County Planning Compliance Review Documents and AVAC’s Analyses

This page provides PDF documents that the La Plata County Planning Department has posted on-line related to the Roberts Village Camp Durango Project. The Item 0 Compliance Letter provides a summary. The remaining items 1-10 documents are supplemental reports. Note that some reports referenced in the summary are yet to be completed/submitted to the county portal.

Our analysis is provided below. We will update this page as additional materials or relevant information becomes available. Thanks for taking the interest to peruse these reports. The county documents will provide a good starting point for our legal group.

>>>> AVAC’s Analysis Summary >>>

The following sections present summary reviews of the 11 documents, noting some of the pros and cons of each:

Overall Pros:

1) They recognize the RV vs. manufactured homes difference! Seemingly, either Roberts will try to go for an RV major development permit or lose interest as he presumably cannot make money without the tiny homes business model.

2) They must address fire mitigation and water access. We are not sure if that is easily addressed with storage or not. Animas Water Company states “no guarantee of fire flow from hydrants”.

3) Density – they state there is a requirement of 900 square feet per unit.  1 acre = 43,560 sq feet. That divided by 900 sq ft = 48.4. Assuming the 25% per acre comment below would yield a maximum of 12.1 sites per acre. Hopefully, that will make the Roberts business model less attractive.

4) CDOT – They are awaiting CDOTs report; however, LPC did get an independent group evaluation by Fox Tuttle (Doc #1) that states the Roberts reports are missing numerous analyses. They also reference Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Golf Cart Circulation concerns – and reference the numerous public concerns voiced regarding that. While they mention that in the sub-report it is not referenced in the final report, so it may be a “con” in that it is not technically a LUC violation.

5) The maximum 60-day stay limit should be a dis-incentive for Roberts.

6) They do bring up the “maintenance of existing character” issue. They note that it is out of character with the Density of South Dalton, and that all of the RVs and mobile home parks are along HWY 550 and that this would change the character of the area.

7) The analysis of the Roberts “Traffic” report indicates that they were overly conservative on how they evaluated traffic patterns. 

8) CDPHE states Roberts should develop and implement a materials management plan for the disposition of any waste soils generated from the site to mitigate hazardous waste related to the previous land use as a gravel pit.

9) RDAC opposes the development. They cite a number of important impacts of the Roberts development, not the least of which is that Hermosa Sanitation will likely need to upgrade their systems by an estimated cost of $17M.

They also note that the procedures for public input have been eroded over recent years to the point that they recommend a moratorium on development in the Animas Valley.

10) The Planning Department’s own engineering report states that this should be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners! This is different from what AVAC has been told in the past…

11) The DFR report eviscerates the submitted proposal for fire mitigation and states “By no means is this project approved to move forward”.

Overall Cons:

1) Unfortunately, there is no mention of Hermosa Sanitation’s improvement expenses having to be addressed. It may not be a county LUC requirement, but is a major factor. 

2) Roberts will possibly remove the river access offering since they are requiring additional work related to that development.

3) Flood plain – according to the LPC engineering form the project is currently in the flood plain, but state that the “new“ flood plain maps (expected release 4/25/2024) supposedly will now show it “not” in the flood plain; although, there is a portion of the property on the west side, which will be in the Floodway, per the new release, and Roberts will have to adhere to specific building codes.

4) CPW states there will be minimal impact on wildlife due to the development. Of course, we disagree with that assessment.

>>> AVAC’s Analysis Details >>>

The following sections provide excerpts from each of the reports highlighting the sections that are most relevant. The text in red (and bolded) highlight what we consider the most important items.

>>>> Highlights from the Compliance Review >>>

Page 1 (Traffic): 

Additionally, La Plata County has included a Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, a 3rd-Party consultant, to evaluate the traffic impacts of the development, the proposed traffic improvements, and the Traffic Impact Study provided in the application materials; their comments are attached.

Page 2 (CDOT):

The site plan does not show the proposed roadway improvements on Trimble Lane/CR252; these should be integrated into the site plan in order to see the relationship between road and site improvements.

Page 3 (Flood Plain):

The Plat amendment will also be required to depict an accurate floodway in the existing conditions exhibited. The floodway on the plat recorded at reception number 1217658 follows the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodway dated August 10, 2010. There is a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for this site dated April 9, 2012. The mapped floodway on the site plan does not appear to follow the LOMR for this site or the plat. The Preliminary Flood Hazard Mapping information provided by FEMA scheduled to be released on April 25, 2024, will need to be provided and reviewed by staff before a public hearing is scheduled. 

