
concern I do see is the Fire District would like the Fire pond to be full at time construct begins.
This will help the Fire District have a water supply on site for any initial mitigation of any
Wildland fire and/or initial attack of buildings under construction. The Fire pond must be able to
maintain the minimum 50,000 gallons of water storage at all times. The rest of the application
appears to be consistent with the reviews that already been conducted on this property with
corrections made where required for the Fire District. I did notice in the review that any water
needed to maintain the 50,000 gallons of water can be transferred from the storage tank of this
facility if needed. I have personally been out to this property and drove all access roads with Fire
Apparatus and there are no problems at this time or at the time I approved the new access roads
for emergency use. Even with the Fire Districts review of the plans it is the responsibility of the
owner to make sure the building complies with the International Fire Code 2003 Edition. If you
should have any further questions please feel free to contact me.
Rob Ferguson
Deputy Fire Chief— Operations
Cc: Chief Blair
File
S___(Garfield County
To: Dusty Dunbar
From: John Niewoehner
Project Engineer
Date: September 15, 2009
RE: High Mesa RV Park - Engineering Review
1 reviewed the most recent submittal (received September 2nd) against my July 28, 2009
comment memo.
1 Easement Map and Legal Easement Documents
• In the well easement description, it appears that the line to the second
well is incorrectly labeled as 200.00 feet. Per the easement map, this line
should be 202.56 feet. The bearing is also wrong.
• On the emergency access easement on the Daybreak property, L42, L43,
L44 and L45 lengths from the map do not match the lengths in the
easement description.
• Recordation of easements must be a Condition of Approval.
• Construction and slope easements for the two access roads do not
require easements since the property owners have become co -applicants
on the RV Park application.
Securities: 3 Letters of Credit (LOC) are needed to guarantee re -vegetation
and/or site restoration if the project is not completed.
SECURITY
TYPE
AMOUNT
MINIMUM
EXPIRATION
DATE
RELEASE OF
SECURITY
BY COUNTY
PURPOSE
Restoration of
$249,036
Note #4
18 months
after BOCC
approval
After RV Park
receives
County Permit
Guarantees the
restoration of land to pre -
development conditions
(excluding re -vegetation)
RV Park and
Appurtenances
Note #1
Access Road
$66,304
Note #5
2.5 years
after BOCC
approval
After Chip -seal
is approved by
County
Guarantees that
Applicant will perform
chip -seal by March 2012;
one-year after the Park
receives its permit.
Chip -seal
Note #2
Re -vegetation
$64,900
Note #6
3 years after
BOCC
approval
After re-
vegetation is
approved by
County
Guarantee adequate re -
vegetation w/o weeds.
Note #3
Note #1 for Restoration: (a) Release of restoration security will occur after
the County grants the permit denoting that the all required RV Park elements
have been constructed. (b) Presuming that the RV Park is approved in
September 2009, the construction must be completed by September. The
LOC must be valid for six months after the target completion date. (c) The
Applicant will not have to restore the Main Access Road if the RV Park is not
completed. However, the Applicant must restore all other land disturbances
including the emergency access road, fire and detention ponds, and the area
within the RV Park.
Note #2 for Chip -Seal The Applicant wants to delay the chip -seal of the
Main Access Road until one-year after the target completion date. Thus, the
chip -seal must be complete by September 2011 and the chip -seal security
must be valid until March 2012.
Note #3 for Re -vegetation: The re -vegetation security includes all of the area
disturbed by construction. When the permit is granted to the RV Park and
the restoration security is returned, the portion of the re -vegetation security
under the completed RV Park and appurtenances can be returned to the
Applicant.
Note #4. Cost of Restoration: Engineer's cost estimate items:
#1 $23,872
#2 $20,885
#4 $115,452
#5 S24,800
#12 $8,562
#13 $6,125
#17 $149
#18 $151
#90 $26,400
$226,396 + 10% = $249,036
Note #5, Cost of Chip Seal: Cost as provided by Applicant's engineer
Note #6 Cost of Re -vegetation
Main Access Road outside of surfacing:
Emerg Access Road outside of surfacing
Area under Emerg Access Rd surface
Area under detention basins
Area under fire pond
Area under fire pond
Area under RV park
1.93 acre [line#106; 9359 sy]
1.64 acre [line#107, 7954 sy1
2.02 acre [4400'x20]
044 acre [3 basins x 80'x80]
0.23 acre [100'x1001
1.38 acre [200'x300']
16.0 acre
23.6 acre
Cost of re-veg = 23.6 acre x $2,5001acrea = $59,000 + 10% = $64,900
Key Point: When the RV Park is complete, and the permit issued, only $20,548
needs to be retained to guarantee re -vegetation of the areas of primarily the cut and
fill slopes.
