HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Extension Request 08.17.2018High Mesa RV Park — Extension Request - Exhibits
Applicant is High Mesa Partners, LLC, James and Monique
Speakman and Daybreak Realty, Inc.
October 15, 2018
rExhibit
Number
Exhibit Description
1
Extension Request Letter from Jerry Rusch, Dated August 17, 2018
2
Resolution 2017-42 — Resolution of Approval for Extension, Dated
September 18, 2017
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 Information with Conditions of Approval
8
Garfield County Land Use and Development Code
9
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
10
Staff Memo
11
12
13
T»'-' �o�e 9 o °TycoJt ci v.ch5 \— it
0 Avg:opt`5
BOCC October 15, 2018
PW
PROJECT INFORMATION
REQUEST Extension — High Mesa RV Park
EXHIBIT
O
g
1
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 six 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 2017 and was granted an extension by
Resolution 2017-42. The current extension will expire on December 31, 2018. The
Applicant has requested a seventh extension to December 31, 2019.
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).
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 is 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
1
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.
Pursuant to Section 4-101.1.(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
"Unfortunately, due to unforeseen financial difficulties, satisfying all the conditions of
approval will not be possible by the current deadline of 12/31/18 and therefore request one
final extension until 12/31/19."
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.
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
2
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.
III. BOARD OPTIONS
Considering the excerpt from the LUDC, Section 4-101.1., above, the Board has two
general options.
Option 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. The extension has been
requested through December 31, 2019.
If the Board wishes to approve the extension, Staff suggests the following findings.
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 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.
Option 2:
Deny the requested extension. This option would mean that the approval issued under
Resolution 2009-72 would expire on December 31, 2018 unless the RV park facility is
constructed to the standards outlined in the approval and ready to open to the public
by that date. As construction has not yet begun as of the writing of this memo, 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 December 31, 2018 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
3
would be signed by the BOCC and property owners, if the application is
approved by the BOCC. This application would need to be submitted and
deemed complete by December 31, 2018. As the request is a Major Impact
Review in this zone district, the amendment would require noticed public
hearings with both the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners.
If the Board wishes to deny the extension, Staff suggests the following findings
1 Proper public notice was provided as required for the public meeting before
the Board.
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.
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.
The additional extension has been determined to NOT be in the best interest
of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the
citizens of Garfield County.
4
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
STEEL STRUCTURES, INC.
353 EAST VISTA DR SILT, CO 81652 / PHONE 970-876-5878 FAX 970-876-5877 / rmss!dsopris.nct
Dave Pesnichak
Garfield County Building Dept.
RE: High Mesa RV Park
Resolution No. 2009-72
8/17/18
Dave,
We appreciate all you and your staff have done to help in reaching this point with our High Mesa RV Park project in
Battlement Mesa.
Unfortunately, due to unforeseen financial difficulties, satisfying all the conditions of approval will not be possible
by the current deadline of 12/31/18 and therefore request one final extension until 12/31/19 .
This gives us time to construct the park as outlined and satisfy all the conditions of approval.
If we can get on the 10/15/18 docket that would be best for all of us.
Your and the Boards help in thisr will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
r
erry Rusch
Representative for the High Mesa RV Park
1I11POrdKITAT.M 11111
Reception#: 897452
09/20/2017 10:38:20 AM Jean Alberico
1 of 3 Rea Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
County of Garfield
3
EXHIBIT
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 Tuesday, September 5th, 2017, there were present:
John Martin
Mike Samson
Tom Jankovsky
Tari Williams
Kelly Cave
Jean Alberico
Kevin Batchelder
, Commissioner Chairman
, Commissioner
, Commissioner
, County Attorney
, Assistant County Attorney
, Clerk of the Board (absent)
, County Manager
when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit:
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION FOR
THE LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT FOR THE HIGH MESA RV PARK TO
COMPLETE REQUIRED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO DECEMBER 31, 2018
Parcel ID: 2407-193-00-189 (RV Park Site)
2407-193-00-162 (Daybreak Realty, LLC)
2407-244-00-124 (James 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 Permit
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 Development (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.
1
3
•J EIFJU T111 11111
Reeept.ionq: 897452
08f20/2017 10.38 20 AN Joan R1ber:co
2 of 3 Roc Fea:$0.00 Doc Fee.0.00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO
D. On May 16, 2011, the Board approved a second 1 -year extension to
September 21, 2012 as approved in Resolution 2011-30.
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 21, 2015, the Board approved a fourth extension of 2 year to
September 21, 2017 to meet the required conditions of approval as approved in Resolution
2015-55.
G. Consistent with Section 4-101(I)(1) and (3) of the Land Use and
Development Code, as amended, the Applicant submitted a request on July 31, 2017 for a
fourth extension to meet the required conditions of approval.
H. On September 5, 2017, the Board considered a request from the Applicant
for a fifth extension to meet conditions of approval for the High Mesa RV Park to
December 31, 2018 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 5, 2017 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(I)(1) and (3) of the Land Use and
Development Code, as amended.
4. The additional 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.
XIII i r,JIIIitir' 111.11J,11A1 10N11/171'.'hI4ll II III
Recept1onq; 897452
09/20/2017 10.38:20 RM Joan Alberlca
3 of 3 Rea Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee10,00 GARFIELD 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. An 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 December 31, 2018.
Dated this 18 6 day of , 2017.
ATTEST:
i -1k of the Board
GARFIELD
BOARD
COMMISSIONERS,
G� D COUNTY,
COUNTY
OF
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the
following vote:
John Martin
Aye
Mike Samson , Aye
Tom Jankovsky , Aye
3
liii hAKVAPILIKIKONll 'OMINEll ilifil lull
Recept i ants : 776298
10113/7009 14 AR OB W'1 Jedm Albur+an
1 of AG Rac Fate is 00 Oac can 0 00 Onumin rouriry Co
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
County of Garfield
a
3
EXHIBIT
3
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
Trrsi Houpt . Commissioner
Deborah Ouinn , Asst. County Attorney
Jean Alberico . Clerk of the Board
Ed Green{absent1 . , 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 1Ds: 2407-193-00-189 (RV Park Site)
2407-193-00-162 (Daybreak Really, LLC Property)
2407-244-00-124 (James and Monique Speakman Properly)
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;
B. 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 B;
C. The subject property is located 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
1III hY 111,1 Ml ',VA*itIIitkilIa UI III
Raceptionll: 776296
10/13/2009 10-44.09 OM Jean FIbarlco
2 of 46 Roc ss. $0 CO Doo Fea'01.00 0ARFIELU country 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;
E. The Garfield County Planning Commission closed the public hearing on
the May 13t, 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 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;
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
1111 hIilIIi pM,1141IMI' I''IrI JI ITU Dili tit r1 il11Q4&1 .1111
Receptiontl: 776298
ID)1'12009 i0,44 OR AM Jean Alberica
3 of 46 Rao Fee SO 00 Doe Fee:0.00 GARFIELD 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:
1. 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 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 MPH 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
■III WIC FR'lhi i.WII
Reecpt.!onH; 776288
,alit:102OO9 50 44 GO c i .e+^ a«•' irn
Lf 46 err Fee SO D"' 61-1r fne 0 GORF 0 COUNTY CO
B. 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
60 and level described in the application, that being a 119 -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
■Illiiiri.41571lVAftiOM N1.1dit11k140011Mak11111i.
Rucaptionq: 776298
10/13+2004 10 4b 00 Rn „Iwo Rlborioa
5 of 4fa Poo Fe* 30 d0 000 Foe 0 00 00RFIL'(D COUNTY CO 0G.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 I-70 through Battlement Mesa.
The application has the potential to add the traffic impact at the
entrance of CR300 to Colorado State Highway 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.
011 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
NM VIPlfi1'1114 �F�'�I �� L��'�ILIII" 1111
Reception• 775298
1o/1312009 10:a4 DO RM Jean Rlberico
6 of 46 Rec Fe0 50 90 Doc Fee 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
(B)
2. Design additional safety and drainage enhancements as per
Garfield County Project Engineer on curves (guardrail, culverts);
The Applicant shall provide adequate recorded easements 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:
] 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,
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. Prior to chip -
sealing the main access road, the Owner shall apply mag -
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. Reclamation
2. Dust mitigation (to meet Colorado Air Pollution Control
Commission Regulation 1)
3. Improvements Agreement
4. Maintenance Agreement
5. Securities for reclamation, re -vegetation, and chip -seal
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);
6
■Ill .UN%'11111
Receptianll: 77G29B
oi346 Ree rrab SO OO age,44 00 AM r
an Alberico
7 T re. a co Gala CO' 1:i TY 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.
Regarding the fire protection system, 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.I 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
■III DIA M l i[� iI i7K■�' Iwrf.I,411U hIN.11111Klifii 1111
Recepttianb: 776208
10/13/2009 tO 44 OR AM Jean Alberico
8 ni i6 Hec Fee $0 00 Doc Fee 0.00 GARFIELD 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 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)
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:
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
■iii P110.11Pi NAIRN 11111
Reeeptionll: 77629e
10/13/2009 10 44 09 RM Jean Alberico
9 of 46 Rec.. Fee $0 00 Doc Fee 0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
Dated this 194117 day of & A.D. 2009.
ATTEST:
GARFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF
COM ONERS,
GAR . II:LD COUNTY,
COL RAD
erk of the Board
Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing tit R - -u opted by
the following vote:
John Martin
Mike Samson
Trrsi Haupt
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
County of Garfield )
, Aye
Aye
, Aye
1, 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
11116r 611111Iiii1�ifi64�tlf,01114 14111W44101Vaillilui 11111
RecSptionN: 7711228
:1:13:2019 10 44 178 AM Jean Alber Lco
I0 of 46 Rim Foe 40 00 Doc r...0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
High Me
Constructi
Located on parcels of land i
Range 96 West and Section
West, County of GE
lAly OUP
.4th A Laing Propertift
4,404'
sa RV Park
1111f i11141Y111411114.1104.11i IiIERI.C11111411.101it111
Recept Lontl; 776298
10'11,12000 10.44 00 RM Jean Rlberioo
It or 46 Ane Fav SO DO Doc Fee 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
on Drawings
as Section 24, Township 7 South
19 Township 7 South Range 95
rlielrl, State of Colorado
OWNER
Bob Graham
High Mat Partneri, Ilk:
WO Pan amintRoad
Reno, NV 90641
ENGINEER
Bell Oonaulling, LLC.
P.O. Borg
BlOe, GOB 1630
970-046-9319
SURVEYOR
Michael Lnghorne, P.l. S
Buo4elilrSurrey ServioaL 'we.
196 6 0,4 St
Rifle, 00 916511
970-645'9779
Index to Sheets
Sheet Derr.
L Covin
4 Existing Condition
9. Internal Reed Plan
i. Acaxe Road Plan
5. Emergency Access Road Plan
O Internal Road Profile.
7. Ache Road Profile
0 Aroma Road Sections
9 Emergency Road Profile
10. Water and Sewer Plan
11. Sewer Profile
14 Water Profile.
is Grading and Drainage
Derail., Road and Drainage
15. Details, Utilities
16. Details, Drainage BMP'a
i 7. landscape Plan
In Storm Water Conceptual Map
rsr-
( Nt.•....,•• a..awtien ••r'a•--..w-.n r••.•+l h aJl r...a.y erC
at u..`.r4IIl.vwa,S.w.n.iI ftbq
r ra..wvne/..y.,Waq ewal W wWl ..ot. w•xa.r.IC
.
.:...n •r. �• m•••••• ,fa.r..nrr . rµ -am. •.l.tW Vireo
n •••• ..a.� «,Yr r.,...,..�
Aft._.• .,.t..r
••,,.rrww+. ail .wea..&..>.,pm.v-.n Nwrri
M neMra.:i�ax14 .eOrvrr 44 .4 -. pat 1>AeWrtw AiF
.r....al...,rrwwrir,ar .r. wsr .a ..r.. .sty
. err.-.uw,...y-arrrrw,�,..r ewr.aw.r~�,wl .•.r.wr.vrrr
.r..+l�•3..W.4M ..... warx.,a.a. rrsa
• iw N....•.ne- .. w.r..r.1 w.»war rM..s.. 11 ...•....n
a.•...«� n...i.•.ru.y.r naawn.�..c..r�w
..t»a.a � 111=1 ••
,..w... rr.r.*r•r....w.w..
Ww-r•a-,a. l.aetrw •40,i WM. 1140+4 .0..11KA+•411..e
a an ...en.nw..fl. nra.ti A7..May.w.Ke- t.+,3n'.rrl,n+w .rr •wrr
rr.rw .r s,r.w rw-wr.r..yrnryW.v w.. rGlw..•
♦ •;rer.ws.e3+..a-+..m..t.o;r.av ra.r e..y a•.r.r....-r.... w.t S.
,W.J..r....q.. Weare.tlrn.rex,.w!-.rt 11.71.-v..,
wt Rw W. •.M..x w �L.. slr,t.»e.,e..ra.Ir. e.3., i.r..L,.... rw...y..�e.. of ✓•.
l.,y ...at »rtri•u [•+rt.'. 4,.._4 ... p...r.nPe. .wr Minn I. I.
W.Y..alr .r4 1. ♦N a.r�k �••••rY ..y••,.4
rn.n.I»rtl.r .l a. -[.Mona r..�yrar w...�.J,n
. 1.4 kr V.Mr.•r..MA JYe.a I. v.wr-nr,..rt n-1
',LOW.. Oa, -.•e v .101.1,1•••,•1••••1.4. n,w n..ae.
n. an r.earwa.ee.uM...l•r wrwale Ww.Y.wwrbrx.wr
v..�.-T.r.n,..
It a wlndomaw .alrv
wrap x11 rnpbaw
! y✓ WY41.1011.. wt• rawr50...[y.v rr•r. dew.
1e.
T. g.„aµ•,..1 .rrsM w-rrw•wr•v.+yeaarrv..ta..-
.Ur
a1
.. ar••r•a.»a...ar.+m.Mw4.a �d!•Aq•W pr,avr ,rrW,. re a.:n..rl
r 01
r.4., .r
JO W.
n. .4ea.nrve;,..M,1r+n r{.. n -i.+. �a..wia,Awwa y,dnm
w'w• w•w- -• use re.I.. Xf,n.. nofl.1•a..e
U
i,. !tlP1
PCr1,M•11..1,1•1•11..1,1•1•11..1,1•1p,t5 & rlr rye WtM lEa
ie Tin
.. rm.Gwvr. •rN•.,fr•
..
•....-Oova... ark..
w..,..rDM.rwMN
▪ yel...a
rram. Pour
Ir11. 1••
••••1•1l,r-..a 114.1a rVl...1
rJT,wr1 rm6ra.alb
./ V. w.. -..►r.-. re..rr.. L.a-aaaM
. r•µ n.a...aa'.4 ok.rr-e.�y.n eo..,.e gCYmv,ewd v,.m,k,da.,w.
117 fo mania
zes--..nr
•utwroAvrric r -c
,,,„
,..,.s._.., ..„,
IsWea gi n'at — '
dna .0.
1- - -7.7-1:,-7.v•--- .....c---4:1,..:7-1- • — - --..=•A-. .
. •
) ‘‘ ., fix.rlawa pane,
1 -- •••• O. • ;
y . ; - • •• ‘.. • ;• .....-- j•• : • _..-
.
-.7 - " .1 ''.. .---.' .• ) .••
••• , r.' WVCC5.iis Acr • --, ..-• ...... ...--
f-- ' - i,grio.o.t - . . ,... /
..0 I .
. • • i . $ (
1 '.... , ) / i
....... . . / - .•••• •P r'''''
r/
) \', C's-
,. ...... • ••- I
.•
I •,.. : %. /
.. • ..• .N. I 1 / '
.-: '. *.. e •
_.• ...i ,
..• • r
I r r.•.,
,s• ; .... . • /'
i . .- : i . • ...•
,
i4 , . ..... ..
::' . .••
..., ' r . .-- — ... ,.' . .- :
,i1L.• --
l'. :.....--•
. .1 i (.._.%-,.. .
/
•
,90T9L AlJ717,6E088 S
.916M-wara 11,4
thso.sts
..... .- •-,...., .
........_,.., . I '. .. .... --..
.
..1",.,. . / - .- ,....-
,.., ----. ...
. ------..• • / - I . I
• ,..• , i ... \
: • ''.., \
. , . r. • : . •-. . .." . . i - ) %
p
• :-• ....'i ' - . ...
