Campground with cabins, Chaffee County, Colorado

A model project in a county with its own campground code

This is a model project: a 60 to 120 site campground with 10 to 20 camp cabins on a 20 to 80 acre parcel in unincorporated Chaffee County, Colorado, used to show how the county's code and the state's rules shape a preliminary site plan. It is not a built or commissioned project.

Chaffee County publishes campground-specific standards in LUC Sec. 2.2.2.4.B. Its Land Use Code was adopted 11-19-2024 by Resolution 2024-78 and took effect 1-1-2025 ^{[1, 5]}. On that date campgrounds moved from Limited Impact Review under the old code to a Conditional Use heard by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) ^[6]. The county also posts a version of the code amended 9-16-2025 ^[7].

The answer for this program in one paragraph: a campground of this size is buildable only as a Conditional Use decided by the BOCC after a public hearing, in the AR, RR, MUR or MUC districts, never by right, and capped at 20 campsites or camp cabins per acre ^[1]. At 50 gpd per campsite under Regulation 43 Table 6-2, 60 sites produce 3,000 gpd and 120 sites 6,000 gpd, both above the 2,000 gpd threshold for state site location and design approval ^[4]. At the Pine Creek campground hearing in June 2026, commissioners denied the permit on demonstrated need and wildlife mitigation although staff had recommended approval, as The Mountain Mail reported ^[8].

The design method follows the campground site plan hub. The statewide layer is on the Colorado site plan page and the Colorado campground site plan page, and the Colorado RV park site plan page covers the RV side of the same state rule. State campground rules are compared in glamping and campground regulations by state.

At a glance

Every eligible district marks the use "C", so the project is decided at a discretionary BOCC hearing under the general review standards of LUC Sec. 2.2.1.3.B, including the need standard quoted below ^[1]. Variations to the use standards of Division 2.2.2 may be approved where the variation substantially meets the purpose of the standard, with respect to mitigation of impacts, and the review standards (Sec. 2.2.1.3.C) ^[1].

Approval path

Every approval in order, with the body, the code section, the published fee and clock, and whether a sealed submittal is required. "Not stated" means the record retrieved does not publish the value.

The county publishes its review clocks, and they are short. The record retrieved publishes no duration for state wastewater approval or for augmentation, and the CUP hearing record asks for both, so the model project starts the state wastewater application and the augmentation enrollment alongside the CUP application. The four core county fees total $8,620 (CUP $7,500, site plan $800, floodplain $160, driveway $160) before consultant escrow under Sec. 5.2.5.5, recording and referral fees ^[3].

Design standards

The numeric standards that shape the layout, county first, then state. The county figures are from the adopted Land Use Code effective 1-1-2025 ^[1].

The provisions that bind the layout, in their own words:

"The campground or RV park shall not include more than 20 campsites or camp cabins (measured in the aggregate) per acre;" (LUC Sec. 2.2.2.4.B.3.f) ^[1]

"All camp cabins shall be set back 20 feet from all roads and drives" (LUC Sec. 2.2.2.4.B.3.h) ^[1]

The MUR district's stated purpose names "recreation companies, campgrounds, and hospitality activities in rural areas" (Table 2.1.2.2). ^[1]

"There is a demonstrated need in the County for the conditional use to serve demands created by County residents, ranches, agricultural operations, visitors, or non-agricultural organizations or businesses." (LUC Sec. 2.2.1.3.B.6) ^[1]

"Each campsite shall provide at least 900 square feet of space." "The density of campsites shall not be more than 25 campsites per acre excluding roads, buildings, and other common use areas." (6 CCR 1010-9 Sec. 5.3 to 5.4) ^[2]

"The site shall not be located in an area subject to periodic flooding" (6 CCR 1010-9 Sec. 3.2) ^[2]

The county spacing rule is the stricter one: 20 ft between sites against the state's 10 ft between units ^{[1, 2]}. The county cap of 20 per acre counts the whole site, while the state's 25 per acre excludes roads, buildings and common areas, so the county figure is the one the site data table reports against ^{[1, 2]}. The plan tests yield against three limits together: that cap, the 100 ft edge setback where the parcel adjoins residential-zoned land, and the 20 ft spacing between sites. For how these caps compare with other states, see RV sites per acre.

Determination: the program as proposed and as resized

As proposed: 60 to 120 sites including 10 to 20 camp cabins, mixed RV full-hookup and tent sites, with an office, bathhouse and laundry, in the MUR district.

