The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-10-25 PEC pt2Z ct a O I l T' sr p . W4 ►-.,' _ C I Lei 4 F3 W 'O v i ct Q CL 0 s zz Z ct a O U lJ1 - 9 - < L. .0 s � N y�•�l V�'_• •' a _ 3_x'3 LL # �2B A Av O „ N E o dr,' ��. ! • A . off•• :ZY �-� - Ile AL OF. I. N W `,1• i 'S N W�' o 1 a Uft ui Uft ct • N i _ ►� r , �� i,. ,.. O f`�y ��•' :tea. � �� „i A • � ' �' �.`y}�' '' •.fir ��.... CLto U t k •A 14 a' r r. Z ct a 0 U N Q � N y .N • 1 U ICZm J ''W v, LL WO O LL�-ft O Z ct a O ig I -72 ct a 0 N . 0 _ 'A� X4. �.. , " Q ! ��CCC777 ct a 0 �RN211¢ L'J Q.� + N L� �jrJ �C • Q . -i . . �= Qril4 r Ntaw 7i N� _m� Q +�^ 1rn Na N OIL NOP to ry Ql 1. Q N �C�45Y�, Q •a• N Q I N .ry 4 N .. r' 'X • . Q }: ti 1 ja! _ e -�z: c '..c �' t•. y..4`� �+" * ..�r - -,.,,� - `-ter:,; y,M„�• ��'(��'� IP"..' . `C-4 •_ �r cN .f ;Al Iwo- .� -fit: _ _ ►•.: - � ,_�� i.. L'•,.:� -� 1 1 .v " ' * y ' Via: ,� f . :V N r•f Q Z ct a 0 Q I• L l { 0 r Q Lei Z v! ct a 0 ° LL (n CL ~ 47 •r C1• O N N Q♦ r .10 O COS. ' •.7 M Q � N � i, •- y .SLY ,�� LL W41,. r Z.;�. LrA o� O � :%• � �- '� ' '•yam' �'�` , -. LLek` ,4FMt. 4L� AP ct 4f' a LL. U o Z .- .� ` gym' �� .o', ^• i i ..� �� s`� � i�".'4 a _-' ?^ � ` � o'• o. •Q o c e O � * Q e � m Q O FV e eco m S co 1 u ,i' .�� •' � a ��'' � � �� v � • � �m�. moi•' - z r � �� } �, j,{��. ^,�. � ��• r � _'�� - gay LL F- LO UZ aV AF CL ` S r 4D� �o44 o ca ui Q ot: +� k e 0 o N� ui ►AL 41. N h o r . SL Ate/ .�•� l �QI CLe• -i M .Q Mel Al 16 IL ol J EO all N � R C m AWN, ' R O At ;1 CL f; U Ak o Ar J ► � . � \ ;; -,fir tO . WUft W Ct Am dip 'ci �'r. T}�� r te' " r�.�.��N T :�� aP (jf� ��:. �or.�k•h Uft�M�, N ,.' a �.. � J �n t '�P:,r�r c.'► c .c _ �" N r ;�f ir�:i� �' .. off.- ►��yy o '� �y .�7 � th f�il� •i � O • � tD'. � _ 'F • o ' - Al Jphl OS An o \ e �4 ON jib, A R o Ar J ► � . � \ ;; -,fir tO . WUft W Ct Am dip 'ci �'r. T}�� r te' " r�.�.��N T :�� aP (jf� ��:. �or.�k•h Uft�M�, N ,.' a �.. � J �n t '�P:,r�r c.'► c .c _ �" N r ;�f ir�:i� �' .. off.- ►��yy o '� �y .�7 � th f�il� •i � O • � tD'. � _ 'F • o ' - Al Jphl OS An o \ e �4 ON jib, A v! ct a 0 e G sip' C� it i �y �•�, - ��`� o � e' �I N low zi �2 A 4'o L-101 Gi fl�sa a � "L ct a 0 Yr• �'- ,'i �i y' U m J ''W vi LL W� 0 LL O Z 0 ct a O U IM' d. .x 'O v, ct Q CL 0 U Y 3 rrAU liar, ':.. !� ' �c' '�Y ,� may' i ' • � � ' . V!4 Aw AW AP •.`,c d .icn �7 •. • .f 0 ii•. r �- 1 '�5. � �] a o cn v I e 0 ii•. r �- 1 '�5. � �] oWjrn A .�-,•� •t,• k MAP. ' Al r k Ike m JO . ~ �o�•� f E . m. AAO 40-c" VVVVJJJJ� T^ --�' v! ct a O U ••' � •�• _�•-'��' � 4TH, ,• r bli i ct a O U - f :gyp SIT"_. k w Seo EN NEI, NO • X26= .'i.. •` .�♦ ti _ o- 7 It' �;.+!rfe��,'., .-..�•. � w Y � '' { n .' W �y1'. .A. � YG• y r^�� y+y.��p+ U m J ''W v, LL WD LL 0 0 ct a 0 y+:• la r b; Z O ct Q CL 0 U t: w Z v! ct a ° U m J ''W v! LL WD 0 0 vi ct a 0 z of r• - � _ oar - C% r LL 40r .r'7�e�_-.. � � L�} ��. �" Yr Ars - �,_'�.��-..:.re '�� :k�'." � .. � � •� � 1 i v �a 7 4e. �.. � � i �+r�� '�".. �Y.. . + '.. -.tip! - � ' • l 40 _ - r•.:... gyp,,` {� _ .�y •:.-1N1 :•1i �r I i��y. Jxe In ��* xr' , ..mow -r '�;�;,.. � .>"`±►' +�`': q R ,�. � . r � r •< : , ,-., �N•.�_ � ��: r -fir. _:iii.:' � _ -+ �;-' �.S, �,• ��.�'!!� ' � �, ',,� } � . -.• ,ice. x .'#f•.T 1,.f `c�+1' : ••'•'�.:.{ r SIL .. �+ L n �'�; � x � I.��=��.3,��•..:,;i�•5_ -�• � �{�= +" ice.'•% b�p�..� ' �,.. .� ►`'� *t�■+� r ..• .�.'�;. '.�� i . 7 'yr• * �!{Q�, 444' • �l �' i `:1'i�.5.4' ._9YC�� 4 .. !�``•y _ . •7 _+rl•-A►- .. r . ��"•'_: � x�.i.. �' ' �Y Vii' ." � � �� !�- l� ~ r '. � a!•.. �.Ap4;r Z ct a 0 v i ct a O rim r TSA �.- i"plot a �ti � � y�rr ��:• a :�. t- y. f AR I�r Y L �WU 00; L' Z ct a 0 A LL a O T v 3a- v�� l4Z ct a O _ 4 . E h 'Y" �•� .F r' 1� roc - � ..t �1 �y . 4b ty, • _ '�,� r • `� LIQ riit - 41-; • A � rte .° Q L N N � •�' t.i' - • 7'F.� � •O '' � r -.'Rif. O� O NO ��:� moi' �'• � o . titmay- R}i .i�T' 4 't... �• k• �• �. .r� c . '�' i► �� ;�.� a ` ,r.. rf r M N Z ct Q CL O 4 Arl �• w a' ` .fir a: r' o low .,r f • ► r y IL Fes' _ +.r_:t+._ - - f � • `j� IW' 0 m 0 M • ,msµ`'—.��. � �:. 5 -fie• �' ,� X(Ai o...e e "lar- iR'. � � '"•• _ T io ly�-' L • �s - "' a �f m CO e rot►■�' .M� w �Ajo f . p kms,;• LL O T v 3a- v�� l4z J�. G LL a LO T v 3a- v�� E] 4 ,f `', x' ;pr '"i1F •f'.. • of ''+FAQ 1 Ir L N r t L w 2 N• N Q Q ��.mop 'L WW m l4Z G LL a LO T v 3a- v�� E] 4 ,f `', x' ;pr '"i1F •f'.. • of ''+FAQ 1 Ir L N r t L w 2 N• N Q Q ��.mop 'L WW m l4Z r'\ ;% Z ct a 0 U 00M 0� EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT April 5, 2021 Honorable Dave Chapin Vail Town Council pwadden@vailgov.com Town of Vail transmitted via email 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Dear Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council members: The Eagle River Water & Sanitation District applauds the Vail Town Council for supporting staff in moving forward with drafting a stream corridor protection ordinance. The Town of Vail and Eagle River Water & Sanitation District have worked collaboratively on improving Gore Creek water quality since Gore Creek was listed on Colorado's 303(d) List of impaired water bodies in 2012. Since the listing, our collective staffs have completed the 2012 Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan, the 2016 Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan, and are in the midst of completing the Gore Creek Watershed Source Water Protection Plan. While each plan has built on the previous plan and targeted specific outcomes, they all point to the need for a stream corridor protection ordinance. Increasing the riparian buffer adjacent to Gore Creek and its tributaries, limiting turfgrass and hardscape within the buffer zone, reiterating statewide pesticide regulations in the TOV municipal code, and enforcing the code will greatly enhance what has become the Restore the Gore movement. The long term benefits of the proposed ordinance will be far reaching. Improvement to overall aquatic ecosystem health and habitat are expected to build on, and multiply, the recent successes of the programs noted above. Improved shading will reduce stream temperatures during the critical brown trout spawning season and will promote stream health by maintaining low daytime temperatures. Reduced hardscapes and turfgrass will improve the ability of the floodplain area to store and infiltrate runoff and will benefit both flood volumes and water quality. All forms of recreation experiences will improve; the more natural riparian corridor will be noticed by all who recreate on Gore Creek and its tributaries. As the water and wastewater service provider for the Town of Vail and communities downstream on the Eagle River, we are committed to a sustainable and healthy river system. The District is committed to supporting the Town's efforts in drafting and implementing the stream corridor ordinance through continued collaboration, education and outreach, and ongoing water quality and macroinvertebrate sampling and monitoring. We are fortunate to live in Colorado's headwaters and be the first users of the water; preserving the water quality for downstream users as well as future generations directly ties to our organization's shared value of environmental stewardship. We are excited with the current momentum behind the Restore the Gore movement and look forward to our continued collaboration and partnership. Sincerely, �29d/P.� inn Brooks General Manager Clean Water. Quality Life.'" 846 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Tel (970) 476-7480 Fax (970) 476-4089 erwsd.org Ali,. BIRCH ECOLOGY October 18, 2021 Peter Wadden & The Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Town of Vail Proposed Stream Setback Regulations Dear Peter and Commission Members, On behalf of the project team from the Evergreen Lodge, we have reviewed the Town of Vail's September 27, 2021 proposed revisions to the stream setback regulations, and have a few recommendations and suggestions: 1. Definition of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) The proposed regulations would define the OHWM "based on the average 2 -year flood line on Gore Creek and its named tributaries which can be established by survey using elevation data available from the Community Development Department." • For a snowmelt-driven system such as Gore Creek through the Town of Vail, it is our understanding that the 1.5 -year flood line is more likely to represent the flow which corresponds to the Ordinary High Water Mark. • For the purposes of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defines the Ordinary High Water Mark as "that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." 33 CFR 328.3(e) • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a well-established methodology for defining the Ordinary High Water Mark based on field conditions, as detailed in the attached Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. The guidance under Section 3(B) provides a "list of physical characteristics" that "should be considered when making an OHWM determination, to the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably reliable:" BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC • P.O. BOX 170 •429 MAIN ST. • LYONS, CO 80540 •720-350-2530 • W W W.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM Ali,. BIRCH ECOLOGY o Natural line impressed on the bank o Shelving o Changes in the character of the soil o Presence of litter and debris o Wracking o Vegetation matted down, bent or absent 0 Sediment Sorting o Leaf litter disturbed or washed away o Scour o Deposition o Multiple observed flow events o Bed and banks o Water staining o Change in plant community • Given that there is already a well-established methodology based on the existing physical conditions, which is a direct measure of the OHWM in the field, we recommend the Town of Vail also adopt the Corps' definition and methodology for determining the Ordinary High Water Mark as a basis for establishing the stream setback. • The current methodology for establishing the setback based on the centerline of a stream or creek is to identify the OHWM on both sides, then establish a center between the two banks. This requires the OHWM to be mapped on both sides and the setback distance does not take into account the width of the stream, so a wide channel could end up with only a narrow buffer area. • We agree that the OHWM is a more appropriate baseline for establishing the stream setback vs. the centerline of the channel. It would only need to be located on one side in order to establish the setback and would account for variable channel widths. 2. Riparian Buffer and Stream Setback Distances The proposed stream setback rule would establish a 25 -foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark and a 10 -foot Riparian Zone along the inner edge, which would be a "protected area to remain as native vegetation and natural materials." Certain activities would be restricted within the Riparian Zone to promote the goals of the Gore Creek Strategic Plan - to improve the water quality and habitat conditions of Gore Creek and its tributaries. • In terms of functionality, the 10 -foot Riparian Zone is the most valuable component of the 25 -foot setback. This is where runoff will be filtered and it will be the most important part for wildlife habitat. BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC • P.O. BOX 170 •429 MAIN ST. • LYONS, CO 80540 •720-350-2530 • W W W.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM 7,IN A, BIRCH ECOLOGY • Building setbacks are helpful but a difference between 20 or 25 feet is not significant if they both have the same 10 -foot wide Riparian Zone with a bluegrass lawn or parking lot for the remainder of the setback width. • One option which should be considered is to allow for a variable building setback if the width of the Riparian Zone is increased correspondingly. For example a building setback could be reduced by up to five feet (from 25 to 20 feet) if the width of the Riparian Zone is increased by up to five feet (from 10 to 15 feet). • This approach could allow some flexibility in setback widths to reduce the number of non- conforming properties. It would still be consistent with the goals to improve water quality and habitat because it would increase the width of the Riparian Zone - where the most important ecological functions would occur - by as much as 50%. 3. Additional Recommendations for the Riparian Zone • The draft language states that "no work, including but not limited to, mowing, landscaping, grading, or disturbance" ... shall be permitted 'Within the Riparian Zone" ... "with the following exceptions, subject to Design Review Board approval: (a.) Removal and management of State of Colorado listed noxious weeds." We recommend that this provision be expanded to include "Removal and management of State of Colorado listed noxious weeds and other aggressive, introduced species." There are many examples of introduced plants which should be removed to maintain habitat quality but they are not specifically state -listed noxious weeds, so broadening this language would be consistent with the goal of protecting and improving riparian habitat quality by permitting removal of these plants. We recommend adding "Native habitat restoration" as one of the exempted activities. • Consider adding language to the Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback Regulations which states "property owners will be encouraged to conduct native habitat restoration if the Riparian Zone on their property is dominated by non-native species or is in poor condition." • Consider adding language which states "residents will be encouraged to minimize foot paths and vegetation trampling within the Riparian Zone, and to locate creek access paths to avoid the most sensitive areas." This could be coupled with the provision to have a path of no more than 4 feet wide, with a permeable surface, to minimize impacts within the Riparian Zone. BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC - P.O. BOX 170 •429 MAIN ST. •LYONS, CO 80540 •720-350-2530 •WWW.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM Ali,. BIRCH ECOLOGY We would be happy to further discuss these recommendations and look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, 4AAb�n-� Heather Houston President & Senior Ecologist BIRCH ECOLOGY LLC • P.O. BOX 170 •429 MAIN ST. • LYONS, CO 80540 •720-350-2530 • W W W.BIRCHECOLOGY.COM REGULATORY GUIDANCE US Army Corps LETTER of Engineers© No. 05-05 Date: 7 December 2005 SUBJECT: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification 1. Purpose and Applicability a. Purpose. To provide guidance for identifying the ordinary high water mark. b. Applicability. This applies to jurisdictional determinations for non -tidal waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 2. General Considerations a. Regulation and Policy. Pursuant to regulations and inter -agency agreement,' the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determines, on a case -by case basis, the extent of geographic jurisdiction for the purpose of administering its regulatory program. For purposes of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the lateral limits of jurisdiction over non -tidal water bodies extend to the ordinary high watermark (OHWM), in the absence of adjacent wetlands. When adjacent wetlands are present, CWA jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to the limits of the adjacent wetlands. For purposes of Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction, which is limited to the traditional navigable waters of the United States, extends to the OHWM, whether or not adjacent wetlands extend landward of the OHWM. Corps regulations define the term "ordinary high water mark" for purposes of the CWA lateral jurisdiction at 33 CFR 328.3(e), which states: "The term ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." 1. Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency Concerning the Determination of the Geographical Jurisdiction of the Section 404 Program and the Application of the Exemptions under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act, January 19, 1989 This definition is virtually identical to the definition of the term "ordinary high water mark" found at 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1), describing the lateral extent of Federal jurisdiction over non -tidal traditional navigable waters of the United States subject to Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA). When the definition from 33 CFR Section 329.11(a)(1) was reproduced at 33 CFR 328.3(e), the semi -colons of the former definition were mistakenly changed to commas in the latter definition. Consequently, the definition of "ordinary high water mark" in Part 328 is not as clear in meaning as is the definition of the same term in Part 329, even though the two definitions were to serve the same basic purpose (i.e., establishing the lateral extent of jurisdiction, in the absence of adjacent wetlands).2 Both definitions of the term "ordinary high water mark" begin by discussing physical characteristics that indicate the location of the OHWM on the shore of a water body. Furthermore, both OHWM definitions conclude with the statement the OHWM can be determined using "other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas".3 Prior to this Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL), neither the Corps nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued any additional clarifying national guidance for use by Corps regulatory program staff in identifying the location of the OHWM for the CWA on a case-by-case basis .4 b. Practice. In making OHWM determinations, Corps districts generally rely on physical evidence to ascertain the lateral limits of jurisdiction, to whatever extent physical evidence can be found and such evidence is deemed reasonably reliable. Physical indicators include the features listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1) and other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. In addition, districts use other methods for estimating the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water, including, but not limited to, lake and stream gage data, flood predictions, historic records of water flow, and statistical evidence. To the maximum extent practicable, districts generally use more than one physical indicator or other means for determining the OHWM. 3. Guidance. a. In determining the location of the OHWM for non -tidal water bodies under the CWA or the RHA, districts should give priority to evaluating the physical characteristics of the area that are determined to be reliable indicators of the OHWM. Physical evidence to be evaluated includes those items listed in the definitions at 33 CFR Sections 328.3(e) and 329.11(a)(1). Because many types of water bodies occur with varying conditions, including topography, channel morphology and flow dynamics, districts may consider other physical characteristics indicative of the OHWM. 2. CWA jurisdiction extends laterally landward of the OHWM to include all adjacent wetlands wherever such adjacent wetlands are present. This guidance addresses situations where no such adjacent wetlands exist. 