The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1993-0524 PEC�10 MIUMM FAC Drivers: Shelly, Mike and Jim 992M. A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for the construction of an addition and a garage located at 2409 Chamonix Road/Lot 19, Block A, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1. Applicant: Anneliese Tayll Planner: Shelly Mello § 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck located at 122 E. Meadow Drive, Village Center Commercial Building/A part of Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Fred Hibberd Planner: Shelly Mello 3. A request for a conditional use to allow tee -pees to be used in conjunction with Vail Associates summer programs to be located adjacent to the Base of Chair 8, Tracts B and D, Lionshead 1st Filing. [ Applicant: Vail AssociaWm Planner: Jim I I 4 1. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the elimination of a dwelling unit ir order for the Vail Associates Real Estate office to expand in the A & D Building, located at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A - D, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Vail AssociatES Planner: Mike Mollica 0 5. A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development • the remaining portion of the Simba Run SDD, Savoy Villas, located at 1100 North Fronta Road, more specifically described as follows: the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Applicant: Simba Land Corporation/Waliill Said Planner: Mike Mollica 6. A request for a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line between Lots A-1 and A-2 and a request for variances from the subdivision road standards and wall height standards for Lots A-1 and A-2, Block A, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 1/1139 and 1109 Sandstone Drive. Applicant: Michael LauterbachfThe Reinforced Earth Co. Planner: Shelly Mello VJ Em A request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 12-inch diamet(M high-pressure natural gas pipeline generally located between Dowd Junction and fl Vail Associates Shops. Applicant: Public Service Company of Coloradit Planner: Russ Forrest 8. A request to amend Section 18.04.170 of the Zoning Code to clarify the definition of the height of structures. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Shelly Mello � i � R-WITITINIM . 0 11. Update on Sweet Basil's deck construction located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/part of Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Ned Gwathmey Planner: Shelly Mellb 12. A request for a modification to PC conditions of approval for the revised development plan for Vail Point/1881 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. Applicant: Steve Gensler Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED UNTIL JUNE 1, 1993 13. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Cre Rd. I Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner Andy Knudtsen TABLED UNTIL JUNE 14, 1993 14. A request for a wall height variance for a property located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing �]E Applicant: Johann Mueller Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED UNTIL JULY 12,1993 15. A request for a conditional use permit, a paving variance to allow for a gravel access road and the cemetery master plan and management plan for the proposed design of the Vail Cemetery to be located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon subdivision and southeast • the Matterhorn neighborhood. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY 16. A request for a front setback variance, a wall height variance and a site coverage variance to allow the construction of a garage located at Lot 26, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing/165 Forest Road. Applicant Paul Raether Planner: Jim Curnutte 17. A request for a work session for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates, Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin TABLED INDEFINITELY 18. A request for a setback variance to allow an addition to Unit 3-A, Vail Trails Chalet/a portion of Block 4, Vail Village First Filing/433 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: W. Patrick Grahm Planner: Jim Curnutte WITHDRAWN 19. An appeal of a staff decision regarding GRFA for a covered entryway to be constructEa as part of a residence located at Lot 1, Distelhorst Subdivision/4582 Strearnside Circl East. I Appellant: Kyle Webb Planner: Jim Curnutte 20. A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.54, Design Review, to modify the reviel-T procedures for the Design Review Board. I Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jim Curnutte 21. Approve minutes from May 10, 1993 PEG meeting. NT"ZOA♦A 1 2 El 22. Discussion of agenda format: listing time M WAlItYPO -Neon Ordinance -Lighting Ordinance -Newspaper Boxes -Open Lands Project E A to PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MAY 24, 1993 Muffiq-9 W�� Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Shelly Mello Tim Devlin A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for the construction of an addition and a garage located at 2409 Chamonix Road/Lot 19, Block A, Vail das Schone Filing No. 1. Applicant: Anneliese Tayl(M Planner: Shelly Mello j Shelly Mello made a brief presentation per the staff memo stating that staff was recommending approval of the requests for setback and site coverage variances With two conditions. The conditions were: 1) that landscaping be added to the south and west elevations, and, 2) that additional landscaping be added to the stepped wall. Diana Donovan stated that the PEC did not have any concerns with the current proposal. Greg Amsden made a motion to approve this request for setback and site coverage variances per the staff memo with Jeff Bowen seconding this motion. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the motion should be amended to reflect that the DRB shou look closely at the proposed roof pitch of the building connection. Jeff Bowen 2mended his motion accordingly and a unanimous 6-0 vote approved this request. 2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck located at 122 E. Meadow Drive, Village Center Commercial Building/A part of Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Fred Hibbvt Planner: Shelly Mello Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 Jim Curnufte made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff was this approval. He also stated that he had not been contacted by any of the adjacent property owners concerning this request. Kristan Pritz added that the approval would be for one year and that after that time the Tee-pee Village would be relocated to the top of the Gondola. Greg Amsden asked the applicant, Bob Matarese, about access to the pedestriar • dge. Bob Matarese responded that access would be available without needing to go through the Tee-pee Village. Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to approve this request per the staff memo with Bil�' Anderson seconding the motion. A 5-0 vote approved this request with Allison Lassoe abstaining due to her employment with Vail Associates. 4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the elimination of a dwelling unit in order for the Vail Associates Real Estate office to expand in the A & D Building, located at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A - D, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Vail Associat(z Planner: Mike Mollica 0 Ken Wilson, the representative from Vail Associates, stated that he does not feel thl, this project contradicts Goal #2 of the Vail Village Master Plan because he feels th real estate offices contribute to tourism. I Greg Amsden stated that he was concerned with this proposal because if it was granted, it could set a precedent. i s Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 2 Diana Donovan stated that the PEC's main concern with this request was that the conversion to a professional office could result in a "loss of life and excitement OTI Bridge Street". Jeff Bowen stated that it was his opinion that reducing the bed base on Bridge Street had merit because of the noise in this-arez. 5. A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development of the remaining portion of the Simba Run SDD, Savoy Villas, located at 1100 North Frontage Road, more specifically described as follows: I I ZISM 10 MA 0 1 am I a 1zX*J I Mr—MAIM4 a r-MR, I M VO MUMM I !WZ I fif! E irX010 M M6 UMN I I MA SP tM LOI I L01 Beginning at the most southwesterly corner of said map, thence the following three courses along the westerly lines of said map; 1) NO3 160.79 feet; 2) N12 144.72 feet; 3) N17 0 56'03" 70.60 Alk feet; thence, departing said westerly line, S13 157.26 feet, thence S76 91.50 feet; thence qW N13 0 16'03"E 35.00 feet; thence S76 72.31 feet to the easterly line of said map; thence the following two courses along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said map; 1) S24 52.38 feet; 2) S52 272.50 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.6134 acres, more or less; and Applicant: Simba Land Corporation/Walid Said Planner: Mike Mollica Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 3 6. A request for a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line between Lots A-1 and A-2 and a request for variances from the subdivision road standards and wall height standards for Lots A-1 and A-2, Block A, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 1/1139 and 1109 Sandstone Drive. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/The Reinforced Earth Co. Planner: Shelly Mello Diana Donovan asked the applicant if he had any problems with the conditions sel forth • Town staff. Mike Lauterbach, the applicant, wants Condition #3 to be changed so that the minor subdivision plat can be filed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy on the first building constructed. Shelly Mello stated that it would simplify matters to do the minor subdivision plat and vacate the easement concurrently. She said that vacating the easement would be 40 handled by Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District. She also stated that the minor subdivision plat and the application for any building permits could be handled at the same time. Mike Lauterbach stated that the DRB was concerned with the southern elevation. H6 said that Sally Brainerd of the DRB proposed that the roof line be changed on the middle and western-most units. Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 4 Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was concerned with the design of Unit 4 and the vertical distance between the building and the driveway. She said that the DRB needed to look closely at the design of this part of the project. 7. A request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 12-inch diameter high-pressure natural gas pipeline generally located between Dowd Junction and the Vail Associates Shops. Applicant: Public Service Company of Coloral Planner: Russ Forrest Diana Donovan stated that the PEC generally did not like the idea of the pipe passing across Gore Creek. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she liked Bill Anderson's suggestion that the pipe be placed under a foot bridge. She also stated that there were already two pipes at this location. Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 5 Jim McQuinn, the representative for the Public Service Company of Colorado, state that the Public Service Company was attempting to keep such pipes out of residenti areas. He inquired whether Public Service would be responsible for building such a bridge. 11 Greg Amsden inquired whether the pipe line would be buried or placed along the side • the road. Jim McQuinn stated that burying the pipeline would be preferable and is what is being proposed. Jeff Bowen inquired why the bike path would not be a practical location for the pipe line. Jim McQuinn stated that physically it was not practical to locate the pipeline underneath the bike path because other lines were already present and that there are safety, construction and timing factors to consider. Russ Forrest stated that the Town of Vail currently has a demand for additional naturi gas due to the recent high amount of fireplace conversions. Greg Amsden inquired what the everyday supply and demand for natural gas in the Town of Vail was. Jim McQuinn stated that every day that the temperature drops around or below 0 0 or large amount of people come through the Town of Vail, the pressure drops and peop in East Vail get cut off, they simply run out • gas. I Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt that the conditional use permit should • approved with the recommendation that the cable be buried initially, when the Water District installs their water line or when a bridge is built. Russ Forrest stated that Town staff could pass these recommendations along to the Forest Service. Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 6 Greg Amsden inquired whether Eagle County was currently going through this same process. I�Jli Greg Amsden stated that if this was the case that the PEC's recommendations shouW ,go to Eagle County and a staff member should go to any meetings that are held concerning this item. 8. A request to amend Section 18.04.170 of the Zoning Code to clarify the definition of the height of structures. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Shelly Mello IM= Art Abplanalp stated that he has two concerns with the definition of the height of structures: 1) incorporation of eaves is not sanctioned by the existing Zoning Code, and 2) that existing, with reference to the interior • the building, suggests rewording • "preconstruction grade". Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 7 Shelly Mello stated that this can be left to the staff's discretion. Art Abplanai p stated that the Town of Vail becomes vulnerable when this is left up to the staff. Kristan Pritz told the PEC that Art seems to be in agreement with the staff's interpretation of the definition when the parties involved are in agreement. It is when the parties disagree that the interpretation could be questioned. Kristan Pritz stated that "existing grade shall be the existing or natural grade prior to construction" per the Town of Vail Zoning Code. If an applicant feels that the Town interpretation is too strict, then they can appeal such decision to the PEC. Shelly Mello stated that staff looks at the area surrounding a building to interpolate the existing grade and makes a judgment as to how the land would lie. Kristan Pritz commented that it was not usually difficult to have a feel for what the land j;ooked like prior to construction. Shelly Mello inquired whether it would be helpful to add "within the building footprint" to the definition. Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to amend Section 18.04.170 • the Zoning Code to clarify the definition of the height of structures per the staff memo with the addition of the following wording: "within the building footprint, height shall be measured from any existing point of the proposed roof to the existing grade." Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and a 6-0 unanimous vote approved this request. 9. A request to amend Section 18.58.020 of the Zoning Code to clarify the height allowed for retaining walls in setbacks. Applicant: Town of Vail P1,2riner: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin made a presentation per the staff memo explaining that the word "front" needed to be inserted back into Section 18.58.020(C). Kristan Pritz suggested that the PEC table this item in order to allow the staff time to review this amendment. Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 8 Greg Amsden made a motion to table this item until June 14, 1993 with Kathy is Langenwalter seconding the motion. A 6-0 unanimous vote tabled this item until June 1W,1993. Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 9 -Concerning parking, access to the Permitted Uses and National Forest trail heads may need to be addressed. -Joe Macy stated that he would like to see wording added to the Conditional Use section to allow for "underground ski base facilities". -Concerning item B, either remove the word "customarily" or rewrite it to preclude buildings. ATTACHMENT #4 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE(M) (ROS) DISTRICI -Concerning plant and tree nurseries, the PEC does not want to move this item dol to Conditional Uses, they would just like this item removed entirely. -Art Abplanalp commented that we should add "non-commercial" in front • the word recreation areas - what about Town owned recreation areas that charge a fee? I -Concerning "public parks" and "outdoor recreation areas", the PEC would like to see recreation areas moved under the category of Conditional Uses but that open space could remain under Permitted Uses. Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 10 -The PEC felt that it would be okay to leave "public and private golf, tennis, etc." as a Conditional Use. -The PEC felt that "enclosed recreation" should be deleted. -The PEC felt that "plant and tree nurseries" should either be deleted or reworded to remove the word "retail". -Concerning Item C, the PEC would like to see the word "conditional" added or this item deleted entirely because Item E says the same thing. -Concerning Item D, the PEC wondered if "horse grazing" was really needed because it is addressed in supplemental regulations. Lot Area t oo Jim Curnufte stated that prior to the next work session with the PEC, staff would complete a map showing what the effected properties are currently zoned, including those that are currently zoned Public Use. He said that this map would include numbers that correspond to the property owner list, which will include the size • ea& lot. Update on Sweet Basil's deck construction located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/part of Block 513, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Ned Gwathmey Planner: Shelly Mello Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 it motion to table this item until June 14, 1993 with Greg Amsden seconding the motion A unanimous 6-0 vote tabled this item until June 14, 1993. 12. A request for a modification to PEC conditions of approval for the revised clevelopme plan for Vail Point/1881 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3. 1 Applicant: Steve Gensler Planner: Andy Knucltsen TABLED UNTIL JUNE 14,1993 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item until June 14, 1993 with Greg Amsden seconding the motion. A unanimous 6-0 vote tabled this item until June 14, 1993. 13. A request fora proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knucltsen TABLED UNTIL JUNE 1, 1993 Z 14. A request fora all height variance for a property located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing Applicant: Johann Mueller Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED UNTIL JULY 12,1993 M I ROT W 19 M OT3 M ff TOR RN 9 In, I ROW 15. A request for a conditional use permit, a paving variance to allow for a gravel access road and the cemetery master plan and management plan for the proposed design of the Vail Cemetery to be located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally locatei west • the Glen Lyon subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood. Applicant: Town of Vail 0 Planner: Andy Knucltsen TABLED INDEFINITEZ Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item indefinitely with Greg Amsden secondint the motion. A unanimous 6-0 vote tabled this item indefinitely. Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 12 16. A request for a front setback variance, a wall height variance and a site coverage variance to allow the construction of a garage located at Lot 26, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing/ 165 Forest Road. Applicant: Paul Raether Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED INDEFINITEI Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item indefinitely with Greg Amsden seconding the motion. A unanimous 6-0 vote tabled this item indefinitely. 17. A request for a work session for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B, C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates, Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin TABLED INDEFINITELY Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item indefinitely with Greg Amsden seconding the motion. A unanimous 6-0 vote tabled this item indefinitely. 18. A request for a setback variance to allow an addition to Unit 3-A, Vail Trails Chaletla portion • Block 4, Vail Village First Filing/433 Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: W. Patrick Grahm Planner: Jim Curnutte WITHDRAW1 19. An appeal of a staff decision regarding GRFA for a covered entryway to be constructed as part of a residence located at Lot 1, Distelhorst Subdivision/4582 Streamside Circle East. Appellant: Kyle Webb Planner: Jim Curnu,. B . vl request for an amendment to Chapter 18 .54, Design Review, to modify the reviel'T procedures for the Design Review Board. I Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jim Curnutte WITHDRAW1 M=$ Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 10, 1993 PEC meeting with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A unanimous 6-0 vote approved the minutes. Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 13 22. Discussion of agenda format: listing times. The PEC discussed this item and generally agreed that listing times on the agendas was helpful to the but stated that these times should not be made available to the public. NOMMUMM31• -Neon Ordinance -Lighting Ordinance -Newspaper Boxes -Open Lands Project Planning and Environmental Commission May 24, 1993 14 ` . . The applicant is requesting site coverage and setback variances in order to construct a tw car garage and building addition to an existing residence located on a Primary/Secondary I which is less than 15,000 square feet in size. There is an existing employee restricted is dwelling unit on this site located in the lower level of the project. I 9 FIN491WIMPIUMA2 Total Size Area: 0.2048 acres or 8,921 square feet 11 9�= ` Parking Proposed: Enclosed: 2 spaces Surface: 2 spaces (completely on-site) 0 7 11 PiTil''i'll ''JiMINIn - I I Jil Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: - A • . ts 0 • 1 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal Interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. K D 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 11111 11il? I � ;m • I i rillIznalf I mr; � 2; mi rMmmer. r# =#- iiip;l ' That the granting • the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reason�q, 2 !I 1WOPT-9 rz-1 ff -IM M- I M. M R-1 • M- C. The strict interpretation • enforcement • the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 1. Additional landscaping be added to the south and west elevations to screen th6 garage and building addition; and 0 We find that this request, will not be a grant • special privilege and meets the criteria set out in Section IV B, 1, 2, 3, a, and c of this memo. E 61 !I %00 -. 12 S �c) g'5. 5 7� R ' PROPOSED GARAGE 11 a I? \1 AT 10 t\t EXTERIOR MATERIALS TO MATCH EXISTING. ; I ' - _;REINFORCED CONCRETE no Bachrach VIP LTD PO Box 2236 Avon, CO 81620 3031949-9408 FAX 949-0629 TO Planning and Environment Commission Town of Vail, Colorado FROM: Erwin Bachrach on behalf of Anneliese Taylor Subsequent to the work session we have: �w 11, Subsequent to the hearing (now tabled) before the Planning and Environment Commission on May 10 we have: 1. Added a North elevation to the concept drawing for clearer presentation of the building connection. 2. Added more terracing 3. Added more landscaping materials 5 Aspen, 1 Blue Spruce 4, Deleted the entire bench area and exit aisle, reducing the site coverage by an additional 50 square feet. We are however retaining a 2'-0" deep closet, adjoining (as close as possible) the existing entry door. The closet is an essential feature for the owner and the key to the entire remodel effort. Retaining the closet will have no impact on the visual appearance of the building connection, interfere with no one ®s views, has no bearing on light, air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, utilities and public safety. Will be entirely within the set-back lines and in an area presently occupied by the existing deck. It is very unfortunate that previous government agencies allowed developers to subdivide into now non-conforming lots, especially on difficult terrain. We are not asking for any special privilege; we are asking for a closet. It will not be to the detriment of the neighborhood, of the Town of Vail, or anyone. It is unfair that present day homeowners must depend on granting of variances for permission to modify their homes to bring them to reasonable standards and even comply to Design guidelines. Fortunately it is within the province of this commission to right a wrong by granting this variance applied for here. The site coverage increase is only from 20% to 21.2%. 0 Respectfully, 0 i A TO: Planning and Environmental Commission Fd - , - To] X, = DATE: May 24, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck for Pazzo's restaurant located at 122 E. Meadow Drive, Village Center Commercial Building/A part of Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village Fi rl Filing. Applicant: Fred Hibberd Planner: Shelly Mello 1. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN ARID CONSIDERATIONS AND THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN, AND THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN While the Village Center Building is located in the Commercial Core 11 (Lionshead) zone district, due to its location, the staff used the Village criteria to review this item in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Considerations, the Vail Village Master Plan and the Streetscape Master Plan. E "Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the streets, opportunities to look and • looked at, and generally contribute t the liveliness I of a busy street making a richer pedestrian experience than if t streets were empty." 11111!11111111 i I I! I I i11111 i I 11111!1111111 1111i I I I � I I I ii I: I I I i I i I I i 1 111 ill I , 11111 1 i I' I I I � 111 ; 111111 111 ill 1 111 1111 1 ii ill I . . •sun -views -wind -pedestrian activity Item 21 of the Vail Village Urban Guide Plan Considerations specifies the following for this area: "Limited commercial expansion - one story. Infill commercial possibilities would draw *eclestrians from both the east and the west along East Meadow Drive, which with 11- tither improvements have completed the pedestrian loop to the Village Core. Low -tuilding, in foreground of taller building to south, will not encroach into the view corridor. Facade/entries on north and northeast sides." loam=** 3.3 )blective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3. 