3. Variances from Standards. Road slope and sharpness of curves
Maintenance Agreement TO DO: Clarify how the Maintenance Plans
becomes part of IA.
Wastewater treatment Plan Flows: TO DO: Included are two CDPHE
applications for the wastewater treatment plan. One with a 10,000 gallon per
day (gpd) flow and a second application with a 19,000 gpd flow. Presumably,
the 10,000 gpd application has been superseded by the 19,000 gpd
application. Has the second application been sent to the State yet? It looks
to me like it hasn't.
6. Other
■ TO DO. In the IA, recital #1, a reception number of 70059300 is given for
the deed. I couldn't find this reception number in our computer system.
County reception numbers have only six digits.
■ TO DO: Isn't a culvert needed where the emergency access road
connects to CR 300?
Comments for use in the Staff Report to BOCC
Under 5 (q), you can include this as my comment: The County Project
engineer notes that the 10% grade on the main access road occurs on
a curved part of the road. The combination of the steep grade and the
curve increases the risk to those using the road. Per the County
Code, the maximum grade of such minor collector roads is 6% The
Applicant proposes to mitigate the excessive slope by posting a speed
limit of 20 mph. The Code allows BOCC to approve excessive slopes
(Section 7-209 H). The Staff recommends that should the BOCC
approve the access road slope, that no additional development will
occur prior- to the road being reconstructed to meet County roadway
design standards.
Under 5 (i). you can add this comment: The reclamation security
amount proposed by the Applicant is inadequate to restore the land
disturbed by the emergency access road. The Applicant says that, if
the project is not competed for some reason, they would like the
emergency access road to remain es a driveway to the property.
From: Carole_Huey@blm.gov [mailto:Carole_Huey@blm.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:11 PM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Subject: Referral - High Mesa RV Park
EXHIBIT
s 44
Dusty,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Looking through the files, I am
Linable to determine the land status of the ingress & egress to the property, and their
associated utilities.
I would like to have GPS shapeflles of these if possible, I would like to have time to see
what impacts this may have on public lands.
ry
1.1J M1.1 N t..1 M11 ry N lv N r+/1+J N N/J
Carole Huey
Realty Specialist, BLM
Glenwood Springs Field Office
2300 River Frontage Road
Silt CO 81652
970.876.9023
12t_q+
From: Bender, Mike [Mike. Bender@state.co.us]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2009 2:59 PM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Cc: Lis, Crag
Subject: Referral - Proposed High Mesa RV Park
Ms. Dustin Dunbar, Senior Planner
Garfield County Planning Department
0375 County Road 352, 412060
Rifle, CO 81650
Dear Ms. Dunbar,
This referral does not appear to qualify as a "subdivision" as defined in Section 30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S.
Therefore, pursuant to the State Engineer's March 4, 2005 memorandum to county planning directors, this office will
only perform a cursory review of the referral information and provide comments. The comments do not address the
adequacy of the water supply plan for this project or the ability of the water supply plan to satisfy any County
regulations or requirements. In addition, the comments provided herein cannot be used to guarantee a viable water
supply plan or infrastructure, the issuance of a well permit, or the physical availability of water. The following
numbered statements are general comments and observations:
1. Well Permit applications to change the use of Speakman Monitoring Wells Nos. 1 and 2 to commercial use
have not been filed with this agency.
2. Daybreak Realty LLC has filed an application for water storage rights in Lipper Pond and Fire Pond with
Division 5 Water Court in case no. 2009CW56, but no decree has been issued. The deadline for statements
of opposition to be filed was August 31, 2009.
3. The 2 acre-feet of replacement water to be supplied annually by the West Divide Water Conservancy District
(WDWCD), according to the lease provided and the supporting table, for depletions caused by all pumping of
the proposed commercial wells appears to include one complete filling of the 50,000 -gallon Fire Pond.