The floodway shown on the site plan differs from the floodway shown in the civil drawings; provide clarification or revisions to the documents. It is not apparent that the Park Model units are outside of the floodway, and this is an issue if they are on permanent foundations. (Sec. 78-23. Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard). 

Page 3/4 (Manufactured Home vs. RV Park):

3. Sec. 73-5.III.H states “. . . The maximum length of stay for a camping party shall be sixty (60) days. Movement from one space within the campground or recreational vehicle park to another shall not waive this limitation.” Although the term “party” is not defined in the code, it is presumed that applies to campers using a recreational vehicle who are not allowed to stay more than 60 days and includes the recreational vehicle. The permanent placement of an RV, park model, or rv park model is considered a manufactured home park use per the La Plata County Land Use Code and is not in compliance with the requirements for a campground. The permanent placement of structures requires a land use application for a manufactured home park pursuant Sec. 73-15. The ownership program also doesn’t meet 6 CCR 1010-9, State Campground Regulations. which limits the stay of guests at the campground to 60 days.

Page 4 (Manufactured Home vs. RV Park):

Sec. 73-5.III.L states “. . . no permanent or semi-permanent structures, such as cabins, lean-tos sheds or habitable buildings shall be erected in the campground except by the owner of the real property. . . “The narrative provided explains that the park model and RV cabins are intended to be privately owned which is not in compliance with the requirements for a campground and would be considered a manufactured home park by the La Plata County Land Use Code.

The property is located within the General Commercial Zoning District within the Animas Valley Land Use Plan. While tourist-oriented recreational uses (including recreational vehicle parks) are allowed uses by a minor land use permit, a manufactured home park is not an allowed use within the General Commercial land use designation. (Sec. 65-3.XII)

Page 5 (Fire Protection):

Sec. 73-5.III.E.2. The Animas Water Company Commitment letter dated July 25, 2023, states that fire protection water supply is not necessarily available. Provide information on how fire protection will be obtained. (SEC 73-5.III. E.2, Campground Water Supply) (SEC. 70-4.I.D, Domestic Water)

Page 6 (Density):

SEC 73-5.III. K states, “The density of campsites and recreational vehicle campsites shall not be more than twenty-five (25) per acre excluding roads, buildings, and other common use areas.” Are the 9.01-acre density calculations provided in the project narrative reflective of the exclusions mentioned in SEC 73-5.III. K, Density? Does the density calculation include each type of site?

Page 7 (Maintenance of Existing Character):

The Land Use Code provides compatibility criteria that don’t appear to be met. , specifically 70-5.III.D, “Maintenance of existing character.” The density of the proposed RV park does not correspond to the density of the Dalton Ranch subdivision to the north and the west and the large lot of agricultural properties to the south and the east. 

Furthermore, per the code, it could be stated that “the surrounding area’s characteristics are already changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use in the area.” However, the RV park and mobile home park developments are concentrated along US Highway 550. They are buffered from the eastern neighborhood through the highway, the golf course, other single-family homes, and agricultural open space. Therefore, this type of use in its current form, in combination with its density, does not meet the 70-5.III.D, “Maintenance of existing character.”

>>>> Highlights on Item 1 (TIS Traffic Impact Report) >>>

Page 3 (Trip Generation):

Another overly conservative assumption in this analysis is that all of the traffic in and out of the site generated by the RVs and campers will be made in these large vehicles. In reality, the large vehicles will only access CR 252 when they first arrive, or when they finally depart the RV Park. The vast majority of intermediate trips will be made by normal sized automobiles given that large motorhomes typically tow a small car or jeep, and large campers will be disconnected from the tow vehicles and the tow vehicles (SUVs or pickups) will make the day‐to‐day trips to surrounding attractions. In this context a reduction factor should be developed when applying PCEs to the RV site traffic.