As constrained by code and site:

• Use and hearing. No district allows the program by right. The project stands or falls at the BOCC hearing, where unfulfilled demonstrated need and inadequate wildlife mitigation were the reasons a commissioner gave in the Pine Creek denial, with the creek setback in dispute ^{[1, 8, 22]}.
• Land. At 20 per acre the code minimum is 3 acres for 60 units and 6 acres for 120 units. The realistic gross area is materially larger once residential-edge setbacks, OWTS fields, augmentation and drainage areas, and resource setbacks are applied ^[1].
• Wastewater. 60 sites produce 3,000 gpd and 120 sites 6,000 gpd at 50 gpd per campsite, both above 2,000 gpd, which triggers site location and design approval under C.R.S. 25-8-702 and a hydrologic analysis ^[4]. CDPHE adopted an updated Regulation 43 on 3/10/2025, effective 6/15/2025, and counties have up to 12 months to adopt conforming local rules ^[23]; the county's Building Safety page records local adoption of the 2017 regulation on Oct 1, 2018 ^[24].
• Water. The Arkansas basin is over-appropriated, so new non-exempt wells must replace out-of-priority depletions through an augmentation plan ^{[13, 25]}. The state's well permit data dictionary lists "Commercial: Ordinary non-manufacturing business such as hotels, campgrounds" ^[26]. An exempt domestic well was contested at Aspire under DWR Policy 2011-3, so the model plans a commercial well with augmentation ^[27]. UAWCD's Blue Line "covers most areas in Chaffee County and western Fremont County"; outside it, a project-specific water court decree is needed ^[13].
• Floodplain and creeks. No sites in an area subject to periodic flooding ^[2]. The FEMA study includes approximate Zone A studies (2013) on Cottonwood Creek, Browns Creek and others ^[28]. Any development in a Fluvial Hazard Zone triggers a fluvial hazard assessment, and county mapping is by UAWP and a consultant ^{[14, 29]}. On riparian parcels, the 300 ft high-water-mark setback reported at Cottonwood Creek and Pine Creek, and CPW's 500 ft recommendation at Pine Creek, can remove the most marketable riverfront sites ^{[30, 22]}.
• Scenic and wildlife. Protected vantage points include "Views from the Arkansas River" and U.S. 285 between Chalk Creek and C.R. 150, with a visual impact analysis required where the site is visible (3.6.8.2); a wildlife habitat report by a qualified biologist in consultation with CPW is required where habitat is mapped (3.6.3.4) ^[11].

Resized for the model: entitle the full 60 to 120 site build-out at the hearing with every phase drawn; Phase 1 carries the water, OWTS and access backbone with a first loop of sites and the service building; Phase 2 sites and cabins follow as augmentation units and wastewater capacity are secured ^{[13, 4]}.

Design notes for the model project

1. Zone first. The model sites the program in MUR, whose purpose names campgrounds, or on AR or RR land where no residential-zoned neighbor sits within the 100 ft setback of the program edge ^[1].
2. Water buffers before sites. The plan draws the river edge, floodplain and fluvial hazard limits first, then a working buffer at the 300 ft code setback reported for Pine Creek, and tests a 500 ft line against CPW's recommendation there; sites are fitted afterwards ^{[1, 22]}.
3. A need case in the packet. The CUP narrative documents demonstrated need under Sec. 2.2.1.3.B.6 with occupancy data and public-land camping pressure, because unfulfilled need was the first reason Commissioner Wood gave for the Pine Creek denial ^{[1, 8]}.
4. Agency letters before submittal. CPW and the fire district are consulted before filing and their letters go in the application; CDOT access is settled early, since a commissioner faulted the missing CDOT access permit at Pine Creek ^{[11, 8]}.
5. State wastewater and augmentation from day one. The program budget carries a CDPHE OWTS site application and a UAWCD or decreed augmentation plan ^{[4, 13]}.
6. Transparent phasing. The full build-out is drawn at entitlement so that phasing cannot be read as hidden expansion; at Agastache Village, neighbors read "phases" as hiding "hundreds more RV sites" ^[31].

Site data and yield

The preliminary plan carries this table on the sheet, with the cap, the setbacks and the utility loads stated against the program.

Two local reference points for yield: Aspire Tours on the Arkansas River was approved for 10 campsites and 7 cabins with a 72-person capacity ^{[32, 33]}, and the Applejack RV Park notice proposed 29 RV-only spaces in two phases near Salida ^[34].

Comparable approvals and denials, 2021 to 2026

Before this window, Agastache Village (15 tiny home and RV units on 18.54 acres on CR 146) was denied unanimously by the Planning Commission, and the BOCC rejected the appeal on April 3, 2019 ^{[31, 39]}. On June 7, 2022 the BOCC unanimously adopted Resolution 2022-41, a temporary moratorium on certain land use applications, initially through Dec 31, 2022 ^[40]. When the new code took effect on Jan 1, 2025 the moratorium was lifted ^[6]. The code now lets the BOCC impose future moratoria "for a period not to exceed 32 months" (LUC Sec. 1.2.2.2) ^[1].