! 1
• • . •..
I
%•••„ / • S ..... ......
1
•
) N ....
r'-- .-. f i : \--` \-
. I
-
k . ,
1 t \ . , : ........
,-- •
..,-24- /-----' ,I \
''--,
I (.1., ‘' : 4.: ....' 7'
.• ... jr., : •., ••.: i : ,. .. -• , aun Iflopunta
/ ; . : • ---%-e."' -.. • ' ----r-c --z-'"-••- L. ---- ' . 'P-.---=1-1gl".......--;,...„,,-- ......... TtUd•,..........
-.416.• -• .. •,... •e•-•:.7.1..; ..-•-..-1•11‘.7:.' ..
•••
4 I e . , 14' Ifir I . 0.‘ OR . _.•-••
r .._. ....•" .
r'' ''. i r...',Z6-Z9k...1 •-•:..:'-' L.. ....... •::•
aro St
74:
o
o
p • ..•-•
efithp-foiq 9alibbna 4untuds
. .. .„ ,...„ ry. ..... , ..,,' .
..„-;.-_-:,----- 4.-1 •-• ..... . •-•-•: ....
-'-•• '''..:;;;':.'7-::•415.
\
- .. ..-• --. .....
_ -, • .
1 ' ..• /
? , f/f
• .: (-/- ..-.". '''........ "••••
ode, turoovo.ifipti uouuogo
emu sadois
7.00 OZ
-
airjus7
bmiorgrg
eirm.
g•iiRELligg•Ihrignami gra goorg.... 144-21
eg.ggie gi• ig•C. 1.11. kg
.4.. Bob Graham
BELL CONSULTING, UC High Mesa Partners, LLC
P.O. Bog 400 PerunrIntRoad
Cebgdg 61650
Va.: P0,625 gill ligz,70,62S.gi Reno, W130521
TY.
Existing Conditions
High Masa RV Park
ri.
...•••••=••••••••41.1.•••1.•••••
ill rwiMUIR Ith rnwirommi 11111
Receptiomli: 775298
Itplo21309 10.44 ea an Jean Albariao
13 at 46 Rao Fre • $.0 00 Our roe .0 08 6R4C1.Z.,13 COUNTY CO
lIII 1ri«4+t'.61011.{I'1Vi IkI ri I 'GANK II PH
Reeccpptlort11: 776298
1011372009 IO:44.D9 AM Jean Rlberico
14 et C$ ieq Fee•$0.00 Doc Fee 0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
r
J '
��a[iIi!Ii1LHh1tjf'llilif1s Jtfl i}¢iff
1
.11h f tf'�f/l �t`L} �gar�
>.rk*rrct+fc, w.atir�www�—�utnwa
v
IL
• Bob Graham
BELL CONSULTING, LLC High Mesa Partners, LLC
I. o m. 9 400 Pwnamint Road
W!, C1 p.,91650
value 9.9/6., 93fl n :90+615.91.5 Reno. NV 89521
INTERNAL
ROAD PLAN
'U.. Ls. w • H:gh Mesa RV Park
1E1 OA i' iINTIK/0%11E4 11111
Re4optioon: 77pgg5
I209 5044 UR RM Jean Alberion
IN mi 46 Roc Foe SO 00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
/Pi
O.?
.ert,
,/.0/
or • •
• /
•
ft
•
43.
15:er
, .•
_
Org. . • • . • •
ow- pin
•
- •
Ai. • • :
i454.
• V'Z'""
• • '
;-•
•
LL 0.44
WM"' • 45
MMUMTALGRAPIAGSMFMFM
o mu
••41.1•••
oPpmem
pp. ppm -A
.rs a NOS.., MIPP.M..ak Camra•
I
I
1
L3- r
1 ijyi,€111111 ,•ii41.. tj f' g
Ili 1111;1
t
Piffiffirq
-� IF/
j°- Bob Graham ACCESS
BELL CONSULTING. LLC High Mesa Partners, LLC
P o e.. a 400 PmamIrt Rued
,� ca.maiam ROAD PLAN
{”0.• q13 vnvsxszs 15 Reyna, NV 8111521
ROI Mesa RV Parts Ias :.��....�..... �.-.�.ti
rttl �♦YINii � Iw �LkL.i'1 II LLI
Reception#: 776298
�7aels 46 Rum Fee•SB 00 DocaFee:0e00cGARFIELD COUNT. CO
■III 11% :plum mil 10,11ritilelifilin1L111iii 11111
R��epllantl: 776298
IOIId/2049 10:44 OU AM Jean Alberioo
FR of A6 Roc Fee SO 00 Doc Fee -0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
=7,-----(7.1 MIA; 4,1#
v
Qu
Bob Graham
DELL CONSULTING, LLC j High Mesa Partners, LLC EMERGENCY
�° 0....1400PanamlRRmad ROAD PLAN
M.. Cdw�do 91690
Ydee. 9]0/0)593:9 Fm"1/.1 93 is i Rcno. NV 60521
INT..
H1oh Mea RV Paris
VrwN
�
T 1..p9
M 4
�pr'"e���
�
Qu
Bob Graham
DELL CONSULTING, LLC j High Mesa Partners, LLC EMERGENCY
�° 0....1400PanamlRRmad ROAD PLAN
M.. Cdw�do 91690
Ydee. 9]0/0)593:9 Fm"1/.1 93 is i Rcno. NV 60521
INT..
H1oh Mea RV Paris
1111 1 11+VAN11 e14/,lh',111110 nil:1 1Ir11.K1'111111
Rawpi3Dn0. 776298
,0!13/209 .6 41'00 AN aen A Amrlcv
7O O1 AN Oat F. $6 P8 floc 00 0 DO 6ARFIELQ COUNTY CO
\_ r
1�R
00
2 00 6.00
4+00
5100
6,00
7400
Main Loop Drive Profile (Sta
6,05
0 00
Main Loop Drive Profile •
(Sta.14+00 _ End)
..6 1.
44
,..,.. r_7
Road A Profile
10.006.52.12
Venromemr yr,
Sewer Access
Road Profile
11,t...m..0 ao
7+_5w,• 1.•57
20+00
dishing:.g=' "T
• n I�AYNhyyA
JIM !'iI{Yl19
Amp
MEM
mmigitiotmi
eapi111l<lIi1[1l�i lt'Iff` "11 ilfnIUrnIft111IEiiIE
I
�'�� 'i BI1i1111�
1111111 iiw1111.'iilil11 i'�,�1111j
11 111 11I11Iliiu1 lI
1 11l11IAAU 11®III1IIlili
IAIIlIII11111111111I MBA
1111AII1lllll if IT; MI151111llll111 11i11I =3'
=`�1
I I1 1AIIil11II II
-1•:11111[1!1
•
No.
l
1
11
E 141
#g•-!!!:
~ViH
i a t
kw�lY lox .1.1.11. eu • ••••••:•.C.••••••
ia' cr�5.[F r EINf RN.1 aY 2�sr�
w =.a
w In
a :{
BELL CONSULTING, LLC
PO enI
are: DC/535-9313 Fu 970,525 ',MS
3MA7f
Ili�1311111
if ma1II nigilismop
701[11[1 Il1Illi[1
111111170 }'I I1111I111
11 [1111111111111t11111111111
111111111111111116
IAII
111 11IIL a 12h 1ril
Al`I1A1111rt
.11rH�'p ,!
8;
I�
SI 1111
lilll ,'iui �5l n111.•
1111 1119 1111[111
T 111 III
Y RIf':,Rf1I 1 Ii
Illlf 1 »1' Hum
RIM-' 0MEMO INIE
MEE 111[1 11IMILIDI11
[1111[1[1[1 IIIIIU jiI1 11M 1111111
0111111111E11111 �I1I11I➢IIIA
I 11
4
a^' Bob Graham
High Mesa Partners, LLC
IOD Panamint Road
Rena NVI110521
•
Fah
•
ROAD PROFILES
saF—, Koh Mesa RV Park
■ill Wili11 illitl l kinlitCh+ 414%,1111.111 1111
Receptiontt: 77629E
10/13/2009 10:54.09 RM dean Albertoo
21 of a6 Rec Fee:$0 00 Dec Fee:0 00 GFRFIELD COUNT. CO
35 00
36 00
J/ OO
]1 66
».00
♦0 00
100
Access Road Profile (Sta. 0+00 - 46+
0e0.631c1' • 00
17C
Nul
x
8II6&
lip
tit!
lii•Wilafii11111�1i1 11111 11
RI 111111311 IM iT W
1111I1111I111II1flIIff.1Ml1lllilf'1
11/11111 11131111 11118
N111! 11111111131 1E111
NM 1111111111€r'tIll
111
IM°1118111111111311 !I 1111
11111111111111111 RR
INFIRM fi 111101
11�
1111101111� �I
11111 11111 1111111 ' :, t11
11111131131111111111 1 111110
11111 1 111 11111111: _ 1
11111111 11111111111111 i 1
11 1111111101111111111 1,1111
1111111
'1
Ii1IIINIDEMMUf 111 1 ,I
Mid
fl Ito •-•�14
Rll1'1'gr' 111
11�=� i i •�'
MO 14 11111
31111111011111 1
MI' 1..1 1112
10111
111111€: IP
1M11 .40 ' I�1p1�I�1i1R1111�
`Kir 'I411
11111 1111111111111111111
111111111
1 IIPMIRIgi 10111
Ill't1ILT 1L411111110
11f1ri1j111Z 1101
III 1I:11I1111, .
111411? 1I111IW'1II11111
11 J11011IM4111 O
liti€iilp Ilii llm 1111
1111111 11141111111111
1111111111111413111 1
11111111117.11 1111>IlI1I1
111 HER 16'1E41
11111111111111111
11 110! i M1
111111111: ,;�®
111i111111in f.
ille l l 1111 11111 i 1111't;
€111 1 LI1I I lk,llif j[ >•
1111111 #T :11111111._
ed
I
,a iIi1 ' 1
1! 11HUIi14"1;.
fel 1�1r
•.apoe. coop a,• yea a�s�
4
4r�moZimma••• rw,w Cww.•
•*m
S
111111i411ii��
lillllll1111110flI11fi11I1`r.
11111111 111 1111 0111111C1111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111
MEM fl l LEVI 111111
11111111111 14`111111 1111111111MR1
MIMI111111 fia'111t111E111.1111111111111
lllEiilll111111111111111111111 111111I 1111111
111111111111 111111€11111110 1110110171111111
111111111111 0 1 311111111 E 1111,111110111111I11
1111111 111I1111I1I1111!111.11 l 11111:1111111111j11111
1111 1111111 11111111 f 11111111131
11111110RIA 11111111
01111111M11. 1
1111111 II 111 1111111
0111111I11Ii111111111111Il
111111111€1111®11!11111
11111 111101311111101111111111111
111111 11€11111L1ittllll111111f11
01111111111111111111111I1l111. "
1111111111111111111'4-, 1110111
011113111111 11111111111111011i 1111111111
11111M1111111111111 1111 1119111111111111000
1 MMI11 111111111111011111H1.
null" 111114 1,114.1
:111
11111Pi !i111MI
M131 11111101111 I F_
11111111MIEM
llhl IMli1ft1111H1113i11113L'1 V-MI.
1111111111101111113111;_
1111111 ,I i! 1111111' �
u111111111 1 I I111I111111[11
•
L if ! G i a
1111111.1fIGti.141.111,1111,1051A1.4 a!1111.111III
,41,T10..5'—'1.& 77629a
23 �' OB ✓;Y rm F nlbv-ica
23 o� as l sae 50 QQ Oa �v. 0 00 ,000!8 :s.,[• •„L+.'v CO
Bab GraFam
BELL CONSULTING, LLC High Mesa Partners, LLC
r,o_so.e 400 Panamint Road
We. Cola NI 6.50
Volt TAMS flu :17//615.9315 ! Rana, NV 60671
ACCESS
ROAD PROFILE
,. 1 .. Hirh Mesa RV Park
ra.
1111 fri rgilf'iNirfiLtiliI :h l llfll NI' 11111
Raceptioni7: 776298
10/13/2009 10:44.00 RR Jean R16arico
24 of 46 Ree Fee:S0.00 Dec Fee:0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
II 3
S i ;
3 FT
a i t
x
1 .
yY
o
i .
00010r Oa Ot 00
OC 00 00 00 00 0 0t00100000—
I
;. , : I I
J
OC 0! (0 La 0.00•
1 S I
00 0. 0r 00 00 0 01-00!(01-00-
8
8
x
I I I
i
i 3 i
11,
11 1 I
i S i
e
tlj
c y'
e Z a ; ; 2
$
a
a
a
a
s
li .1 a i
Sees
3 i T! gill
a
a
a
a i.
3 's
a
a
s
s
a` E a i
Access Road Sed ons
I__VAw
Vwbl9SY•b
2
i I I i 11 1
61
a
a
a
0
a
is
a
6
,I i 11 It I
a
I'
I S
i 3
f
I I IIII I II I i
s
i a 1
1 1 I ii I I I
1
I ! I # i
I
6 �
8' KI
a f
! is I
x
11
t:i � €S 1
Si I I i II I i
a
a
a
a
['^ Bob Graham—ACCESS ROAD
BELL coNsu_NG, ac High Mese Partners, LLC
..c �`,n480 Panamint Rcw
I
v.:�.roSECTIONS
a:a..F�wv
Mg rm at�i ra: v,u no, FI
Rem BB621 I
I____________•nHigh Mesa RV Peek •,•••••••.•••,y+,•.~•i•
«.., .r.0 1,+,.0
�. wA 0
+0 `elS) alrud Pte}! ssoow Aaua61aw3
00 u
031•,1,
0015
00.111
00.1r rnrsc
0010 0a.,
00+11
00.15
00+4
BOW
00x01
00..
x1hnO 0"13(!009 00 0 raj 000 00 GS 9.3 WO 9s ie OL
001, �eg1V ueeC 140 00 1,1 OP 60OU av y —
98Z9LL
III II TllKI'1 M•DIANI.11III fIaIM;ti IVI.PiAtr flip
IllllllJllllml hilt : pn71
1�1111I11®111E��11i� llllllll
1 [ LI l 11;11 AMINO
11111EM1 ii `1"1111
itf®f1if�IU
MAIM
!NEW MEELS
t
8
I111i1IIIlE i1nlll€litlfll '
'11111111 I;* a'lC11111 O MIR
limn!
M1111I11111at 1l1111f11WIUIlli
liilll<Iglj1lil' 111111 1111111
[14110n won 1111
111111 UIIDS I11.I11fllll� 011
11111 111111i1:11[:liac0 IL-1
111 II =;isr,,6II1am;;
II11Ii I a11i1>I#a
1111iH1J11GLIN ff1I 1111111
Ili11lf11IBN41I'sl11111111
II( 1111%11111
1l1fI11itIJUh 73i1Pturiul
1131E1111111111 1 1I(IIIl11111„ "
111101111111110 1E1 QEn"U I'F3fil1-°
IIIIJIII 11110111111111111
Mini 11 Il
1BGElIl1I MIK s= f°
tlllll 71,1'.,
fC
z..
%MO
1d rftJ
NI[I
IIIII1111ffillIII
IIuuu1u.111;.
1111111 I ,.1
llllllfll11111°;[
BOW
11 I1111ll1111111111111MI R
l.��'';P
l vILIIU I . - ..
ll�llflifil
111111111 10F:11111.:...
1 ii 11111111111i11'Ef IiLll'fl
181111111111; .1. ttliiIITZ.r
®llllfllll101,1J'
:
WP—
.r63 ..e.. w�1.- 1
w
..-.�w....�
Yw� a 1•••••••.•....63•3•••••
BELL CONSULTING, LLC
vo 9e.