3. Changes in the limits of waters of the U.S. are addressed in 33 CFR 328.5. 4. On 3 June 1983 the Corps of Engineers' Chief Counsel distributed legal guidance to all Corps district and division counsel offices regarding certain legal questions relating to the geographic jurisdiction of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, including questions relating to the OHWM. 2 b. The following physical characteristics should be considered when making an OHWM determination, to the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably reliable: Natural line impressed on the bank Shelving Changes in the character of soil Destruction of terrestrial vegetation Presence of litter and debris Wracking Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent Sediment sorting Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Scour Deposition Multiple observed flow events Bed and banks Water staining Change in plant community This list of OHWM characteristics is not exhaustive. Physical characteristics that correspond to the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water may vary depending on the type of water body and conditions of the area. There are no "required" physical characteristics that must be present to make an OHWM determination. However, if physical evidence alone will be used for the determination, districts should generally try to identify two or more characteristics, unless there is particularly strong evidence of one. c. Where the physical characteristics are inconclusive, misleading, unreliable, or otherwise not evident, districts may determine the OHWM by using other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, provided those other means are reliable.5 Such other reliable methods that may be indicative of the OHWM include, but are not limited to, lake and stream gage data, elevation data, spillway height, flood predictions, historic records of water flow, and statistical evidence. d. When making OHWM determinations, districts should be careful to look at characteristics associated with ordinary high water events, which occur on a regular or frequent basis. Evidence resulting from extraordinary events, including major flooding and storm surges, is not indicative of the OHWM. For instance, a litter or wrack line resulting from a 200 -year flood event would in most cases not be considered evidence of an OHWM. e. Districts will document in writing the physical characteristics used to establish the OHWM for CWA and/or RHA jurisdiction. If physical characteristics are inconclusive, misleading, unreliable, or not evident, the Districts' written documentation will include information about the physical characteristics (or lack thereof) and other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas, which it used to determine the OHWM. f. To complete an approved jurisdictional determination, districts will have complete and accurate documentation that substantiates the Corps decision. At a minimum, decisions will be documented using the standardized jurisdictional determination information sheet established by 5. In some cases, the physical characteristics may be misleading and would not be reliable for determining the OHWM. For example, water levels or flows may be manipulated by human intervention for power generation or water supply. For such cases, districts should consider using other appropriate means to determine the OHWM. 3 Headquarters and provided to the districts on August 13, 2004 (or as further amended by Headquarters). Documentation will allow for a reasonably accurate replication of the determination at a future date. In this regard, documentation will normally include information such as data sheets, site visit memoranda, maps, sketches, and, in some cases, surveys and photographs documenting the OHWM. 4. Duration. This guidance remains in effect unless revised or rescinded. N T. ILEY Major Genera . Army ❑irecteref Civil Works M ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN R A l , Carrie S. Bernstein 720.460.4203 October 20, 2021 Via E-mail: PWadden@vailgov.com Mr. Peter Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator Town of Vail, Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 csb@ablawcolorado.com Re: Town of Vail Application for Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance/Proposed Amendment to Section 12-14-17 and Creation of Section 12-21-17 of Vail Town Code ("Application") Dear Mr. Wadden: Our firm represents Reggie D. Delponte Residence Trust No. 1 and Reggie D. Delponte Resident Trust No. 2, the owners of property located at 3070 Booth Creek Drive in Vail. We are in receipt of the September 27, 2021, Memorandum concerning the referenced Application and submit the following objections to the Town's proposal in advance of the public hearing scheduled for October 25, 2021, at 1:00 p.m. We request that you include this objection letter in the packet in advance of the public hearing. As we understand the Application, the Town of Vail ("Town") is requesting approval of a regulation that will delete the Vail Town Code ("Code") Section 12-14-17 altogether and add a new regulation, Section 12-21-17, which will significantly "change the waterbody setbacks" of Gore Creek. Initially, the new regulation in Section 12-21-17 is inconsistent with the purpose of Chapter 21 of the Code. The stated purpose of Chapter 21 is: [T]o help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of floodplains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, wildfire hazard areas and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be subject to wildfire, flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and to further regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, 101 University Boulevard, Suite 350 1 Denver, Colorado 80206 1 Phone 720.460.4200 1 Fax 720.293.4712 Alderman Bernstein October 20, 2021 Page 2 to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with floodplains, wildfire hazard areas, avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where floodplains, wildfire hazard areas, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. The Application was submitted in order to address insufficient "quantify or diversity of insects" in Gore Creek, and "loss of riparian (streamside) vegetation." See letter from Town, dated August 23, 2021, referencing "Notice of Stream Tract Encroachment," and Application, page 3. There is no evidence of any concerns in the Gore Creek area related to development of floodplains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, or wildfire hazard areas, and are not part of the Town's defined "geologically sensitive areas," as defined in the Code, Section 12-21-13. More problematic, however, is that the proposal will prohibit nearly all use of private property within an undefined and inconsistent area. The proposal states that "no work" may be done within the no disturbance area, including landscaping or "disturbance," which is undefined. As shown in the aerial photos in the Application, the 25' use prohibition extends into backyards and existing building footprints in many areas, beyond the existing setback. The Town's proposal would prohibit any use of these areas. Although certain uses in these areas ("existing features and structures") might fall under the Town's nonconforming use regulation (Section 12-18), other continued uses must cease altogether, including mowing and landscaping. That means that the new Section 12-21-17 will be retroactively applied to existing property rights and uses along Gore Creek that existed prior to its enactment. Except for those existing "features and structures" within the 25' prohibited area, property owners can no longer continue their current landscaping or mowing of 25' of their property. Colorado law prohibits such retrospective legislation. Further, any changes to existing uses, including structures, that would be permissible under the current Code, are prohibited if the Application is approved. If, for example, our clients wanted to add to or expand their current patio by just one foot or add a firepit, the new Section 12-21-17 prohibits such a change because, on our clients' property, the 25' mark extends up to their patio and home. Moreover, the proposed Section 12-21-17 does not describe how landowners are to determine the required non -disturbance areas, as there is no existing and uniform survey of the Original High Water Mark ("OHWM"). The OHWM will change over time and landowners have Alderman Bernstein October 20, 2021 Page 3 no way of complying with use restrictions if the non -disturbance area changes annually or bi- annually. Further, the proposal will impact significantly more property than the Gore Creek beds. The non -disturbance areas do not follow the creek alone, but also circumvent stream banks and eddies that result in significant loss of property rights through use restrictions that are not related to the Gore Creek OHWM. Once again, as shown in the aerial photos in the Application, the 25' line prohibits use of private property in many areas that are not within 25' of Gore Creek. Finally, the Application, if approved, will constitute a compensable regulatory taking of private properties. The Town's proposal imposes a very high interference with private property rights in the area of Gore Creek and its streams and eddies, prohibiting any use of those areas, which constitutes a compensable taking. Animas Valley Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Bd. Of Cty. Comm'rs, 38 P.3d 59, 65 (Colo. 2001). Owners of these properties, such as our clients, have an investment -backed expectation to use and develop their own backyards, which is protected under Colorado law. G&A Land, LLC v. City of Brighton, 233 P.3d 701, 706 (Colo. App. 2010). If the Town is intent on ensuring an area of no disturbance of 25 feet from the banks of Gore Creek, it must acquire those property rights through eminent domain and pay just compensation to property owners, including our clients. Just compensation under these circumstances will be costly to the Town because, for most owners, including our clients, the property will essentially lose its most valuable attribute — frontage along Gore Creek — and the value of such properties may diminish by up to one-half. For the reasons described above, our client opposes the Application, and we urge the Town to deny the request therein. Very truly yours, ALDERMAN BERNSTEIN LLC Carrie S. Bernstein cc: Reggie D. Delponte (via email) From: Crane, James To: Peter Wadden Subject: RE: A request for your input on proposed TOV ordinance to protect Gore Creek. Date: Thursday, March 25, 2021 10:15:52 AM Attachments: imaoe002.ipo imaae003.ii)a Sundial 10footandOHW M. pdf Sundia125ohwmexistina.pdf StreamCorridorPresentation 030221. pdf Good Morning Pete, Thanks for your email and March 18 phone call explaining how the proposed TOV ordinance to protect Gore Creek would impact Sundial's streamside property. I shared our phone conversation and the attached information with our Sundial HOA board of directors and am pleased to report that the board is supportive of the proposed ordinance and its goals of restoring streambank habitat and environment. Thank you for sharing the proposed ordinance and inviting public comment. With Best Regards, James Crane, President Sundial HOA From: Peter Wadden <PWadden@vailgov.com> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 20219:36 AM To: Crane, James <cranej@wustl.edu> Subject: A request for your input Hi Jim - It was good speaking with you this morning. Thanks again for taking the time to present this proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to your fellow board members. They may be interested to watch the presentation I made to Vail Town Council on March 2 explaining the vision for this ordinance. The relevant portion of the meeting begins about 1:14:00 into the linked video. I have also attached a .pdf of the slides from that presentation if they want to just click through and read those. There are two maps attached. Each shows the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in blue. As I explained on the phone, our proposed ordinance would not impose any restrictions at this line. That line is just a basis for the 10 foot vegetative and 25 foot building setback I am proposing. You can see that 10 foot "no mow zone" in red on one of the maps. The other map shows our existing building setback (50 feet from Gore Creek centerline) in yellow and contrasts it with the new proposed building setback which would be 25 feet from OHWM in pink. I am happy to field questions or feedback from anyone you share this with. I am hoping to present this proposed code change to the Planning and Environmental Commission in late April or early May. Best, Pete Peter Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator Town of Vail Environmental Department 970-479-2144 pwaddenC_vailaov.com From: Peter Wadden Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 20212:52 PM To: Crane, James <craneiPwustl.edu> Subject: RE: A request for your input I just sent you a zoom invite. Look forward to speaking on Thursday. Thanks Jim! Pete My cell is :440-655-6978 in case we run into any technological challenges. From: Crane, James <craneiCcDwustl.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 20212:41 PM To: Peter Wadden <PWaddenCcDvailgov.com> Subject: Re: A request for your input Perfect. I assume you will set up the Zoom call? Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: Peter Wadden <PWaddenCcDvailgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 202112:57:03 PM To: Crane, James <cranei(@wustl.edu> Subject: RE: A request for your input Hi Jim - 9 am on Thursday works for me. Are you available for a zoom call? That would allow me to share maps and documents if we want to refer to those. Let me know and I will send an invitation. Thank you for taking the time to review this proposal and offer your feedback! Pete From: Crane, James <craneiC@wustl.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 202112:42 PM To: Peter Wadden <PWaddenPvailgov.com> Subject: Re: A request for your input Could we do 9am on Thursday by chance? If not what does your Friday look like? Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: Peter Wadden <PWaddenCvailgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 202110:58:39 AM To: Crane, James <cranei(@wustl.edu> Subject: RE: A request for your input Hi Jim - Unfortunately, I am really slammed with meetings all day tomorrow. Do you have time Thursday before 11 am or between 12 and 2 pm? Pete From: Crane, James <crane1Pwust1.edu> Sent: Monday, March 15, 20217:25 PM To: Peter Wadden <PWaddenPvailgov.com> Subject: FW: A request for your input Thanks Pete. The maps you sent are helpful. I do have a few questions. Do you have a few minutes this coming Wednesday that we could discuss by phone? From: Peter Wadden <PWaddenCvailgov.com> Sent: Monday, March 15, 202111:05 AM To: Crane, James <craneiC@wustl.edu> Subject: RE: A request for your input Hi Jim, I am doing well and hope you are too. I'm excited to have my first vaccine appointment coming up on Wednesday. I hope this is a sign of things beginning to return to normal. Town of Vail contracted a hydrology firm last year to do a study on Gore Creek and all its tributaries which established an estimated Ordinary High Water Mark based on aerial LIDAR data. The OHWM we established is effectively a two-year average high water mark. You can see that line in blue on the attached maps. The ordinance I am proposing would use this OHWM line as the basis for both a 10 -foot riparian buffer and a 25 -foot building setback. Town of Vail currently has no required riparian setback and uses a 50 -foot setback from centerline for buildings. I have attached three maps that I think will help you better understand how this proposal would impact Sundial. One shows the Ordinary High Water Mark and proposed 10 -foot riparian setback. Another shows the OHWM and proposed 25 -foot building setback. The third contains some irrelevant 15 and 40 -foot setback lines that I will ask you to ignore. I included it because it shows our existing 50 foot building setback(from Gore Creek centerline). Interestingly, the proposed change to the building setback would actually give Sundial a bit of room to build closer to the creek on portions of the west end of the property. It then intersects and nearly traces the existing setback line as you follow it to the west. Let me know if this all makes sense or if you have further questions. I would be happy to go over some maps and discuss this a bit further over zoom if you would like. Best wishes, Pete Peter Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator Town of Vail Environmental Department 970-479-2144 pwaddenC_vailgov.com From: Crane, James <crane'Pwustl.edu> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 20219:28 PM To: Peter Wadden <PWaddenPvailgov.com> Subject: FW: A request for your input Hi Pete, Good to hear from you. Thanks for sharing the information in your email and attachments. I also watched your presentation at the March 2 Vail Town Council meeting. I think I understand most of what you are proposing but can't visualize what this would mean for Sundial's property. Attached is an aerial view of Sundial taken before our collaborative Gore Creek Riparian project in 2019. Can you help me understand how the proposed ordinance would impact our property? If helpful, we can schedule a Zoom call to discuss. I trust all is well with you, Best Regards, W71 From: Peter Wadden <PWaddenCvailgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 202112:31 PM To: Crane, James <cranei(@wustl.edu> Subject: A request for your input Hi Jim - As a resident of Vail invested in our human and ecological community I want to ask you to take some time and offer some input on a proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance in Vail. I have attached a memorandum to Vail Town Council describing the framework of the ordinance and a white paper I wrote making the case for such an ordinance in Vail. If you have the time and interest, you may also wish to watch the presentation I made to Vail Town Council on March 2 explaining the vision for this ordinance. The relevant portion of the meeting begins about 1:14:00 into the video. Briefly, this ordinance seeks to do three things: 1. Establish a 10 foot protected riparian corridor on private property along Gore Creek and its tributaries 2. Change the required building setback from waterways in Vail to 25 feet from Ordinary High Water Mark (current is 50 feet from Gore Creek centerline, 30 feet on tributaries) 3. Adopt statewide pesticide regulations into Vail Town Code In addition, I intend to recommend Town Council allocate some funding to support private property owners as they come into compliance should this ordinance pass. This proposed code change will be vetted through input from stakeholders like yourselves before being presented to the Building Board of Appeals and Planning and Environmental Commission. We will then return to Town Council for approval. This is your first opportunity to offer feedback but you will also have the opportunity to do so during hearings in front of those public commissions. If you have the time and interest, I would be happy to accept your comments via email or set up a time to talk on the phone or through a video conferencing platform. Whatever your opinion of the specifics of this ordinance, I would be very grateful to have your thoughtful input. Please feel free to share this information with friends and neighbors who may also wish to have their opinions heard as well. Sincerely, Peter Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator Town of Vail Environmental Department 970-479-2144 pwaddenC_vailgov.com The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail. The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail. The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail. The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail. The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail. Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council, We represent the Vail Townhouse Condominium Association (VTCA) as an elected Board of Directors. Our Association includes eleven units with Gore Creek frontage in the Village core at 303 Gore Creek Drive. The membership of VTCA have been watching with interest the proposed changes to the stream setbacks throughout the Town of Vail. Protecting Gore Creek is one of our most important goals. Creek frontage was one of the most important factors in our decisions to purchase at VTCA. We appreciate and commend the Town's desire to further the protection of critical riparian zones along Gore Creek's banks. The change of calculation methods is not altogether opposed by our Association; however, we would recommend a revision of the new setback amount from 25 feet to 20 feet from the ordinary high-water mark. This small change would reduce the future impact on our Association as well as our neighbors as the proposed 25 foot setback will make our existing building nonconforming. We believe that this new setback of 20 feet from the ordinary high-water mark still accomplishes the riparian zone protection that we and the Town seek, while preserving future development and expansion possibilities for our owners. We would appreciate the Commission's and Council's careful review of our request and welcome any further questions or discussion from the Commission or the Town Council. Respectfully, Dr. Richard Parker, President Vail Townhouse Condominium Association rparkermd@msn.com From: Pedro Campos To: Peter Wadden Cc: Tim Halbakken; Jesse Gregg; Caroline Schoeller Subject: RE: A request for your input - Zehren and Associates reply and input. Date: Tuesday, April 6, 20217:36:09 PM Hi Pete, Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. I've asked our staff to review and here is a synopsis of our feedback, compiled by Tim Halbakken: First off we recognize and appreciate your passion for these issues. Tim, Jesse and I have all participated in Restore the Gore presentations you have made and it is clear the Town has the right person tackling these issues. As local invested professionals and residents 'downstream' we feel it's an important and interesting cause that the TOV and the environmental and sustainability department is pursuing. All three measures you are pursuing are well supported and well documented by the research. We assume that the Town Council has directed your team to develop these type of ordinances and its seems you are well on your way with the activities planned in May We are particularly supportive of adopting the state pesticide regulations at the local level, thus allowing enforcement by town officials. We can think of a number of offending properties that could be approached and then supported (possibly financially) to turn their riparian edge back to a natural state. As documented, the reduction of pesticides has had the most immediate and direct impact on stream health, and so we strongly support enforcement. It is interesting that the last documented enforcement case was in 2015, possibly an indication that more frequent / periodic audits may be necessary. The centerline offset argument makes a lot of sense as well. From prior experience it's too difficult to define and it makes more sense to do an offset from the normal annual high water mark (AHWM) Initially with the riparian zone requirement, we initially contemplated that the prevalent reaction might be: "that's going to be considered a taking". However, additional research and homework reveals that 5 to 10' would not be considered a legal taking. So if this falls within legal framework we are in support and for the health of the stream and its ecosystem. In short, we support the initiative in full and advocate that the local landscape industry should too. It is likely some landscape companies are offenders of the pesticide regulations. In this regard it might take a fine structure to get any non-compliant groups to endorse and follow the ordinance. One of Tim's ideas is that perhaps if caught violating the rules these groups should make up for the fine by planting some riparian areas. hope this summary helps and that you succeed in your efforts on behalf of the Town, and the Gore Creek environment and its ecosystem. Very sincerely on behalf of the Zehren and Associates Landscape Architecture and Land Planning team and importantly as leadership partners in the Town's Restore the Gore efforts. Pedro Campos, PLA Principal, Landscape Architect & Land Planner 0: (970) 949-02571 F: (970) 949-1080 From: Peter Wadden <PWaddenC@vailgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 20213:47 PM To: Pedro Campos <pedrocC@zehren.com> Cc: Tim Halbakken <timhC@zehren.com>; Jesse Gregg <iessegC@zehren.com>; Caroline Schoeller <carolinesC@zehren.com> Subject: RE: A request for your input Thanks Pedro and team! I would really appreciate feedback by the end of March if that seems feasible. I certainly understand it is a lot to review so I would be happy to talk through it with you if that would save you time in wrapping your head around the details. Pete From: Pedro Campos <pedrocC@zehren.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 20213:32 PM To: Peter Wadden <PWaddenl@vailgov.com> Cc: Tim Halbakken <timh(@zehren.com>; Jesse Gregg <iesseg(@zehren.com>; Caroline Schoeller <carolines(@zehren.com> Subject: RE: A request for your input Hi Pete, Thank you for reaching out and sharing. We will definitely review and provide comments. In addition to being a local business active in community and environmental planning and design Jesse, Tim, and myself are leadership partners in the Restore the Gore effort from our attendance of past workshops and seminars. It is both important and appropriate for us to weigh in. We will compile our thoughts and ideas into one response. Is there a particular date that would help you receiving our input? Let us know and thanks for taking these issues on! Regards, Pedro Pedro Campos, PLA Principal, Landscape Architect & Land Planner 0: (970) 949-02571 F: (970) 949-1080 From: Peter Wadden <PWaddenPvai1Rov.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 202112:49 PM To: Pedro Campos <pedrocPzehren.com> Subject: A request for your input Hi Pedro - As a representative of Zehren, a business that is active and invested in our human and ecological community, I want to ask you to take some time and offer some input on a proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance in Vail. I have attached a memorandum to Vail Town Council describing the framework of the ordinance and a white paper I wrote making the case for such an ordinance in Vail. If you have the time and interest, you may also wish to watch the presentation I made to Vail Town Council on March ' explaining the vision for this ordinance. The relevant portion of the meeting begins about 1:14:00 into the video. Briefly, this ordinance seeks to do three things: 1. Establish a 10 foot protected riparian corridor on private property along Gore Creek and its tributaries 2. Change the required building setback from waterways in Vail to 25 feet from Ordinary High Water Mark (current is 50 feet from Gore Creek centerline, 30 feet on tributaries) 3. Adopt statewide pesticide regulations into Vail Town Code In addition, I intend to recommend Town Council allocate some funding to support private property owners as they come into compliance should this ordinance pass. This proposed code change will be vetted through input from stakeholders like yourselves before being presented to the Building Board of Appeals and Planning and Environmental Commission. We will then return to Town Council for approval. This is your first opportunity to offer feedback but you will also have the opportunity to do so during hearings in front of those public commissions. If you have the time and interest, I would be happy to accept your comments via email or set up a time to talk on the phone or through a video conferencing platform. Whatever your opinion of the specifics of this ordinance, I would be very grateful to have your thoughtful input. Please feel free to share this information with colleagues and clients who may wish to have their opinions heard as well. Sincerely, Peter Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator Town of Vail Environmental Department 970-479-2144 pwaddenUvailaov.com HEALTHY BUSINESS CIRITIFiED From: Dominic Mauriello To: Peter Wadden Cc: Tom Kassmel Subject: Re: A request for your input Date: Monday, March 15, 20213:23:35 PM Hi Peter: Thank you again for reaching out to me. I have taken a look at the impact of the proposed setbacks on the Evergreen Lodge, one of my clients. This property was addressed extensively in an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and was part of a land swap with Vail Health. A lot of work was put into a preliminary design to make sure that Vail health and Evergreen Lodge would each have their needs addressed on Lot F-1. For this analysis Evergreen relied upon the current stream setbacks and zoning setbacks. An increase in these setbacks will have a detrimental impact upon the Evergreen Lodge property. We did a quick study of the current setbacks versus the 25' setback proposed (attached). One of the major consequences of the proposed setback is that, unlike the centerline setback, there are stream banks and eddies that can affect the impacts to private property. The Evergreen is one of these cases even when you drop the setback to 20'. 20' certainly works a lot better except where there is a random stream bank especially related to Lot F-1 where literally the wide of the development on the project was planned down to the foot. It seems to me that you can still accomplish many of your goals by leaving the stream setbacks as they are measured today from the centerline but adding in the proposed 10' natural riparian buffer. Even with the 10' riparian buffer, you are going to need to provide some exceptions or maybe some performance standards or alternatives that allow for things like the community path that runs along Gore Creek to encroach. Maybe the regulation could be written that the setbacks are 30' from the centerline of the stream but in no case shall there be a setback of less than 10' from the OHWM. That way you are always guaranteed that the riparian zone can exist to help protect the creek. I am hoping we can come up with something that will work for the Town and the Evergreen Lodge. The Town's proposal is causing a significant amount of anxiousness based on the millions that were spent to work on the swap with Vail Health. Please let me know the schedule for reviewing this with the Town Council. Thanks, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mp-vail.com On Mar 11, 2021, at 10:17 AM, Peter Wadden <PWaddenavailgov.com> wrote: Hi Dominic - I think you will find what you are looking for at the Evergreen on page 48 of the 10 foot setback mapset. It does look like Sean omitted the tributaries from the 25 foot setback maps I have. I will follow up with him and see if we can generate those. Pete From: Dominic Mauriello <dominicC@mpgvail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 202110:12 AM To: Peter Wadden <PWaddenC@vailgov.com> Subject: Re: A request for your input That works. Also, the maps are very helpful except they don't go far enough north on Middle Creek to see how the existing Evergreen Lodge is affected. Can you generate a map that includes from the Frontage Road to Meadow Drive at the Evergreen? Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com On Mar 11, 2021, at 10:06 AM, Peter Wadden <PWaddenC@vailgov.com> wrote: Thanks for confirming. Let me know if next Thursday at 11 would be a good time to chat. From: Dominic Mauriello <dominicC@mpgvail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 202110:05 AM To: Peter Wadden <PWaddenC@vailgov.com> Subject: Re: A request for your input Thank you. Got them Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com On Mar 11, 2021, at 9:15 AM, Peter Wadden <PWaddenC@vailgov.com> wrote: Hi Dominic - I believe you should have just received dropbox links for two sets of maps showing the OHWM and proposed 10 and 25 foot setbacks. Please let me know if you did not receive those links. Pete From: Dominic Mauriello <dominicC@mpgvail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 20218:29 AM To: Peter Wadden <PWaddenC@vailgov.com> Subject: Re: A request for your input Also, can you explain the 10' riparian zone as it relates to the 25' setback? Is the 25' building setback from the OHWM and the 10' riparian zone also from the OHWM? What if the 10' riparian zone is outside of the private property? So in some cases the 10' riparian zone may not affect private property and in other cases it would? Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mQgvail.com On Mar 10, 2021, at 9:38 AM, Peter Wadden <PWaddenl@vailgov.com> wrote: Hi Dominic - No need to apologize for your "rant." This is just the kind of dialogue I was hoping for. I have thought of some of the challenges you mention below and you raise a few that I have not resolved yet. It certainly is difficult for our elected and appointed officials to take positions "against the creek." I am hopeful we can foster a more nuanced discussion about this proposed ordinance though. My goal is to restore riparian habitat on private property. Education, outreach and public-private cost shares have not achieved changes on the scale we wish to see, so now we're considering an ordinance. There will certainly be those in the community who think that this ordinance, or maybe any ordinance, is not the appropriate way to achieve that. Planners have weighed in on these proposed setbacks and the setbacks are based on maps Sean generated for us. I didn't share those in my initial email to you because they are very large files. I've attached a snapshot of the 10 foot setback from Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) from the vicinity of the Community Garden as an example. I can try to share the larger files with you via dropbox if you're interested in taking a look. Under the current 50' (Gore Creek) and 30' (tributary) building setbacks 111 non -conforming structures exist in Vail. If Council adopts a 25' setback from OHWM (on both Gore Creek and tributaries) there will be 142 nonconforming structures- 92 of which are among those not conforming under current regulations. I had some back and forth with the planners about this. Some of them preferred I propose a 20 foot building setback from OHWM because it would slightly reduce the number of non- conforming structures in town. The rest of the Environmental Department and I settled on 25 feet because we did not want to "give up" setback acreage through this ordinance. You raise a salient point about the constraints I face as I try to restore riparian habitat in the context of Vail's built environment. Historically, I would argue many structures in Vail were built too close to the creek. We are trying to establish regulations that will discourage that in the future. This will lead to nonconformities and constraints on development/expansion near the creek. The EPA recommends 50-100 foot riparian setbacks to restore "natural ecology." Realistically, I think 10 feet is about as big as we can go in Vail. It's good to hear that your research indicates this could still be effective. On some properties, even 10 feet will be very intrusive. I am proposing that we draft an "or" clause into the ordinance that will allow properties where a structure falls within 20 feet of OHWM to maintain a buffer that is half that distance even if that number is less than 10 feet. Roads, bridges, the bike path and public parks will need to be exempted from this regulation somehow. I have not pinpointed exactly how to do that yet. I'm slammed the rest of this week but could speak next Tuesday afternoon or anytime on Thursday if you're available. I really appreciate you taking the time to look these materials over and offer your feedback. Best wishes, Peter Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator Town of Vail Environmental Department 970-479-2144 pwaddenQvailaov.com <i mage002.j pg> From: Dominic Mauriello <domin icC@mpgvail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 20218:37 AM To: Peter Wadden <PWaddenC@vailgov.com> Subject: Re: A request for your input Hi Peter: I am happy to discuss with you but it really comes down to the details and how they are applied. The concept is wonderful. Protect the creek. It's kind of like asking if you like ice cream. Who is going to say that is a bad idea? The code language and the application of the standards is the critical issue. I can see this making every core area building or proposed building (Evergreen Lodge expansion per the master plan) along a creek in Vail nonconforming or a significant impairment on the redevelopment of properties. I am thinking about Middle Creek, Sandstone Creek, Mill Creek, in addition to Gore Creek. If the stream setbacks are 30' and 50' why isn't the proposal 15' and 25'? A 25' setback on the tributary will be hugely impactful. I have done a lot of research related to wetland setbacks and the effect of buffer width on water quality. The Denver Water Board has a good study but basically the width of the buffer depends on the setting and the implementation of other water quality measures (i.e., passive buffer versus a managed buffer). After 15' there are diminishing returns on water quality. I've seen the examples you are providing. It feels a little like a cherry picking of standards most of which are not based on science but rather plucked from the sky. Areas that are more rural and passive adopted wider buffers and areas that are more developed and urban have narrower buffers because they also aren't relying 100% on passive buffers. I think Sean could generate some maps that might help assess the setback impacts on private property. Certainly an analysis like that should be done and maybe you plan to. I worry about the 10' riparian zone. Is that within the 25' setback or on top of the setback (now 35')? What about where the Town's community path is within what would be the riparian buffer in an easement on private property? Do you allow the community path to be part of the 10' riparian buffer. Have you run your memo by the Planners? Having the DRB grant variances with be a new function for them. That is more typically a PEC consideration. I think you should reach out to Gary Brooks, Alpine Engineering and Heather Houston, Birch Ecology who both also have a lot of experience in these areas. Sorry for the quick rant. Let's definitely get on a call. Thanks Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com On Mar 10, 2021, at 7:44 AM, Peter Wadden <PWaddenC@vailgov.com> wrote: Hi Dominic - We haven't gotten that far yet. We're looking for public input on the framework before we begin drafting the language of the ordinance. Best, Pete From: Dominic Mauriello <dominicC@mpgvail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:29 PM To: Peter Wadden <PWaddenC@vailgov.com> Subject: Re: A request for your input Can you send me your draft ordinance? Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com On Mar 9, 2021, at 1:40 PM, Peter Wadden <PWaddenC@vailgov. com> wrote: Thanks Dominic. I would appreciate your critical eye if you have the time. I realize I provided you with a lot of material so I would be happy to talk it over via phone or zoom if that would be easier or less demanding of your time. Best, Peter Wadden Watershed Education Coordinator Town of Vail Environmental Department 970-479-2144 pwaddenQvailgov. co m <i mage002.j pg> From: Dominic Mauriello <dominicC@mpgvail.c om> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 20211:38 PM To: Peter Wadden <PWaddenC@vailgov. com> Subject: Re: A request for your input Hi Peter: Thank you for reaching out to me. I will take a look at what is proposed and get back to you. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com On Mar 9, 2021, at 1:34 PM, Peter Wadde n <PWad den v ails om> wrote: Hi Domini c - As a repres entativ e of Maurie Ilo Planni ng Group, a busine ss that is active and investe d in our human and ecologi cal comm unity, I want to ask you to take some time and offer some input on a propos ed Strea m Corrid or Protect ion Ordina nce in Vail. I have attach ed a memor andum to Vail Town Counci I descri bing the frame work of the ordina nce and a white paper) wrote makin g the case for such an ordina nce in Vail. If you have the time and interes t, you may also wish to watch the rp esen tation I made to Vail Town ounci I on March 2explai ning the vision for this ordina nce. The releva nt portion of the meetin g begins about 1:14:0 0 into the video. Briefly, this ordina nce seeks to do three things: 1. E s t a b li s h a 1 0 f 0 0 t p r 0 t e c t e d r i p a r i a n c 0 r r i d 0 r 0 n p r i v a t e p r 0 p e 2. r t Y a I 0 n 9 G 0 r e C r e e k a n d it s t r i b u t a r i e s C h a n 9 e t h e r e m G 0 r e c r e e k c e n t e r li n e 3. t s t a t e w I d e p e s ti c I d e r e 9 u I a ti 0 n s n t 0 V a 11 0 w n c 0 d e li additio n, I intend to recom mend Town Counci I allocat e some fundin g to suppor t private propert y owner s as they come into compli ance should this ordina nce pass. This propos ed code chang e will be vetted throug h input from stakeh olders like yourse Ives before being presen ted to the Buildin g Board of Appeal s and Planni ng and Enviro nment al Commi ssion. We will then return to Town Counci Ifor approv al. This is your first opport unity to offer feedba ck but you will also have the opport unity to do so during hearin gs in front of those public commi ssions. If you have the time and interes t, I would be happy to accept your comm ents via email or set up a time to talk on the phone or throug ha video confer encing platfor M. Whate ver your opinio n of the specifi cs of this ordina nce, I would be ve ry gratefu Ito have your though tful input. Please feel free to share this inform ation with colleag ues and clients who may wish to have their opinio ns heard as well. Sincer ely, Peter Wadde n Waters hed Educat ion Coordi nator Town of Vail Enviro nment al Depart ment 970- 479- 2144 pwadd en va it ov.c om <i mage 003.j pg <Strea m Corrido Protecti on 030221 .pdf> <White paper on propos ed stream setback code change s. pdf> <Community Garden Setback- proposed.png> PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 27, 2021, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom. us/webinar/register/W N_QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6FEOg 1.2. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Reid Phillips, Henry Pratt, Pete Seibert Absent: None Main Agenda 2.1. A request for the review of a variance from Section 14-10-4: 20 min. Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a balcony roof and associated support to encroach into the required setback, located at 2705 Davos Trail, Lot 14, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21- 0041) Applicant: Robbie Baxter & Gibson Watson, represented by VMDA Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence gives an introduction to the application. He goes over the extent of the variance request for the setbacks. The applicant is requesting that a roof extend past the allowed 4 -foot encroachment. Chris Jergens of VMDA, representing the applicant, goes over their request. He lists the criteria for approval of a variance required by Town Code and how this application meets them. Kjesbo asks what the original setbacks were when the house was built in Eagle County. Spence guesses 20' on all sides. Pratt asks if similar variances have been granted. Spence does not recall any similar variances being granted. Phillips believes that the house was built as close to the setbacks as possible. J ergens believes they did so because of the topography. Perez says the slope does not have a rational connection to a deck covering. The request for a variance over a nonconforming deck is a special treatment. Gillette asks about the nonconformity. Spence responds the deck is too close to the property line. Perez does not believe a partially covered deck is a hardship. PEC must follow criteria strictly and this does not meet the criteria. Jergens believes they are meeting it. Public comment is opened. No public comment. Rollie Kjesbo moved to deny. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.2. A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 90 min. 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for the adoption of the West Vail Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0036) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by SE Group Planner: Matt Gennett Community Development Director, Matt Gennett, goes over the request from the PEC at the end of the previous meeting. He goes over the conditions of approval suggested by staff as a result of the PEC's discussion at the last meeting that were included in the packet. Ellie Wachtel adds that Fehr and Peers is online if there are any transportation related questions. Kurz appreciates staff's efforts and thanks them for the hard work being put in. Gillette asks if Gennett sees this going to Council and being kicked back to PEC to solve these conditions. Gennett responds that no, he believes that at the Council meeting Council would direct staff to make these revisions and the Council's revisions if any, and then come back to Town Council with those amendments for final adoption. Gillette would like to see more description in the items about the deed restrictions and zoning discussion. The written description is a little confusing based on the discussion. "There can be no increase in density without some sort of deed restriction or fee in lieu". 100% does not need to be deed restricted, but any increase needs to result in some sort of deed restriction or fee in lieu. Gennett says that in the rezoning process the language will be done in a public process at that time. Gillette wants to ensure that as properties redevelop, they need to have some housing aspect to it. The clarity needs to be added in the condition's language. Phillips asks for clarity. Are we going to allow the same number of units that exist over density today or exist over zoning today? Which one will trigger the housing requirement? Gillette believes an increase in density above what is allowed today would require the housing component. Phillips says that if someone is tearing down a six plex then anything over those two allowed units would require some kind of housing? Gillette says, some percentage over that number two, yes. We aren't imposing any hardship for owners; they had the responsibility to know the zoning and that they were overbuilt. Wachtel adds that an extra EHU unit could be built, but we haven't seen that happening. Gillette recognizes that and a percentage needs to go towards housing. The parking lots on Chamonix are emptier these days and we're already losing housing. Pratt has a comment on eliminating GRFA. If you build to setbacks and height with no GRFA you get boxes. That does not match the character of the neighborhood. We should look at what Lionshead did and give a 250% increase of GRFA, but eliminating it just gets boxes. Gennett asks whether the existing or proposed dimensional zoning standards would be sufficient or not to control the size of structures. Pratt agrees and says some increase, but not a complete removal. Gillette thinks we should eliminate the Geneva exemption. This area should be treated the same as the other areas in West Vail. Gennett asks about and Gillette confirms the affected conditions he is referring to. Gillette has concerns that the dashed lines were not quite right on the corner of Chamonix and Arosa. The line as drawn needs to be pulled back in to not include lots that front on other roads. Phillips says that is reflected on page 71. Specifics over the corner of Circle Drive and the map are discussed. Gillette thinks Circle Drive is fine with the Primary/Secondary zoning and needs to be left out. Wachtel asks if there are other streets that have a similar issue. Gillette says Circle Drive and Arosa. The Aerial map is brought up for reference of the areas in question. 2289 Chamonix Ln should be the west end of the upper Chamonix. 2449 Chamonix should not be in the east end of lower Chamonix, as well as the duplexes on the east side of Chamonixjust past Chamonix chalets. The map is gone through for the corners of the area to ensure the appropriate properties are being included. Slight adjustments are being proposed. Looking on the south side of 170, the commissioners review the included lots. On the west side of this lower area, the line is drawn to the Town boundary. Gillette is concerned that including properties in this map will lead to inappropriate zoning again. Phillips whether the future re -zonings will come back to them at the PEC. That they'll have another chance to look at this and make suggestions. This is a conceptual overview plan, not individual zoning, not lot by lot, correct? Gennett confirms Phillips says we are here to provide some flexibility moving forward Gennett says there is nothing regulatory about this document. When we get to the implementation level, the rezoning process will be much more exact. At this level it is more of a guideline and an expression of the intent. The real detail and fine tuning come in when we go to modify zoning. Planner Spence adds that when staff begins to look at rezoning options, we look at more than existing buildings, including location, size of lots, topography, character etc.... We'll be looking more at the intrinsic qualities of the property for any rezoning. More discussion happens on the process of master plan versus zoning and their relation. Pratt does not see any sustainability or environmental recommendation. He would like to see solar or other energy systems be encouraged in new buildings through this plan. He does not like condition #2, and that it is very vague. Would like to see more specificity with more measured heights and not a build to line. Dominic Mauriello working on behalf of the VLHA. The VLHA submitted a comment to the PEC, and it covers the chapters in the masterplan. He believes it would be a good idea to review. He feels the PEC should do the heavy lifting and it should all be set by the time it gets to Town Council. He would like to see a redlined version rather than going to Town Council with a set of conditions. He gives examples of how he thinks intent could be lost in the process. The plan is wonderful, and they've done a really good job. It's 100 times better than what we have now. There are really good alternatives included in there. He would encourage the PEC in the next step of rezoning to get that moving so we can see redevelopment. Pratt agrees. Galen Aasland believes that words matter. He believes that one of the purposes of this is to put in an appropriate zoning. He would like to see the masterplan require the new multi -family zone district that is added not be able to do an SDD. Gillette feels uncomfortable with approving this with the conditions. He would like to see the masterplan redlined. Perez agrees with Gillette. A redlined version would be clearer as to what the PEC's recommendations are. Let's be clear, lets add language and be specific. Gennett asks if the PEC would like a redlined version? At least four commissioners confirm. Discussion around the dates, times, corrections, and revisions is had. Comments will be color coded based on the recommending body. Gennett requests a tabling to the ne)d meeting on the 11th of October. Karen Perez moved to table to October 11, 2021. Reid Phillips seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 60 min. Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pete Wadden Planner: Greg Roy Planner Roy introduces project and begins presentation. He summarizes current waterbody setback requirements as well the proposed language for the new amendment. Gillette asks about the recent release into Gore Creek. Planner Wadden responds there were 120 dead fish. The e)dent of the problem went to the International Bridge. There was also an absence of algae and other aquatic life in the river. State agencies are also involved with investigating this incident. Gillette asks how big a deal 120 dead fish are? Wadden responds that it isn't a huge amount if he could determine that that was the full e)dent of the impacts. They were not able to get water samples until 24 hours after the incident. 