Page 4 (Item 16) Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Golf Cart Access and Circulation

Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Golf Cart Access and Circulation Considerations: Note that Sec. 74‐3 IV C.2.g. and r. of the La Plata County Code require consideration of modal splits and access considerations including paths and sidewalks etc. as part of the traffic study. It should also be noted that this site is adjacent to a country club and golf course, where golf cart traffic is to be expected. In fact, the Site Plan illustrates parking spaces for golf carts. This coupled with neighbors expressed concerns about safely accommodating bicycle, pedestrian, and golf cart traffic along CR 252 suggest that the study should consider these alternative travel modes to the automobile and identify any measures to facilitate their safety. So far, this study is completely lacking in any consideration of bicycle and pedestrian circulation and potential golf cart access both to/from the site and also in the vicinity along RC 252. When updated, this study should address all of these issues from a multimodal safety perspective. This will help address neighbor’s concerns.

>>>> Highlights on Item 3 (Hermosa Sanitation Report) >>>

Page 1 (Item 1g):

All proposed Village Camp sewer infrastructure shall be privately owned and maintained.

Page 2 (Item 1i):

Wastewater delivered to HSD shall meet HSD influent standards. BOD = 250 mg/l, TSS = 200 mg/l, PH between 6 and 8. Pretreatment may be required but is not addressed in the Village Camp sewer system design. Provide a design report with detailed calculations for Village Camp wastewater strength and volumes based on ALL proposed wastewater producing uses (RV Spaces, Park Models, laundry machines, non-public laundry, clubhouse, bathhouse, etc..).

>>>> Highlights on Item 4 (LPC Health Department Report) >>>

Page 1 (Para 2):

For Planning Department and applicant information, LPCPHD cannot issue on-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) permits within the service boundary of HSD without District consent, so expansion of HSD service territory into the project parcels would be relevant if the vault toilets are part of a future phase. If part of the current land use permit, LPCPHD requires an OWTS permit application, site and soil evaluation, and design document compliant with Colorado WQCC Regulation 43 prior to issuance of an OWTS permit, including a permit for a vault or vault privy.

>>>> Highlights on Item 5 (LPEA Report) >>>

Page 1 (Para 4 & 5):

LPEA is also concerned regarding the heavy load on a full capacity so a system improvement could be required to support load if moving forward. There is also a gap between the NW easement and the SW easement so installing a line would be difficult unless there is an easement that connects it. LPEA suggest dedications to utility along the row or Right of way throughout the park.

>>>> Highlights on Item 6 (CDPHE Report) >>>

Page 1 (Para 4 & 5):

Since the site was previously used as a gravel operation, it should be evaluated for releases of petroleum and other regulated materials prior to construction of the site or additional site development. The facility should develop and implement a materials management plan for the disposition of any waste soils generated from the site.

>>>> Highlights on Item 7 (DFPD Report) >>>

Page 1 (Para 1)

This review for the recreational campground does not include the fire code plan review, NFPA 1194 review, site plan, suppression system review, fire alarm review or any reviews outside of the preliminary development plan.

>>>> Highlights on Item 8 (RDAC Report) >>>

Page 1 (Para 6)

For a “luxury” RV park, the number of smaller slots implies the target market is not so much “luxury” RVs as small trailers. A car or truck pulling a 15’ trailer would fill the normal slot. Roberts has a stated desire to convert RV slots in the future into additionally modular units. Additionally, only Manufactured (modular) Home Parks, per AVLUP, are allowed to have individual ownership of modular homes located thereon. The RDAC does not support the conversion of these RV slots to modular units in the future. RDAC further demands NO permanent modular units be allowed in an RV Park per LUC 73-5.

Page 1 (Para 4):

Because RR plans on leaving the modular units in place full time and selling some of them, the RDAC believes RR is actually a manufactured home park and LUC 73.15 applies. The RDAC believes Colorado Mobile Home Park Act C.R.S 38-12-200 applies to RR because the modular units are planned to be in place over 5 months a year. The CO Attorney General’s interpretation was further validated to be in effect in La Plata County by recent rulings by La Plata Judge Fairchild Carlson regarding Junction West Vallecito Resort.

Page 3 (Para 1):

At 80%, HSD will, by Colorado State Law, need to replace the lagoon system/plant. An upgrade would represent a significant expense for the current residents who should not be responsible for this cost. This expense is estimated at upwards of $17M and HSD does not have monies in reserve. RR should be required to set aside monies for this eventual expansion.

Page 4 (Para 3, 4, 5):

As a result of the 2017 Administrative Code Amendment, all special uses in the Animas Valley District now only require a Minor Land Use Permit. This does not allow any Major land use developments, which were previously categorized as Class II (a/k/a Major) under the AVLUP, to be considered and processed by the BOCC on an equal basis with other Districts of the County that maintain Major Use Permits. See LUC 66-7.