3.1 o lio ±qL_y. The Town encourages a regulated program of outdoor street activities in predetermined locations throughout the Village. 0 r 3.3.2 Policy: Outdoor dining is an important street feature and shall be encouraged in commercial and filler redevelopment projects. The staff feels that this application complies with the objectives and policies of the above master plans for this area. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. I ii I I i I I I' iJi I i i I i I I M I i I H! I I I I I i I i I I I Jill 11 1 � • � • !� I � 1 1 . - The staff believes that the applicant's proposal complies with the Lionshead/Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the other applicable comprehensive elements as indicated in Section 11 • this memo. We believe that outdoor dining decks, associatei with the restaurant are an appropriate site development in this area. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public needs. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed outdoor dining deck will have no negative effects on any of the above listed criteria. C The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from street and parking areas. The sidewalk adjacent to Pazzo's will be reduced to a width of 8 feet 6 inches. A snowmelt system is currently used to handle snow removal. The staff believes this situation is acceptable. 0 r 4. Effect upon character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to the surrounding uses. The staff believes that the addition of rekord doors to Pazzo's will be a very positive addition, not only to the building, but also to the pedestrian way. By increasing the visibility of dining activities, the street life and visual interest of the area will be increased. ONNEW I c nting a conditional use permit: 1 That the proposed location • the use is in accord with the purposes • the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. L:WN vy Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit as we believe that the request meets Findings 1 - 3 as outlined in the above section of the memor-"- a .1m Please note that under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when the approval becomes final. 19 r 'HW �OD0 l � HO H PrIll H .1 N �� El 4 t jlM • e u Oi`- „, h s.fir. { o AV A AA w l *101 ��.., + ` f I" r pis .. doo 1 0,0 EXPANSIO ter ,� 1 /A n 11 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission M2MRffAN3= � DATE: May 24, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit for the Gitchegumee Gulch Summer Adventure Village, on a parcel of land generally located east of Chair 8 (Born Free Express); more specifically located on Tract D, Vail Lionshead First Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates/Bob Matarese and Joe Marm Planner: Jim Curnutte I 11 r=M I ra RHMIESIVA de show tee-pee This tee-pee includes a slide show of high mountain moments (i.e. beautiful views and valleys, alpine flowers, rock marmots and many other Rocky Mountain animals). In this tee-pee, Native American music will be played in conjunction with the slide show. -Art tee-pee Miscellaneous art supplies and paints allow families to indulge in persona' creativity from headbands to shields. Samples are displayed in the tee-pee and supplies may be purchased at the trading post. -Arrow making tee-pee Supplies and directions for arrow making are provided in this tee-pee for the purpose of making "authentic Indian" arrows. E 9 [11- Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional us6 permit based on the following factors: Relationship and impact • the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that this proposal will not have any negative impact on the above referenced criteria. A positive impact of the facility is that it will provide another recreational opportunity for the public. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 9 E • 0 1 a 1 • 9 : - 0610 This location is not identified in any of the Lionshead sub-area concepts, nor do the Design Considerations address this type of development. This proposal will be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to receiving approval to proceed with development. . i , . • Ming a conditional use permit: MEW-i IV. health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The proposal will maintain the open and natural character of parcels of land located 0 between Gore Creek and the commercial areas of Lionshead. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the CCII district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. L -Al 61 zo?osub ?( , Pkj 47 y Z-0 [A cAN.) BOK f> I &A) 4D SUDS cAN.) BOK f> I &A) 2 " TO Zo " Dt A Lc Plvc- APP,-X :P' To lt. Lahr A,? k A DwiTuPa— , k PA= V-4- / tic E TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: May 24, :««< SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the elimination of a dwelling unit in order for the Vail Associates Real Estate office to expand in the A & D Building, located at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A - D, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates/Jack Hu f»2<e© Mike Mollica - I iii 1 #2 ll!! * : 0 1 * 9 " 0 11. ZONING ANALYSIS E The Commercial Core I zone district contains its own conditional use permit factors, which are listed in Section 18.24.070 of the Municipal Code. Upon review of the Commercial Core I conditional use permit factors, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the conditional use permit based upon the following criteria: G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in the Commercial Core I zone district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Goal #2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health. Obiective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short-ter overnight accommodations. i Policy 2.3.1: The development • short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing densi levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that make them available for short-term overnight rental. I 0 glommus k Should the PEC decide to approve this request, the staff would recommend two conditions • approval. The first condition would be that the applicant be required to pay into the parking fund the required amount as indicated in Section 11 of this memorandum. The second condition of approval would be that the applicant meet all of the Fire Code requirements necessary for the conversion from residential to commercial use. cApe6memosWarealest. 524 11 E LI 9Rr�� FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 24, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line between Lots A-1 and A- 2 and a request for variances from the subdivision road standards and wall height standards for Lots A-1 and A-2, Block A, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 1/1139 and 1109 Sandstone D rive. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/The Reinforced Earth Co. Planner: Shelly Mello subdivision in order to vacate the lot line between Lot A-1 and A-2 to create a single lot. Thib second request is a wall height variance to construct a 6 foot wall in the right-of-way and in the 20-foot front setback of the property. A second 3 foot wall will be constructed in conjunction with this 6 foot wall. A variance is needed for the additional 3 feet of wall height. The maximum wall height allowed in the front setback and right-of-way is 3 feet. These walls are required for the construction • the access road to the parcel. The third item is a variance request from the subdivision standards for the minimum radius on a curve for a minor road (private). The minimum radius allowed by the Subdivision Regulations is 50 feet. The applicant is requesting a radius of 44 feet. A variance is necessary for the six foot difference in radius. III. BACKGROUND 1 .0• of .00 11 Residential Cluster 15y r M 11 Buildable Area: Buildable Lot A-1: Buildable Lot Total: *FA: Lot A-1: ToMMI kM Density: Lot A-1: Lot A-2: Total: Site Coverage Allowed: Lot A-1: Lot A-2: Total: "Parking: Lot A-1: Lot A-2: Total: N 7,454 sq. ft. 17,363 sq. ft. + 225 sq. ft. credit/unit + 225 sq. ft. credit/unit 9,909 sq. ft. + 225 sq, ft. credit/unit 17,363 sq. ft. + 225 sq. ft. credit/unit OW 41 • I KC ff,*Mi fflff=�� *Because GRFA is not on a graduated scale for Residential Cluster (RC), the GRFA does noIj change with the vacation of the lot line between Lot A-1 and A-2. "Based • units which exceed 2,000 sq. ft. and require 2.5 spaces per unit. At least one parking space must be enclosed per Residential Cluster zone district parking requirements. Parking is not allowed in the 20-foot front setback in this zone district. P", E The staff finds that the combined lots meet the minimum standards for the creation of a lot in the Residential Cluster zone district. (Please see the chart below.) The staff has no issues related to this minor subdivision. Mitigation will be required on this lot for the debris flow and rockfall hazards. The location and type of hazards will need to be specified on the minor subdivision plat. squ ired Proposed Minimum Lot Size: 15,000 sq. ft. 113,428 sq. ft. Buildable Area: 8,000 sq. ft. 69,457 sq. ft. Minimum Frontage: 30 ft. 610 ft. The staff finds that by combining these two lots that a more comprehensive development plan can be achieved. i I L 11pon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based • the following factors: A JAP a - 01 an The relationship of the requested variance to other existing • potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The staff has reviewed other possibilities for constructing access to this property. We found that the available options, due to the slope of the lot, are very limited. A 6 foot boulder retaining wall has been proposed in conjunction with a 3 foot boulder wall. Both will be located in both the front setback and the right-of-way. The Town of Vail Municipal Code E The staff also finds that, as proposed, the walls on the site are still very linear. The applicant has indicated that these walls will be undulate at the time of installation. The staff feels that this is a very important detail of the walls and would ask the applicant to work with the staff and the Design Review Board (DR B) to attain a more natural curved wall. Wo #� W, The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibty and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff feels that due to the topography of the site that relief from the minimum turn radius requirements would not be a grant of special privilege. Other properties in the Town have also benefitted from somd flexibility in grade, radius, wall height standards to achieve access to difficult sites. rd 11 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Mil B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin_ findincls before grantin. • a variance: 1 That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of spe�!al privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety • welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifi regulation would result in practical difficulty • unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this titIl 0 E LIVI That the applicant add additional landscaping in front of the lowest retaining wall including seven evergreens as well as five 2 inch caliper aspens along the edge of the road at a minimum • 10 feet off the edge of pavement to further mitigate the impact of the retag walls. 2. That the applicant, during construction, vary the wall in order to obtain a curved natura', looking wall which is not linear. The staff would request that the applicant work with the DRB and staff to further refine the configuration of the walls. 3. That the applicant file a minor subdivision plat prior to the release of any building permits for units on this site. All hazards must be located and labeled located and labeled indicated • this minor subdivision plat. R E N v f f .� f f fi } LANDSCAPING PLAN r / /' Sri/ s caarxtc scat,u _ / I / _ K sue. �"'�I,ri /7i1 -� 3o'i /iy // / / sir \ ? _ - - 7 / /1 / / /ir /i7 /e�_ - - i /�1�1 i - / ri / >"i i i T /--r r /� >i /iii � '" s �_.._ � �C. �n /u / / ✓ / .00 _ Z< Yt LOT S - - / / LO- y r I r _ F _ 7,, i — s i T i T s 8250 — i — / — _ _ _ — — i\ `�_ _ — - - F _ _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — LEGEND Ifi } ; SANDSTONE DRI VE (50) — _ T = 10206' — °— ''-- -- CA &Agff L i•--"� RAaa05FO T' CCWRXlR ..tt ,r� � # � f t �:: �� _., o ? � �.= � C�.K.,., �� PR(paSfD r0'C'Q'+1LXIR #� � � P� � • �P q� 3"i' � #} � z '"S } t .: � 5(a°f5 �aT a4 GRC�ffR �� i u 11 FS ,- . � � � <� � � � � : � \ ~ i"J • • 05/21193 10,17 V303 945 5948 S G M INC Mi ke Lauterbach 7 �'O Box ZT45t Vail CO 81658 RE: 1,ots,A-1, A-2; Lion's Ridge Subdivis,-icw I have reviewed the two lots (siX Unit--,,) as shown on the acQwmpanying map for purposes of Rock Fall and Debris Flow review +or the Town of Vail. The six sites have been chosen to be out qfthe debris fan cmannel. The driveway must enter and cross the f an I however. 