RA, Cum.&11
v0a:910/625-9313 Fa 981/535-9313
N. v... w ,r oral..
`11:1Inrl[miullF t is
�110lllll`llllllllllll11111111➢
"" 11111111111111 lllllllllllll
1I II1f1116111111JI f1®1I
111111 I [l III1III Illill1
111111111 1>F11111 fill l
1111111#11,1111! 11Illil1
11111110
11
MEMO
HAI
1f1111Ill11ft1■11911i119
i.1 11R111 ..
fil Illlllii11l11
11011111l
IU1111IP
111111111111 lIll ill 11'
11( 111111[ l 1.11
1111J111i1 lillillrllllli 1
1111M311110111
5111,111111111111111,;
II i:1=1111111111131g
III°nililll
43
Bab Graham
High Mesa Partners, LLC EMERGENCY ACCESS
400 Panenn9d Roaa ROAD PROFILE
Bene, 74V 435.52.1
Hi(rh Mesa RV Park
03 ,1Nnop ol3[3ad9 oo'O He. ood oo r[ •.P3 *.0E 99 Jo 0Z
oa vagio uear w az ^r:oL 6JiZiitlal
B6ZyLL :auorldeasb
III I 1111111115101
ittilillifilifillificill witting
,Filillf wr,„101 11 .1
lit ! l{gill1
Bob Graham
BELL CO\SULnNC, ac High Mesa Partners, LLC
'C ;' 400 PanenInt Road
nom, 14: e,c�
97{1/62314:1•-•
roia; sne b-s�c,uss3ia Rene, NV 89521
1(4.47..
WATER & SEWER
PLAN
1111linit11911,01111A!II411X,I411Iri1 tCZ I'k11INId 11111
RacepEsonil: 770298
I0+13+2O0 tO 44 ON Or Jaan Alb.iov
]0 of 40 P., f a• 00 OO DO F 04\7 GARFTrLD COUNTY CO
A -Line
Sewer Main Profile A-1
H pv.aiseY• rKV
WNW Yda' Y -!V
C -line
Sewer Main Profile A-5 to C-2
I plXail Oa 1'KO
vMka€ r_ar
B-line
Sewer Main Profile A-:
X.1.1.160. T KV
Yecy_, 1•-m
D -line
Sewer Main Profile A-4 to D-1
11.....16.1. 1• KO
■I i NIA l'.L it l Ni II1 E '�I'rF4' 'il+ltil4rll,IN"� � III
Racapt agnll; 779294
MIf. 13120[19 I0 44 OB N'1 Sean Ang-pr44
01 61 46 goo Fon is CG Doc vac 0 00 G00P E10 COUNTY CO
to A-10
B-9
E -fine
Sower Main Profile B-8 to E-1
11.W 1.<Y
Veml ate,_ : t•...
F -line
Sewer Main Profile B-8 to F-1
aww.n+r r
..9N..+.
4�.
G -line
Sewer Main Profile B-3 to G-2
-- 1. w
V.id4414.1'=44
PROFILES
ii
W
W
ti
I e
U
Jd
Eip
rn =
8 44
a
I
>If
1
■III h4f 11111 iii UL16M 11111
Rtcep!aort$: 776298
10/1312008 10 00 pg RM Jeer, Olberico
37 of 46 Rec Fee SO 00 Doc Fee•0 00 GRRFTFLO COUNTY CO
VgLNRskfEly
•
400
.x.00
u
,1i sei r rii ifirr M Your/
J 00
4+00 5100
7 00
0+00
Water 1 Profile
ncn:.4w.14 1.
."vs ante V•10
0100
14400
15400
10 00
17 00
10 00
10
1,00
1100
31 00
Water 2 Profile
14.4.4.11P .114. '•. W
v.,.11r.a C.10
6400
7000
■III ritilhl i1iiLl'J11W{IR10wL4 711411Ml*II •I III
Reaaptien“: 776299
1S/130200S 10:44 oB PM Jea+ Plberico
00 wr 46 Poc Fee 10 00 Doc Fee:0 00 GPRFIELD COUNTY CO
20100
21+00
0.00
9
22 00
20 00
♦ 00
Water i Profi a (continued
Sewer wrier o009 ng
Bee Man
Honor... 1,00
wasma 1'•11
25 00
20400
274-00
r
}
z
F
0
a
C
■III I a 11 111
Recept ionSl: 776298
10/13/2009 10:44.08 184 Jean Rlberico
34 of 46 Rec Fee $0 00 Doc Fee 0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
moi,
I
„...------)
1 4,
F'b.`a+ J
,.
h.,„ ..,_-,, i
_,
1 f es,
14
h.l j,,-
/1111
,�a r`trjl3y1
1 II
k,ti, 1, L. !:
'^!>som'morrse:*r.rmem zrn se
is"
I
ti
3;
V•�
Cftrrara
aa. oami•M
d •• rwT,ti-
.<:
■III 11%11hNYil4V.IKI x 11111
Roceptlarm 776298
10.1?+2001+ 1044 . L9 AM Jean Alberroo
36 ar 46 Rae Fee 16 00 Doc Fee 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
[1.M slam". "J
-r
..fnM
zl ".+•gra A
"........•.._.....
4144
11 JO
I i.y i... ':i iG i.e.:
�;ri l'y'�ij. .-ti;a�y ii:l:t ��{ �i � .t �'i ::;
Access Road
Typical Section
Alternative A
IsItad min Yd.
wr�
CS
s••r•.•sM
aw
•On.•.aw"mrq.
0.0••..i11.4
•vsa"yw•a
iimbui Mario.
1'1
Main Loop Road and Emergency Access Road
Typical Section
Alternative B
„r L
,•.•..n. wry
U.
✓,. rtJ bs
Main Loop Road and Emergency Access Road
Typical Section
Alternative A
roa
•.,.,.. gym
� �-X: s i ter• •�
• � � �f � italt
• �. r F` ti-:•i••:Y1.} :�i�••_yl.�l_N. L :3:.. •t9,1;1.014".•44::4,•')."0 I
•
Wastewa
I
PPR I—
s" W
Wastewater Treatment I
Typical S
Altemati
•
Main Loop Road with RV Parking Areas
Typical Section
Alternative B
Main Loop Road with RV Parking Areas
Typical Section
Altelnillive A
riff
Aim
■III6W♦1141i14.110&110CIIIILI%W,1ih'fieCii5 illAul11111
ttecep&lan1t 7F .lY8
+or la oag 10,44. CIO PM Jean Plberico
37 of 4G Ree F00.10 00 Doc Fee'0.00 GPRFIELD COUNTY CO
4e...... e—
or Treatment Facility Access Road
Typical Section
Alternative B
roman err..
.....-..rte
Access Road
Yimn
•c A
mr• NI
Pay my anti,yi aft
.eM.earwr.r..
.C.:.
Access Road
Typical Section
Alternative B
S
Protected Swale,
Typical Section
a
'47-
CNC MI
r....'Nan m aww
IU.aWn
4 Eo.WfleM nal
Or
rod .1.1.w
Slope Stabilization
- Typical Section
NTS
r
•
arr. IMPOMM,P.malo•NI
WIM
poitneen Pend Wooed
'gr rr.
.■
rb. woo rib
- —,e
Detentim
11111)=Tdpm.
NT EL
m
I
14.444
14
--y•
Vs
1+4
.--
KizeATNISM
t.
_.L
Water,
Typical Trench
Yak nmal
Irmo, 09.0 Iwo • emlimn
as+ M~
nmemen•• •10.6,10•101
Water,
Typical Gate
Valve
PM _.—._
PP1C•i-111 rt
F-.—
= 8F 41.
Water,
Typical Fire
Hydrant
,.....
onmer
Milwn401.Om 1
•
.w
_r NW rIX
,M
RV Sewer Dump Station
P fibs
�iMl Mlr•rw
Or +rr.•Imis �.
Water,
Typical Air Vacuum Valve
NOR¢ONMi IWO1w1NINLl U! Flit
bwxwn
61,-6--•,
Ole1MCv.aMaYl
led
41,
r+....••••
-.•
RV Sewer Dump
Station Blow-up
RV Site Sc,
Service
Drawl...,_
auw4.
aaa.ev ia. ..ear.
d"' Bob Graham
High Mesa Partners, LLC
400 Panae1d Road
Rena NV 89521
r">b
H•ah Mesa RV Pa
Male
Details, Utilities,
Water and Sewer
111 IT411%11.011111Vimnimpiti.iNIEWN1411111,i 11111
Reception#; 776298
10 13/2003 10:66-08 ON Joan Rlberica
39 of 46 Rec Fee SO 00 Doc Fee,0 00 GORFIELD COUNTY CO
r■III iklloPIPMIICIINVO W M14III
f I ORa2tiwine: 47:70,190,1,0 .
DecJebeOrO oOo
RRFIELD COUNTY CO
_
404,
a
...A 1. an"
rwrl.me
.r.µ,eredrer
pr.:••ilMlr
Iff Ir.~xr
Finn
MEW
tam 10.00.1.
radon
Straw/Hey
Check Dam
Do Not Scab
..........
—
Dumpster
Area
Da Nol Scab
1
J
411=1.. a.r
r,
1.1r. fin
Protected Swale,
Typical Section
is
Tempora
Check
Do 14n1
ham
1 Hh
Lenl� na.w.1.-... L••••f ..Mpw1N•abdl�.^w•>
Ws/rtl lgMdMp.a
1 ♦�L�-�ItlF
N ▪ luYtlb.
Ls rsso,S
mesa
Typical Culvert
Outfall with Riprap
Section View
11110•111•1•rn led
Typical Culvert
Outfall with Rlprap
Front View
4j1in
It
0a
Z�
g
F.`
Details, Misc. &
Drainage BMP's
SIVAiraPIMI§ MO IiiitlellOrKIN Ii III
Reeeptiwnli: 776298
10/13/2009 10:44,08 AM Jean Alberico
42 of 46 Rec Fee:3O 00 Doc Fee•0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
„ , f111_,\,___.\7—_ __1
� �— f;�l f rj� iia s
i.i.
: It 611`%1/riiiiiifIIiijiiRhj(
iiin
f�it� pall
i , i;
i#;1 Ill i
I ; I i( e•1 t
_ t
I/
:~f
til
a *�
ft l}f
J
eX
9:
f
•
r
Bob Graham
BELL CONSULTrNC, LLC FFgh Mesa Partners, LLC
AM, CaA..� 11100 400 Pent Raid
1non:f.n1f P.m nano rni Reno, NV89521
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
no
no.w .....•.,.,.......
51."1,46,Z-171 Bich Mese RV Park
.l 1` i�l'illI{IELIKLAK IOIVIVI.111"1 II III
Rreeptaena: 776298
!Orf9'70D9 0:a4 IS g2 Jean Dfbar�co
33 ar 6 Ree Fee 110 00 Doc Fee 0.00 D05FIELD COUNTY CO
•
...
OvosvoonoO•dowo
wsM •.
w.�1.IrrdriwpmS .Ar! 4--n .
mom, moo Mop,
•
PO..
ww"o.• r %A;w�i. op w x
on =mammy . ~ -yam MOW
}
•
— Y'
vl Wwl
■melab N se mu!
elem. '% el. .
saA l.V.4Ir
••er n14 SOV .tl iZ7i
LEY
NI J1Y39 UPI OMB -WM11NON
COMM
woo MY
..P1oo top
/093•19•9911919er....1 awl
Y
1 Or
:ea
r r=
4319M
Bob Graham
BELL CONLSL7 TING, LLC High Mesa Partners, LLC
r0 15993
fah.
3.x.6 ec1s r 400 nc. NV
tRood
)f�rf Y�mc 9N/6I59313 r•_.9713.16115.9115 Rmo, NV 80521
09.9 19.99. ..r+ Hlg_h Mesa RV Park
Storm Water
Conceptual Map
UIQ lirtillAi lIt k .11%N � Ithr,�N1+"IK��f+�lL 141.1 11111
Reer?ion#:i1�•
.000 10 440808Ire.
Jean CI cricc
45
ei 313 aa Rae Fce•50 OC Doc Fru :0.00 G80FIELO COUNTY CO
■III 1%111il'Ailin II1411INIA71ill IN4 U II I
Rccapt LUSH: 77629B
I4r•D42CO2 •0:44 DO 0n J.., Rlberico
46 nl 46 Nn. Foe $0 00 Doc Poo -0 00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
03145..1.;
■ IM14. ..hr.H.yD�.�, 1c4�i 2�.1. 1. Yn r ..1W1 ..d IM,
MOO W."6% Y.e16M Y.le..f�r OM. W16YH7MxY�YMir. rl��.r�a
[.wrap 014 co.*, AAI, 1f44...eM ..0 Mra.. N.• 111' 1010004, [yqpM
11.,.. Meg 0061 NM Dr Nr w• 4544... 4.4 1 4140. KM950.4.14 4*4.n M
D11. .10% M 130. Trwx.iac'P1 ; M14. 40 ttVOret Ma,
10.1 4IS t 4. llw�a 6f'3j14 !M..
1.016 w . H=/►+7euir°+ .64 s2 ��airw
a Y0w1el 04s..ar
'444 06,40 06,14.40.614. a.,w o NlF.1FYJlra 61 AX4 N .14
oevlrwgqx vt��+Ippr.4.r.. a•Yr pp�1�rr((rr�4 ss�� �..��1
14/o0YIM 1. A00NVC. 111=11V4L .1x .1f w�10I. wr 0wr f.1
Cl..
G. 14444 .rr I►e 4.3.61t. 'gyp, i �,
s�yyr1..4
Del YI °.n.M1 7 Ll 140144140401.M171SW 14 .....1(.w
M .14lp. a10. 061. a41r c.. .d40 41h ie.*4r
We W1���44y.11Vw pnw• ori,= la1.V/w wr8= hlf.N+lu �4*4 l
;.S IM GYrLC CL. ri/fMV,yr.eb .rtl re. I,M I.IfCWA'MM.1w1
ese
•
4*441Ldeeir6lt 141101a 41. .014e0145ol,.410001414106%43.W lieprr,4.]44 141.06 . 72. cV�.
4.. I. 6160011.64.
▪ ...w !� Doo6.46 m 3.36. 1*1FS*M04*4w 1..00105.4401401441110 0 060.1606/t.. 10 De 91,�rc. CC 11ry1
..1/ 19S10f11f*414,411 .t TAW. f1C1�,1144 0 4144 C N 01 Ism ci VeDIX.11
; m 64 11 7'1.44.44 Pe
4.11,1//1/1.1Je 44.4F00 eW 4wirn1/Mf�[iry/ m�v 140.111..m.�k046.19 OLO L., 41 _ p
W.F.M.ITr nR41414 'f 4211444Wµx1 4lr6To 4'40 11i iI4Th R1.666164_46,661 D. len 3p
41.•14
1�1Ito 0110.10...16:ree4. p1�•C 1it¶04100.1 WTM+./' 041MMMot
.4*4•.10'..1]dr01C-lift!6X4004sdlfi.NO.81.1644.. 064674,7610 1'011 Sk.•.40 On
o•rifilwfs M.w V. 1410 RM. d wY 0.4. 14 Is Kr 606444 corm• .4.4 D... Iv, TA.rne
._•am/YY ,no mum drol..rdwNSN. R410 .4444 /4WD p.041 .M1. NW RtOrod9010 DOD .4 ,W 64'4x4 id
D Mt 4 'Dpv... 7 104. come
. 0p01410 l..d ow!,
. II4 1*11YPlDI . VD IMb EaOrlp D 1.4
r •4 looto. 26.
I1.64
(6.444.6.0 87,.. 4411 Pa 11tH. oww=.l ll04.0.W. 11/ ft
14 Kis Do.
444.10 1No
w 066a.r 14140 4wFr11 S4SMl wr.4.1 Cud 1°�` !'4*'1Mr,P,141f -H NS.F M .1.661ro1e
WIltrat
411 _0f14 y4
i4M4S..4*
0 .4*U a*4.1w44. :a~[fl�stie.�u4 ..0,41.4.4 HarowL 011 +1..1414 1•.
4�al' 1r ki 4* Yaa Nps 0 13 fot ,0d_014 P M f 40 44108.064 ho *
b.
.1& w hWnDLO 1.44
7er.�1.1011 4.4.rl It4.14 4•84 T.M .000410`51.110101.4.49 i.
11445.• y1 a r ;.111 0T .060 Al0 I*00 w e1..M ew. 2O p MMp�N1YI rI l tO4.r d 044*
4.1 Yl tiwreri l[I.Yp0.6t1 40.41�1.p1154y'1.p,, /)44410177eaw4i ME 1mot 6...
✓ Comm
.,rirn,1..q 00[1.4.,. b ..60.1WVnl , 140 14.31440 30.4001.