4. In subdivision reviews, DWR does not approve fire protection systems that include reservoirs or ponds that
are to be filled by wells because such systems generally are not managed to account for losses caused by
seepage, leakage, and/or evaporation.
The proposal indicates that Fire Pond is expected to be filled to the required 50,000-gailon volume annually by
runoff and to be maintained throughout the remainder of the guest season by releases from Upper Pond. (This plan
assumes approval by the Water Court of the storage rights application.) If surface runoff is in short supply, the applicant
proposes to fill and maintain Fire Pond with ground water from the commercial wells.
All uses of the commercial wells will cause stream depletions and are subject to the requirement for
replacement of those depletions. The proposal should include provisions for:
11) additional use of the commercial wells to fill and maintain Fire Pond if surface runoff storage is unavailable or
insufficient to operate the fire protection system (this must also be addressed in the well permits), and
[2} an increase in the amount of replacement water to be supplied by WDWCD so that all stream depletions are
replaced if pumping increases beyond the planned amounts.
1
Furthermore, an annual assessment should be conducted at the end of the spring runoff season regarding the
status of Fire Pond and Upper Pond and their readiness for fire protection. The report of this assessment should go to
Grand Valley Fire Protection District, stating whether additional ground water pumping wifi be needed to maintain Fire
Pond during the subsequent guest season and initiating arrangements to obtain additional replacement water from
WDWCO.
Should you have any questions about these comments, please write back or call me at (303)866-3S81.
G. Michael Bender
Division of Water Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, CO 80203
Phone; (303)866-3581
2
Garfield County 1
To Nathan Bell
From: John Niewoehner
Project Engineer
Date: September 15, 2009
RE: High Mesa RV Park - Engineering Review
EXHIBIT
Securities. The securities could be 3 separate Letters of Credit (LOC) or one LOC
that is released incrementally.
SECURITY
TYPE
AMOUNT [PURPOSE
Restoration of
$291,333
Note #4
Guarantees the restoration of land to
pre -development conditions
RV Park and
Appurtenances
Note #1
Access Road
$66,304
Note #5
Guarantees that Applicant will perform
chip -seal by March 2012; one-year after
the Park receives its permit.
Chip -seal
Note #2
Re -vegetation
$22.603
Note #6
Guarantee adequate re -vegetation w/o
weeds. Se
Note #3
Note #1 for Restoration: Release of restoration security will occuLafter the
County grants the permit denoting that the all required RV Park elements
have been const ed.
Note #2 for Chip -Seal: The Applicant wants to delay the chip -seal of the
Main Access Road until one-year after the target completion date.
Note #3 for Re -vegetation: The re -vegetation security is only for areas that
need to be re -vegetated after RV Park is built. (Typically cut and fill slopes.)
If the project is not competed, the County will use both the reclamation
security and the re -vegetation security to return the site to pre -development
conditions.
Note #4, Cost of Restoration. Engineer's cost estimate items:
#1 $23,872
#2 $20,885
#4 $115,452
#5 $24,800
#12
#13
#17
#18
#90
Re-veg
$8,562
$6,125
$149
$151
$26,400
$38,452 (see note #6)
$264,848 + 10% = $291,333
Note #5, Cost of Chip Seal Cost as provided by Applicant's engineer
Note #6: Cost of Re -vegetation
Main Access Road outside of surfacing:
Emerg Access Road outside of surfacing
Area under Emerg Access Rd surface
Area under detention basins
Area under fire pond
Area under fire pond
Area under RV park
1.93 acre [line#106; 9359 sy]
1.64 acre [line#107, 7954 sy]
2.02 acre [4400'x20]
0.44 acre [3 basins x 80'x80]
0.23 acre [100'x100']
1.38 acre [200'x300'}
16.0 acre
23.6 acre
Total Cost of re-veq = 23.6 acre x $2,5001acrea = $59,000
Amount of Re-veq Security Separate from Reclamation Security: Cost to
re-veg areas after RV is built and permit issued = $20,548 + 10% =
$22,603
Re-veg Cost Included in Reclamation Recalamtion Security = $59,000 -
$20,548 = $38,452 [excludes the 10% since it is added at end of
reclamation calc.)
++ Key Point: When the RV Park is complete. and the permit issued, $22,603 needs to
I be retained as the re-veg security.