0 davelopment. - I W 05/21/93 -- CM-3941 5948 S G N IM Z 002 The construction o+ these units, or the proposed mitigation, will not increase the,hazard to other property or structures, or to public rights-of-wa, . buildings, roads, streets, easements, Y. utilities or +acilities or other properties of any kind. Soils engineering studies are already available and still appropriate +or these sites. T+ there are questions please contact me. • N 11 E The proposed development plan for the final phase of Development Area B, in SDD #5, consists of twenty condominiums and four deed-restricted employee housing units. The Ievelopment plan calls for one four-unit townhouse building to be located on the southern portion • the property, with access immediately off of the North Frontage Road. The northern development of the property would take access from Lionsridge Loop and would consist of four, four-unit condominium buildings and one, four-unit employee housing building. Two curb cuts are proposed off • Lionsridge Loop. On the northern bench of this site, each condominium is proposed to have a one-car garage, and on the lower, or southern part of this site, each condominium would have a two-car garage. This final phase of the SDD will be part of the existing Simba Run Condominium Association, and as such, will have access to all of the existing recreational amenities located in the existing Simba Run project. These recreational amenities include three outdoor tennis courts iwo indoor racquetball courts and one indoor swimming pool. Vail Run has its own outdoor — swimming pool and two indoor tennis courts. 223• = This project site is located within a high severity rockfall-geologic hazard zone. The applicant's consulting geologist, Nicholas Lampiris, has completed • geologic investigation for the property. The original study is dated April 18, 1993, the updated study is dated May 18, 1993 R.nd both 4 F9 Listed below is the zoning analysis for Development Area B, located in SDD #5 (Phase I includes the two existing Simba Run buildings): 0 • Includes 1,292 square feet of Timber Ridge's eastern-most building. • N/A N/A "Up. iMll 4 <10,203 sq. t > <48,355 sq. 11> N/A N/A TOTAL DEV. AREA B 6.3 acres N/A N/A 124,691 s% ft. 7,137 sq t 131,828 sq. ft. 115 K E i iI I i III i I IN 1 111 1 i I III I I I lzmmt�� The following are the nine special development district criteria to be utilized • the Planning and Environmental Commission when evaluating SIDD proposals: 0 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined Ir Chapter 18.52. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. . ' . I • a I . I r . . 2 E 2. The following are the applicable Land Use Plan goals and policies which relate to this proposal: Goal 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and permanent resident. Goal 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Goal 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 11 NOW I F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The staff believes that the applicant has been responsive to the PEC's suggestions 0 regarding minor modifications to the site plan. We believe that the minor shifting maci to the building locations has resulted in maintaining adequate distances between the Phase 11 project and the existing Simba Run building. The project would continue to U. E The applicant has modified the upper bench of the development and has eliminated all parking within the required 20-foot front setback area. One of the three proposed curb cuts off of Lionsridge Loop has also been eliminated. The staff believes that all of these changes are positive changes and result in a higher quality project which will further enhance its compatibility with the immediate neighborhood. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. J=Mi a� M E through the property should the Town Attorney be able to provide them with a level •1 comfort regarding the liability concerns. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Phasing plan • subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional 7-nd efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a major modification to Special Development District No. 5. We believe that the modifications which have been made to the project, since the initial PEC work session, have brought the project into compliance with the nine Special Development District review criteria listed in this memorandum. all • the surface parking located on the north side of the buildings, and that the proposed 82% enclosed parking is reasonable. Again, we would point out that if the property had been zoned High Density Multi-Family, the required enclosed parking percentage would be 75%. 1111111MONJEAC."T 1 The applicant shall provide one additional parking space on the western end of the upper development area. 2. The Town shall not issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for any of the Phase 11 condominiums until such time as TCO's have been issued for all four units in the employee housing building. 3. The applicant agrees that if the liability issues concerning the construction an maintenance of a public pedestrian path/easement through the property can b - resolved with the Town Attorney, the applicant shall construct a pedestrian pa I and grant a public access easement to the Town of Vail. I 4. A Colorado Department of Transportation access permit shall be granted prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits for the lower bench of the development (four townhomes). 3�• -� 11 0 My 13, 1913 S1T =PLAN 1 - ° t • A N� �o ac t� 12. rM 2 !I • 11 0 o® « gees �77 § � ®i • Wirs3°r Cif° E 6- ��wT1op i 6 4 E O Qpv o' sn _ �—v 12. 1 »3 10 Nicholas Larnpiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST U1$5|NGERS0LLLANE SILT, COLORADO 81su2 (3o)ur6-om(2wHOURS) April 18, 199] Sally Brainerd Morter Architects 143 East Meadow Drive Crossroads at Vail Vail, CO 81657 RE: Savoy Villas Dear Sally:: l have reviewed the site of the referenced project as shown on the accompanying map for purposes of Rack Fall review for the Town o{ Vail. The northern four unit High Rockfall Zone due to the outcropping of sandstone on the other side of the Lion's Ridge Loop. The second tier of units is not in the hazard zone. front (north side) of each of these four units to a strenath of This is in a location where the ridge, containing the source of potential falling rocks, is at a low level with respert to the sites but rocks can reach the northmrn.vites. 1hu rnEks will have �ignificant energy so that mitigation will Many unsi�able rocks occur above this proposed development, buJ the Loop road will catch some of them. The hazard increases to the wont w|'ere the ridge becomes higher, thereby imparting more kinetic energy to potential falling rocks. I propose several alternatives to substantially minimize the hazard from falling rocks A four foot hi h b may constructed along the south edge of the road a0`500 en. may interfere with the road right of way. Another step which can be taken it to desion the front (north side) of each of these four units to a strenath of finished -- so that rocks cannot crash through them into the unit. Your civil engineer may suggest a:7/energy absorbing facing such as l to t t the brittle designs should be utilized, especially for Ile western two units.. - Reet high with the same strength given above. This wall could TV be placed large Q font) boulders. Wcansy of tKe nature of the hazard and the options for mitigation, I suggest that final plans be reviewed y,y gootechnical expert) once tie pre-erred methods have been chosen. u � —� ' , . 0 D 11" T". 1 C� S 0 J.-I rI y k: i d�r ions please contact me, esp nc� your ` prolimi�ary conceptualizations. ~ Since ely, ~ Nicholas Lampiris ` Consultin� Geologist ' ` ' ' p�� ` Nay 20 '7 ')a53 0000 CANFf;X5151!seriec r. 2 Njoholaz5 Lampiris, PhaD. r,ONUI,JL I I NU �EOLOGR'S'f 0185 IN(iLHbUj.L LANE 5ILT, OCILORADO 0052 8 (P4 HOWS) may 1, 093 Sally Brainerd Morter Architects 147 East Mead OW 1drIve Crossroads at Vail Vail, CO f3lb!57 R Savoy Villas Altkm, there is a break in the berm in front a+ the next unit to the wW%t +or driv%way accirss. The exposed portion o+ the unit which im ijot garage should be tho same strength wall to three .9 rawt . 1; there are still questions contact Mv- r I� t� :II `y III ��' olas ampiris Consulting Geologist L -1 SMEW0=1 DATE: May 24, 1•• 3 SUBJECT: A request to grant a conditional use permit for the Public Service Company of Colorado to build a Natural Gas Pipeline Applicant: Public Service Company • Colorado Planner: Russell Forrest C - I The only above ground portion of the line is a valve set that will be located near the VA maintenance facility. A valve set basically involves a portion of the pipe extending 4 to 5 feet above the ground with a valve (Attachment 1). Public Service proposes to screen the valve set with a berm. E Five alternatives were evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. These alternatives are described below and there location is described in detail in the EA. 2. A. No Action: NEPA requires that a no action alternative be evaluated. No action would require " curtailing natural gas demands in Vail through building restrictions and conservation measures. Without curtailing demand, Vail will have an inadequate supply for heating during peak times. b. B. Use of Existing Pipeline Right-of-Way: This is the proposed actior which would utilize a portion of the right-of-way for the existing 4 inch natural gas pipeline which extends from PSCO's Meadow Mountain Meter Station located adjacent to the Denver and the Rio Grande Railroad north of Minturn. 11 K r The Environmental Assessment used the following criteria to evaluate the alternative routes: geology, soils, groundwater, geologic hazards, vegetation, wetlands and riparian areas, hydrology, water quality, wildlife, fisheries, threatened and endangered species, air quality, recreation, visual resources, cultural resources, socioeconomic, and cumulative impacts. Construction may also temporarily reduce air quality due to the use of the large machinery and trucks. This again will be temporary and can be mitigated by watering roads during particularly dry periods. There is a potential to impact the elk migration corridor at Dowd Junction. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has required Public Service to complete pipe construction in the Dowd Junction area between May 15, 1993 and September 15, 1993 to minimize this impact. E N Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: ITIMI-Mm- 11'. 1 E'11111111111'v�i�' � OMMEMIMEOLM After reviewing the Environmental Assessment staff feels that this project will result in a net positive environmental benefit for the community. Natural gas provides a clean alternative to wood burning and is significantly more energy efficient than electric base board heating. Environmental impacts resulting from this project are short-term and relatively minor. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, an'*' other public facilities needs. There would be no significant impact on these facilities or the distribution of population. k. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The proposed project may result in minor traffic delays along the South Frontag Rd. with heavy equipment moving in and out of the area. The applicant will be required to provide adequate signage and traffic control personnel to reduce traff 110 safety risks. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to bz- located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. There would be a temporary aesthetic impact from the pipeline. However this would be minimized by revegetating the pipeline as sections are completed. El MMM. • IffigaggMP granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed pipeline is located in the 1-70 corridor on the South Frontage Rd and is therefore not zoned in the Town of Vail for most of it's route. The line does run adjacent to a variety of different land uses. It does not enter a zoned area until the VA maintenance yard which is zoned Arterial Business District. Public utilities are a conditional use in the Arterial Business District. Or. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions which it would be— operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements In the vicinity. This project would not result in a threat to health, safety, and general welfare. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provision oi the conditional use permit section • the zoning code. Please note that, under Section 18 .60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shal, lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion, • if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within two years. W Public Service Company of Colorado Natural Gas Group 500 Prudential Plaza 1050 17!h Street Denver, CO 80265-0501 (303) 534-1261 %fi��s •k Russell Forrest, Senior Environmental Policy Planner Town of Vail Office of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 MUM= The following is in response to our conversation regarding above ground facilities associated with the proposed 12" high pressure natural gas pipeline project, for which a Conditional Use Permit application has been submitted. A!t' a buildi:i- has been discussed nrevious!v, there �L-pears to be no need C;P' 0 � L for any kind of an enclosure at this time. 1 DATE: MAY 12, 1993 DRAWN BY: P. GEISERT SCALE: NONE FILE NAME: LIONND a Ea OMMUMM HYDROSPHERE MUM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURI FOREST SERVICE, ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST HOLY CROSS RANGER DISTRICT Prepared by Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. 