2.08 million gallons of potable water was discharged, with an unknown quantity of other water. There were no concerns to drinking water supply. Phillips has received a lot of concerns from the community. Can the PEC request to get a status report from Pete Wadden in two weeks? He would like to invite Eagle River Water and Sanitation, and Colorado state agencies. He also wants to reach out to Vail Resorts to see if they would come to the status report. Community members saw dead fish at the International Bridge. A news report said not to go in the river at the moment with copper sulfate levels. He says we need to know the damage and the responsible parties, as well as the future plan for river restoration. He wants to make sure that this continues to be checked moving forward. Wadden responds he is happy to address these concerns Kurz agrees with Phillips. Board is unanimous in requesting an update. Perez asks if the joint commission has met on this Planner Wadden continues through presentation. He touches on the importance of riparian restoration and the Town's efforts in recent years. He references the Gore Creek Action plan for strategies to engage private property owners. He outlines the objectives of the Riparian Corridor and the proposed new regulations. He explains the definition of the Ordinary High - Water Mark. Gillette asks how many non -conformities we are creating? Wadden says under the current setbacks there are 111 non -conforming structures. The new recommendation would lead to 142. Of those, 92 are non -conforming under current regulations. Gillette asks how many structures are on the creek. Wadden responds there are close to 400. Gillette asks if we create a non -conforming structure, what does that do to development rights? Roy responds that they would have the same property rights, it would just affect where they could build. Perez says that making the structure non -conforming does affect property rights. Gillette asks about property on Matterhorn Circle. What if they would have to rebuild their house? Roy says they would have to meet the standards under the new code Kjesbo says they got variances to build there originally Perez says non -conforming status affects insurance for HOAs and financing. She has a problem making so many buildings non -conforming. She says we have to balance the proposal with property rights and impacts on the community. She cites a letter of concern from a local HOA, and says she wants to get this right. Wadden says the HOA in question is currently non -conforming. Perez wants to decrease rather than increase the amount of non -conforming structures. Wadden says other setback distances are an option. 25' was chosen because it most closely approximated existing setbacks. Gillette asks if you can shorten the setback but increase the riparian buffer. Would this make fewer houses non -conforming? Wadden says the issue is that defensible space would become a problem. People building right to the setback would conflict with fire department recommendations for defensible space. Roy says in regard to design standards it gives property owners some space for landscaping choices before reaching the no -mow zone. 25 feet is the balance between town code, fire department, design standards, and the fewest non -conformities. Gillette asks if property owners been notified? Wadden says not all of them. Gillette says we need to reach out to all of them and get feedback. Perez says it will help to determine the harmony of the various criteria. Wadden recommends taking a look at individual properties on the maps provided. Gillette asks how accurate are they? Wadden says they're a good approximation. Pratt asks how many non -conforming structures are within the 20' setback? Wadden says they have the lines on the map but not the exact numbers. Pratt says he is a property owner on the creek and has built his house to existing setback requirements. It would be good to see the number of non- conforming structures at 20 -foot setbacks. Phillips says the 8th fairway on the golf course is a large encroachment. He asks if there has been a conversation with golf course management if they can restructure that area? Wadden says there have been conversations but it's a debate between playability and resource protection. They are trying to find the balance there. Gillette asks who is present from the fire department? He asks Paul Cada to speak on defensible space. Paul Cada the Wildfire Program Administrator says they have been working with the applicants for a while. What is presented today is the compromise between the interests. He says there are allowances for the defensible space. He says when things are wet around the creek the risk is low and cites examples from California fires. He claims the fire department can support what is in the presented language. Wadden says the 20 -foot setback establishes 27.1 unbuildable acres. The number of non -conforming structures increasing between existing and proposed regulations may not be statistically significant. Gillette would like to have a better understanding of the effects on a homeowner of becoming non -conforming and how that impacts financing and other factors. Roy says we can look into that, as well as weigh that with the health of Gore Creek. Gillette stresses the importance to make informed decisions Planner Spence says we have not seen insurance decisions related to zoning non -conformities. Wadden wants to provide funds and resources to property owners undergoing changes. He reiterates staff recommendations relating to the proposed ordinance. Perez would like more information, as well as notifying the public and getting public feedback. Gillette agrees. Wadden says they will increase these efforts. Kurz asks about public notification being marginally effective? Wadden outlines public outreach on Project Rewild. He says at the time, the town council was concerned about providing funds for individual landscaping projects. Perez says she is on the board of an association that would be affected. She wants to notify associations not just property owners that would be impacted. Kurz talks about balancing health of river with individual homeowners. He says we have a moral if not legal obligation to make sure river is as healthy as possible. We also have to consider the existing property ownership. He says it's a tricky balance, and we need to address the points that have been made. Gillette says the town should target problem properties rather than issue blanket proclamations. Wadden says there is a list of stream areas that are the most degraded. The process needs to include an equitable approach to homeowners. Pratt asks about flags concerning pesticides in use and the progress on this issue. Wadden says Under Colorado law the buck stops with state. Localities cannot pass more stringent regulations. Town attorneys have advised against action. The Colorado Department of Agriculture did testing for pesticides and herbicides in the creek and the town is awaiting the results. Gillette asks if there are better products for lawncare. Wadden says root treatment is better than sprays. Regarding lawncare, it's more about lawncare than keeping out pests. The town utilizes organic herbicides and fertilizers. Gillete asks if organic practices are better for the creek? Wadden clarifies organic fertilizers are better but not better than no fertilizer Gillette asks if we have done outreach to local landscapers? Wadden says from 2015-2019 a local workshop has gathered around 40 landscapers regarding the best practices in Creekside landscaping. In the last two years, there have been zoom presentations along similar lines. Gillette says there could be more outreach every spring. Wadden says he has produced three videos for the website and landscapers about alternatives to pesticides in landscaping. Gillette wants to add in some bullet points for people who won't watch the videos. Perez asks if you need two weeks. Wadden says I think we can do this in two weeks. Spence says another cycle would be required for public comment and outreach. Kurz asks for public input Dominic Mauriello represents Evergreen Lodge. He says he has worked for years with the existing setback of 30'. Having that changed now would have a large impact. He says the maps shown today are not going to be surveying accurate. He applauds the motives and says we're all in favor of riparian buffer. He cites other studies regarding the cleansing effects of riparian buffers and supports the 10' riparian buffer. He says changing the stream setback is different. Nothing suggests 25' is better than 20'. He is glad the PEC is considering the impacts on non- conforming structures. He says it is inaccurate that the centerline moves around a lot. It would have been better if they had done the high water mark from the beginning, but the town has already been built with the old regulations. He says this will open a can of worms of non -conforming buildings. These buildings do not have a lot of flexibilities with variances. He says the board can't depend on relief mechanism of variances for new non- conforming buildings. He says the code language needs work. What about stormwater management activities that may be beneficial to do in the 10' buffer? Gillette asks why that would be precluded? Mauriello says it is precluded in the proposal. He wants to think about how non -conforming structures are created and work out the inconsistencies. He says the town can be clearer about how you measure the centerline. I n his analysis, the 20' setback much more approximates the existing setback today. He says the town could use existing 30' or proposed 20', whichever is more restrictive. He also says the definition of high water mark needs some work and the FEMA floodplain information is different from the streambank. He suggests the town work with some of the surveyors to find what they typically use. He suggests incorporating more input from the town attorney and have them look at it before recommendation to town council. He is happy to help with some of the language if that is needed and says he can come back with examples. Gillette asks for an email summarizing these comments. Mauriello says there are other concerns from community members that weren't able to be here today. Gillette asks if Wadden can meet with a surveyor regarding questions of the high water mark. Wadden confirms. Kurz asks if there is additional public comment? John Rediker wants a better understanding of the language that references two year flood lines, especially regarding a definition and calculation method. He wonders if there are other studies out there, so decisions are based upon science and not anecdotes. He asks where is the evidence that insurance rates will go up for non -conforming structures? Siri Roman is the director of operations for Eagle River Water and Sanitation. She says the decision is hard for the community, but Gore Creek need initiatives like this to get off the 303(d) list of impaired waterways. Vail is a model town with its creek restoration programs. She is also a Vail resident with two kids, who have spent a lot of time in Gore Creek. Her kids would like more wildlife and less tall buildings in town. She asks the board to consider the hard decisions for the future of Vail. Holly Loff is the Executive Director for the Eagle River Watershed Council speaking in support of the ordinance. She has worked successfully with the town on past restoration projects. The riparian areas are critical to water quality and stream health. She says Vail is a leader in the valley and this initiative is the natural next step. She also says the stream health and water quality is worth the effort of addressing these questions. Gillette asks if there are any studies on 20' versus 25' setbacks. Loff says the Eagle River watershed plan didn't have specific numbers for setbacks. The correct number varies by geology and hydrology. She would be happy to look into that more With Wadden. Gillette asks if hydrologists have been involved? Wadden says that they have been involved in the process. He can look at the difference between 20' and 25' buffers. Gillette wants to see difference between 10' and 15' riparian buffers and studies to that effect. Wadden says they will have more of that information next time. Bellm says Oct. 25 meeting is the next meeting date to allow for public notification. Motion to table Karen Perez moved to table to October 25, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.4. A request for the review of an extension to a Conditional Use Permit, 20 min. pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Public buildings and grounds, Vail Town Code, to allow the continued use of the yurt at the Vail Nature Center for a period of three (3) years, located at 841 Vail Valley Drive/Unplatted (Ford Park Nature Center) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0039) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Kristen Bertuglia Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. Upon the completion of the use of the yurt, or three (3) years from date of this approval, whichever happens earlier, the Applicant shall remove the yurt and foundation and shall revegetate all disturbed soils with native vegetation. Planner Spence presents history of the application and outlines request. Gillette asks about the 3 year timeframe? Spence says we need to hold the town equally responsible as private property owners. Kurz asks if there are any other board questions? Spence clarifies to ask for public comment. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.5. A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions 2 min. in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 816/826 Forest Road / Lots 14/15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing No. 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21- 0045) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to a future date where it will be heard concurrently with a Minor Subdivision and Rezoning application. Applicant: Mexamer Forest Road LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence Spence asks for uncertain table date. He will combine the application with other relevant applications. Brian Gillette moved to table. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. September 13, 2021 PEC Results Karen Perez moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. 1 nformational Update 4.1. Update on Wildlife Fencing in the 1-70 Corridor 10 min. Applicant: Planner: Pete Wadden Spence provides update on wildlife fencing project. Phillips asks if there is encroachment on private property? Spence says it is within the CDOT right of way. 5. Adjournment Karen Perez moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department CLIMATE ACTION COLLABORATIVE October 21, 2021 TO: Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council RE: Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Dear Mayor Chapin and Vail Town Council members, The Climate Action Collaborative (the Collaborative) is writing to voice support for the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance brought forward by the Town of Vail (ToV). The Collaborative is focused on helping Eagle County become sustainable and resilient in the face of climate change. Sustainability is not just reducing carbon emissions, but also involves balancing ecology, human impact, and economics to prolong a thriving community. Maintaining the quality and quantity of the natural resources we are dependent on will help Eagle County stay resilient and adapt to future impacts. Water is a resource that is highly sensitive to the impacts of climate change, and one we must sustain, in all capacities of the word. Our community is heavily dependent on sufficient supply and healthy quality to support our surrounding ecosystems, our people (local and beyond), and our recreation and tourism economies. Increasing the vegetative buffer between development impact and a natural resource is critical to proper restoration of Gore Creek and its tributaries. The Collaborative calls for actions that support water quality and quantity in our 2020 Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP aligns its water -related strategies with those of the Eagle County Community Resilience Plan. It includes actions to support water resource improvements, such as restoration of riparian zones and support of "water planning efforts that consider potential population growth in regard to Eagle County's water resource carrying capacity." Because the ordinance would also apply to new developments, we believe it is in line with these actions. Additionally, we facilitated a Sustainable Building Code Task Force in early 2020 to recommend local codes that would support the achievement of CAP and other sustainability goals. One of those was a Sensitive Site Setback of buildings to preserve riparian zones and water quality, ensuring new developments and existing buildings minimize disturbances and promote biodiversity. We are committed to supporting efforts that preserve the sustainability of this resource, and consequently, resilience of the community. We thank you for your efforts in reviewing the ordinance, our letter of support, and for continuing your efforts in the Restore the Gore movement. Sincerely, Kimberly Schlaepfer Manager Climate Action Collaborative, Walking Mountains Science Center CLIMATE ACTION COLLABORATIVE Climate Action Collaborative Community Partners Town of Avon Town of Basalt Eagle County Town of Minturn Town of Eagle Town of Red Cliff Town of Vail EagleVail Metro District Edwards Metro District Colorado Mountain College — Edwards Campus Eagle County School District Vail Mountain School ECO Transit Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Eagle Valley Land Trust Holy Cross Energy Mountain Recreation RA Nelson R&H Mechanical Traer Creek Metro District Vail Daily Vail Health Vail Honeywagon Vail Resorts Vail Valley Partnership The Community Market Mountain Youth Vail Valley Foundation Walking Mountains Science Center 0 m d s H i a -J a -J _ 4— C L 0 a -J O (a L U Q � L O � p N .� a -j O (a O L � L 4-J C) Q� Q� L E EU a -J O un -0L O o -0 4-J a o i c C ' ^ ^ O Q) � J •QN U (n � � � p U*) p U*) L O 4-J N .