The Pine Creek record, as reported, shows that a staff recommendation of approval did not carry the hearing. The Chaffee County Times reported that "Every public commenter, both in person and virtually, opposed the permit," and listed opposition themes of wildlife migration, wildfire, creek setbacks, egress access, highway access and impacts to the Pine Creek trailhead ^[22]. Ark Valley Voice reported three of the ten staff conditions (no fire pits, CPW's 500 ft setback and an operating season of May 1 through Labor Day) and that CPW advises seasonal campground closure from September through November ^[41]. The Planning Director has described resource setbacks of "anywhere between 50 feet and 300 feet, depending on the lay of the land," as reported by the Chaffee County Times ^[42].

Aspire drew a petition of "Over 600 county residents" and objections over river trash, agricultural character, pronghorn use of the property to reach the Arkansas River, water supply and road safety; one opponent argued that exempt-well use conflicts with DWR Water Policy 2011-3 ^{[32, 27]}.

Cost and phasing benchmarks

The per-site rows are national industry figures, not Colorado prices ^{[43, 44]}. Phasing evidence from the record: the Applejack notice proposed two phases, and Aspire's public campground was proposed in three ^{[34, 32]}. UAWCD sells augmentation by the 0.10 AF unit, defined as "Domestic household use and approximately 1,400 square feet of lawn or garden," so water can be bought in step with each phase of sites ^{[13, 45]}. National build-cost context is collected in how much it costs to build an RV park or campground.

Submittal anatomy: what the plan carries and what the engineer adds

The county's scenic standards bear on the drawings. A visual impact analysis with pre- and post-development plan and elevation views is required where the site has an unobstructed view from a scenic vantage point, including "Views from the Arkansas River" (LUC 3.6.8.2) ^[11]. Appendix A asks for a "Photographic simulation or other comparable visual analysis," "in accurate perspective format," with multiple perspectives along corridors ^[11]. Building design favors earth tones, broken massing and styles "reminiscent of traditional agricultural buildings" (LUC 3.6.8.4), and CUP conditions may regulate "architectural design, material, and color of buildings" ^{[11, 1]}. Aspire's staff report carried a site plan drawing, and its conditions required tree screening ^{[46, 33]}. Aerial and eye-level views can be produced from the same plan; see 3D rendering services.

Conditions and handoff

Conditions to expect at the hearing, from the code and the local record:

• Design conditions. CUP conditions may regulate landscaping, building design, materials, color and lighting (LUC Sec. 2.2.1.3.D.2) ^[1].
• Riparian and wildlife conditions. The reported Pine Creek staff conditions included CPW's 500 ft setback, no fire pits and a May 1 through Labor Day season ^[41]. The model plan draws the code creek setbacks as fixed lines and requests no setback relief.
• Traffic and screening conditions. Aspire's approval carried CR 190W traffic mitigation and phased tree planting for visual screening ^[33].
• Drainage conditions. Buena Vista Overlook was conditioned on a civil-engineered drainage plan, as reported by The Mountain Mail ^[38].
• Hazard overlays. Any development in a Fluvial Hazard Zone triggers a fluvial hazard assessment by a qualified professional and a landowner disclosure affidavit ^[14].

Handoff. The preliminary site plan fixes the layout, the yield, the phasing line and the site data table. It does not carry sewer, water or electrical design, or grading and drainage engineering. Colorado regulates engineering practice under C.R.S. Title 12, Article 120, Part 2: final engineered documents such as grading and drainage plans, stormwater and detention design, traffic studies and utility design carry a Colorado PE seal, and engineered septic designs under Regulation 43 are prepared by a Colorado-licensed PE ^[47]. The engineer of record builds the sealed set on the preliminary plan: the OWTS and the state-approved works, the well and water system, detention for the 2-yr and 25-yr storms, road profiles within the 8% local grade limit, and the CDOT traffic assessment where the site takes state highway access ^{[14, 19]}. Read more on the preliminary site plan service and the glamping site plan hub for cabin-led programs.

Related model projects from the case studies index: glamping resort, Buncombe County, North Carolina, glamping resort, Kane County, Utah, RV resort with cabins, Sevier County, Tennessee and snowbird RV park, Mohave County, Arizona. Market context: everyone wants to camp, almost nobody is building campgrounds.

By Viola Sauer, Principal, Innowave Studio