Resolution Items
DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION
Company
NOTES
W.:IMPS 1
s 7
Item B-2
Federal, State and County
regulations
Bob
Permits will be applied for
'/7/2o! 7
Item B.S.A
Main Entrance Road
Fire District design variance
100%
70%
The main entrance road has been partially
constructed to comply with this section. The
portions left to construct include a steep grade
modification, signage and safety features on
required corners.
BC
Item 10-A
Maintenance Agreement -
RV Park
All aspects of the
Bob
Potable Water
EPC
Environmental Process Control will be
maintaining the WWTP and WTP Alan Leslie
Operator ID #3694
Waste Water Systems
EPC
Environmental Process Control will be
maintaining the WWTP and WTP Alan Leslie
Operator ID #3695
Item 11-A
Water Wells
Commercial Well Permits
Completed
Well Testing
Completed
SGM
Water Quality Study
Completed
5GM
Redoing test 8-2-17
Item 12.A.1
Entrance Roadway Design
Design Compliance
100%
The main entrance road design does not
BC
exceed 10% and includes saftey features on
curves.
Item 12.A.2
Entrance Roadway Design
Saftey and Drainage
100%
BC
The main entrance road design does not
Item 12,B
Road Easements
main access and emergency
The main entrance road design does not
BSS
exceed 10% and includes saftey features on
curves.
Item 12.0
Main Access Road
Chip sealing plan
100%
The 18 month time frame has expired, so this
Bob
will have to be completed prior to the LUC
permit being issued.
Item 12-B
Easements (Most of these
Electric Easement
These appear on the site plan/plat, there was
appear on the site plan
also a trench, conduit and vault agreement
survey)
and contract with Holy Cross included in the
original submittal
T
Upper Pond Easement and
Access Agreement
Waiting on the Upper Pond legal description
to finish this easement
Well Access and Utility
Easement and Agreement
Ready to be signed and recorded
Dedicated Drainage Easements
These will be on the easement plat that will be
recorded.
Fire Pond and Utility Easement
Agreement
Recorded at
867824
Right of Way Agreement -
Speakman to High Mesa,
Individual
Recorded at
867821
Water Tank Access and Utility
Easement and Agreement
Recorded at
867826
Access and Utility Easement
and Agreement
Recorded at
867822
Waste Water Treatment
Facility, Access and Utility
Easement and Agreement
Recorded at
867825
Storm Water Facility Access
and Maintenance Easement
Agreement
Recorded at
867823
Right of Way Agreement - High
Mesa to Public
Recorded at
867827
Emergency Access and Utility
Easement Agreement
Recorded at
867828
Right of Way Agreement - High
Mesa and Speakman to
Daybreak Realty for road
construction and maintenance
Recorded at
867829
Item 12-D
Have in place all required
plans, agreements and
securities including but
not limited to
Item 12-D-1
Reclamation plan
100%
0%
BC
The reclamation plan is complete and will be
part of the Storm Water Permit Plan.
Item 12-0-2
Dust Mitigation (to meet
Colorado Air Pollution Control
Commission Regulation 1)
50%
0%
BC
The plan is in design. An application will be
made to the State prior to commencement of
construction.
Item 12-D-3
Improvements Agreement
N/A
Bob
According to David Pesnichak this was for the
chip sealing which will have to be completed
before the LUC is issued
Item 12-0-4
Maintenance Agreement
Bob
Not sure what they want here, maybe an
agreement for maintenance during
construction?
Item 12-D-5
Securities for reclamation, re -
vegetation and chip seal
Bob
Must be in place before dirt is moved
Item 12 E
Required Plans and Permit!
Item 12-E-1
Road & Bridge for
oversized/overweight vehicles
and traffic control
Bob
Will be done within 30 days of construction
commencement
Item 12-E-2
Dust Mitigation
Environmental Health for dust
mitigation (control measures
as per APCC Regulation
1,IIl.D.b.(iv)) incorporated into
the plan and an Air Polution
construction permit (state)
50%
0%
BC
The plan is in design. An application will be
made to the State prior to commencement of
construction.
Item 12-E-3
Land Disturbances
Storm Water
Management Plan
(SWMP)
Planning Department Project
Engineer's requirement for
Off area to minimize
100%
0%
BC
Land disturbance areas are noted on the
Construction Plan set by Bell Consulting LLC
andel o deliReategl olLthe StoTm_Water __
The SWMP is complete and the application will
be made to the CDPHE prior to
commencement of construction.