� m m m O W i V/ O o >*, c E `-tea � E a -J L _ \ L -0 - a -J i --i O i O . �� O DC O �p p- � p' v — 0 O L Q of H _ u-) p- r1 U. CAA (n 2509.25_10 Page 1 of 29 r0RE`3E FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOK S ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION (REGION 2) PR oDENVER, CO xFYI17 �,cq,�5f FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA Amendment No.: 2509.25-2006-2 Effective Date: May 5, 2006 Duration: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. Approved: RICK D. CABLES Regional Forester Date Approved: 04/20/2006 Posting Instructions: Amendments are numbered consecutively by Handbook number and calendar year. Post by document; remove entire document and replace with this amendment. Retain this transmittal as the first page(s) of this document. The last amendment to this Handbook was 2509.25-2006-1 to 2509.25 Zero Code. New Document(s): 2509.25_10 29 Pages Superseded Document(s) by 2509.25-10 — l0_ contents (Amendment 1 Page Issuance Number and 2509.25-96-1, 12/26/1996) Effective Date 2509.25_10 (Amendment 2509.25-2001-1, 23 Pages 12/18/2001 Digest: 11.1 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Adds explanation regarding managing changes in streamflow from natural and anthropogenic disturbance. Adds direction for minimizing Connected Disturbed Areas. 11.2 —Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Revises direction to manage ground cover in an "activity area" rather than a "land unit". Adds direction that amount of ground cover needed is commensurate with site potential. 12 — Revises the caption from "Riparian Areas" to "Riparian Areas and Wetlands". R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 2 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA Digest continued: 12.1 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Revises direction for management of livestock grazing in riparian areas and wetlands. Adds direction to emphasize natural processes when restoring streambanks. 12.2 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Adds direction that certain situations may require an exception to direction to provide free movement of aquatic life at stream crossings. 12.3 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Removes direction to manage toward "robust stream health", but rather to "maintain or improve long-term stream health". 12.4 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Removes reference to "404 regulations" in the Management Measure. 12.5 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Revises direction from "Return and/or maintain sufficient" to "Manage" stream flows. 12.6 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Revises direction for mitigation of water imports to include water disposal and to "maintain or improve long-term stream health" from "is at least 80% of reference conditions". Adds direction for maintenance and operation of water conveyance ditches and pipelines. Adds direction for snow management. 13.1 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Revises direction for ground skidding to avoid "sustained" slopes steeper than 40% and "moderate to severely burned sustained slopes greater than 30%". Adds direction to retain drainages and remove outside berms on outsloped roads. Adds direction for location and construction of log landings. 13.2 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". 13.3 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Adds direction regarding operation and maintenance of roads in the winter to protect water quality from de-icers and sedimentation. Adds direction for road surface stabilization and dust abatement to protect water quality. 13.4 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Adds direction to restore cuts and fills to the original slope contours where practicable. Adds direction to establish effective ground cover on disturbed sites. 14 — Revises the caption from "Soil Productivity" to "Soil Quality". R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 3 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA Digest continued: 14.1 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Revises direction from "limit the sum of severely burned and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced land to no more than 15% of any land unit" to "limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15% of any activity area". Removes reference to wildfire and adds emphasis on restoration to the explanation of the Management Measure. Adds direction to consider snow depths when managing dispersed winter motorized recreation. 14.2 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Revises direction for slash retention in harvest units to protect soil quality. 15.1 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Adds direction for location of temporary camps to protect water quality. 15.2 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". Adds direction to prepare Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans for vehicle service and refueling areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps. Adds direction to require removal or encapsulation of mine waste material before site reclamation is accepted as final. Adds direction to prevent contaminated runoff from mine waste dumps and tailings piles from reaching surface or ground water. Adds direction to report and clean-up spills in accordance with applicable state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 15.3 — Revises the caption from "Standard" to "Management Measure". R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 4 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA Table of Contents 11 -HYDROLOGIC FUNCTION.....................................................................................5 11.1 - Management Measure(1)................................................................................................. 5 11.2 - Management Measure(2)................................................................................................. 7 12 - RIPARIAN AREAS AND WETLANDS.................................................................... 7 12.1 - Management Measure(3)................................................................................................. 8 12.2 - Management Measure(4)............................................................................................... 10 12.3 - Management Measure(5)............................................................................................... 12 12.4 - Management Measure(6)............................................................................................... 13 12.5 - Management Measure(7)............................................................................................... 14 12.6 - Management Measure(8)............................................................................................... 16 13 - SEDIMENT CONTROL..........................................................................................18 13.1 - Management Measure(9)............................................................................................... 18 13.2 - Management Measure (10)............................................................................................. 20 13.3 - Management Measure(11)............................................................................................. 21 13.4 - Management Measure (12)............................................................................................. 23 14 - SOIL QUALITY......................................................................................................24 14.1 - Management Measure(13)............................................................................................. 24 14.2 - Management Measure (14)............................................................................................. 26 15 -WATER PURITY.................................................................................................... 27 15.1 - Management Measure(15)............................................................................................. 27 15.2 - Management Measure (16)............................................................................................. 27 15.3 - Management Measure (17)............................................................................................. 29 R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 5 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA Management measures are environmental goals to protect soil, aquatic, and riparian systems. Design criteria are specific practices to attain the management measures using current knowledge and technology. Notes following the design criteria cite the effectiveness of the design criteria. The five areas covered are hydrologic function, riparian areas and wetlands, sediment control, soil quality, and water purity. A 1985 agreement between the Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency mandated the Water Resource Evaluation of Nonpoint Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS) as official guidance to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. Its controls were used to construct many management measures and design criteria. Others are adapted from Federal and State BMPs and work of other Regions and agencies. "Best Management Practices" are, by definition, the most effective, practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (CDPHE, 2001; WY DEQ, 2001). 11 -HYDROLOGIC FUNCTION Hydrologic function is the ability of a watershed to infiltrate precipitation and naturally regulate runoff so streams are in dynamic equilibrium with their channels and floodplains. Management measures and design criteria to protect hydrologic function apply to all actions that may impact the "sponge and filter" qualities of watersheds. Hydrologic function is protected by maintaining good vegetation and ground cover and by minimizing connected disturbed areas. 11.1 -Management Measure (1) Manage land treatments to conserve site moisture and to protect long-term stream health from damage by increased runoff. Land treatments that reduce the evapotranspiration of a watershed or reduce the ability of the watershed to infiltrate and store water will result in an increase in runoff. Land treatments should be implemented in consideration of the ability of the stream to absorb increases in runoff given the effects of the proposed activity in conjunction with other natural or anthropogenic disturbances in the watershed. The ability of a particular stream to be able to accommodate increases in runoff and sediment transport without being damaged depends upon stream type, past disturbances and current stream condition. Any disturbance that reduces the density of live vegetation cover will increase runoff from forested watersheds. These disturbances can be natural, such as a wildfire or insect and disease outbreaks, or anthropogenic like timber harvest or fuels treatments. In snow dominated areas, flow increases occur mostly during spring runoff on the rising limb of the hydrograph, and are not measurable until about 25 percent of the basal area of a forested watershed is affected. The increase in the size of peak flows is proportional to the amount of basal area affected. However, any reduction in forest cover will have a progressively smaller effect on peak flows with R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 6 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA increasing flow magnitude or recurrence interval. Also, increases in runoff are generally proportional to annual precipitation, that is, greater increases occur in wetter areas. And, the increase in runoff declines over time with vegetation regrowth. Conversely, large openings (opening diameter greater than 15 times the height of surrounding trees) can be subjected to snow scour that can actually reduce site moisture and runoff. (EPA, 1980; MacDonald and Stednick, 2003; Ice and Stednick, 2004). Increased runoff and sediment caused by soil disturbances are the major source of stream impacts. Roads and other soil disturbances can impair the ability of the land to absorb water and filter sediment. Roads, soil disturbances and vegetation treatments can increase small peak flows and channel erosion, but stream health is not damaged if watershed conservation practices are used. Connected disturbed areas are the main source of damage in all regions (Jones and Grant 1996; Troendle and Olsen 1994; Ziemer 1981). 1. Design Criteria. a. In each watershed containing a 3 -rd order and larger stream, limit connected disturbed areas so the total stream network is not expanded by more than 10%. Progress toward zero connected disturbed area as much as practicable. Where it is impossible or impracticable to disconnect a particular connected disturbed area, minimize the areal extent of the individual connected disturbed area as much as practicable. In watersheds that contain stream reaches in diminished stream health class, allow only those actions that will maintain or reduce watershed -scale Connected Disturbed Area. NOTE: Connected disturbed areas discharge surface water into streams singly or in combination; this measure avoids stream damage from peak flows (Wemple 1994). Stream order is based on the total network of all streams. b. Design the size, orientation, and surface roughness (that is. slash and other features that would trap and hold snow on site) of forest openings to prevent snow scour and site desiccation. NOTE: WRENSS (111. 12 through 111. 19). 2. Monitoring. Check size and orientation of openings, extent of connected disturbed areas, and stream health (channel widths -depths, substrate, bank stability) of sensitive stream reaches. 3. Restoration. Disconnect disturbed areas from stream networks. Reclaim areas that contribute to excessive runoff and peak flows. Revegetate using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 7 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA 11.2 - Management Measure (2) Manage land treatments to maintain enough organic ground cover in each activity area to prevent harmful increased runoff. Organic ground cover (plants, litter, and humus) is vital to maintain hydrologic function. Reduced ground cover decreases infiltration of water and increases surface runoff and peak flows. Continued or severe loss of ground cover often results in the formation of pedestals, rills, and gullies that greatly concentrate runoff, increase peak flows, and damage streams. 1. Design Criteria. a. Maintain the organic ground cover of each activity area so that pedestals, rills, and surface runoff from the activity area are not increased. The amount of organic ground cover needed will vary by different ecological types and should be commensurate with the potential of the site. NOTE: Such ground cover allows for prescribed fire and site preparation without increasing surface runoff from a 10 -year storm (WRENSS II.60; USFS 1966). b. Restore the organic ground cover of degraded activity areas within the next plan period, using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. NOTE: Field studies show this to be a reasonable recovery period over a wide range of environments to bring each activity area into compliance. 2. Monitoring. Observe evidence of pedestals, rills, and surface runoff. Compare average organic ground cover of treated activity areas with reference areas, using ocular methods, rooted nested frequency method, cover -frequency method (USFS, 1996a), soil pedon data, pace transects, or other accepted monitoring methods. 3. Restoration. Apply watershed restoration along with land -use controls on degraded lands to disperse runoff and restore organic ground cover with minimum long-term maintenance needs. Reclamation treatments and changes in management may be required. Revegetate using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. 12 - RIPARIAN AREAS AND WETLANDS Vegetation next to water bodies plays a major role in sustaining the long-term integrity of aquatic systems (Hynes 1970; Odum 1971). Values provided include shade, bank stability, fish cover, woody debris input, storage and release of sediment, surface -ground water interactions, and habitat for terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals. Riparian zones and wetlands must be managed with care to protect these values. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 8 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA 12.1 - Management Measure (3) In the water influence zone next to perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands, allow only those actions that maintain or improve long-term stream health and riparian ecosystem condition. The water influence zone (WIZ) includes the geomorphic floodplain (valley bottom), riparian ecosystem, and inner gorge. Its minimum horizontal width (from top of each bank) is the greater of 100 feet or the mean height of mature dominant late-seral vegetation. The WIZ protects interacting aquatic, riparian, and upland functions by maintaining natural processes and resilience of soil, water, and vegetation systems (Reid and Ziemer 1994). 