IR ITW.44IXXi•10'IiW
r-ilf'1.1.1•f%191 =VI Mast. Ke
�• fuyq�+���\,�4�y lin Au91 r.1 n N rde.lbgl..F1
�p i IIM]TTdSt 59=11 qw .44 0144 .elvti .14.4
W,t1 r.+..s1• 4r•lf, Mn.. Pr•.,I.A. 411.y.l 0I %4*. *44
MeWOvve4yd W�A.Y..�Ifrlly�.Y•./,I 1W�w.IYr.4n.1.1..r•1 wr 4}.,44e.....•r•If M++rn H�Y4WuRY
1411.11. far
DAD..OiUC.cl III y4.440 •„•ONKIN YMM✓er,�1.1
04 1 404101406 w4 �dl ,,4 . CpV/.1f t , = Awlrw onr
"rr.r....,• 44.�60 446.Id 4144.4 4 44 44 410 NE146RA .,14 V..* 446.414 r..0' pltt.:13343
I✓t.`IIMS1 M•e / •*4441414...4 rw 40 44 Mrr pr. NAV 64,144VX{Sr
40.414144,4.44 4.4 ,m3 44014111.104 M..a I4•
0414,J41.l4wI.4Pont
KO Ieymramid4 d. CI)[ObM1414...,
n�}}.w.d
1 I. 1...m 14011•101fir PwA
1 6
C tuttissioncr Haupt - This is saying you will have cveryting in a year. The conditions etlow you to use tempor
situ you have it completed.
Luis i Ptascoll said this is confusing, we wanted to permit the existing structures so they can be used until a ;t
built Intclure. Stoll had indicated a well in place must be viable and tong term and then later when building stick
built t •VG it would he applied. It is uitimotcly proposed that OXY bring current stricture imo compliance a d then
impk it the permanent structure.
Dusty - is mikes it difficult; these typos of applications do not have phasing,
Daniel - c are trying to get a permit for the temporary facility; this is self -reporting effort that we di out have a
permit to a the facility.
Commissioi r 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 p vides the same condition of l year; it does include the provision of prior to the adline the applicant
can request an v eastern and may request a one-year. The opportunity is there but you have a • 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 for 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 test They cannot apply
for something other in thtapplication that should he included which is the permanent citify, the water, the ISDS,
keeping one trailer at 19 pe ns and the guidance in the application slanted it that w • . The applicant is expressing
that they trying to make sure cy 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, • applied for both at one time. it is our intent l get the current site in compliance
and ready to build a permanent at tura,
Commissioner Houpt- Something to compliance must comply with Code. ' he way it has been presented, you
want to build a permanent structure •Ile using the temporary facility.
Chairman Marlin - This gives you one ear.
Deb -Focus on long term not temporary.
Chairman Martin -We can either deny or c applicant can withdraw by again we cannot get there.
Motion to continue and that would mean em .•ing. The requirements 9f continuing would be unless the continued
scope changes, then it would have to he a pub c hearing and start r+vLr
Notice was for a professional office not a ten • dry office.
Commissioner Samson - Does not agree with th ; he favored tp go ahead and not address the legalities. We should
instruct by our staff to do what they arc doing; be id no one t. the audience was protesting They know what they
are doing. He would soon get it done.
Commissioner Houpt - The problem is the applicant! lies .1 in one direction, the applicant said, no wait we arc
asking for a permit for our temporary facility, and we d is know when we are going to build our permanent.
Commisisoner Houpt reiterated, what we received is not hat you are requesting.
Daniel said he tried to break this out but he did not sect r it staff reports until today.
Daniel requested this be continued for a few weeks. D niers tefcrenee is to allow the facility to be into
compliance.
Dusty stated she was happy to work with appircdnt n address th .e challenges.
Commissioner Houpt made a motion to continue us until Oeiobs 19 at I:15 p.m.
Commissioner Samson - The Board should do it job and the Still then looks out for us, We could have done with
what staff asked and he has no problem.
Chairman Martin seconded.
Call for discussion,
Commissioner Samson - My question is ey have come here and have d• to everything they have been asked to do;
They have some concerns; they were tryg to work them out; there is not g • ins to be a big problem and it seems to
me we are talking about semantics anegalese which drives me up the wall r oar of the time. I think we need to go
forward, get this done, get it out oft • way, and get on.
Commissioner Haupt - I think it •old benefit the applicant if we continued th because they just received these
conditions of approval aril there , s been confusion about what the focus of the ,plication was all about and they
could end up with some cunditi' a that really do not help them at all. It is not far • in the grand scheme of things
and I think you have somcthi on tile that everybody understands instead of trying ordemith everything at the last
minute.
Daniel -- I feel more comfy able having work session with the planner and getting so Chung figured out that
everyone on the Board .. d be more comfortable with it,
Chairman Martin - I fe - we need to have things that support our findings and I do not Chi we have everything so
we do not want a 106lion for ii challenge,
Commissioner Sum — My questions, what are we going to do so that this does not happen n the future; we have
to trust ourselves a do not take it the wrong way but I feel we just wasted 2 -hours.
Chairman Martin I understand but it is also a worthwhile education for this Board under the nc , Land Use Code
us well as the c mutiny and learning what our staff is going through trying to interpret every les 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.
Cotmriisa net Houpt - Well, perhaps you do not try to put two different issues together to help you it because it
may hut you. I do not know but we can learn from these experiences as we move forward and tonne codon
belwe ' the applicant and the planner is key. I do not went to put blame on any of the parties.
Corr fission Samson agreed, I have not put any blame, I think Dusty did what she thought was in the bust iIt creat
an the applicant did what they were asked to do.
I • favor - Houpt - aye Samson - aye Martin - 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
EXHIBIT
y
955
F--
ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM 8/10/09) APPLICANT JS HIGH MESA PARTNERS, LLC DUSTY
DUNBAR
Dusty explained it needed adjacent parcels to be - treated as a new,
Dusty Dunbar, Dch Quinn, Nathan Bell, Nick Hillborn SGM, Pam Holmes, Eugene Speakman, Mark Williams, Bob
Graham and Jcrry 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 wine entitled to 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 2U118, 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 C - Stet Memorandum of 8-10-09; Exhibit II - Exhibits issued from august 10, 2009; Exhibit
- Letter, applicant requital for Waiver for right of public bearing within 40 -days; Bob Graham. dated 5-14-09;
Exhibit J - Email Garfield County Road and Bridge department - Administrative Foreman, Jake Mall. dated 7-9.09;
Exhibit K - Email - Garfield County Vegetation Manager Department - Director, Steve Anthony, dated 7-29-0tt;
hxhibil L - Email Garfield County Planning Department - Project Engineer, John Nicwochner, P.C., dated 7-28.09;
Exhibit M Email. Garfield County Environmental Health Department, Director Jim Rada, dated 8.2-09; Exhibit N
- Pmail Division of Wildlife Division - Game Officer. Dan Skinner for 1. T. Romatrke, Area Wildlife Manager
dated 8-3-09; Exhihil 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. Sc: Vanassec to road configuratiori/access, dated 7.29-09; Exhibit Q - Excerpt, Minutes. Planning
commission meeting of 5-13-09; Exhibit R - Applicant supplied: Easement map document (llnokeliffSirrvey);
Exhibit S - Applicant supplied: letter re: 7.806 00 standards (5GM); Exhibit T - Applicant supplied: Revised
Preliminary WWTF Engineering report (SUM); Exhibit U - Applicant supplied: Revised WWII-- CDPII
application - SGM; Exhibit W - Applicant supplied: NO1 to Conatnrct Non-jlvisdiciianal Water Impoundment,
West and East Ponds, Revised (CO Division of Water Resources Office of the State Engineer) Exhibit X -
Applicant supplied: Improvements Agreement Draft (I3. Graham); Exhibit AA - Email - Garfield County
Vegetation Manager Department - Director, Steve Anthony. dated 9-15.09; Exhibit 1313 - Email Garfield County
Road rind Bridge department - Administretive Furcirxin.Jake Mall, dated 8.31.09; Exhibit CC - Bnwil Cirtrfield
County Oil and Gins Liaison. Oil and Oas Administrative Assistant Wendy Swan, dated 9.1.09; Exhibit DD - Email.
Garfield County Environmental I lalth llepanment, Director Jim Rada, dated 9-4.09; Exhibit EE - Email. Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPII) Mink Kadnuck, P.E. dated 9.4-09; Exhibit FF - letter
Grand Valley Fire Protection District, Rob Ferguson. Deputy Fire Chief - ()potations. dated 9.13-09; Exhibit GG -
Email Garfield County Planning Department - Project Engineer, John Niewuelsrur, P.F., dated 9-15-09; Exhibit 1114
- Email. Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Field Office - Realty Specialist, Carole Huey. dated 9-
15-09; Exhibit II - Email Colorado Division of Wafer Iteanurens - State Engineer's Office - Mike Render, (Weil 9-
16-09. Exhibit JJ - handout - single sheet - applicant's response to land use change response_ Not submitted as an
exhibit part of power pial. • Worksheet
Chairman Martin entered Exhibits A - JJ into the record.
Dusty explained this is a Land Use Change for a "Curnpground/RV Park" through :i Major Impact Review for High
Mesa Partners. I. LC; Daybreak Realty, LLC: James Eugene Speakman, Monique Teresa Speakman on property
located off a well pod access road off CR.300. approximately 1 mile south of Battlement Mesa in the Rural;
Adjacent; Public Lauds (BLM). The campground would consist of 119 back -in parking spaces for RVs with Cull
(wok -ups and utilities with no tent spaces proposed
fhe applicant has revised their application based on comments provided by the County Planning Staff Report 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 'aviaries ufthe Land Use Change Permit. tinCana Oil and Gas (USA) has
several well pads so the sloth nfthe RV Park and the applicants states until heavy rig equipment is rerns.wcd, these
ovuraixed piecssofequipment may damage the road surface that will be installed in serve the RV Park. The
applicant request that Garfield County accept a security and iillow the chip seating to take place 18 months from the
start of construction.
StaffCondilions of approval (I -I0) were those recommended by the Planning Commission 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 comments (Exhibits AA - Exhibit 11).
Staff recommendation is for approval with the conditions recommended
Unlike subdivisions, this does not have phasing. It is handled in such as way and has adequate security so Garfield
Courcy will not be 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 18(1 -day requirement in the new Land Use Code. Ongoing water,
road maintenance, for RV Park ground and the ,:hart talks about the recommended flow within land use resolution to
satisfy and meet the conditions of approval. All 14 condntons however, 1.9 came front the Planning Commission
and were unaltered. New condition No. 10 might share the applicant has to address, Conditions I I, 12 and 13 - staff
has gone back through the applicant's additional response for conditions in the land use code for approval.
No. 10 - Speaks to the maintenance agreement and includes language for that permission. The applicant needs in
comply with the access and use of the road_
No. I I - 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-
step approval to take puce.
Condition 12 - Exceptions far laundry and shower; conditions fur an RV park require public showers and resuunuis
so 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 arc listed on the access penult. Wastewater. ponds,
dirnip station etc. and the road use matches what they will be removing. All statements In the opportunity on the
limitation for access for the use and the level described in the npplicuriau requirement as per Garfield County Road
and Bridge. No, I I - Provide verification to serve the park with two wells. Confusion as to when the wells will have
456
pcnniltl They havcsiibtniltud all of dw paper week; the walls are drilled and exist. A verification of leen/lite issued
to serve the High Mess RV Perk will treed to be submitted.
No. 12 - Prior to anydialurhunce of the collector wads mid dcslgu for additional safety Melodies curves, guaidrrrle
and culverts.
limn 13 - Meet the following requirement for road right.-of-way I and 2 and the rood right of way is 30-feet.
Commissioner Haupt was confused; it is a request not a rcquiretncnt_ So she suggested to strike Condition 1213 2
Dusty - Misspoke.
Now Dusty gave the siaff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The planning Commission heart ibis miter on 5.13.09 and forwarded it to the BOCC with a recommendation for
approval with 14 conditions recommended by Star ihat arc also stated in an excerpt of the meeting minutes (Exhibit
Q):
I. All representations of the Applicant, either within the application or slated it the hearing before the Board
of County Commisioner (13t7CC), shall be considered conditions of approval unless explicitly altered by
the BOteC.
2. The operation of the facility +shall be performed to ticcmdancu with all applicuble Federal, State. and local
regulatlotts governing rile operation of this type of facility.
I. Volume of sound generated shall comply with the slwtldnrde set forth in the Colorado Revised Statues for
residential ulnntlards esamesed ai a location of 350' from the park or at a point 25' beyond the parcel (RV
Park parcel) boundary. whichever is lesser.
4. The I hgh Mesa RV Park shall be opermted to comply with all Federal. State and County au quelrty laws
regulations and standards for emissions, heat, glare, radiation, fumes. smoke or other emanation which
suhstattially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes x public uuitauce or
hazard.
5. The Applicant shell comply with the fire protection provisions inehakd in the comments a the Grand
Valley Fire Pruteetros District (GVFPO); develop a fire protection pond at their coneenterlee.
6. Any signs associated with the use shall be designated lu comply with theCarfield County Sign Code.
1 No storage of heavy equipment is proposed or permitted on this Site, with the exception of a machine or
vehicle fit sietwplowing. which shall be parked rn the anlrage area at inside a stoic lure.
S. Any ligfuitig ofthe site shall dm pointed downward and inward lo the property center and shaded to prevent
direct reflection on adjacent property.
9. All equipment, structures and light fixtures on the site shall he painted with a netts{ shade often nr sage
green non-rcllective paint to reduce glare and make the site more mconspieaoua. Structures designed to
mimic barns. agricultural strttrlure or folates-front western stnrefmnts may he either neutral galore nr faded
bum red, hurt the surfave mutt be a murrulleetrvc surface to reduce glare.
10. Psir're-teethe site-ciistuelterwe-ur•rewatt'u6Fie+t-oftbis prwj 4 wine--shout-1 .thaw
A, All-traceseeftesrikiinlrgepaenttene-pe its; tnoturltrrgtretliog-peruuts;
H. pctrnit1-froom-GnrC Rood.eriel43ru1ge.f nw+rrem-for-all-ov. ieedioverweight-trahiekw•k►esa-rased-eneroe
C. Aiiiirooaimwy arieffre efrintel- flan femitrsdwith-GurGH4iHldkH]d-firidge Dlteirw ienere
D. Ad- seri`lit etietole)ectuil tekotilats t► rssirywt«t; rr-vegenttietts•rtttd`ree?atttnlion;
E. AR-requireitierHrk+F•ertginatnr ng-div; gee wort reitieed-piane-set-ksoh-brtlte-Cranfield Cowrie-Pr eel
Fur continuity, all of the eolidnious of former No. l0 hove been incorporated elsewhere.
Preceding eundinans of improved (1.10) were those recommended by Maiming Commission and agreed to by the
applicant.
The following conditions of approval (I0 - IR) are those recommended by staff, based on review of the updated
materials supplied by the tpplieeet, with new referral meency comments (Exhibits AA - II).
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 of the Maintenance Agreement, the applicant shall;
A . Revise all sections to comply wilh the limitations for access for the use and level described in the
application, that bciog: one (1) 119-unit RV Park with relined mfrescrecture: WWTF, W'rF.4 ponds,
I shower/laundry facility, dump station, storage building mid cumpgruundkrlfcr building with
casements on three parcels;
B . Revise all statements to comply with the limitations for access for the Liss and level described in the
application regtuccntente. as per Garfield County Road and Bridge;
t. Prior to any disturbance of land, the applicant shall provide to Garfield County Planning:
A. Verification of permits Issued to serve thtelligh Mesa RV Pork for the two (2) commercial wells,
ii. Any notification and tests required by Garfield County for the wells.
12. Prior to tiny disturbenee u1' land, the applicant shall:
A.Oestgn the roadways to Inert the following standards:
I. Minor (collector road standards. with art 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 for the public (rather than private) without charge to
Garfield County, that being:
457
60 -feet from the main uceess toad,
b. 20•feet ler the emergency road
2. Additional acreage neecswury oil the piujuvt pureele' liuuudury along CR 300 is requested
to bring the ROW to a full 30 feet from centerline for Uwe road improvements.
C. /lave in place a plan for chip -sealing cif the natio access road;
I. Ifadequately secured, the applicant may delay chip -sealing the main access roadway to a date no inure than
I0-mnntlis from the 0OCC date of approval (9-21.09). or 30 -days after EnCana's energy development
requiring oversized equipment ends, whichever cornea 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 is dust mitigation plan, as stated by Garfield County
Environmental Health Manager.
D. Have in plaice all required plans, agreements, and securities including, but not limited to:
1. Reclamation
2. Dust mitigation (to meet Colorado Air Pollution Control Cornmisioner 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 ($55,304).