As a result of this change, the Animas Valley District is effectively denied the benefit of the permitting requirements of any of the Major Land Use development types defined under LUC 66-7 and the right to have the BOCC to render a decision on that development.

The Animas Valley RDAC members are seeking a Moratorium on all Special Use development or requests for zoning changes within the Animas Valley District to allow for these LUC rules and regulations to be clarified and reviewed. We further request all Special Uses identified under LUC 65 be restored to Major Permit status as is the case in the remaining Districts of the County.

>>>> Highlights on Item 9 (LPC Building Department Comments) >>>

Page 1 (Para 2):

The RV Park location is in the Floodplain, any building – permanent structures will need to be permitted and follow La Plata County Flood Plain, Building and Land Use codes.

>>>> Highlights on Item 10 (LPC Engineering Comments) >>>

Page 2 (Project Understanding):

Entire property is in the current floodplain and a portion of the property is within the floodway. The floodplain maps for this area are being updated and show the majority of the property out of the floodplain. The project will be evaluated using the effective floodplain maps in place at the time of approval.

Page 3 (Para 6):

Drainage Report addressing historic and developed flows, onsite detention and outfall structure; culverts; and crossing of major drainageways. Drainage narrative to include sections on Onsite Flow, Offsite Flows, Onsite Detention, Interior Storm Drain System, and Erosion Control. Include drainage exhibits for historic and developed conditions. The Drainage Report shall correspond to the Grading Plan Sheet. See Chapter 70 – Technical Appendix, Section 70-9 Drainage Criteria Standards. LUC 70-9

Page 6 (Para 1):

Construction Plans:

– Access roads that do not front campsites must meet county standards based on traffic.

– Project must conform with LUC 73-5 for water, sewer and access improvements.

– Provide construction plans for all on-site and off-site sewer and water improvements.

– Verify with DFPD if emergency access is required.

– Provide construction plans for all improvements to CR 252.

– Provide parking plan.

– Provide grading plan for drainage improvements and clubhouse area.

Page 6 (Item1):

Several of the park models on west side appear to not meet setbacks requirements from wetlands and rivers per LUC 70-6.I.B.

– Does the existing overhead electric on the east side need an easement? Are there any issues with RV’s being under the line?

– Site plan does not reflect the parking spaces for the RV sites as shown in detail on Sheet 68.

Page 8 (Sheet 31-43):

Sewer line is near or under foundation for several park models. This is generally not good engineering practice under a permanent structure due to inability to maintain or replace sewer line as well as possible issues with the foundation. Suggest a minimum of 10 feet of clearance. Typical all sewer sheets.

Page 8 (Sheet 49):

Water line is near or under foundation for several park models. This is generally not good  engineering practice under a permanent structure due to inability to maintain or replace waterline as well as possible issues with the foundation. Suggest a minimum of 10 feet of clearance. Typical all water sheets.

Page 10 (Sanitation Sewer Commitment to Serve):

LUC 70-3 requires the commitment to serve to state that the sewer provider is willing to provide sewer service sufficient for the build-out of the proposed development, including all phases. The 111 ERT’s specified in the letter does not cover the full build-out of the project.

Page 11 (Standard Conditions of Approval):

Prior to Board of County Commissioners consideration, all items identified in the Compliance Review Notes (CRN) section, including outstanding agency comments noted, shall be resolved, unless otherwise specifically noted. NOTE: County states “Y” – it is required!

>>>> Highlights on Item 12 (DFRA Summary Comments) >>>

Page 1 (Section 1):

By no means is this project approved to move forward. Previous review comments were provided as part of a sketch/feasibility review on December 13, 2022.

…

The Minor Site review does not include the fire code plan review, fire alarm review, suppression system review including underground fire supply, or any other reviews outside of planning and site plan.

Page 1 (Section 2):

Access roads do not meet remoteness.

Two access roads are required for the development. When two roads are required they shall be placed at a distance apart equal to not less than one half the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area served in accordance with IFC, D107 and D104.3

Page 5 (Section 5):

Who was contacted? The seven hydrants are proposed and do not align with proper fire fighting requirements. Hydrant locations have been provided on the civil drawings. Civil drawings to be revised for additional review with our office.