1002 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80303 (303) 443-7839 Prepared Under Direction by William A. Wood, District Ranger Holy Cross Ranger District White River National Forest Minturn, Colorado a I D. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action ....... ......................................................... 2 IV. Affected Environment .......... .......................................................... ................ 9 A. Physiography and Geology ........................................................................ 9 B . G Hazards ................................................................................... 4 1. Seismicity -------.----------__._,__,_..._...9 2 . Faults ................................................. ...................................... l0 3. Liquefaction __~,___.____,_.__.___,--.--._...10 4. Lands ................................................................................... lQ 5 .RockfalL--------- .......................................................... IO 6. Mud and Debr Flow ................................... ................................ ll 7. Ground Surface Subsidence .............................................................. 11 8. Mineral Ile80urces ....................................... ......... ............ ........ 1l C . Soils .................................................................................................. 11 D . Groundwater ............. . .......................... .. ........... ............................... ll E . Vegetation ................. ........................................... ........................... l2 ]P. Wetlands and Riparian Areas ............... ................................................... l2 G . ,._,.__.___,,__.___.,___._,_....--..—.l3 H , Water Quality ..... ................................................................................ 14 I . Wildlife ...................................... ....................................................... %6 J . Fisheries .....—._---.......'''—''''''`—''''''~^^^'`'^'~~`'~'^~^'—^'^^ 16 K. Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................... 16 D . Terrestrial ........................................ .......................................... IU 2 .—.—^...—~'.~—''—^'—'—^'`^—~—~`^'^`^^^'--^^'^^—'—~ ]7 L. Air {}oa8kv ............ 17 M . Recreation .......................................................................................... 18 N. Visual Resources .......................................................................... ....... 18 (]. Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 19 P . S .,._,'_.,._.__,.__....`,,____`,._.._,____,—...... lg V. Environmental Consequences aDd Mitigation Measures ........................................... 21 A. Physiography and Geology .._.._.--..--..—....~...--.—...._.—...._.2l ]0, Soils .................................................................................................. 21 2l (�.(�roundvvmter....._.---..--......_—..--.—~--'--'—^''—^` D . Geologic Hazards ................................................................................. 22 � ^ � E . Vegetation .........,...~ ..................................................................... 22 F. Wetlands and Ri Areas ........._.—,_—,..—........_...._.......^ 32 \ G ................. ....—..~_......,,_..~,.,^.^_,^,._,.,,.,,,,_,,_ D, \ H . Water Quality ...................................................................................... 23 1 , Wildlife .—.....—.--_—....._...--......~_—.~--..—.''^^^~~^^^ 23 J . Fisheries ....~...—...,..--_.,--..,..—..—.....,.—_...—.----`,~'^^'—' 23 K. Threatened and End .......................................................... 24 L. Air Quality ._~—..__....,....—.—..—.—..—...._..,..—._._.—. 24 M . Recreation .......................................................................................... 24 ' N. Visual Resources .................................................................................. 24 0. Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 25 P. Socioeconomics .^...^^.....^....^.......^...........................^.........'......... 25 Q . Cumulative ....,—.—...—..,......._.......—....`.,_.. 25 _ R. Summary of Environmental Impacts that Cannot be Avoided.—,,--.—...--.. 25 � S. Specific Mitigation Measures ._..—..,—.......—._.—..—..—..,—,,..---.,, 26 VI. Consultation and Coordination ...----..._—..--_. °.—..—.---.—...' 27 VII. List of Preparers ......... 28 VIII. Bibliography and References ....... ......................... . ..................................... 29 0 The environmental consequences on lands, activities, and resources administered by the other Federal, State and Local jurisdictions resulting from the Proposed Action have been disclosed in this Environmental Assessment. Through consultation and cooperation, other federal, state and local jurisdictions have assisted in the disclosure of environmental consequences and development of alternatives to the proposed action. The Forest Service decision will relate only to lands administered by the Forest Service and will be documented in a decision notice. Decisions by other jurisdictions to issue or not issue approvals related to this proposal can be made by them based on the disclosure of impacts available in this document. 0 Since its inception in the early 1960's, Vail has grown to a permanent population of C, approximately 5,200 people, with accommodations for up to 15,000 overnight visitors. Natural gas is the primary source of fuel for heating throughout Vail. During the winter rrwWjLqMp#iP--,�4mand far natural gas for both residential and commercial customers has grown • an 36.6 million cubic feet per day. • 0 Ill. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Five alternatives were identified including a No Action alternative and four structural alternatives. The structural alternatives differ primarily by way of the location of pipeline routes. Of the four structural alternatives discussed, the Proposed Action (Alternative B) is described in the most detail with regard to pipeline alignment. Alternatives C, D, and E eliminated from detailed analysis based on environmental, engineering or project cost considerations. Reasons for elimination of these alternatives are discussed further below. Also described are pipeline construction methods and associated facilities which are common to some of the structural alternatives. Alternative B is the action preferred by the Public Service Company. This alternative utilizes a portion of the right-of-way for the existing 4 inch natural gas pipeline which extends Z:• 0 from PSCO's Meadow Mountain Meter Station located adjacent to the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, immediately northwesterly of the town limits of Minturn, to the Town of Vail. The location of the existing pipeline is shown on the map in Figure 1. W On the north side of Gore Creek, the pipeline route turns east and follows the north side of the south frontage road of 1-70 for a distance of approximately 14,000 feet (2.65 miles). At this point the proposed pipeline will connect to the natural gas distribution system for the Town of Vail. MAT This alternative utilizes the north side of the 1-70 Right-of-Way between Dowd Junction and the West Vail interchange (Figure 1). Beginning at a point approximately 200 feet west of the Highway 24 interchange (Minturn) and on the south side of the Eagle River, the proposed pipeline would travel easterly approximately 120 feet to the location of the proposed bikepath bridge over the Eagle River. At this point the pipeline would cross Gore Creek and physically attached to the underside of the bikepath bridge. On the north side of the confluence of Gore Creek and the Eagle River, the pipeline 7 would extend east, generally parallel to Gore Creek. Near the point where 1-70 crosses over Gore Creek, the pipeline would run onto the north shoulder of the west bound lane of the interstate. In this area 1-70 is tightly confined by steep rock walls. The pipeline would be located approximately 15 feet off of the pavement of the west bound lane in the most tightly confined areas and 15 to 30 feet off of the shoulder of the road where allowable. The pipeline would continue east 7,400 feet, following the shoulder of 1-70, to a poin approximately 0.40 mile west of the West Vail interchang e. • this point a small service to runs parallel to the interstate. The pipeline would be located in this service road to the intersection at the West Vail interchange. I At the West Vail interchange, the pipeline would turn to the south and follow the interchange underpass beneath 1-70. Once on the south side of the interchange the pipeline would turn east again and run approximately 7,700 feet to the eastern most end of the project. Once on the south side of 1-70, this alternative is the same as Alternative B, moving in a west to east direction. a. Reasons for Elimination from Detailed Analysis 5 '| /| 2. Alternative D - Vail to Dowd Junction Bikepath, This alternative is identical to Alternative B between the eastern most point of the project to the point where the pipeline alignment under Alternative B would cross Gore Creek (Figure 1). It is also identical to Scenario C from the point immediately on the north side of the west bound lane of 1-70 to the western most point of the project. a. Reasons for Elimination from Detailed Analysis This alternative is identical to the other structural alternatives between the West Vail interchange of 1-70 and the eastern terminus of the project near the Vail Associates Maintenance Shops. West of the West Vail interchange the pipeline deviates substantially from the 1-70 Corridor. The pipeline would generally follow this small drainage back down to West Vail. In the area of the hillside located to the north of 1-70 at West Vail, the pipeline would switch back several times along a steep residential road down to the frontage road on the north side of 1-70. From this point on the pipeline would follow the same alignment described under Alternative C to the eastern end of the project. 1 11111 1111111 l�,!Illlllllll�illillill�� i Many of the facilities associated with pipeline operation, maintenance and safety woulRE be common to each of the structural alternatives. Detailed engineering drawings will be 4� Z: prepared only for the Proposed Action (Alternative B). Features which could potentially ha an impact on the environment are discussed here. I Under each ♦ the structural alternative the pipeline would consists of a 12 inch steel high pressure pipe. The pipeline would be installed in forty foot sections which would be welded and lowered into an excavated trench. Construction of the Proposed Action would require approximately 2 months to complete and would occur between July 15 and September 15, 1993. Completion of other alternatives would require longer periods of time because of a greater number of engineering and construction difficulties and obstacles. Because ► several timing issues related to environmental sensitivities and requirements by the Town of Vail to avoid disruption, the Proposed Action may be constructed in one or more "spreads" along the pipeline route. In *ther words, different segments of the pipeline could be constructed simultaneously by different crews, The precise timing of construction activities are not yet known but would be sensitive to these and other such concerns. Representatives from Public Service Company would be prevent during all construction activities. Construction would at times require participation by representatives from the 0 PSCO provides a fire watch during all construction activities and currently has an emergency plan in place which is on file with Eagle County. M IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT I A. Physiography and Geology Physiography and geologic conditions described here are limited to an area generally defined on the west side by Avon; on the north side by a straight line connecting East Vail and Avon (north of Interstate 70); on the east side by the East Vail interchange of 1-70; and on the south side by Lions Head, Meadow and Vail Ski Area. This area comprises the majority • the Vail Valley and Dowd Junction. ip Geologic hazards typical for high mountain areas include seismicity, faults, liquefaction, landslides and associated slope stability problems, rockfall, mud and debris flows and ground surface subsidence. Most of the geological hazards typical for Colorado have been defined by Rogers et. al. (1974). dlgm�� Colorado is located in the interior of the North American plate, far from any plate boundaries, As such, Colorado is considered an area of low seismic risk. The potential for earthquake hazard in the study area was evaluated by reviewing seismic histories and taking into account the hazard zone system applied by Uniform Building Code criteria. Under this system, high earthquake risk is defined by Zone 4, descending to Zone 1, where there is a low r! of seismic activity. Based on the known fault system, Colorado is located in seismic risk Zone 1 with a low seismic risk, although more recent data indicate that the State should be in Zone 2 (moderately low risk) (Kirkham and Rogers, 1981). I 1 2. Faults Two potentially active faults have been identified near the study area (Kirkham and Rogers, 1981). The Gore fault is actually a system of faults trending in a northwest-southeast direction approximately parallel to the 1-70 corridor and to the northeast of Vail Pass. Based on the present geologic conditions and project configurations, this fault will not cross the alignment of any of the currently considered pipelin e alignments. I A number of landslide studies in the area have been conducted (Barton and others, 1972, Colton and others, 1975, Golder & Associates, 1984, 1985 and 1986, Robinson and Cochran, 1971). The data from these studies are not always consistent and are sometimes contradictory. A geologic hazard map (Figure 1) was prepared from these studies and has taken into account the most recent data on landslides. Many small landslides have occurred over tirne within the study area. Larger landslide have also occurred and include several caused by glacial activity, such as those which developed during or immediately following the most recent glaciation. Numerous minor 1' 7 landslides of soils covering the bedrock formations can also be documented. Z 5. Rockfall Areas of the rockfall hazard are relatively well defined within the Town of Vail where significant mitigating measures have been undertaken to protect above-ground structures. Mitigation measures have been taken by the Colorado Department of Transportation,along 1-70 in the area of Dowd Junction to reduce the number of rockslides and reduce exposure of I out passing vehicles to falling rock. Additional areas of rockfall hazard may occur in other portions of the study area but their extent is currently unknown. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has identified, described and mapped soils within Eagle County. Soils within the study area are relatively deep and are the product of either weathering of sandy rocks or deposition by streams or glaciers. Most of the soils are sandy, include a considerable amount of gravel and are permeable. Because of their composition, the soils in the area are relatively stable and not highly erodible. In areas where an alternative pipeline alignment follows a highway Right-of-Way, soils have typically been modified by the highway construction. Such modification typically includes addition of coarser material such as the gravel or selective use of better quality material and elimination of a poor quality material. I Groundwater conditions are variable throughout the study area, and depend largely on topographic conditions and the presences of streams or other water bodies. The water table in the study area is generally below the depth that will be required for installation of a pipeline. Water table elevations may occasionally and temporarily be close to the ground surface during 11 periods of torrential rains or during periods of rapid snowmelt but rapidly decline following these period. Groundwater may also be encountered at a shallow depth in relatively flat areas such as local depression and immediately below natural springs. In several areas, highway or road construction has modified natural drainage conditions and may contribute to increased groundwater levels. asu• ` • Understory species vary depending on topographic, soil, and microclimate conditions Typical shrub species are snowberry and serviceberry. The more common species of grarninoids and forbs found in the understory of quaking aspen are blue wild-rye, fringed brome, elk sedge, bedstraw, Richardson's geranium, and fireweed (Hoffman and Alexander, 1983). Historically, the valley floors within the study area were characterized by grassy meadows, wet whiow meadows, and sagebrush benches. Many of these vegetation tP communities still exist but in areas impacted by human development these communities a smaller and less frequent. I Scattered wetlands occur throughout the study area. Several wetland reconnaissance studies have been performed in relation to this and other projects, These studies are referenced IN below and served to establish the location of wetlands which may exist along the alternative pipeline alignments. • r. M IDIOM Few wetlands exist in the vicinity • the alternative pipeline alignments west of the WesO Vail interchange, although some small wetland areas do exist in depressions areas where there 0 11 is a sufficiently high groundwater table or retention of surface drainage. A significant amoun of riparian wetland vegetation exists adjacent to the Gore Creek and the Eagle River. G. Hydrology 0 The study area is located within the Colorado River Basin and includes the drainages of Gore Creek and the Eagle River and numerous small tributaries. Streams and creeks within the study area are fed primarily by precipitation. The majority of this precipitation falls as A Black Gore Creek and Gore Creek are classified by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as follows: a) Class 1 cold water aquatic live, b) domestic water supply, c) Class 2 recreation, and d) irrigation. Water quality in Black Gore Creek is considered very good throughout its entire drainage, whereas water quality in Gore Creek deteriorates as it flows C> through Vail Valley. This degradation primarily results from non-point sources of pollution. Chemicals of particular concern in Gore Creek are fine sediments and select metals (cadmium, manganese and lead). Possible sources include 1) wash off from nearby Interstate 70, and from impervious surfaces of the parking areas throughout the Town of Vail, and 2) naturally high concentrations in the surrounding environment which draina-e directly (untreated) into Gore Creek (Hydrosphere, 1991b). A summary of results from several water quality monitoring pro-rams is provided in Table 4-1. 1. ZIP The Eagle River has historically experienced sever water quality degradation resulting from operation of several mines upstream of Minturn. Of particular note is the Eagle Mine *perated from nearly seventy five years to extract zinc silver and other metals. As such, heavy metal pollution has reduced the quality of the waters in the Eagle River and reduced existence *f aquatic life. LEI Parameter Creek near at Vail below Dowd Junction Vail Conductivity (umholcm) Average 167.93 116.34 146.84 (Min -Max) (80 -260) (50 -200) (59 -225) Dissolved Oxygen (mg /1) Average 9.54 9.30 9.62 (Min -Max) 9.1 -10) (7.5 -9.9) (8.0 -10.8) pH Average 7.93 7.80 7.87 (Min -Max) (7 -8.6) (6.9-8.6) (7.0-8.7) Total Alkalinity (mg/1) Average 88.23 63.60 71.57 (Min -Max) (53 -100) (26 -80) (34 -98) Nitrite + Nitrate N Diss. (mg /1) Average 0.72 0.96 - -- (Min -Max) (.01 -12) (.01 -29) - -- Orthophosphate PO4 (mg /l) Average 032 0.02 - -- (Min -Max) (0 -1.8) (0 -.15) - -- Total Hardness (mg /1) Average' 83.01 59.20 145.25 (Min -Max) (16 -150) (21 -110) (46 -205) Iron Dissolved (ug1l) Average 51.57 65.80 94.28 (Min -Max) (30 -100) (20 -190) (20 -170) Manganese Dissolved (pgl1) Average 40.00 6.00 --- TDS (mg /1) Average 102.85 74.80 - -- (Min -Max) (64 -121) (32 -93) - -- 1. EPA STORETT water quality data collected 1973 to 1983. 2. Advanced Sciences, Inc. 1990. 15 I A VITA ro I Wildlife resources within the study area are predominantly upland in character (Greystone, 1991). Specific habitats include subalpine meadow, riparian -wetlands, and spruce- fir forest. These habitats provide for a diverse assemblage of both game and non-game wildlife. Game animals most predominant in the area include elk, mule deer, and bear (14ydrosphere, 1991b). Occasional use of the studv area by mallard ducks during the late summer and fall and early spring may also occur. A partial list of other wildlife species that could be associated with the habitats in the vicinity of the project area include: pine mart ermine, sharp-shinned hawk, red-tailed hawk, goshawk, blue grouse, and various passerine birds (Hydrosphere, 1991b). Black Gore Creek between Black Lakes No. I and No. 2 contains a natural reproducing population of brook trout (Holden, 1986). Brook trout spawn in Black Gore Creek with some overwintering in Black Lake No. 2 (Hydrosphere, 1991b).' Gore Creek contains a trout population consisting, of brown, brook, and rainbow trout. The brown and brook trout are self-sustaining while the rainbows are stocked. Brown trout move up Gore Creek from the Eagle River in the fall to spawn. The reach of Gore Creek from Red Sandstone Creek to the confluence with the Ea-le River has been classified as a Gold Medal Water by the CDOW (USDOI, 1988). The Eagle River fishery has been impacted for many years by activities at the Eagle Mine above Minturn. The fishery in the Eagle is comprised mostly of brown trout. As part of the remedial activities at and near the mine, the CDOW is conducting regular population surveys of the Eagle River. The most recent data suggest that populations of naturally reproducing fish may be recovering 1IR Peregrine Falcons are also federally listed as Endangered. Peregrines nest on high, precipitous cliffs and river gorges. The Interstate corridor does not have suitable habitat this species. Peregrines have not been documented in the area (USDA, 1992). This project would not have any detrimental effect on the habitat or through the direct 4:1 taking of any of the above species. Furthermore, none of the alternative pipeline routes have been designated as critical habitat by the Secretary of the Interior (USDA, 1992). 2. Aquatic 31�� The Colorado Department of Health (1989) considers air quality along the alternative ptipeline routes to be very good. In the more populated areas of Vail, however, particulates have recently been of concern. During recent years, development has increased the number of sources of particulate emissions, particularly wood-burning stoves and fireplaces. Because the Vail Valley is prone to frequent temperature inversions, the increase in emissions has caused iecreases in local air quality (Greystone, 1991). M [IM diverges from the 1-70 corridor towards the north still retains its undeveloped visual quality. In general, modifications to landforms throughout the study area are minimal and unobtrusive (Greystone, 1991). The USFS has assessed the visual resources of the portions of the project area lying within the National Forests using its Visual Management System. This system determines the visual quality objectives (VQO's) to be used by the USFS for managing its visual resources. USFS land located within the study area are managed for the VQO's ► partial retention (PR). Under a PR classification, activities that alter the landscape must be visually subordinate to that landscape (USDA 1984c). Most surface or shallowly buried prehistoric sites along the highway corridor, which the pipeline corridor will follow, have been destroyed. However, there is some potential that more deeply buried sites may remain along portions of old Highway 6 or in broader portions of the valley where earth-moving involved with construction of the interstate highway was less extensive (Metcalf, 1992). P. Socioeconomics E f 20 A. Physiography and Geology B. Soils Permanent impacts associated with pipeline construction on groundwater conditions are rare but occasionally occur. An example of more permanent pipeline influences • W I In the absence of any clearly identified active faults, only potentially active fault crossings will have to be designed within the Proposed Action, If an unstable area must be crossed • the pipeline, special design procedures will be used. Methods • mitigation of such crossings include design of "soft" back-fill of the pipeline trench and larger dimensions of the pipeline trench. Vegetation along the portion • the proposed pipeline route that lies between the Meadow Mountain Meter Station and the west terminus of Basin Road has also been degraded. In recent years this area has been used as a biking and hiking route between Vail and Minturn. Impacts to vegetation would be confined mainly to the construction phase of the project. Disturbance to vegetation would be limited to the width of the pipeline construction Right-of- Way. All impacts to vegetation would be temporary. The duration of the disturbance can be Z� shortened by employing a continual back-fill and re-vegetation process as the construction moves along the route. All disturbed areas will be reclaimed with a appropriate seed mixture approved by the U.S. Forest Service. t M Temporary impacts to wetlands and riparian areas will be limited to very small isolated wetlands existing along the shoulder of the south frontage road and to the point of crossing t Z beneath Gore Creek. After construction of the pipeline, vegetation in these areas will be restored to pre-project conditions. Impacts to the wetlands along the Frontage Road will be minimized by stockpiling all topsoil from the pipeline excavation and replacing the material in the same location after installing the pipe. No change in local hydrologic conditions are expected and the wetland vegetation should reestablish very quickly after construction. ON G. Hydrology No significant impacts to local hydrology