E, Have all required plans and permits required by Garfield County and the State of Colorado, including,
but not limited to:
I. Road and Bridge for oversized/overweight vehicles and traffic control,
2. Environmental Health for dust mitigation (Control Measures as per ADCC Regulation I, 111.D.b.(iv))
ineutpomted into the plan and an Air Pollution construetiun permit (State).
3. Planning Depanment Project Engineer's requirement for cordoning tiff areas to minimize land disturbance,
4. State Depattrnenl of Public Metal & Environmental (CDPi•IL) 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 it GPS shape file to the satisfaction of the
Realty Specialist of the Glenwood Springs Field Office of the Bureau of Lund Management to determine
the land status of (lie ingress 8' egress to the project
13. Prior to any disturbance of land, the applicant shall provide to the sstisfnetirn of the. Garfield ('minty
Planning flcpantnent Project Engineer.
A. Proper recorded easements, for the Upper Pond, design of the ditch or pipe conveyattce to the fire flow
pond, and any maintenance mad that may be required to the sensfacuon of the Garfield County Planning
Department Project Engineer. and amend the Sue Plan accordingly
13. System details (design specifications, eascmcau and mninteusame rood requirerertte) if there is to be an
augmcnn uttnn system from the potable water storage tanks.
C A statement from SGM revisingttie valuate of water to lie processed iluouglt ihr systcrn to ensure the
waster to he processed through the 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 road, its knock off gate, and its surface,
C. The fire safety and response plan including the annual inspection dote(s) ante fire flow pond,
ft. 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 he 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 end tests required by Ciurfneld 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 plan,
C. Water treatment plant,
D. Operator's license
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/lire flow systems,
• Laundry/shower facilities
• RV dump 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 13OCC approval date, as per 4-103(g)(8) of
the Vilified land Use Res4]1Ui4iygf20 . as amended.
958
I8. Arncnduteuls may be eonsideicd its accordance with the Major Impact Review Amendment pnrcess of the
Unifsed Land Use Resolution of 2OO$. as amended. under which it will be administered.
Dusty outlet! the Applicant has stdisfted 1 9 requiramerna; They would like not to add the laundry and reatroenis at
this time, however, it is required to have restroome and those are not optional.
Jim Rads - If there will he fend sales as part of the entrance. they would have to satisfy the health guidelines. He
understands they arc not proposing it as campground store and it would only be for basic operational use only.
rnnamissioncr lluupl — Will the storage area 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 eanursercial wells; the applicant is applying for comntercini wells at
Division of Water Resources and from the West Divide Conservancy they have 2 -acre feet to be 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 facility plan has
two containers of 20,000 galtons each and ii takes about t2 -hours to fill. It would run through a water treatment to
feed into the sites and shower. The itsigatian is accomplished through ponds. The pond in question is the fire Row
pond located to the smith: it is it lined reservoir. It is on the Daybreak Realty parcel. 98,OOO.0l0rts speak to the fire
flow tequiremertte. The applicant's intension is to use the well water 50,000 gallons. The applicant will fill the upper
pond to adequately maintain a reserve. 'there needs to be storm water management plan as part of this that has to do
with features subject to design in the works anti they have no: yet completed safety on the access road off CR 300.
This was urigivally as a well pad road but has been bolstered In be more. Road not permitted with this RV Park sa
mind. It is for access. They will chip seal the roadway; EnCena is still working with heavy equipment and one of the
reasons the applicant wants to put chip seal lemur after the pcmtit has been issued is to make sore it does not
receive damage.
Applicant: Jerry Rush - No power point and stated that Dusty covered the application. We feel this is a good project
and here addressed every issue regarding the roads. the waste treatment facility, the water treatment facility, the
ponds. the irrigation and we arc pretty much are presenting is self -continued as you will, RV Park. We think there is
a need for this kind of a park in the County. Other adjoining counties that will ger benefit from this. it is an 111c 1.70
corridur, and it is a great location. We have taken a lot of time on the layout and local ion and the amenities that go
with this pruject arid we think it has n lot rooffer in both the public and the Courtly We hope that it will receives
fnvorahle vote. We have at this time agreed to ail the condilione of approval as Dusty hos mentioned and she has
briefly mentioned a few of them that we would like to discuss with the Hoard.
Nathan in keeping of the layout of park and presentation of the venous items as we knee gone through lhac process
and Dusty laid tau far mad pia -poses, the EnCana rand has been redesigned to comply with the completely the
requirements and dissuasions with lnhn Niewnehuor the item related in that road, the County road standards that are
required for a minor collector, when the road grades to a% we're requesting a varlet= an this road up to 10%
thronghi portions of it. It comes tip through a strep, thrnubrli a idly to gel to the. Hume over here and like our
discussions in planning and John Niewaehner review; 1 think that lie has recommended that is an acceplahle
vanance for the road grade. Then the safely items, culverts, things like that, I believe in my e,etintation and reading
of luhn'a repast is that we have an acceptable doign for that read. Leaving the RV Park, which Dusty is showing up
as the purple line, we have our emergency acres road, which ties hack mnunul to CR 300. net was put in place and
designed based un the requirements, International Fire Code given to us by the Grand Valley Fire Prasectiun District
of 20 -feet wide, all weather surface. 10% grade, 50.foat radius curves, the standard (FC Cede. Therefore, the
emergency access road has been designed.
Chairman Martin - With break through gates, we. so it is net open generally for the public.
Nathan - Yes, in accordnnce with that Then of corse, that road will serve as our maintenance road down to the
uattcwater facility as well as that is where the water treatment is going to be tacated.
C'Itatmsur Martin - Do you have a lower to operate for that particular Function?
ferry Rush II 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.
Cliaimtan Martin - Il would he a requirement; it is a state requirement as well,
Nathan - As far as within the aim all the pads; we have 5 sites and the note on the plans state that 96 - 106 this side
of the road are ADA accessible RV sites so it is not 10 sites, a is 5 sites on that side and they arc directly linked to
tate restroom facilities through hard surfaces. I 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 stilton, water station all meets the requirements for safety for lids,
wales tight, separated. water service facilities from die actual dump station. The storage building was intended to be
Just a small storage building out there as a way fur people to put things that were staying onsite that did net 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 about 6 -
months out of the lust year in an RV park so we had some good refcreneec on whit works and does 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 sizes that tier down the
tntnnitain, 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. Oversise's for 51.5 rigs earning in. A standard site is
20 x 45fcet and our typical site is 25 x 50 with sn overlay of 5 -fed so we have a standard 30 x Si site versus a
25/45.
Commissioner lloupt asked the applicata in address the laundry and restroom facilities as it seems in most
residential applicants and 1 know this is different, are you going to have the entire infrastructure in place before
people start staying at this Facility, infrastructure including resirnorns and showers.
959
Jetty - We bud out irwladed doing airy of the building at this point, if the laundry and shower fiseiiily a required, wit
will do il- We want to specify and make sure that it is the public restroums Oast is the requirement so the building is
cinsttuute d and the puliliu limonite it 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 part of the requirements. If we do not make that part of
the requ.rcuirot.
Jerry - Tire regulations 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 1 think that is what we will want to have to bring in the laundry
facilities. We are nal 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 of the site itself.
Nathan - It will be temporary station there until main facility is built but there will be someone there on site 8 -hours
or 10 hours per day.
Chairman Martin - That would be a requirement.
Pani- I believe in the operating manual it in stated it will be open from 8 am to 8 pm.
Chairman Martin The oifice, but the site will be 24 -hours.
Nathan - The chip seal requirement to complete the road aspect of ii, 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 ofTamarisk Meadows Subdivision in Battlement Mesa. address 112 Mineral Springs
Circle arid my homes backs onto Store Quarry Road, directly opposite the proposed site 1 have concerns about
many things to this project. However, l du not object in principle to the eatabiislmient of such a Facility. There arc
issues thus worry me. Regarding the impactt during construction and operation on existing homes in the ate[, 11
Coatitniction- how long it will he' maim and dust' during heavy truck traffic as a health and welfare issue; 2)
Concerned with odors from the wastewater treatment facility !Dented on the properly: 3) Health arid welfare issues
regard diesel fumes, issue of waffle and lire safety issues during the construction phase; 4) Operations noise with
RV generaiors, it pump for the well facility - these are just example-; 5) Dust from traffic. truffle safety at the entry
way to Some Quarry CR 300: 6) Odors from sewage plant; 7) Any diesel exhaust from any operations or visitors to
lite site; 8) Welfare issue emit:creed about light, lighting of the site, I trust and hope that rS will only be dowmvard
pointing but inward pointing because the cite is above the level of my home and our whole subdivision and we will
be incur 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 hat heats a fire in that arca 20 years ago and lire hillside is steep and much vegetation
septicidal to fire in dry times and oilier 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 trcmcndous
impact front the visitors vehicles and there is not conIrel of that; I I) Concern resin a welfare standpoint o1'view on
domestic animals particular dogs because there is an established wildlife on that hillside, 1 have lived there for lll-
years and have observed a herd of deer all these years in that immedistc area. Also, they move from high mesa down
to the gulch to drink ogle through several of dime revenues; 12) Concerned about electric power whether there will
be a sight generator or commercial power obviously hoose is produced by is generator. I am concerned under any
c teurnstnuers water being hauled to site either to fill ponds or for any other reason, either as a puck -up ser a
supplement to the existing plans; 13) Will there be a backup water system, a backup power system, a backup sewage
system rind 14) At what point will tweupaney begin - how much construction must be completed, how trsany permits
most be achieved before occupancy can begin. I will mentioned that this Site, this property in general in the past has
been used tar high power rifle target precitee. it has also been used for ATV; rcerealion and there is an estahliehed
loop not far at all from This site on this property where ATV's have heea ridden cxtcnalvely in the past.
Rousld Jensen - 64 Mineral Spring Circle - gave a !indent of his remarks. I also Ilvr ith the same suhdivision and
back up to this site. Ile presented a handout of what he rs going to say. Several things of enneein and sum
-
highlights and he proceeded [o summarise a copy of the Inter he received. I) This is a copy of the leiter lir
received, 3 pages of legalese survey type description of property that I know front experience, 911% of the public
does not knew beans 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 years with the federal government 1 know about these things. But neither did I have a
reference map sot did go to 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 lamer, several of my neighbors who ere severely impacted did not receive that
;cher. One in particular by the name of Woody Hanneycr, 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 airy vonstniclion work prior to the permit process they did bulldoze a road that road in purple that
goes from the Site down to the lutallen of the proposed water !moment facility, wasteivaim treatment facility, was
done before petmits were approved. You can ere front that map on the wall that it a very steep hillside. All of the
Facilities with the exception ot'the wastewater treatment plant are from 100 to 300 feet in elevation above the
sobdivisions.'i'amarisk Mcadowa 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 that it will be downward facing lighting but because of that elevation difference, it will still be visible. The
landtcnpe plan for that entire 36 acres Ames only 16 trees. 'flet is barely enough to cover half-dnren of the lights.
As a minimal recommendation, I would think the C.ounry should require the applicant to put trees all along the lower
edges of those three ucrs so that it blocks the view of that facility. 3) The proposal for the wastewater treatment
walk my dog everyday up SWIM Quarry Road and if I were to stand tit the guardrail along Stout Quarry Road. just
opposite Rainbow Tniil. I could throw a sock and hit the wastewater treatment plant. It is right there_ There is draw
that gees along right neat to Stone Quarry Road at Met iucalion hut the plant is right there. In addition, we have
great contents about odor from that pleat and prevailing winds conte through the south and the southwest they will
go river site and uuo subdivisions, 4) Location of the wastewater treatment plant at that location i believe will
severely impact aur property values which in sum would certainly influence the taxes collected by the County. 5)1
460
also know the reason for 13m -dement Mesa rejecting the applicant's request to tic into the Consolidated Metropolitan
District Wastewater Facility, which runs right down was previous agreement made between Battlement Mesa and
t'unudidntcd Metropolitan District to prohibit them from providing services outside the i'UD until the PUD is fully
developed, which is unlikely to occur for nutty years. 5)1 would suggest the applicant pursue a more vigorous
response to the legality of that agreement nod the opportunity to tie into existing treatment fhcilitiee that are right
thcree” ['crimps it is not an Item for decision except far the applicant and that is the demographics they used to
poetfy this facility were done in W07 at the peak of the gas drilling boom, which is gone now. 50% of the rental
propen its within Battlement Mesa are amply, these Is a significant reduction in the economies here, and I wander
obuul the justification for the Wilily at all. there is already un RV Park there arc the south end of Ilatltement Mesa,
which has many empty spaces.
Chris Cole- Holcomb and Green and counsel to Battlement Mesa Partners We would reiterate the concerns
expressed by the last Iwo individuals on thin particular project and also wanted to speak briefly to the Board's matter
of record and that is the way the regulations ere configured there was no traffic impact study that was needed to be
performed on this prrticular project. At filn build•nut, it showed 7500 trips a day in and out of that particular facility
that is proposed here Ralllatttent Mesa partners as you are aware. was instrumental in raining the Interchange
Improvement Project ai 1.70 in Parachute to be meted essentially. We provided seed money for all the traffic
engineering and by the time it was done. a signtfcont amount of money that they put in, north 0f53t00,000,
l'titnarily what I have been asked to do is tube here arid to say when the time comes there will be more development
in the subdivision process that thin lie remembered and considered. The other issue is the postponement of the chip
scaled We appreciate the feet that having that road chip scaled right now might create a situation where that would
he damaged and have to he repaired bur in the alierrturivc 1st the Went that mad base or some tither form of din,
Mow irtarerial or whatever is used for the road in and out of that KV park, we are going to probably be impacted at
Battlement Mesa by the din 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 appreciate die County's attendance to keeping those road cleaned up and
for the folks who live there already.
Applicant response.
Nathan - First of all Mr. itaygood and Mr. Jensen's initial objections arc primarily addressed through the
requtrcmears in the list of conditions of improve!. During tan%lreetiun we are required W mhligate by County and by
slate requirements, all duet foreign mrbome particles we are requnnad to mitigate and one that vine net mentioned
was melon impact, the stormweler ttiarragunient plan, airplieallon for the State of Colorado to address any of diose
surface erosions, Etre with the Grand Valley Fire Protection District review. approval trod recrnmmendetio is on this
during the coissrruction phatc; during the operattunel please, once ttgaitl, we have item 3 of the condition of
uppmvals addressing noise, item 4 addressed alt sit quality standards - county, state regulations we are to comply
with; hum 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 me 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 station, the peblic.restrooms, It is
minimal. Our power eoincS from on•sitc power From Holy Cross Weenie and there are no generators. No water is
proposed being hauled to the site at all. domestic animate are regulated through the Code on lease and not nllnwcd
to roam free - chose types of things. Addressing the notification, requirements on certification are taste 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 Ihis site. If you go across the road and then across the neral lots anti then to
the street on the lots that may thee this. my guess is we arc outside the 700 -toot realm. Visually trying to know
everyone who may be impacted on this. As far as the property having work dome on it, she road coming down the
Still, a toad was constructed down that hill by the property coveter prior to all of' this happening that is not actually the
road that we are using for this at all, I guess that would be a farm road, Aa far as the sewer plant and its issues. that
sewer plant is 'nettled in bottom of the valley. They said they we are 300 feet above then, shirt is 700 feet below the
tile, f am going to guess 1511 feet below Stone Quarry Road at this point, and visually they will not even be able to
see this plant unless they are walking along the mad on die south side of the road. I believe it is 700 feel from the
road so it is not raised up anything like that - it will be completed contained within a building and meet all
requirements. Aue far its Chris r'ole's comments, a traffic impact study was performed for thin and how we came up
with our minor collector road designation on the cntrunce. 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 tar as the dirt back and forth, it
will be maintained as a graveled road and there is n maintenance agreement that will be on that road and then
bringing it up once ro any requecmcnrs before we put the chip seal down on Il. I believe through the conditions of
appmvnl and to the Code requirements, we are essentially addressing all concerns that may occur other duan the -
yes, there will he ssxnelhing across the ltlllsitla front these houses now. Just as thaw houses are acmes the hillside
from this property.
Commissioner Houpt - Have you looked at landscaping and buffering.
Nalliun - We actually, in the landscaping plan. aim of the notes thst there were only 3 6 trees in there, if you look at
the landscaping plan there is actually Pinon Juniper stands throughout and there are areas of non -disturbance
betwetstt any of the wide strips between nay of these RV blear and the slopes associated with them, our areas ofnon-
disturhance they are to remain with all vegetations including these Pinon Juniper so we did not do a epcciiie 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 1loupt- Requested the photo ofOte hillside - did you walk over to. This is transit active usc, not a
regular residential area so give me some perspective as to the Stone Quarry Road.
