Running Creek RV storage site plan continued after traffic and floodplain concerns

The Elbert County Board of County Commissioners continued the Running Creek RV Storage economic development zone site development plan (EDZ-2024-3548) to its June 11 meeting after residents urged additional review of traffic and floodplain issues.

County planning staff described the proposal as a storage facility with outdoor RV parking on a 50‑acre parcel at 35486 County Road 13, roughly six miles north of Elizabeth. Staff said the storage footprint would be about 7.5 acres (roughly 15% of the parcel) and that the plan includes up to about 340 outdoor RV parking spaces, a gravel surface, and proposed screening with 31 evergreen trees along County Road 13 and the south property line. Staff said Elbert County Public Works and Public Health had reviewed the plan and no additional septic, fire protection or electrical capacity would be required; staff recommended approval with conditions including a requirement for a solid screening fence where appropriate and recordation within 180 days.

The applicant, CJ Kirst of Tahoe Consulting, noted the property has been used for a tree farm for decades and described the site layout, the existing 8‑foot deer fence, and proposed additional screening and a detention feature for water quality.

Multiple residents and property owners spoke at the hearing, urging the board to require additional traffic mitigation and to consider flood history near Gold Creek (also referenced as Running Creek in materials). Shirley Shepherd, who owns land across the road, said she has repeatedly repaired fence damage from vehicles and said, "There is a lot of traffic on that road." Roger Burton, who lives several miles north, urged the board to require at least a left‑turn lane and acceleration/deceleration lanes, saying traffic on County Road 13 has increased substantially. Another neighbor, Heather Angel, identified privacy, security and safety concerns; John Goodrow, whose family has operated a tree business on the property for more than 50 years, urged approval but said he would plant taller trees for screening. A former land-use applicant, Tom Rohny, spoke in favor, saying the application followed regulations.

Several commissioners and members of the public pressed staff and the applicant about the traffic analyses. A county traffic memorandum and a traffic impact study (DB Enterprises) were cited; commissioners noted the DB Enterprises report states that no daily traffic counts were taken for that analysis and relied instead on background traffic data and assumptions based on the proposed number of spaces. Commissioners asked who would pay for future turn lanes if they become necessary; staff and the applicant said current reviews by county and third‑party engineers did not require turn lanes at present but that the studies identify that auxiliary lanes could be required if future background traffic rises.

Commissioners also discussed floodplain mapping and screening. Staff said portions of the existing fence are within the mapped floodplain and explained that FEMA mapping can require a detailed hydraulic analysis to justify any map amendment. The applicant described a multi‑stage detention pond with a water‑quality feature to reduce storm flows and capture debris.

After discussion and public comment, a commissioner moved to continue the Running Creek EDZ site plan to the board's next regular meeting on June 11 to allow staff to collect additional materials and provide commissioners with more information. The board approved the continuance unanimously. Staff agreed to coordinate additional memos or consultant responses and to share those materials with commissioners in advance of the continued hearing when possible.

The continuance leaves the matter open pending additional information on traffic assumptions, counts, potential turn‑lane requirements, screening/fencing in and around mapped floodplain areas, and any updated floodplain documentation or traffic memoranda commissioners request.