Item 12-E-4
,LoJdQnine
State Department of Public
Health & Environment (CDPHE)
requirements
75%
0%
BC
Item 12-E-5
Updated Easements
North Storm Water Retention
Pond
Recorded at
867823
DUPLICATE
South Storm Water Retention
Pond
Recorded at
867823
DUPLICATE
Lower Fire Flow Pond
Recorded at
867824
DUPLICATE
Upper Fire Flow Pond
DUPLICATE
High Mesa Storm Water
Retention Pond on RV Park
Parcel if applicable and revised
site plan depicting all necessary
easements
This is shown on the site plan and will be on
the Plat
Item 12-F
GPS shapefile
prior to disturbance of land
this must be provided to the
satification of the Realty
Specialist of the Glenwood
Spring Field Office of the BLM
(determine land status of
ingress & egress to project
75%
BSS and
BC
This will be provided upon completion of all
construction plans and easement documents
Item 13
Fire Protection and Well
design
Item 13-A
Proper recorded
easements (appears to be
duplicate requests of
Items 12-B and 12-E-5)
Upper Pond
see
easement
above
Appears to be duplicate requests of Items 12-B
and 12-E-5
_
Design of the ditch or pipe
conveyance to Lower Fire Flow
Pond
100%
0%
BC
The conveyance channel is included in the
2017 construction plans
Maintenance Road for the
Upper Pond
surveyed
B55
Easement provided,
Amended Site Plan
80%
BC
All easements will be added to the overall site
plan
Item 13-B
Well System Details
Design Specifications
SGM
Easement and Maintenance
Road requirements (appears to
be a duplicate request)
Duplicate request, Easement is prepared and
ready to be signed and recorded
item 13-C
Potable Water System
If potable water is to be used
to fill fire retention pond(s), a
statement from SGM revising
the volume of water to be
processed through the system
to ensure adequately sized
5G M
Wells will not be used to fill any of the ponds
Iters 14
Grand Valley Fire
Protection Distrct
Letter accepting design and
proper installation of:
Item 14-A
Fire Flow Pond including water
delivery system(s)
100%
0%
Design is complete. Construction is not
complete
Easements and Maintenance
Roads from ail Impoundments
and wells required for its
operation
100%
25%
BC and
BSS
Design is complete. Construction is not
complete
Item 14-B
Emergency Access Road and
knock off gate and it's surface
Fire Safety and response plan
Annual inspection dates) of
the fire flow pond
100%
25%
BC and
Bob
Bob
SGM
Design is complete. Construction is not
complete, Speakrnans is adding a chain and
his lock and Fire Chief Ferguson will inform us
when they have their lock added. This meets
Fire Dept. requirements for knock off gate per
letter from Chief Ferguson dated 7/17/17
This was submitted as part of the Park
operations and appears in the Appendices l.vi
Item 14-C
Item 15
Verification of Permits,
Licenses, Decrees and
Inspections
Item 15-A
2 Commercial Wells
Completed
Item 15-B
Wastewater Treatment Plant
SGM
SGM
Item 15-C
Water Treatment Plant
I
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS MUST BE BUILT BEFORE THE LUC PERMIT 1S ISSUED
Item 16
Land Use Change
Components required
Item 16-A
Roadways for access,
emergency access and
maintenance
10D%
70%
BC
The main entrance road has been partially
constructed in compliance with plans and
specifications. The portions left to construct
include a steep grade modification, signage
and safety features on required corners.
Item 16-6
Water, Irrigation and Fire Flow
systems
100%
0%
Item 16-C
Restroom and Shower facility
Bob
Item 16-D
RV dump station and
Wastewater system
80%
0%
BC and
SGM
The easements for these will appear on the RV
Park Plat
item 16-E
Recorded easements
90%
Still waiting on some legal descriptions to
complete the remaining easements
Item 16-F
Facilities to meet ADA
requirements
100%
0%
The park design complies where necessary.
Main building by others.
Item 16-G
Operational plans and
agreements
Bob
Item 16-H
Securities , permits, licenses,
notifications and tests
including water decree for two
(2) storage ponds
Water
Decree
Filed, Dated
2/28/2017
Water decree has been filed under case
number 2017CW3046 with the Garfield
County Courts