Pam - The yellow circle us our site.
Dusty stated the photo Commissioner I loupe requested to be shown nn the screen was taken Ott Slone Quarry Road.
Nathan - The limit - this is an existing ranch road across the bottom that is going to be upgraded to the emergency
access road. The site primarily within the circle and slays all above the drop off lip which would be the bottom edge
adult - and if you go to very far left of the picture, just above that tree, thin hole down in the bottom and off to the
left a little bit is the proponed sewer plant location The kwme itch are behind,
Dusty - Actually o this other gide the guardrail it drops very significantly, On the south side of the road.
Nathan - Directly behind you would be Stone Quarry Road, the landscape buffer, and the Race, the cedar picket
fencing and then the housing begins. Approximately 100 foot right of way in there to the fence.
4Fl
Dusty - Another photo is looking back towards Stone [Natty Ruud. The puwet hire shown is I iglu down drruugh the
center of the 36 acres, A continuation of photos and explanations were given per Dusty's power point.
Patti- Clarified that residents were notified within 200 feet of the Speakman and High Mesu pu,cul mid the
Daybreak parcel. The Daybreak and Speakman parcels are between County Road 300 and the high Mesa RV Perk
parcel. Pam acnualty notified people 250 feet of the pmpcny boundary. Any parcel dial couched within 250 feet
around the entire meets owned by all three of those people were notified.
Jerry --Mentioned regarding the buildings. when we designed these buildings we are going to make them so that they
arc very earth tone and environmental friendly an they are nal going to be slicking out and looking ugly like it was
auggesir+l and the time frame, we expert construction to be 9 - 10 months by the time we sten.
Canrmisioner lioupi asked what will be in place or what would anticipate being in place when you open ii up for
folks In park as far as everything.
Nathan - We hope to open with just a temporary building for reception. cheek in and declaim that sun of thing and
then the laundry or bathroom facility if you require us to do that, that is renlly all the building we will have at the
time. Roadways will be I place and eve/sing infrastructure wise will he in place.
Jerry - The staff requirements are everything will be constructed in place, wastewater treatment facility, water
treatment, the wells are already there and have been tested and water tanks will be in Maw. fire pond will be in plaee
and constructed so all landscaping, lights, storm water mitigation and all other issues would be required before
opening,
Deb - Wanted to explain shout the Improvement% Agreement and how we are contemplating to address construction
of impruveincttls for this park. As Dusty indicated. this is nut a subdivision so it as not the typical you secure
everything up front before you sten because we vire not selling lots and we have had quite a number of different
discussions shout how to properly require security for the development of nits 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
park.is open- What we arc doing from the improvement agreement in that is I had discussions with the Attorney. Mr.
Williams ahodt the improvement Agreement and they did submit a daft that will require sonic work and waiting to
sec what the actual conditions are hem we finalize it. but what we intend to do is not require any seeitly..fos
everyting that is required by ow Code for this park to operate. That would be the shower facihitTcs, all of the other
nifras[rvcture. sewage treatment. westewsrer pfatil, enc. If the !Nerd does permit the chip seal to wear later, we
would require security for that in terms of a letter of credit or other security acceptable to the Bound because there
arc so many conditions that have not yet been satisfied we have retittgted that there be security for actual restoration
_in the event that gr vhatcvecrwrsnn-tiro-pada,pyver gets built but titer start it and die prints never issues then at the
e r a terrain ti a ar a we want to them to restore the property to its cunni. condition. Therefore, we are
requiring some security $tttlheiiia ja'. a • r. .: .. i in c u will not
email issue until that occurs and 1 am dmRing this agreement so that our rsi art en ineer hoc Mr a3,ili1 tit review
the arias co r r rTt[f{1-rastrueturc to me a sure it romp SCS wit t e re'resentaltans t - . c(f,T der at ave an
eagmEer s certificate saying dist 11 w:. Lns e et rn acro stirs' with t se p ens similar to a subdiy ¢asiwaii
but not onto- Teenrn EE` . J n tttalll! +s u xei fur biotin dine- nn cr kssuc, as you know HB 1141 that
is nut realifleriv Land Use Code requires the Hoard to determine 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 hose permits will issue. That is one of the reasons i think that
we have required those permits be in place before they start any land disturbance. There is also a requirement i
believe in the conditions that the upper pond than has been mentioned that wilt supply settle of the fire flow water
has to be included in the site plan and we want a site plan that show all easements and they have done a really good
lob of showing all of the easements except for that one. Therefore, we will nerd to sae that one.
Commissioner lloupt - Hitlurieetly an adequate water supply has been a critical need to obtain an approval.
Chairman Mania - It would be required that we have water as well. If they do not produce that permit or could not
product it through their testing. it would not be valid.
Dusty - They cannot get staved without it. Many of the things that if you take a took at the cup 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 slid not get ahead agitating pemitssturr outside ofsectanng those.
Commisisoner I loupe - What is confusing to me 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 well
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 arc drilled, viable, tested and pump tested
has not occurred,
C'hairtnon Martin - And the apptlicsnt hes an answer to that so let's allow him to do so.
Pant- I sent this by overnight flus ntorrsing their guarantee to the County by the Division of Water Resource by
noon tomorrow. Jerry - I 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 thin report. I 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 die legal water supply oxide from the fart that the well permit
need to he resubmitted to the state us commercial wells an opposed to observation wells sad that process is
underway.
Nathan - Before we finish that, the augmentation from the West Divide Conservation District also covers the water
in those wells. Therefore, everything is done with the wells except the permit from the state that says commercial
well on it.
Choimian Martin - Your:alaplicnuon verifies the different water rights that you have with the testing done, who did
it,
cit. 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 Martin - And the locations of these wells.
Jay Hoygeod - I would like to bring tip an issue regarding disturbance attic surface He distributed some photos
slowing Chia lit the Huard. 'hese ware taken from my hack patio and you call sec my hour:, this is ed nuiivat view
magnification. You sec my fence. you can see Stock Quarry Road through the fence and then you ate the major
powur line, the minor power line with the right of way going rip to the right, and you sec the ureal area where I
understand this RV Park will be. i would like to point nut that last May the surface was disturbed in this lower point
when a lump was made, a Arnett mad and a number of Trees were pushed down by a bulldozer and 1 am wondering
what hit County considers disturbance of surface and when that occurs.
Eugene Speakman - I'm a landowner plus a full partner in the RV Park but actually that road was cut in to get down
to the bosom just So I could dear some sagebrush becanse I board horses on me and on Bob an a couple of years
before tires even west of that i went in there and cleared a bunch of sage brush rind That was so I could gel more chem
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 I do but ...
Pam - That was dour in May and we did not add him to the application until last month.
Chairman Martin - Under our grading permit. Agricultural rise 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 Cum missiern or the County visually survey the site and see who pushed down a
small loop of trees in addition to 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 - Our 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 of the RV Park site.
Commisiatiner Itempt - We will people be accessing the access road from Stone Quarry?
Nathan - The aecesx road is, see the horizontal cut about the middle of the page in the photo, that is the existing
EnC'arra existing gas road that we will be improving and it heads niTto 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.
Misty Both oldie entrances arc on Stone Quarry road, hlte ernergeney access road hos n knock down gate on it and
is only intended to he used for emergency access by the fire department. This is not going to he used by the public: It
is iii satisfy a requirement because the main access road that comes in along the bottom pan 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 its. an access road, they hail to provide a sceondasy access for emergency access and it is gated off arid approved
by the by Fre department for the fire department. I just wont io shed light in what is required is to be in the
shower/lattndry facility. Showers are requirorl as well as restruorttx but itdocsi not speak that laundry facilities are
there. So the building has to he there to provide those particular item, so it may he a label change rather than a
significant cluutgc.
Commissioner b toupt - We stopped you in the middle of the conditions of approval.
Chairman Martin -1 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 Boupt - But we cannot discuss them with staff.
Chairman Martin - Yes you can, staff is allowed to go ahead and put their comment in
Commissioner Houpt thought Dusty was going to give a presentation on the conditions. This has been a scattered
discussion.
Chairman Marlin - 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. I
want them to be able to comment.
Dusty proceeded to rapidly zip through the conditions as listed in this report. We had gone through I -11 and
number 12. the applicant hap agreed to meet the conditions set by staff and we went through the road portion of
Condition No. 12 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 Houpt - But if it is a condition it is a requirement.
Commissioner Haupt - For this process does it seem normal that so many conditions are still outstanding?
Dusty - Part of it is that the permits are not generally an occupied quasi subdivision. While it does seem mune are
outstanding, some are outstanding because Il is a nature process. The wastewater treatment plant for instance.
normally you do not build one and then go apply tar permit. You apply for a permit to design and see what you need
arid then another permit to build it and there another so ti has about four permits associated with it The same thing
wilh water in subdivisions. We have not required subdivision applicants to punch the wells and confine the wells
prior to their application if they can verily the likelihood of a nearby well anti its production to give us nn indication
that it is likely. Before the final plat is recorded. they have to satisfy it and are able to sell lets. There are things that
Iluuuglr a normal permit process normally take the basket and take the basket and Nay, these are the things to satisfy
the land use rcquircmenis. lint hsxsusc this is behaving like a subdivision and without being a subdivision. in a
permit process that docs not readily allow for this kind of for phasing and I 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. l f they
cannot meet the conditions of approval, they cannot get their laud use permit.
463
Cunwiissiuuer Hrngit - it is an RV Park and we did away with the 180-day rule. Therefore, what clues that dues Is li
turns it into a regular subdivision
Chainuur Mariie - Not necessarily,
Commissioner I loupt -Another subdivision we should look at.
Chairman Martin - I site an RV Park opened 365 days a year not 180.
Dusty - It has presented some very interesting challenges and that was one of the things that l pestered the stere
engineers office about that we did need to have some comment because no it is not a subdivision, it is walking and
quacking like aaulsdivision,
Commissioner Sentgnn In the old land use code-, RV Parks were only allowed to operate 1P0 days,
Commissioner Houpt- Because they are recreational, they are parks.
Deb Quinn - They could operate year round but there was it tendency resident requirement of only 180 clays and we
found It was impossible to enforce. People would leave for a day, conic back, and start it over again, so we just
eliminated it.
Commissioner Haupt - Which makes it impossible in another way.
Deb - li is very much like a subdivisiun. It could be permanent, residential area for all or thou 119 spaces.
Chairman Mullin - A matter of philosophy, a necessity. need end lifestyle and what you ars doing, you arc just
putting that label on it and it hes to conform to the subdivision penod. Otherwise, you =nut have it. This is a
different lifestyle, liniment use of land, it is not for sale, it is for rens and the spates are for rent for a short period of
time ora long period ortime. II is a busineee, not n subdivision.
Commissioner Samson - Fur our attorney, there are three reasons why we would not or legally could not or would
not improve this, would you explain those to me again.
Chairman Martin - Reasons why you could deny the application would be....
Deb - If the application fails to meet any of the standards that are within our Code, you could deny; irk is
lneonsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, you could deny.
Commissioner Houpt - If it is not consistent with the culture of the neighborhood is the third. If it poses a problem,
does not tit into, or has not been adequately mitigated.
Commissioner Samson made a motion we close the public hearing.
Commissioner Iloupt seconded the motion.
In favor. Houpt - aye Samson - aye Martin - aye
Deliberation:
Commissioner Ssmson - There is a ton of conditions.
Commissioner Houpt - The one that I have great concern over is the chip scaling because this going to add not only
a great deal of traffic during const action period and whatever erne is beyond that when people are coming to reside
in this area, but it adds to the already existing oil and gas traffic anti it is just uphill from an existing neighborhood i
am not sure i suppose you cnidd make sure that you mitigate that on a daily basis hut the road posses a real problem
with the heavy traffic.
Dusty stetted it is not proposed to be a dirt road; it is a graveled surface to inert the dust mitigations for Regulation
One.
Chairman Martin - Air quality control.
Commissioner Samson - As I was taking notes, i think the applicant has answered most of the objections by the
three gentlemen that spoke. One thing that all threc meattumted is the dust and that was a hug problem. If they were
required to chip and seal the road From the beginning that would sake care of that concern.
Commissioner Hotipl - Sonic of the condittaus that were not read laid were raised were 10 doe lighting on the Site
was to lie drnvmward end inward to prevent the reflection. The other issue we rived to address to a eutidii sari so
approve is how you mitigate that when you are uphill from everyone else.
Commissioner Samson - I do nut 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 he 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 remittal avoid that issue unless you have a octal barrier.
Chau-mire Martin - It is the sante with Parachute looking tip 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 lighting 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 he looking around, you will have to
hiss your lights on at your public facilities where you are in and out, ADA and safety reaxoma.
t'umruissiuncr Samsun - Using the criteria the way I understand it we cannot deny the application. 1 think they have
met the requirements.
Commissioner !loops if you determine it is compatible with the neighborhood; ifyou find that it is not compatible
with the neighborhood then that is not true. There is an RV Park in the Battlement him PLED,
Chairman Marini- In line of sight of this.
Commissioner lioupt - So that would be difficult to do.
Commissioner Samson- Plus is Ibis riot aeross the street from a trailer park. There is both a trailer park and an RV
Park in Battlement Mese so for us to argue that it is not within the scope of the neighborhood - it would he tough tea
justify drat.
Chairman Martin- So the Chair moves to go ahead and approve the application with the l4 different requirements
es mainlined by staff and the changes of the wording that we went through.
Cunuuissionet limp( - Are you going to do surrtclhing about the road
Commissioner Samson the chip and seal. I 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
Commissioner Haupt - Condition No. 12 ICI,
Commissioner Samson - So we need to strike C1 and say it has to be chip and seal.
964
Conuuisisoner I Inupt I would agree with that bccuuse of the amount of trial; anticipated and if foiCaua would help
them 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 lu bend u little your notion so I can second it?
Chairman Martin - It is a waste of money, it's a waste of resources, it is a waste and I understand what you are
gyring to get to, but a good gravel read with some treatment would serve the same purpose. You are talking 525.000
lust to start out within reference to it will he des Toyed by heavy equipment within a couple of week, and you will
require them to pave that - I understand. it It a great philosophy but in reality it is a waste of lime, They= out
going to he able to take I OO,O00•pound rig nerosa dud chip and seal on a turn, on the first tum it will separate on
you. If you want to include that, it is okay.
Commissioner Samson - Hear me out here, is that the cost of doing business.
Chairman Martin - If there is a road maintenance agreement and they hove to make an adjustment, you just require
them to do such with a large dollar ticket.
Commissioner Samson moved to reopen the public hearing. Commissioner Houpt second. Carried.
Jim was asked by Commistsonci Samson to give us some idea how much duel it' properly graveled and taken woe of
the way the Board may require it to be done. I have no idea Jim said. Based on regulations talk about vehicles per
day using the mad and ifduel in generated fmm show vehicles they have to implement a dust control plan. I could
not quantify how much dos! as it ell depends un the surface materials.
Contmiestoner Iloupt - if you look at the regulations, Regulation One on the air pollution. What does that mean?
Jim - lust as I just stated, it say based on the number of vehicles on 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 duet issues then we can approve that and they have to implement it.
You would want to address on a complaint basis. My hope would be if you were going to the trouble of developing a
plan, they would implement it. A similar regulation is applied to County roads - we have to follow the sante
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,
Commisisorter Houpt - This has been one of the major complaints that people have across the County
Jim addressed it due to PM issues we are experiencing in the ltattlement MesatParachute area.
Chairman Martin - Then we have to have natural material to go ahead and pave every rood 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 materials.
Chairman Martin - If you have it dust mitigation plan approved by the County you do not have to pave it - you are
wasting somebody's money having them pave is and then to keep it paved during the time that the heavy equipment
as going across it or you could have a dust mitigation which is recommended here to meet the standard
Comnmesioner Houpt if that were the answer to all the problems that we act_ in this r'nunty when it annex In dust.
I cannot even begin to tell you how many complaints we receive on roads that have dust mitigation plan.
Chairman Martin - City streets that the street sweeper goes and it creates such 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 aest c1ated with that section of road. approximately a mile worth of road to chip seal was
approximately 566,0tl0 one time to pal a down and that is whet we are proposing within in this as one of our letters
of credit in ordet to complete that when we need to within the time period.