1. Design Criteria. a. Allow no action that will cause long-term change to a lower stream health class in any stream reach. In degraded systems (that is At -risk or Diminished stream health class), progress toward robust stream health within the next plan period. NOTE: Assess impacts of existing and proposed land treatments in the field before projects begin. Light treatments usually protect stream integrity (WRENSS IL65). b. Allow no action that will cause long-term change away from desired condition in any riparian or wetland vegetation community. Consider management of stream temperature and large woody debris recruitment when determining desired vegetation community. In degraded systems, progress toward desired condition within the next plan period. NOTE: Desired vegetation condition supports robust stream health (USFS 1996a). c. Keep heavy equipment out of streams, swales, and lakes, except to cross at designated points, build crossings, or do restoration work, or if protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Keep heavy equipment out of streams during fish spawning, incubation, and emergence periods. NOTE: This measure sustains stream and lake integrity (WRENSS IL60). d. Ensure at least one -end log suspension in the WIZ. Fell trees in a way that protects vegetation in the WIZ from damage. Keep log landings and skid trails out of the WIZ, including swales. NOTE: This measure sustains stream and riparian integrity (WRENSS IL58). R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 9 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA e. Locate new concentrated -use sites outside the WIZ if practicable and outside riparian areas and wetlands. Armor or reclaim existing sites in the WIZ to prevent detrimental soil and bank erosion. NOTE: WRENSS (IL62), armored water -dependent facilities are excepted. f. Manage livestock use through control of time/timing, intensity, and duration/frequency of use in riparian areas and wetlands to maintain or improve long- term stream health. Exclude livestock from riparian areas and wetlands that are not meeting or moving towards desired condition objectives where monitoring information shows continued livestock grazing would prevent attainment of those objectives. g. Keep stock tanks, salt supplements, and similar features out of the WIZ if practicable and out of riparian areas and wetlands always. Keep stock driveways out of the WIZ except to cross at designated points. Armor water gaps and designated stock crossings where needed and practicable. NOTE: This measure avoids much serious bank damage (Clary and Webster 1989). h. Manage dry meadow and upland plant communities, including Kentucky bluegrass types, that have invaded into wetland/riparian areas in a manner that will contribute to their replacement over time by more mesic native plant communities to the extent practicable. Develop site-specific riparian stubble height standards or use the following default levels for carex and juncos species: 3-4 inches in spring -use pastures and 4-6 inches in summer or autumn use pastures; to leave adequate residual stubble height to retain effective ground cover. NOTE: Clary and Webster (1989); USFS (1995); USFS (1996a). Riparian areas with no carex and juncos (for example bluegrass, tufted hairgrass, and so forth) require local stubble heights. i. Do not allow livestock grazing through an entire growing season in pastures that contain in riparian areas and wetlands. Apply short -duration grazing as practicable (generally less than 20 days) to minimize re -grazing of individual plants, to provide greater opportunity for regrowth and to manage utilization of woody species and reduce soil compaction. During the hot season (mid-to-late summer) manage livestock herds to avoid concentrating in riparian areas and wetlands. Apply principles of the Grazing Response Index to livestock management (USFS, 1996a). NOTE: USFS (1995). R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.2510 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 10_of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA j. Design grazing systems to limit utilization of woody species. Where woody species have been historically suppressed, or where the plant community is below its desired condition and livestock are a key contributing factor, manage livestock through control of time/timing, intensity, and duration/frequency of use so as to allow for riparian hardwood growth extension and reproduction. Manage woody species in riparian areas to provide for stream temperature, bank stability and riparian habitat. NOTE: USFS (1995). k. Maintain the extent of stable banks in each stream reach at 74% or more of reference conditions. Consider degree of livestock trampling and riparian vegetation utilization on or immediately adjacent to stream banks when timing livestock moves between units. NOTE: USFS (1996a). 1. Adjust management in riparian areas and wetlands to improve detrimental soil compaction whenever it occurs. NOTE: Hummocking and platy surface soil structure are good indicators of soil compaction if more detailed sampling is not available (BLM 1993, 1994; FSH 2509.18). m. Do not excavate earth material from, or store excavated earth material in, any stream, swale, lake, wetland, or WIZ. NOTE: Field studies show such actions can severely damage stream health. n. Emphasize natural stabilization processes consistent with the stream type and capability (Rosgen and Proper Functioning Condition processes) when restoring damaged stream banks. Use native vegetation for stream bank stabilization whenever practicable. 2. Monitoring. Monitor streambeds and banks, aquatic habitat and biota, soil structure, and riparian vegetation composition and structure. 3. Restoration. Avoid new disturbance until vegetation recovers. Stabilize stream and lake banks with certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Restore aquatic habitat. Relocate heavy -use sites. Disconnect or armor disturbed areas. Rest degraded areas from disturbance if needed. 12.2 - Management Measure (4) R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 11 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA Design and construct all stream crossings and other instream structures to provide for passage of flow and sediment, withstand expected flood flows, and allow free movement of resident aquatic life. Corps of Engineers and Forest Service design criteria are combined to ensure that all facilities remain stable, not necessarily pass the entire flood flow. Structures must sustain long-term channel integrity, pass design flows with expected debris or be armored to withstand the design flood (not wash out) during their design life, and allow unimpeded movement of aquatic life. Culverts often concentrate flow and increase depth and velocity to a maximum just before spilling onto the streambed. Scour pools are common below outlets and migration can be impaired if water velocity or drop is excessive. Check crossings for problems and repair them if needed. The need for providing passage for aquatic life or creating a barrier to movement is determined on a site-specific basis. In general, in -stream structures should provide for unimpeded movement of resident aquatic life. However, in certain situations, such as to protect a genetically pure population of native fish or other aquatic species, there may be a need to restrict passage. 1. Design Criteria. a. Install stream crossings to meet Corps of Engineers and State permits, pass normal flows, and be armored to withstand design flows. b. Size culverts and bridges to pass debris. Engineers work with hydrologists and aquatic biologists on site design. NOTE: WRENSS (11.61, 11.65). c. Install stream crossings on straight and resilient stream reaches, as perpendicular to flow as practicable, and to provide passage of fish and other aquatic life. NOTE: Maintaining channel geometry and hydraulics protects fish passage (WRENSS II.60; Baker and Votapka 1990). d. Install stream crossings to sustain bankfull dimensions of width, depth, and slope and keep streambeds and banks resilient. Favor bridges, bottomless arches or buried pipe -arches for those streams with identifiable flood plains and elevated road prisms, instead of pipe culverts. Favor armored fords for those streams where vehicle traffic is either seasonal or temporary, or the ford design maintains the channel pattern, profile and dimension. NOTE: Temporary bridges or vented fords (fords with pipes to pass low flows) are potential options where appropriate depending upon traffic use. Temporary R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.2510 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 127 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA bridges should be installed and removed seasonally. Temporary fords should be removed when the need for the crossing no longer exists. Pipe culverts pose the most risk of channel damage, migration blockage, and sediment, while fords can impact incised channels (WRENSS IL57; Terrene Institute 1994; Bohn 1998). e. Install or maintain fish migration barriers only if needed to protect endangered, threatened, sensitive, or unique native aquatic populations, and only where natural barriers do not exist. NOTE: Many barriers have disrupted natural distributions of fish populations. 2. Monitoring. Check stability and grade of crossings, capacity of channels, sediment deposits in streambeds, and ability of aquatic biota to pass (40 CFR 230.23 and 230.31). 3. Restoration. Replace problem culverts with bridges, fords, or arches to provide bed and bank stability and movement of aquatic life. 12.3 - Management Measure (5) Conduct actions so that stream pattern, geometry, and habitats maintain or improve long- term stream health. Stream health depends much on channel widths and depths, bank stability, and quality of cover and substrate. In -channel work can directly impact stream channel morphology. Other actions, such as snowmaking or water depletions, can indirectly affect channel morphology by changing (either increasing or decreasing) flow. 1. Design Criteria. a. Add or remove rocks, wood, or other material in streams or lakes only if such action maintains or improves stream and lake health. Leave rocks and portions of wood that are embedded in beds or banks to prevent channel scour and maintain natural habitat complexity. NOTE: Structural complexity provided by rocks, wood, and other elements is vital to maintain channel resilience and habitat features for aquatic biota. Excessive input or removal can damage stream health (Dunne and Leopold 1978, page 709). b. Do not relocate natural stream channels if avoidable. Return flow to natural channels where practicable. Where reconstruction of stream channels is necessary, construct channels and floodways with natural stream pattern and geometry, stable beds and banks and provide habitat complexity. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.2510 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 13_of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA NOTE: Dunne and Leopold (1978, page 709). 2. Monitoring. Monitor channel pattern, geometry, and stability; migration barriers; and aquatic habitat and biota. 3. Restoration. Restore degraded streams to robust stream health with minimum long- term maintenance needs, as part of whole watershed restoration programs that permanently cure causes of damage. Install or remove rocks, wood, or other structures only as a last resort to restore robust stream health. Plant certified local native plants, as practicable, to restore bank stability and cover; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. 12.4 - Management Measure (6) Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns of wetlands to sustain their ecological function. Wetlands control runoff and water quality, recharge ground water, and provide abundant and diverse biota. Natural patterns and processes must be protected. Executive Order 11990 directs that impacts to wetlands should be avoided, minimized or mitigated where practicable. The Corps of Engineers protects wetlands under Section 404 regulations, which may permit wetland impacts if mitigation measures are applied to replace wetland values in-kind. 1. Design Criteria. a. Keep ground vehicles out of wetlands unless protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Do not disrupt water supply or drainage patterns into wetlands. NOTE: Field studies show this measure protects soil structure and water regimes. b. Keep roads and trails out of wetlands unless there is no other practicable alternative. If roads or trails must enter wetlands, use bridges or raised prisms with diffuse drainage to sustain flow patterns. Set crossing bottoms at natural levels of channel beds and wet meadow surfaces. Avoid actions that may dewater or reduce water budgets in wetlands. NOTE: Terrene Institute (1994). c. Avoid long-term reduction in organic ground cover and organic soil layers in any wetland (including peat in fens). NOTE: Field studies show this measure protects vital ecological functions. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 14 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA d. When practicable, keep buried utility and pipelines out of wetlands. If such a line must enter a wetland, use measures that sustain long-term wetland function. NOTE: This measure is needed to avoid subsurface wetland damage. e. Avoid any loss of rare wetlands such as fens and springs. NOTE: These wetlands cannot be replaced in-kind. f. Do not build firelines in or around wetlands unless needed to protect life, property, or wetlands. Use hand lines with minimum feasible soil disturbance. Use wetland features as firelines if practicable. NOTE: This measure protects drainage patterns and prevents fireline scars that are often slow to heal in wetlands (USFS 1990, page II -51). 2. Monitoring. Monitor integrity of organic ground cover and organic soil layers, plant community composition and structure, soil structure, water levels, and drainage patterns. 3. Restoration. Retrofit crossings to restore water levels and drainage (Terrene Institute 1994). Reclaim wetlands to restore physical and biological functions. Revegetate using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. 12.5 - Management Measure (7) Manage stream flows under appropriate authorities to minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic values, fish and wildlife habitat, and to otherwise protect the environment. Aquatic ecosystems make up only about 5% of the NFS lands in the Region, but almost half of the imperiled species are aquatic dependent. Stream flow regimes are critical to maintaining stream processes, aquatic life and habitat. Work to protect current stream flow dependent water uses and improve conditions in perennial streams where stream flow regimes have been altered. Streamflow protection may be a condition of permitting occupancy and use of NFS lands. Cooperation with water users and others is necessary to ensure appropriate resource protection while meeting the needs of people who have valid existing water rights. State instream flow programs will be used where possible when they meet NFS needs. 1. Design Criteria. a. Cooperate with water users and other interested parties to evaluate how to operate existing water use facilities to meet resource goals. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.2510 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 15_of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA b. Obtain stream flows under appropriate federal and state, legal and regulatory authorities to protect stream processes, aquatic and riparian habitats and communities, and recreation and aesthetic values. Top priority is to protect imperiled native species. Generally, this will include a range of flows to support desired uses and values. c. Upon issuance of special use authorizations for new or existing water use facilities, include permit conditions at the point of diversion or storage, if needed, to minimize impacts to water dependent resources and values. One or more of the following circumstances may be present in any given project. Water dependent resources and values not included on this list may require additional consideration. (1) When managing for physical stream processes, including channel maintenance, evaluate each stream on which a project is planned to ascertain what flows represent the amounts and timing needed to sustain these functions. Essential attributes of a properly functioning self -maintaining channel include providing for flows to achieve the following: (a) Move the mass and sizes of alluvial sediment supplied to the channel. (b) Maintain channel capacity by preventing terrestrial vegetative growth in the bed of the channel. (c) Protect and sustain channel banks and the floodplain by maintaining healthy streamside vegetation. (d) Maintain processes that sustain the relationship between the channel and the floodplain. (2) When managing for aquatic biota and their habitat, evaluate each stream upon which a project is planned to ascertain what flows represent the amounts and timing needed to sustain viability of existing populations of native and desired non-native vertebrate species. Essential flow related attributes of sustainable habitat should achieve the following: (a) Maintain the physical, biological, and chemical processes necessary for all life - history stages of identified species and communities. (b) Minimize the impact of dams and diversion structures on the interaction between populations. (c) Return flows to historic habitat where reintroduction potential exists. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.2510 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 16_of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA (3) When managing for riparian habitat and communities, evaluate each stream upon which a project is planned to ascertain what flows and timing are needed to maintain or improve riparian habitat and community structure and function. These flows should be adequate to: (a) Maintain the physical, biological, and chemical processes necessary to ensure the sustainability and ecological integrity of identified species and communities. (b) Maintain the magnitude, variability, and frequency of disturbance processes that affect community structure and function. (4) When managing for aesthetic and recreational values, evaluate each stream upon which a project is planned to ascertain what flows and timing represent the amounts and period needed to sustain these values. These flows should be adequate to: (a) Support flow dependent recreation uses (for example, rafting, kayaking, swimming). (b) Maintain desired populations of fish species to provide for appropriate recreational experiences. (c) Provide water for aesthetic enjoyment. (d) Support special designations, including Wild and Scenic Rivers, where flowing water is critical to the purpose and quality of the designation. d. Obtain water rights under federal and state law to protect stream processes, aquatic and riparian habitats and communities, and recreation and aesthetic values. Top priority is to protect imperiled native species. NOTE: FSM 2540 2. Monitoring. Monitor stream flow, stream health, and riparian condition. 