are expected as a result of construction of the proposed project. Minor impacts may include temporary modification surface drainage and runoff in the immediate vicinity of the project construction. As reclamation proceeds following construction of the pipeline, all drainage patterns will be restored to original conditions. H. Water Quality Temporary impacts to the water quality of Gore Creek and the Eagle River will result during the construction process of the Proposed Action. These impacts will be limited to increased sediment load for short periods of time. The most significant impact will be from construction activities within Gore Creek itself. Construction of the pipeline under the Proposed Action would result in localized short- term impacts to wildlife. Surface disturbances would temporarily displace small mammals, however, as areas become revegetated, these animals are expected to return. Avifauna are not expected to be impacted in any significant way. J. Fisheries The possibility of additional sediment loading to Gore Creeks and the Eagle River may impact fish populations in these streams. This impact would be higher in Gore Creek than in the Eagle River because the additional flow of the Eagle will tend to dilute sediment load. The reach of Gore Creek which will be impacted has been classified as a Gold Medal Water by the CDOW. Spawning of Brown trout in this reach of Gore Creek occurs in the fall. Construction activities will not occur during this time and every effort will be made to NI In order to control of runoff and sediment loading, problems during construction activities other than directly in Gore Creek, the construction contractor will be required to develop an erosion control plan to minimize deposition of sediment from construction areas. This plan will incorporate such erosion control measures as fencing, bay bales, sedimentation ponds, etc to catch and store runoff. _M!T1't��5 Pipeline construction along this route will have no lasting adverse affects on the air t' I quality of this area. The increased availability of natural gas to the Town of Vail may encourage wood-to-gas appliance conversions, thereby reducing emissions caused by wood- 4D 4D burning appliances in the Vail Valley. There would be virtually no impacts associated with construction of the project on recreational opportunities in the Vail Valley. VNMRTT.• _ •� Construction activities along the south frontage will be very visible to the public eye. This disturbance, however, will be temporary. The duration of these effects can be minimized by employing a continual back-fill and re-vegetation procedure along the route. Once construction in this area is complete, there will be virtually no indications that the project was constructed. No The construction of a new natural gas pipeline along the proposed route will increase gas availability for the Town of Vail. New restrictions on wood-burning appliances as well as the continued growth of the ski area and resulting increases in skier visits will increase the demand for natural gas. The completion of this project will provide the long-term impact of meeting this demand. On the ne-ative side, there will be a short-term "nuisance" impacts resulting from construction activities, possibly causing minor local traffic delays, and producing unsightly construction equipment. These negative impacts will mostly affect local area residents. R. Summary of Environmental Impacts that Cannot be Avoided The most significant impact resulting from construction of the proposed project will be a temporary disturbance of vegetation along the pipeline route. This impacts will be mitigated through an extensive revegetation effort which will be conducted simultaneously along the route as a particular stretch of the pipeline installation is completed. It is expected that one to two growing seasons will be sufficient time to reestablish vegetation to near pre-project Impacts to the water quality and fisheries of Gore Creek and the Eagle River are unavoidable, however they are relatively minor and short lived. These impacts specifically -relate to construction activities associated with installing the pipeline across the creek, and the potential for additional sediment to be carried in the water. The potential for impacts to water ! | ' 25 ~ MUM= • 26 e 2 • NN Advanced Sciences, Inc. 1990. Vail - Gore/Eagle Water'Quality Monitoring Program 0 Results. Report prepared for Vail Valley Consolidated Water District. Algermissen, S.T., Perkins, D.M., Thenhaus, P.C., Hanson, S.L., and Bender, B.L. (1982): Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in Rock in the Contiguous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report No. 82-1033 # Bates, R.L., Jackson, J.A., Editors (1957): Dictionary of Geological Terms. Anchor Press Book, Doubleday, 1984 edition. Biggs, Robert W. 1975. An Archaeological Survey and Test Excavations of Sites on Vail Pass, Colorado. Colorado Department of Highways, Highway Salvage Report No. 11, Boulder CO. Brown, L. 1985. Grasslands. The Audubon Society Nature Guides. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York. Colton, RB., Holligan J.A., Anderson, L.W., and Patterson, P.E. (1975): Preliminary Map of Landslide Deposits, Leadville lox2o Quadrangle, Colorado. U.S. Geological ZP r, Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map MF-701 % Golder Associates (1984): Natural Gas Pipeline Relocation, Climax to Vail, Landslide Close to Redcliff (Pando), Report to Western Gas Supply Company 29 I Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. 1991b. Environmental Assessment for Bla�k La lm 'r No. 1 Enlargement Project. Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc., Boulde , Colorado. I Keammerer, W. 1992. Personal Communications. Plant Ecologist, Stoeker-Keammerer, Boulder, Colorado. Kirkham, R.M., Rogers, W.P. (1981): Earthquake Potential in Colorado; A Preliminary Z Evaluation. Colorado Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, Bulletin 43 Metcalf, Michael D. 1992. WestGas Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline over Bail Pass, Wheeler Junction to Dowd Junction, Summit and Eagle Counties, Class I Cultural Resource Overview and Reconnaissance. Eagle, Colorado. I Mueggler, W. F., and W. L. Stewart, 1980. Grassland and Shrubland Habitat Types of Western Montana, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-66. O'Brien, Patrick. 1991. Archaeological Testing at 5EA773 in the Black Lakes Area, Eagle County, Colorado Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Eagle, Colorado. Robinson, C.S., Cochran, D.M. (1971): Intermediate Geologic Investigations, Big Horn Creek to Wheeler Junction, Vail Pass. Report for Colorado Department of Highways, Project No. 1-70-2 (19) Rogers, W.P., Ladwig, L.R., Hornbaker, A.L., Schwochow, S.D., Hart, S.S., Shelton, Zl Scroggs, D.L., and Soule, J.M. (1974): Guidelines and Criteria for Identification and z' Land-Use Controls of Geolocric Hazard and Mineral Resource Areas. Colorado C, . Geological Survey, Department of Natural Resources, Special Publication No. 6 do lu 1 OF e - " w - P6 r L r t - 1 ' = 1 1 _ e A c —' -- a--1 ♦ — — r a A T 1 _ +„ �. e• "� JL � 00 Jxs ly �' r i n� r � n ' —aS�'." LIFT E /FT ��I{' , .l J j •,� (Ut'� Public service VAIL REINFORCEMENT A - - - - -- < ,.. ., K9EFHaPaE 6 Ma9asd 4w a Hydrosphere Resource Consultants :n C7 C] ZIAMOMBOU Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Shelly Mello Recently, the procedure for measuring the height of buildings has come into question. At the April 12, 1993, appeal regarding this question, the PEC requested that the staff make some minor changes to the definition of height, Section 18.04.170 - Height. This amendment will not change the staff's current height measuring procedure. The existing definition for height states: "The distance measured vertically from, existing grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) at any given point to the top of a flat, • mansford roof ♦ to the highest ridge line of a sloping roof." Section 18.40.170 - Height "The distance measured vertically from any point ♦ a proposed • existing roof o eave to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) located direct below said point of the roof or eave." I The staff recommends these changes in response to the direction given by the PEC. This amendment will not change the staff's current method of calculating height. 0 1 09 I 3 w Is i I,J 1 2 3 LA- OFFICES DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. JOHN W. DUNN ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN LAWRENCE P. HARTLAUB DIANE L. HERMAN SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAH Ms. Shelly Mello Department of Community Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail Colorado 81657 Planning and Community Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail Colorado 81657 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SUITE 300 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST VAIL, COLORADO 81 657 EMEUE= -mm Re: Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - Height TELEPHONE: (303) 476-7552 TELECOPIER: (303) 476-4765 Thank you for the opportunity to review your memorandum to the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission relating to the possible change in the definition of height under the Vail Municipal Code. Although I appreciate your effort in attempting to deal with the concerns which I raised earlier this year, I would like to suggest suggest that the revision which is now proposed addresses rrnly half the problem. E milosm AAAJr: E Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Tim Devlin "Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens shall not exceed three feet in height within any required setback area, and shall not exceed six feet in height in any other portion of the site, provided . . ." On August 12, 1991, this section of the zoning code was amended to remove part of the sentence that referred to restrictive covenants as they relate to wall height (please see the attached August 12, 1991 memo). The word "front" was inadvertently removed as part of this amendment. The staff requests that the word "front" be added back into the definition so that it will read as follows: "Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens shall not exceed three feet in height within any required front setback area, and shall not exceed six feet in height in any other portion • the site, provided MMM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission "Fences, .ii:'s, walls and landscaping screens, where not restricted • covenant or other legal instrument, shall not exceed three feet in height within any required front setback area, and shall not exceed six feet in height in any other portion of the site, provided . . ." The Town of Vail does not enforce restrictive covenants or any other legal instrument to which the Town is not a party. For this reason, staff requests Paragraph C be repealed and re- en,2cted to re,?.d as follows: "Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens shall not exceed three feet in height within any required setback area, and shall not exceed six feet in height in any other portion of the site, provided cApe6tovVences . 812 11 • Applicant: Town of Vail 0 Planners: Jim Curnutte and Russ Forre-IT F1 , 1 51F • j I Public - Some members of the public were concerned with allowing a golf course as a permitted use on property zoned Agriculture and Open Space. Town Council - The Town Council has reviewed the PEC recommendation and felt that rather than create a third open space zone district we should consider removing "golf course" from the list of conditional uses in the A District. The Council also directed the Community Development Department staff to perform a detailed review of the two 7 ME&q�1110 . I Issue - Rewrite the purpose statement • the district The report suggests that the following wording be used as the new purpose statement: E Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the proposed purpose statement be used as 4 7 E E 3. Issue - Amendments to the list of permitted uses Although no revisions are suggested in the report, staff feels that revisions to the list • permitted uses are warranted in order to carry out the intent of the district as specified in the new purpose statement. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses be changed to the following: A. Nature preserve; B. Bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways. 1 � Interpretive nature walks; k� � Staff agrees with the report's recommendations for text changes and recommends that the lists of conditional and accessory uses be changed to the following: M A. Picnic tables and informal seating areas; B. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory t permitted or conditional uses and necessary for t operation thereof. Staff Recommendation Staff agrees with the suggested name change from "Agricultural and Open Space" to "Recreation and Open Space". 2. Issue - Rewrite the purpose statement No revisions to the purpose statement are suggested in ©e report, however staff feels that the purpose statement should be rewritten to reflect «.: » name and better define the intention of the district. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the purpose statement be rewritten as follows: In E Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses be changed to the following: i . 0 # 0 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the list of conditional uses be changed to the following: A. Public and private schools and colleges; B. Churches, rectories, convents, religious retreats and related structures; C. Public and private golf, tennis, swimming and equestrian facilities; D. Hunting and fishing lodges; E. Enclosed public recreation uses other than those described in sections 18.32.020 (Permitted uses) and 18.32.040 (Accessory uses); F. Plant and tree nurseries (and associated structures) and the raising of field, row and tree crops, along with the retail sale of plants, trees or other nursery products grown, produced or made on the premises; G. H. Ski lifts and tows; Cemeteries; I. Low power subscription radio facilities; J. Well water treatment facility. 5. Issue - Amendments to the list of accessory uses Although no revisions to the list of accessory uses are suggested in the report, staff feels that some revisions are warranted in order to be consistent with the new list of permitted and conditional uses specified above. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the list of accessory uses in the Recreation and Open Space district be amended to read as follows: M 1 E 6. Issue - Lot area and site dimensions Although no changes to this section of the code are recommended in the report staff feels that this section should be reworded . The concern is that as currently written we could not rezone property to Recreation and Open Space because it most likely will not be at least thirty-five acres in size and have at least one acre of buildable area. The thirty- five acre lot size requirement, with one acre of buildable area, should be required for possible single family dwelling sites and not "newly" zoned or rezoned Recreation and Open Space properties. By not having such a restrictive minimum lot size requirement the Town will be able to rezone properties that are not thirty-five acres in size but would make excellent additions to the Town's supply of Recreation and Open Space zoned lands. Staff arrived at the 5,000 square foot site area by looking at parcels we currently own. This site seems to provide adequate flexibility. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the lot area and site dimensions section of the Recreation and Open Space zone district be amended to read as follows: 7. issue - Minor amendment to Section 18.32.060 (Setbacks) The abbreviation for the Recreation and Open Space zone district would be ROS, therefore the A should be changed to ROS. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the A in the first sentence be changed to ROS. N C] "Landscape requirements shall be determined by the Design Review Board in accordance with chapter 18.54." Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the landscaping and site development section bs amended to read as follows: # 0 . • 1 1 # & . Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that a new section be added to the zone distri which reads as follows: I "Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the Recreatior and Open Space district are found in chapter 18.58, Supplemental Regulations." 0 I N I MIUM 1 111011 1 10 1 1 , III 1 111 1 a . 0 . BEE 0=0 mm�� M . In addition to the standard notification used for all PEC meetings staff will personally notify each owner • GNOS and A zoned property of the proposed text amendments and invite them • the May 24, 1993, PEC meeting. Staff recommends that the PEC review and discuss the proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, and Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code, at the May 10, 1993, PEC meeting. Suggested revisions will be incorporated into the memorandum and brought back to the PEC this summer, for a formal review and recommendation. 11 W ISSUE The term "open space" is used in two of Vail's • zone • districts, the Greenbelt Natural Open Space District and the Agricultural Open Space District. This term often creates confusion with regard to the distinctions between these two districts. ALTERNATIVES The simplest way to eliminate this confusion is to change the name of one of the districts so as to more accurately reflect the purpose of the district. The term ".,Natural Open Space Preservation District" would reflect the purpose of the district and would also eliminate confusion with the AOS district. RELATED AINIENDMENT - This district is listed along with all other zone districts in chapter 18.06 Districts Established. If the name of the district is changed, it will also have to be changed in chapter 18.06. RECOMMENDED AMENTI)NENT Rename the "Greenbelt Natural Open Space District" to the "Natural Open Space Preservation District". GNOS 18.38 131 First, this district is • longer a second, this statement should be included as a part of the purpose section and not be included as a "comment" at the end of the section. ALTERNATIVE This "comment" is signcant and should be rewritten into the body • the purpose section. While the end result will be no different than if this section is left unchanged, this amendment will modify the very peculiar structure of this section. 18.38.030 Conditional uses ISSUE The three conditional uses in this district are parks and playgrounds, golf courses and equestrian trails. With the exception of equestrian trails, each of these uses would require site improvements far beyond those recognized in the chapter's purpose section. The issue is whether parks and playgrounds and golf courses are appropriate uses in this district. ALTERNATIVES This amendment is important in order to maintain consistency with the purpose of the district. There are two alternatives to consider. The first is to delete parks andplaygrounds and golf courses from this section because they are inconsistent with the -purpose of the district. The second is to amend the purpose section in a way that will recognize these types of uses. It is recommended that "parks and playgrounds and "golf courses" be deleted from this district because they are inconsistent with "preserving open space and its natural state". The reason for two different "open space" zone districts is that one allows a certain level of limited development activity and the other does not. Play grounds, parks, and golf courses are more appropriate in the Agricultural Open Space District, RELATED AMENDMENTS This amendment raises the question of whether existing development or activities, or future plans warrant rezoning certain GNOS sites to AOS. There are approximately nine GNOS parcels, four of which are planned for development or presently accommodate some type of development. These three parcels are Stevens Park in Intermountain - the Town has completed plans to develop this parcel into a neighborhood park, Parcel E - a portion of this parcel is used .for the golf course and the golf course shops, and Parcel H - an elevated section of 1-70 runs over this GNOS 18.38 132 -r-^, -r ---^ -7 -,,- ,,- --v - . -.- -. A districts are much more appropriate for these types of uses.* Niff M M. INIMINVI.: MO, I'll GNOS 18.38 133 ATTACHMENT #2 (copied from the 1991 Development Code Revision. Report, Phase I) F A d CO E NT TO 18.32.020 end paragraph . to read: Plant and tree nurseries d paragraph D., to read: icycle trails and recreation paths AG /OPEN SPACE 121 18.32 4 t f ALTERNATI'VE If these uses are appropriate, it should make little difference whether they are public or private operations. The section should be amended to include similar public facilities. 18.32.130 Landscaping and site development AG/OPEN SPACE 122 18.32 RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO 18.32.130 Landscape requirements shall be as determined by the Design Review Board in accordance with chapter ISSWE The Supplemental Regulations chapter includes many development standards and exceptions to Ievelopment standards. These regulations are applicable to each zone district, but are not ;pecifically listed in each zone district. Because these regulations are located in a separate chapter, people are often not aware of these regulations. AG/OPEN SPACE 18.32 Z,f'23 E ATTACHMENT #3 NATURAL AREA PRESERVATION (NAP) 18.38.040 - Accessory uses. Not appHeable in the GNQS distriet A. Picnic tables and informal seating areas; B. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof. E 100w; fwza • X11 18.38.050 - Development standards. Not applicable in the GNOS district. (Ord 19(1976) 17(part): Ord. 8(1973) § 26.500.) 18.38.060 - Parking and loading. Not applicable in the GNOS district. (Ord. 19(1976) § 17 (part): Ord. 8(1973) 26.600.) E M E ATTACHMENT E 4-.J. Well water treatment facility; (Ord.37 (1991) § 1: Ord. 30 (1988) § 1: Ord. 16 (1985) § 1: Ord. 16 (1976) § 1 (a) (part): Ord. 14 (1975) § 3: Ord. 8 (1973) § 12.300.) The minimum lot or site area shall be 5,000 square feet, however for single-family dwellings the minimum lot • site area shall be thirty-five acres with 2, minimum • one acre • buildable area. (Ord. 34(19 79) § 1 (part).) 18.32.060 - Setbacks. In the A ROS district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet, the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet. (Ord. 50 (1978) § 2 (part).) 18.32.080 - Height. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet. For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty-three feet. (Ord. 37(1980) § 2 (part).) 18.32.090 - Density. Not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted for each thirty-five acres of site area, of which one acre must be buildable. Provided, however, that one dwelling shall be allowed on a lot or parcel of less than thirty-five acres which contains one acrd. 0 11 • buildable area. Such dwelling shall not exceed two thousand square feet of GRFA. (Ord. 34 (1979) § 1 (part).) 18.32.110 - Site coverage. Site coverage shall not exceed five percent of the total site area. (Or• . 17 (1991) § 14: Ord. 8 (1973) § 12.507.) 18.32.130 - Landscaping and site development. __W_ ;_ 0 K10 ► appli L Landscape requirements shall be determined by the Design Review Boa In accordance with chapter 18.54. (Ord. 8 (1973) w• 1 18.32.140 - Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18-52. N , * required parking shall be located in required setback area, except as may be specifically authorized in accordance with Chapter 18.62. (Ord. 8 (1973) § 12.510.) 18.32.150 - Additional development standards. Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the Recreation and Open Space district are found in chapter 18.58, Supplemental Regulations. 3 Attachment 5 Ownership of Zoned Open Lands in Vail Greenbelt # Acres TOV 6 31 VA 0 0 USFS 5 71 Private 7 11,8 CDOT 1 32.95 ITotal 19 1371 TOV 37 z VA 14 0, CDOT I > USFS 1 Corporation/Home Owners Asso 19 Individuals 7 ( D Total 791 Number of Greenbelt Parcels i i 8 ' � I 6 4 2 0 � �� TOV VA USFS Private CDOT Number of AOS Parcels 40 30 20 Z=�i to O 'LL > �11 > E E TOV VA USFS Private CDOT MAY-20-93 14:OS FRO M2 ROBERT I. MA ELL ID: 41576SO224 IM Ms. Kristan Pritz Town Of Vail Plaming Npulment, 75 South Frontpge RoW We4 Vail, CO 81657 When I bought my house, I opxW th U n d t b use as i is k&y. mw d o ftOt thrtatm that wonderful setting with business uses that will disturb all of the householders tlm= and red th v W ue o f our pxoperty, I respmMy mle you to r4ect the pvposW open-spce amendmera Sincercly, RIwmpI Robert 1. MacDonnell 101 California Street, s u ite 4%30, San Francisco California 94111 I \ \ JAMES & SCHMIDT a:, SOUTH rA N STRE 4.a ,m I- C AA- b\ s R. SCHMIDT 3201 SOUTH GILPIN ST REET ENGLEWOOD COLORADO 80110 � � d 1�1 Ak 05-21-1993 05:49PM FROM GLAZOV TO 13034792453 P.01 i99711� t Z _ a. C; » ® i at L 4 ® ive z v=' v nq aroma ..I A zr* Jzl Pi i r e 5. wa n - -o 'tras�� V.� t�;e e m. F t*'ges .1 i ns s et a rm n W , ul i r _U` E� t�t n� 1 0'a t Z - - VM U t w a tc mreser $1 ^. F 05-21-1993 04:2OFM FRO01 TOU PARKING mcm May 2L t 1993 TO 9-479-2452 P.01 Larry Field Cl Ex"Utive 0ificer vI ij . t . , t6 p ar tuavtt of c*munity DevelOMIN't ' Sout F ron ta ge P. :«¥ West Vail co 61657 v txuiy yours, JOHN W. DUNN ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN LAWRENCE P. HARTLAUS DIANE L. HERMAN SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAH VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING TELEPHONE: SUITE 300 (303) 476-7552 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST TELECOPIER: (303) 476-4765 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 HICEMEM Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail CO 81657 Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail CO 81657 0 Re: Proposed Zoning Text Change Amendment Ladies and Gentlemen: -- 7 REN MAY 2 4 190 LA- OFFICES DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION E y truly DUNN, ABPL Arthur A. Abplanalp,///Jr. AAAJr:j �7A TO: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: April 26, 1993 SUBJECT: Update on Sweet Basil's deck construction located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/part of Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Kevin Clair Planner: Shelly Mello E SENT BY-F-AGL.E COUNTY ; 5-18-03 ; 9:30 ; 3033287207- 3039263515;# It 1 , u [A(;[ k. COLIN rY 13EII I)M 551 BROADWAY P-0. Hox 950 EAGLE. C010MV $1631 rAX. (303) 328.7207