Chairman Martin - Are you still 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 from our
construction is going be less titan what they have already created in die 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 need to make sure that is removed from the security
requirement in I2d.
John N. - Yes, if they put down this S66,000 worth id' chip seal, it will he guise because of the crinatnsettnn vehicles
and just huildiug the RV Park alone Perhaps there is a ehcaperaliemetive thai we can prescribe that they cnn put
mag chloride down every two weeks or every months and that would have zero dust with that armpit of mag
chloride on that road. A much stronger requirement than the County actually does on then roads to keep the dust
down. Ynu can require them to do overly control dust control.
Chairman Martin - That is Jim'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 fur the Campground RV Park on
36.637 acres parcel south of Battlement Mesa in Parachute offCounty Road 300 with the conditions of approval
submitted by staff and in place of 12 c. 3 we put a dust mitigation plan, which will requlue she applicant to apply
meg chloride twice a month.
Chairman Martin - The dust mitigation plan 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 regulution; unc, it does not matter how often you ally
it, it still may not meet the regulation and take care of the dust mitigation.
Commissioner Samson - No this will take care of it,
Chairman Martin- That is a lot of mag chloride for sure.
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.
Commissioner Samson - Okay, wherever that occurs, so that is my motion.
Commissioner Houpt seconded the motion,
Chairman Marlin - You would be better oft -with the dust mitigation meeting; even that is extremely strict
965
Commissioner Samson - You know what, the applicant said they could live with it and they were happy with it Au if
they are happy with it, 1 am happy with it.
1n favor: Houpt - aye Samson - aye Martin - aye
EXECUTIVE SESSION - DISCUSS Don requested an Executive Session to discuss five items that need legal
advice and direction: I) Concerns the Airpon Park PUJ) 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 form
of Resolution; 3) Discuss end provide legal update on an internal personnel investigation in the Treasurer's
Department, 4) Update and receive any potential direction concern missing lintels in the
Clerk's Office and 5) Carolyn necdst° talk to you about special conditions on FAA Airport. Several items will need
public direction.
Cotnmissinnar Samson moved to go into an Executive Session. Commissioner Houpt seconded. Motion earned.
Commissioner Samson moved to come out of Executive Session. Commissioner Houpt seconded. Motion carried.
Action takers
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 Pill) - Cogeneration
Cnmlyn stated we need authoriranion for Chairman Martin to sign a grant agreement prior to the Cogeneration Plant
and Mr. Howard, co -application to ;anew] the PtJD nod request publically w 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 - nye Martin - aye
ADJOURNMENT
Attest: Chairman of the Board
OCTOBER 5, 2009
PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
The regular meeting unite Boatd.ofCounty Commissfonets began at 8':00 A.M. on Monday, October 5, 2009 with
Chairman Julia Martin and Commissioners Trust Houpt present. Also present were County Manager lid Green,
County Attorney Don DeFurd, Carolyn Dahlgren and Jean Albcrico Clerk & Recorder. Commissioner Samson was
absent,
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Martin called 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 llaly Cross Energy to build
the first clean energy collective hero 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 utilize some of the tax credit for clean energy in 2009, Research and
coordination with Holy Cross Energy as well as CLIiER has shown that the first site really needs to he visible,
accessible as well as prominently located within the community to lie community based and a community
demonstration. we have worked with stafiprimnrily ltd 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'acres they have offered out of I OO•acrc
development and located between Blue Creek Ranch and the Wuldurf School just oft Highway 82 near Catherine's
Store. Mates] on varying views we have received from stall, we wanted to bring it to you today and respectfully
request that the Board provide us some direction as to going forward in two 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 ace resry 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 hint to be a part of this discussion.
Chairman Martin - The is a great project and good support; Holy Cross has extended their support as well as would
like to sec if we could move in :last direction, We need to allow CRMS and allow their array to be there as well
going through the same proms. I would like Io see if we could gel this coup to lake care or than particular area. 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 still have to have a public heartng and this in
front of the Board.
Commissioner I loupt -'There has been some concern about mnintaining the integrity of the'rCt application. What
was so wonderful about that application was the feel that you retained the cultural component of Ag land in from
and we worked on the environmental concerns around the area and that really made it a wonderful development. I
do not think today that I could tell you without having more information in front of me that i could support the
location because it will change that dramatically.
466
•
•
EXHIBIT
1s
ROCC, Exhibits (9/21/2009)
(Major Impact Review- High Mesa RV Park- High Mesa Partners LLC)
Exhibit
Letter
(Ala 4
Exhlbft
A
Proof of Mail Receipts _
B
Proof of Publication
C
Garfield County Unified Land Use Regulations of 2008, as amended (ULUR, the
Zoning Code)
D
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000. as amended
E
Town of Parachute Master PIanL002]
F
Application
G
Staff Report 8.10.09
Exhibits 8.10.09
H
I
Excerpt, Minutes, Planning Commission meeting of 5.13.09
J
Staff Report 9.21.09
K
Staff Powerpoint
AA
E-mail, Garfield County Vegetation Management Department- Director,
Steve Anthony, dated 9.15.09
BB
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 (CDPHE)- 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
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
TYPE OF APPLICATION
APPLICANT
SITE INFORMATION
LOCATION /ACCESS
EXISTING / ADJACENT ZONING
I. 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 % 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
Y water treatment plant for potable water
• easements for facilities off the RV Park parcel
> fire flow pond
> retention ponds
' irrigation impoundment
BOCC 9/21109 DD
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)
Il. 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.
_
MIR High Mesa RV Perk - ODunber- BOCC 9/21/09
Emergency Access Road
Site Plan
(Pg
cl.[k I
act 0.
$111111il1tia
Wastewater
Facility (offsite)
Shower /
Laundry facility
Entrance Station
Dump station /
water station
Storage Facility
"valiertatiZIONIWOUll
Water treatment
Facility (offsite)
sods', rt,
•
2
MIK Nigh Meru RV Pw* - D.Dunbar— BOCC 9/21/09
NOTE TO BOCC: STAFF IS PROVIDING YOU WITH A STAFF REPORT WITH THE
APPLICANTS RESPONSES AND COMMENTS INCLUDED IN RED FOR YOUR REVIEW
ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE SEVERAL SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY
THE APPLICANT (BINDER CALLED 'UPDATED INFORMATION ONLY')
III. 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) Letter, 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 two commercial wells prior
to issuance of Land Use Change Permit;
2. Regarding deficiencies of 7-105 (Adequate Water Supply):
Applicant has
a. stated that the Upper Pond is no longer being considered a part 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 copies of corrected well permit applications;
3
MIN High Mesa RV Park - D.Ounbar- BOCC 9,2!/09
3. Regarding deficiencies of 7-106 (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,
proof of recorded document shall be provider
Land Use Change Permit;
b. have agreed (with Garfield County Project Engineer)
also serves to satisfy 7-309.
and has agreed that
prior to issuance of
that satisfying 7-107
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
• Allowable grade of 10% with additional safety enhancements
as per GarCo Project engineer on curves (guardrail)
■ 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 High Masa RV Park - D.Dunbar — BOCC 9/21/09
6. Regarding deficiencies of 7-109 (No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards)
Applicant has.
a agreed that if the BOCC approves the exceptions reconmrended 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 SWMP 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;
a 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 (I)
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, Dunbar— BOCC 9P21/09
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 for a 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.
i l -IL ADPL'CANT I-Hi\S AGREED TO MEET I HE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AS
S-IATEDAI PLANNING COMMISSIr)N HEARING 5 13 2009, AND RE STATED IN
THE PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT SI.1BMI I TED TO THE BOCC ON FOR
HEARING ON 8 10 2009T CONDITIONS 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.
• 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 Mese RV Park - D.Dunbar— BQCC 9/21/09
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 dam. 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)1, 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 High Mesa RV Pant - D Dunbar— BOCC 9/21/09
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 Mesa RV Park - D Dunbar— BOCC 9/21/09
• 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) shall react:
✓ 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
9
MIR High Mesa RV Pam - D.Dunbar— BOCC 9/21/09
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, l jCampground 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_
tt_Yi iC- of .'Ai,pJ ,ni
✓ 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 High Mese RV Perk - D,Dunber— &OCC 921/09
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 Roadwaysl:
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 High Mesa RV Park - D.Dunbar- BOCC 9/21109
limit of 20 mph. The Code allows BOCC to approve excessive slopes
(Section 7-209 H). The Staff recommends that should the BOCC al_pre ve
the access road slope, that no additional development will occur prior to
the road being reconstructed to meet County roadway design standards.
D. 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)
No signage other than the approved driveway access stow sighs shall be placed within the
County ROW without approval of Garfield County.
If a 60 -foot deeded ROW does not presently exist for Cr. 300 a strip of Land 30 -foot
wide from the centerline of the exisiinu 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 County, 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 High Mesa RV Paris - D Dunbar— 80CC 9,21/09
Section 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management 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.
F. 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
$66,304
Note #5
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
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.
Guarantee adequate
re -vegetation w/o weeds.
Chip -seal
Note #2
Re -vegetation
$64,900
Note #6
3 years
after BOCC
approval
After re -vegetation
is approved by
Count r_
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 may 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 (9/21/05), or 30 days after EnCana's energy development
requiring oversized equipment ends, whichever comes first,
H. 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 _ BOCC 9111/09
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 do vewav access
permit is for the main entrance in and out of the RV Park. The other driveway access
Permit is for the enneraency entrance only and will have a awe with a knock off s►•steins.
The ctneraencv driveway access shall not be considered complete until all conditions of
the driveway access peanut are complete, and approved by Garfield County Road
Bridae Department. These driveway accesses are for this application only_
Staffrecommends 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. ArsOritititrrr that includes the language: The association agreement that is in
Appendix D shall come into force at such time as a 4'j' 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,
Nosi•nage otl crthan the a Mo►eddrivewa 'accesssto sins shall be laced within the
County ROW without approval of Garfield County.
Tin 60 -foot deeded ROW does not presently exist for Cr. 300 a strip of Laud 30 -foot
wide from the centerline 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
MIR Nigh Mesa RV Park - O Dunbar - BOCC 9/21/09
presently being evaluated for improvement obligations.
The traffic vohane increase caused by this application will impact all of Cr_ 300 roads
from the point of entrY to 1-70 through Battlement Mesa. This application has the
potential to add to the traffic iunmot a1 the entrance of Cr. 300 to Colorado State
Highway 6 at Una. This intersection is already a point of great concent and is reauirisiu
improvements. These comments ents are for this application and traffic impact only.
All vehicles hauling equipment and materials for this project shall abide by Garfield
County's ❑versize.'overwciaht permit sVsteiii. All vehicles TCCIllirin oversize: over►veiklit
permits shall apply for them at Garfield County Road & Bridge 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 HH)
Conditions of Approval for access and roadways (10, 12) shall read
✓ 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;
V 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
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.Dunber- BOCC 9t21ro9
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, 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 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.
16
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D.Dunbar— BOCC 9/21/09
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.
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.
7. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-202 (Protection of Wildlife Habitat
areas.
Applicant has agreed to conditions recommended by Staff, those being:
Wildlife safely shall be addressed with the following conditions;
a. Fencing shall meet 'wildlife friendly ;Jencingstandardsofthe Colorado
DO6fV, and be that in keeping with the rural character of the
neighborhood: non -climbable "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 fro' wildlife and human beings that 'night inadvertently enter
the pond,
c_ Bear -proof waste receptacles shall be used on-site.
This standard has been mot.
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 (12.0)
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 Mese RV Park - D.Dunber - BOCC 9l21/09
County Planning Department Project Engineer to address minor spills
from RVs and other vehicles, incorporate erosion BMPs, and secure
a State SWMP.
9. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-205 (Erosion and Sediirpgriatiiort),
7-206 (Drainage) and 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off)
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.
ye 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 Plan 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 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.
10. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-208 (Air 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 Mesa RV Path - 0.Ounbar - BOCC 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 hut not
limited to those recommendedfar private roads as part of Colorado Air
Pollution Control Commission, Regulation 1.
Conditions of Approval for Air Quality (12.0.2) 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 (12,0) shall read
✓ Prior to land disturbance, the Applicant shall have securities in place for re -
vegetation, reclamation, improvements and chip -seal).
(This condition includes G, H, and I from Page 12 that are the Garfield
County Planning Department Project Engineer's securities.)
12. Staff response regarding deficiencies of 7-806 (1{1 (Electrical Distribution/
Communication wiring)
Staff has confirmed that the updated plans provided by the Applicant are adequate.
This standard has been met.
19
MIR Nigh Mesa RV Perk - D.Dunbar— BOCC 9/21/09
VI. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
1. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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, 4-101,4-102, 4-106, 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):
1. 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.
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' 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- BOCC 9171/09
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
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.
6. 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.
▪ Prier -to -site --d' + ien--erg-this-project, the -following -shall -be -in
lG• e4-
Ar-- A#4- eeessory Building -Department permits—An—eluding—grading—permits,
8 I° ermits-from Gare -Road ridge-DepaFtmeRt-for-all-ever-sized/ovever-
weight-vehieles-te be used -en -site, / p& p
C. All-n�y-trafiieeontrol plan uir��`t�dit-.Gai--Bridge
Department;
0.—All ecessar tinanGial-seeunties-related t uetien; re-vegetat en -and
reclamation;
F. All requirements-for-engineerRg desigl d-relates#-plans-set-tartti-by-the
Garfield—County—Project—Engineer,
(For continuity, all of the conditions of former #10 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) are those recommended by Staff,
based on review of the updated materials supplied by Applicant, with new
referral agency comments (Exhibits AA -ll .)
21
MIR High Mese RV Park - D,Dunbar— BOCC 921/09
10. 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: VVWfF,
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 signage:
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
MIR High Mesa RV Park - D. Dunbar- BOCC 921/09
C. 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) & 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 -O.Dunbar— BOCC 9.x11/09
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,
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 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 9/21109
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 dump 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
Below are my comments from July 29, 2009. As part tithe resubmittal, the applicant has provided a
ll'etlands 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 that the applicant treat the Russian -olive and tamarisk located on site prior to the
issuance of a permit Please forward treatment records to this office at:
Garfield County Vegetation Management
POB 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 revcgctation security of $2500/acre for a total of $18,377.00
The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished
according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to contact the County, upon successful revegetation establishment,
to request an inspection for security release consideration.
The Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance arc cited in Section 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08
of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution #2002-94).
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Deparirneni
Review Agency Form
Name of application: High Mesa RV Park
Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge
EXHIBIT
i ag
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, c -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 13ridgye 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 apd Bridge Deprtntentprior 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 13. Mall Date.. August 31. 2009
Revised 3/30/00
Dtis Dunbar
From: Vvendy 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
� CC
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 box as you requested.
Thank you,
1
Dust Dunbar
From: Jim Rada
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:48 PM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Subject: FW: MIR 2509 - High Mesa RV Park
Attachments: Jim Rada (jrada@garfield-county.com).vcf; image001.gif; Jim Rada (jrada@garfield-
county.com)2.vcf; Jim Rada (jrada@garfield-county.com)3.vcf
EXHIBIT
7)7) ff
t0,
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)
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
Notice.
APCC Regulation 9(WE are an attainment area for Particulates)
III.D.1.b. New Sources
Every owner or operator of a new source or activity that is subject to this Section 111.0 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 111,0, 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
III.D.2.b. Construction Activities
III.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 111,0, of this
regulation.
I11.0.2.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 IIID, of this regulation,
[Cross Reference: Subsections e. and f. of Section 111,0.2. of this regulation.]
III.D.2.b.(iv). Control Measures and Operating Procedures
1
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
irr the 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....
...Oust 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 1.
APCC Regulation 1(WE are an attainment area for Particulates)
111. D. 2. a. Roadways
111.0.2. a. (i). Unpaved
ill. D.2. a. (i). (A). Applicability — Attainment and Non -attainment Areas
111. D.2. a. (i). (8). 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 minimize emissions resulting from the use of such
roadway in accordance with the requirements of Section 111.0, of this regulation.
111.0.2.a.0). (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 111.D. of this regulation.
111.D.2.a.(I).(0). Control Measures and Operating Procedures
Control measures or 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
divisioh.
ill D.2. a. (i). (E). If the division receives a complaint that any new or 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 them to the
requirements of this Section 111.0.
ill. D.2, a. (ii). Paved
iiI. D.2. a. (ii). (A). Applicability - Attainment and Non -attainment Areas
I11. D.2. a. (ii). (8). General Requirement
2
Any person who through operations or activities repeatedly deposits materials
which may create fugitive particulate emissions an a public or private paved
roadway is required to submit a control and abatement plan upon request by the
division which provirte$ for the removal of such deposits and appropriate
measures to provent future deposits such that fugitive particulate emissions
which may result are minimized; except that sand, salt or other materials may he
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.
ill.D.2.a.(ii),(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 Ill. D. of this regulation.
lll.D.2.a.(ii).(D). 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 truck, washing or otherwise
treating the exterior of the vehicle, limiting tha size of the load end 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:
I 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 Rada, REI -15
Enviroi+menlal Health Manager
Garfield County Public Hoalth
105 W 14'" Street
Rite CO 81650
PI iune •97() 625-5200 x8113
Cell 970-319-1579
Fax 070 625 8304
Email irada@garlield-WunlY.c9m
uVeb www gar -field 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. I 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 construction/land disturbance begins.
4
lII.D.1.b. New Sources
Every owner or operator of a new source or activity that is subject to this Section III.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 III u at such time as, and us pull 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,
111.0.2.b. Construction Activities
111.D.2.b. (i). Applicability - Attainment and Non -attainment Areas
111. D. 2. b. (ii). Genera! 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 ill. 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.
111.0.2.a. Roadways
111.112.a.(0. Unpaved
111.0.2. a (i). (A). Applicability — Attainment and Non -attainment Areas
111.0.2 a. (i). (B). General Requirement
Any owner or operator responsible for construction or maintenance of any (existing or
new) unpaved roadway which has vehicle traffic exceeding 200 vehicles per day in
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 111.D. of this regulation
3.There appears to be a conflict between the water system design volumes and the wastewater treatment system design
flow numbers. The water system calculations are based on 120 sites, 100 gpdisite, 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
WV►frP design is for 10,000 gpd. I have not received the formal review request at this point from CDPHE for either the
WTP or WVVTP. I am copying Mark Kadnuck on this email to alert him to this concern. A couple of local precedents come
to mind regarding this issue. The Camper Park in CR 319 had to design an ISDS capable of managing waste flows from
a 100 gpdisite 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 gpdisite 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
Jim Rada, RE -15
Cnvironme nfal Hn,illh Manager
Garfield County F'iblir
195 W 14' .boil
Rifle, CO 81650
Phone 970-625-5200 x8113
Cell 970-319-15.N
Fax 970 625 8301
Email iradal9arfleld _counly.ro0i
Web ►wrw.garGeld-oaunt' corn
From: Jim Rada
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 3:46 PM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Subject: MIR 2509 - High Mesa RV Park
Dusty,
I 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 WQCD
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. I
recommend that CDPHE approval for the water system be obtained before site disturbance is allowed.
3. The application indicates that the wastewater treatment system is under review by CDPHE. To date, I
have not received a wastewater treatment design for review and signature regarding this system as is
standard procedure for pubic systems. I recommend that CDPHE approval for the water system be
obtained before site disturbance is allowed.
4. No discussion of solid waste management is included in the proposal.
5. No discussion of dust mitigation during construction or after operation begins.
6. I count about 12 light poles for the park. Lighting at the park should be of a type that directs light in a
manner that has minimal impact with regard to light pollution.
7. No mention of obtaining a stormwater permit from CDPHE. Construction drawings indicate that the
owner shall obtain a stormwater management plan from CDPHE. Under an approved stormwater
permit, the owner must develop and maintain (update as needed) a stormwater management plan.
Thanks for the opportunity to review this application
Jim Rada, R[.h5
Elydirprr!nenlal Health fvlaii u1er
Garfield County Pubhr_ r+ealU
105 W 14'' S4 eel
Rale CO 81650
Phone 970 625 520(1 x411
6
2=v Dunbar
From: Mark Kadnuck[makadnuc@smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 4:23 PM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Subject: High Mesa RV Park
EXHIBIT
1 EE
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. kodnucktrr.st.rie_(:u.us
1
•" PARACHUTE, CO 81635
Cr PHONE: 285-9119, FAX (970) 285-9748
VRtl•r
Aesc.s 1777 S. BATTLEMENT PARKWAY, PO BOX 295
0
GRAND VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
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
To: Dusty Dunbar
From. John Niewoehner
Project Engineer
s
Garfield County
Date: September 15, 2009
RE: High Mesa RV Park - Engineering Review
EXHIBIT
4.Q
13.1
I 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.
2. 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
excludin• re-ve•etation)
` RV Park and
Appurtenances
Note #1
Access Road
$66,304
Note #5
2.5 years
after BOCC
approval
3 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 •ermit.
Chi • -seal
Note #2
Re -vegetation
$64,900
Note #6
After re-
vegetation is
approved by
County
Guarantee adequate re -
vegetation w/o weeds.
Note #3
Note #1 foi 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 riot
completed. l-1owever, 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 $24,800
#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 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
Cost of re-veg = 23.6 acre x $2,5001acrea = $59,000 + 10% = $64,900
Kms+ 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
4. 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 8% 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 ), 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 as a driveway to the property.
From: Carole_Huey@blm.gov [mailto:Caroie_Huey@blm.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:11 PM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Subject: Referral - High Mesa RV Park
EXHIBIT
Dusty,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Looking through the files, I am
unable to determine the land status of the ingress & egress to the property, and their
associated utilities.
I would like to have GPS shapeflies of these if possible. I would like to have time to see
what impacts this may have on public lands.
NNN N hi N N N N N N N /v N N NN
Carole Huey
Realty Specialist, BLM
Glenwood Springs Field Office
2300 River Frontage Road
Silt CO 81652
970.876.9023
EL2b, Dunbar
From: Bender, Mike [Mike Bender@state.co.us)
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:59 PM
To: Dusty Dunbar
Cc: Lis, Craig
Subject: Referral - Proposed High Mesa RV Park
Ms. Dustin Dunbar, Senior Planner
Garfield County Planning Department
0375 County Road 352, #2060
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 Upper 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 -gallon 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.
i
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 will be needed to maintain Fire
Pond during the subsequent guest season and initiating arrangements to obtain additional replacement water from
WDWCD.
Should you have any questions about these comments, please write back or call me at (303)866-3581.
G. Michael Bender
Division of Water Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818
Denver, CO 80203
Phone; (303)866-3581
2
CA: Garfield County
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
f 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 securit will occ fter the
County grants the permit denoting that thea required RV Park elements
have been constructed.
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 Chic) 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 [Mein 07, 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-veg = 23,6 acre x $2,500/acrea = $59,000
Amount of Re-veg 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 = $36,452 [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
be retained as the re-veg security.
Item B-2
Item B.5.A
Resolution Items
Federal, State and County
regulations
Main Entrance Road
Fire District design variance
DESIGN
100%
CONSTRUCTION
Company
NOTES
Bob
Permits will be applied for
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.
Apron is already in place.
70%
BC
Item 10-F
Maintenance Agreement -
All aspects of the
RV Park
25%
Bob
Potable Water
50%
EPC
Environmental Process Control will be maintaining the
WWTP and WTP Alan Leslie Operator ID #3694
Waste Water Systems
50%
EPC
Environmental Process Control will be maintaining the
WWTP and WTP Alan Leslie Operator ID #3695
Item 11-A
Water Wells
Commercial Well Permits
100%
Well Testing
100%
SGM
Water Quality Study
100%
SGM
Results received 9/11/17
Item 12.A.1
Entrance Roadway Design
Design Compliance
100%
BC
The main entrance road design does not 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 exceed 10%
and includes saftey features on curves.
Item 12.B
Road Easements
main access and emergency
100%
BSS
The main entrance road design does not exceed 10%
and includes saftey features on curves.
Item 12.0
Main Access Road
Chip sealing plan
100%
Bob
The 18 month time frame has expired, so this will
have to be completed prior to the LUC permit being
issued.
Item 12-B
Easements (Most of these
appear on the site plan
survey)
Holy Cross Energy Electric
Easement
95%
Ready to be signed and recorded
[abbe
Upper Pond Access and
Agreement
95%
Ready to be signed and recorded
K
-....p__
Upper Pond Easement and
Agreement
95%
Ready to be signed and recorded
CO
Well Access and Utility
Easement and Agreement
95%
Ready to be signed and recorded
Dedicated Drainage
Easements
95%
These will also be on the easement plat that will be
recorded. Waiting on Legal
Blanket Easement and
Agreement
Easement Agreement High
Mesa
Easement Agreement
Daybreak
95%
95%
95%
Easement and Agreement for on site easements as
they appear on the easement plat. Ready to be
sighned and recorded
Agreement for High Mesa to Maintain facilities on
Daybreak parcel. Ready to be signed and recorded
Agreement for Daybreak to Maintain facilities on High
Mesa parcel. Ready to be signed and recorded
Emergency Road
Maintenance Agreement
95%
Ready to be signed and recorded
Road Maintenance
Agreement
High Mesa Storm Water
Retention Pond
95%
Ready to be signed and recorded
95%
Ready to be signed and recorded
Water Pipeline ROW
Daybreak to High Mesa
95%
Ready to be signed and recorded
Water Pipeline ROW High
Mesa to Daybreak
95%
Ready to be signed and recorded
Ready to be signed and recorded
Ready to be signed and recorded
Recorded
Recorded
Holy Cross Energy Electric
Easement
95%
General Maintenance
Agreement High Mesa Park
Operations
95%
Fire Pond and Utility
Easement Agreement
Recorded
at 867824
Right of Way Agreement -
Speakman to High Mesa,
Individual
Recorded
at 867821
Recorded
at 867826
Recorded
at 867822
Water Tank Access and
Utility Easement and
Agreement
Recorded
Access and Utility Easement
and Agreement
Recorded
Waste Water Treatment
Facility, Access and Utility
Easement and Agreement
Recorded
at 867825
Recorded
Storm Water Facility Access
and Maintenance Easement
Agreement
Recorded
at 867823
Recorded
at 867827
Recorded
at 867828
Recorded
Right of Way Agreement -
High Mesa to Public
Recorded
Emergency Access and Utility
Easement Agreement
Right of Way Agreement -
High Mesa and Speakman to
Daybreak Realty for road
construction and
maintenance
Recorded
Recorded
at 867829
Recorded
Item 12-D
Have in place all required
plans, agreements and
securities including but
not limited to
0%
0%
Item 12-D-1
Reclamation plan
100%
100%
N/A
BC
BC
The reclamation plan is complete and will be part of
the Storm Water Permit Plan.
Item 12-D-2
Item 12-D-3
Dust Mitigation (to meet
Colorado Air Pollution
Control Commission
Regulation 1)
The plan is in design. An application will be made to
the State prior to commencement of construction.
Improvements Agreement
Bob
According to David Pesnichak this was for the chip
sealing which will have to be completed before the
LUC is issued
Item 12-D-4
Maintenance Agreement
95%
Bob
Ready to be signed and recorded
Item 12-D-5
Securities for reclamation, re-
vegetation and chip seal
0%
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
0% see
notes
Bob
Will be done within 30 days of construction
commencement
Item 12-E-2
Item 12-E-3
Dust Mitigation
Land Disturbances
Environmental Health for
dust mitigation (control
measures as per APCC
Regulation 1,III.D.b.(iv))
incorporated into the plan
and an Air Polution
construction permit (state)
50%
100%
0%
0%
BC
BC
BC
must be in place before dirt is moved
Land disturbance areas are noted on the Construction
Plan set by Bell Consulting LLC and are also delineated
on the Storm Water Management Plan
The SWMP is complete and the application will be
made to the CDPHE prior to commencement of
construction.
Planning Department Project
Engineer's requirement for
cordoning off area to
minimize land disturbances
Item 12-E-4
Storm Water
Management Plan
(SWMP)
State Department of Public
Health & Environment
(CDPHE) requirements
100%
Recorded
at 867823
DUPLICAT
Eoflt12B
AND
12.E.5
0%
Item 12-E-5
Updated Easements
North Storm Water
Retention Pond
DUPLICATE of 12B and 12.E.5
DUPLICATE of 12B and 12.E.5
South Storm Water
Retention Pond
Lower Fire Flow Pond
Recorded
at 867823
DUPLICAT
E of It 12B
AND
12.E.5
Recorded
at 867824
DUPLICAT
E of 12B
DUPLICATE of 12B
Upper Fire Flow Pond
DUPLICAT
E OF 12B
AND
12.E.5
DUPLICATE of 12B
Item 12-F
High Mesa Storm Water
Retention Pond on RV Park
Parcel if applicable and
revised site plan depicting all
necessary easements
95%
75%
100%
This is shown on the site plan and will be on the Plat.
EASEMENT PLAT IS READY TO BE SIGNED AND
RECORD ONCE IT IS APPROVED, Easement doc is ready
to be signed and approved
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
BSS and
BC
This will be provided upon completion of all
construction plans and easement documents
Item 13
Fire Protection and Well
design
Upper Pond
Fire Protection plan is done and approved by Fire
Chief Fergeson
Item 13-A
Proper recorded
easements (appears to be
duplicate requests of
Items 12-B and 12-E-5)
DUPLICAT
E OF 12B
AND
12.E.5
100%
0%
BC
Appears to be duplicate request of Items 12-B and 12 -
E-5
The conveyance channel is included in the 2017
construction plans
Design of the ditch or pipe
conveyance to Lower Fire
Flow Pond
Item 13-B
Maintenance Road for the
Upper Pond
DUPLICAT
E OF 12B
AND
12.E.5
BSS
Duplicate of Upper Pond Access and maintenance in
Item 12B and 12.E.5 above
All easements have been added to the overall site
plan, just needs signed and recorded
Amended Site Plan
95%
BC
Well System Details
Design Specifications
80%
SGM
Easement and Maintenance
Road requirements (appears
to be a duplicate request)
DUPLICAT
E OF 12B
AND
12.E.5
Duplicate request, Easement is prepared and ready to
be signed and recorded. See item 12B and 12.E.5
above
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
Letter accepting design and
proper installation of:
N/A
100%
100%
100%
SGM
Wells will not be used to fill any of the ponds
Item 14
Grand Valley Fire
Protection Distrct
Have letter from Fire Chief Fergeson
Item 14-A
Fire Flow Pond including
water delivery system(s)
0%
25%
BC and
BSS
Design is complete. Construction is not complete
Design is complete. Construction is not complete
Easements and Maintenance
Roads from all
Impoundments and wells
required for its operation
Item 14-B
Item 14-C
Item 15
Emergency Access Road and
knock off gate and it's
surface
100%
100%
TBD
25%
BC and
Bob
Design is complete. Construction is not complete,
Speakmans 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 Chef Ferguson dated
7/17/17
Verification of Permits,
Licenses, Decrees and
Inspections
Fire Safety and response plan
Annual Inspection date(s) of
the fire flow pond
Bob
This was submitted as part of the Park operations and
appears in the Appendices J.vi Fire Chief Ferguson has
approved the existing plan and provided us a letter to
same.
To be determined
Item 15-A
2 Commercial Wells
100%
80%
SGM
Commercial Well permits have been obtained
Item 15-B
Wastewater Treatment Plant
SGM
Preliminary effluent limits have been requested from
CDPHE. The Site Application is being put together
currently. Equipment seletion will happen by
8/18/2017. WWTF should be fully permitted for
construction by Spring 2018
Item 15-C
Water Treatment Plant
80%
Water quality testing was redone 8/3/2017.
Equipment selection will happen by 8/18/2017.
Permitting with CDPHE will begin mid September.
WTP should be fully permitted for construction by
SGM
Spring 2018
Item 15-D
Operators License(s)
Completed
Bob
EPC (Environmental Process Control) has agreed to be
the licensed operator for the water and waste water
facilities with Alan Leslie as Operator, ID# 3694
1
Item 16
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS MUST BE BUILT BEFORE THE LUC PERMIT IS ISSUED
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.
Land Use Change
Components required
Roadways for access,
emergency access and
maintenance
Water, Irrigation and Fire
Flow systems
BC
Item 16-A
100%
100%
70%
0%
Item 16-B
Item 16-C
Restroom and Shower
facility
0%
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
50%
Bob
Still in the process of putting these together
Water decree has been filed under case number
2017CW3046 with the Garfield County Courts
Item 16-H
Securities , permits,
licenses, notifications and
tests including water decree
for two (2) storage ponds
Water
Decree
Filed,
Dated
2/28/2017