3. Restoration. In cases of noncompliance with permit conditions, pursue suspension or revocation provisions contained in the authorization. Explore joint operation plans for related water facilities to protect instream values with least impact to water users. 12.6 - Management Measure (8) Manage water -use facilities to prevent gully erosion of slopes and to prevent sediment and bank damage to streams. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.2510 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 17_of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA Clean Water Act Section 304(f)(2) addresses control of pollution caused by dams and flow diversion facilities. Facilities include diversion and discharge structures, ditches, and pipes. Other activities, such as coal -bed methane production or snowmaking at ski areas, can generate large volumes of water that may exceed the assimilative capacity of receiving streams. Protect slope, stream stability and aquatic habitat as much and as early as practicable (Section 319(a)). 1. Design Criteria. a. Design all ditches, canals, and pipes with at least an 80% chance of passing high flows and remaining stable during their life. NOTE: This measure minimizes pipe breaks and ditch failures that cause gullies and landslides which add huge sediment loads to streams. b. Do not flush or deposit sediment from behind diversion structures into the stream below. Deposit sediment in a designated upland site. Vegetate or otherwise stabilize spoil piles. NOTE: Adding sediment to a stream that no longer has the capacity to transport it creates long-term stream damage (40 CFR 230) that often includes bank failure. c. Mitigate water imports and water disposal (including reservoir releases) so that the extent of stable banks, channel pattern, profile and dimensions maintain or improve long-term stream health in each receiving stream reach. NOTE: Water imports that increase the size or duration of high flows have damaged streams through major bank erosion. This measure prevents such severe damage. d. Maintain and operate water conveyance ditches and pipelines to carry their design volumes of water with appropriate freeboard. Keep ditches clear of vegetation, debris or other obstructions to minimize potential for ditch failures. e. Conduct snow management, including snowmaking and snow -farming, in such a manner that prevents slope failures and gully erosion on the hillslopes and prevents adverse impacts, such as bank erosion and excessive sediment, in receiving streams. 2. Monitoring. Monitor stream health below diversion and discharge structures. Check prompt remediation of water pipeline breaks and ditch failures. Inspect each facility in the field at least once every two years to conform to the biennial reporting provisions of Clean Water Act Section 319(m). 3. Restoration. Require performance bonds for potential repair of ditches and streams. Stop operation of facilities that do not comply with design criteria until compliance occurs. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 18 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA Stabilize ditch berms and gullies. Restore ground cover using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Remove sediment from streams. Stabilize streams to move them toward robust stream health. 13 - SEDIMENT CONTROL Most sediment delivered from slopes to streams comes from roads and similar disturbed sites. Management measures and design criteria to control sediment come from Clean Water Act Section 404 mandatory BMPs (33 CFR 323.4), EPA and State BMPs, and WRENSS controls. The goal is antidegradation and no impairment. 13.1 - Management Measure (9) Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local topography, and climate. Keep the number of stream crossings and the extent of sediment sources to a practicable minimum. Avoid sediment loads that damage stream health. 1. Design Criteria. a. Construct roads on ridge tops, stable upper slopes, or wide valley terraces if practicable. Stabilize soils onsite. End -haul soil if full -bench construction is used. Avoid slopes steeper than 70%. NOTE: Roads on favorable terrain cause little sediment (WRENSS V.29, V.35). b. Avoid soil -disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Apply travel restrictions to protect soil and water. NOTE: This measure reduces mobilized soil during runoff events (WRENSS IL56). c. Install cross drains to disperse runoff into filter strips and minimize connected disturbed areas. Make cuts, fills, and road surfaces strongly resistant to erosion between each stream crossing and at least the nearest cross drain. Revegetate using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. NOTE: Cross drains near crossings, well-revegetated cuts and fills, and surfacing with large (1 to 3 inch), angular, well -graded gravel greatly reduce sediment from connected disturbed areas (Burroughs and King 1989; Kochenderfer et al. 1984; Swift 1984). R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 19 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA d. Construct roads where practicable, with outslope and rolling grades instead of ditches and culverts. NOTE: Kochenderfer et al. (1984); Swift (1984). e. Retain stabilizing vegetation on unstable soils. Avoid new roads or heavy equipment use on unstable or highly erodible soils. NOTE: WRENSS (11.58, 11.60). f. Use existing roads unless other options will produce less long-term sediment. Reconstruct for long-term soil and drainage stability. NOTE: Reusing old roads usually produces less sediment, but it is often best to reclaim old roads near streams and build farther upslope. g. Avoid ground skidding on sustained slopes steeper than 40% and on moderate to severely burned sustained slopes greater than 30%. Conduct logging to disperse runoff as practicable. NOTE: This measure promotes filtration of runoff and sediment (WRENSS IL61). h. Designate, construct, and maintain recreational travelways for proper drainage and armor their stream crossings as needed to control sediment. NOTE: Uncontrolled OHV and other recreational use, especially in wet conditions, can severely damage streams and riparian areas. i. During and following operations on outsloped roads, retain drainage and remove berms on the outside edge except those intentionally constructed for protection of road grade fills. j. Locate and construct log landings in such a way to minimize the amount of excavation needed and to reduce the potential for soil erosion. Design landings to have proper drainage. After use, treat landings to disperse runoff and prevent surface erosion and encourage revegetation. 2. Monitoring. Monitor travelway conditions, sediment movement into streams, and sediment effects on aquatic habitat and biota. 3. Restoration. Disconnect disturbed areas from streams. Stabilize slopes and surface roads. Close and reclaim roads using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Restore integrity of streams and their aquatic habitats. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.2510 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 20_of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA 13.2 - Management Measure (10) Construct roads and other disturbed sites to minimize sediment discharge into streams, lakes, and wetlands. Excessive sediment from roads and other disturbed sites can have adverse effects on aquatic habitat. Projects that avoid water bodies or discharge into filter strips are usually less expensive than those that use constructed sediment traps. Sediment control has been effective with common watershed conservation practices in all regions. 1. Design Criteria. a. Design all roads, trails, and other soil disturbances to the minimum standard for their use and to "roll" with the terrain as feasible. NOTE: Field studies show that following terrain contours reduces cuts and fills. b. Use filter strips, and sediment traps if needed, to keep all sand -sized sediment on the land and disconnect disturbed soil from streams, lakes, and wetlands. Disperse runoff into filter strips. NOTE: Burroughs and King (1989); WRENSS (IL64). c. Key sediment traps into the ground. Clean them out when 50% full. Remove sediment to a stable, gentle, upland site and revegetate. NOTE: Field studies show that good sediment traps enhance filter strips. d. Keep heavy equipment out of filter strips except to do restoration work or build armored stream or lake approaches. Yard logs up out of each filter strip with minimum disturbance of ground cover. NOTE: Field studies show this measure protects filter strip integrity. e. Build firelines outside filter strips unless tied into a stream, lake, or wetland as a firebreak with minimal disturbed soil. Retain organic ground cover in filter strips during prescribed fires. NOTE: Light burns protect the ground cover of filter strips (USFS 1990). f. Design road ditches and cross drains to limit flow to ditch capacity and prevent ditch erosion and failure. NOTE: WRENSS (11.56, 11.58); Burroughs and King (1989). R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 21 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA 2. Monitoring. Monitor sediment movement into streams and sediment effects on aquatic habitat and biota. 3. Restoration. Add cross drains and sediment traps to improve filter strips. Revegetate disturbed areas using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Restore integrity of streams and their aquatic habitats. 13.3 - Management Measure (11) Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion. Build erosion resistance into project design to reduce costly maintenance and restoration (Clean Water Act Sections 402(p) and 404). Mitigate concurrently with construction. Obtain stormwater (402) and 404 permits as required. 1. Design Criteria. a. Do not encroach fills or introduce soil into streams, swales, lakes, or wetlands. NOTE: Corps of Engineers nationwide permits (33 CFR 330) limit fill in streams. b. Properly compact fills and keep woody debris out of them. Revegetate cuts and fills upon final shaping to restore ground cover, using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Provide sediment control until erosion control is permanent. NOTE: Burroughs and King (1989); WRENSS (IL63, V.29, V.35). c. Do not disturb ditches during maintenance unless needed to restore drainage capacity or repair damage. Do not undercut the cut slope. NOTE: Burroughs and King (1989); WRENSS (IL56, IL58, 11.63). d. Space cross drains according to road grade and soil type as indicated below: (ex. 01). Do not divert water from one stream to another. NOTE: Kochenderfer et al. (1984); Swift (1984); WRENSS (II.64) SDSU et. al. (2003). e. Empty cross drains onto stable slopes that disperse runoff into filter strips. On soils that may gully, armor outlets to disperse runoff. Tighten cross -drain spacing so gullies are not created. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.2510 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 227 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA NOTE: Avoid streamheads, unstable soils, and highly erodible soils (Burroughs and King 1989; WRENSS IL56, IL58, IL59, IL63, IL64). f. Armor rolling dips as needed to prevent rutting damage to the function of the rolling dips. Ensure that road maintenance provides stable surfaces and drainage. NOTE: Burroughs and King (1989); WRENSS (IL64). 13.3 - Exhibit 01 Maximum Cross -Drain Spacing in Feet Based on Soil Types* Unified Soil Classification - ASTM D 2487 *Adapted from original work on the Siuslaw National Forest documented in the Transportation Engineering Handbook of the Pacific Northwest Region, 1966. Original spacings were based on rainfall intensities of 1 to 2 inches per hour falling in 15 minutes. Soil groups and spacings have been modified, based partly on ditch erosion information in WRENSS, to better represent climate and soil regimes found in the Rocky Mountain Region. These are maximum spacings. They should be reduced if warranted by onsite factors such as expected road use, downslope stability and erosion hazards, and filter strip capability to trap runoff and sediment and conserve ground cover integrity given the extra water. Combine these spacings with common sense to place cross drains where damage to ditches, slopes, and streams will be minimized. For example, shorten or extend the spacing where needed to move a cross - drain outlet from a stream headwall to a convex slope. g. Where berms must be used, construct and maintain them to protect the road surface, drainage features, and slope integrity while also providing user safety. NOTE: Roadside berms can channel runoff down the road (Burroughs and King 1989). Use of shoes on snowplow blades protects surfaces. ML, SM SW,SP,GM,GC Extr. Erodible MH, SC, CL Mod. Erodible GW,GP Silts -sands with Highly Erodible Gravels + fines Low Erodible little or no Silts -sands with & sands with Gravels with Road Grade (%) binder (d.g.) moderate binder little or no fines little or no fines 1-3 600 1000 1000 1000 4-6 300 540 680 1000 7-9 200 360 450 670 10-12 150 270 340 510 13-15 120 220 270 410 *Adapted from original work on the Siuslaw National Forest documented in the Transportation Engineering Handbook of the Pacific Northwest Region, 1966. Original spacings were based on rainfall intensities of 1 to 2 inches per hour falling in 15 minutes. Soil groups and spacings have been modified, based partly on ditch erosion information in WRENSS, to better represent climate and soil regimes found in the Rocky Mountain Region. These are maximum spacings. They should be reduced if warranted by onsite factors such as expected road use, downslope stability and erosion hazards, and filter strip capability to trap runoff and sediment and conserve ground cover integrity given the extra water. Combine these spacings with common sense to place cross drains where damage to ditches, slopes, and streams will be minimized. For example, shorten or extend the spacing where needed to move a cross - drain outlet from a stream headwall to a convex slope. g. Where berms must be used, construct and maintain them to protect the road surface, drainage features, and slope integrity while also providing user safety. NOTE: Roadside berms can channel runoff down the road (Burroughs and King 1989). Use of shoes on snowplow blades protects surfaces. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.2510 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 23_of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA h. Build firelines with rolling grades and minimum downhill convergence. Outslope or backblade, permanently drain, and revegetate firelines immediately after the burn. Use certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. NOTE: WRENSS (11.56, 11.61). i. Use the minimum amount of sand, salt, and/or other de-icing substances (Mag - Chloride) as necessary to provide safe winter travel conditions. Design paved roads and parking lots to facilitate sand removal (that is curbs or paved ditches). Use filter strips or other trapping methods to reduce movement of de-icing materials into near- by water bodies. Do not deposit sediment into streams or on streambanks along roads. j. During winter operations, maintain roads as needed to keep the road surface drained during thaws and break-ups. Perform snow removal in such a manner that protects the road and other adjacent resources. Do not use riparian areas, wetlands or streams for snow storage or disposal. Remove snow berms where they result in accumulation or concentration of snowmelt runoff on the road or erodible fill slopes. Install snow berms where such placement will preclude concentration of snowmelt runoff and will serve to rapidly dissipate melt water. k. On roads with high/heavy traffic use, require maintenance agreements and/or use of road surface stabilization practices and dust abatement supplements. See FSH 7709.56 and FSH 7709.58. 2. Monitoring. Monitor condition of cuts, fills, and ditches, effectiveness of filter strips, and runoff and sediment dispersion below cross drains. Monitor sediment movement into streams and sediment effects on aquatic habitat and biota. 3. Restoration. Stabilize fills, ditches, and cross drains. Add cross drains. Repair and armor surfaces subject to ruts. Restore integrity of streams and their aquatic habitats. 13.4 - Management Measure (12) Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, to prevent resource damage. Restoring stable grades, stable drainage, and ground cover are critical to reclaiming disturbances and protecting soil quality and stream health. Roads in riparian areas and wetlands should be the highest priority for restoration. 1. Design Criteria. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 24 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA a. Site -prepare, drain, decompact, revegetate, and close temporary and intermittent use roads and other disturbed sites within one year after use ends. Provide stable drainage that disperses runoff into filter strips and maintains stable fills. Do this work concurrently. Stockpile topsoil where practicable to be used in site restoration. Use certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. NOTE: WRENSS (11.57, 11.58), USFS (1996b). One year allows revegetation in optimum seasons. b. Remove all temporary stream crossings (including all fill material in the active channel), restore the channel geometry, and revegetate the channel banks using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. c. Restore cuts and fills to the original slope contours where practicable and as opportunities arise to re-establish subsurface pathways. Use certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Obtain stormwater (402) discharge permits as required. d. Establish effective ground cover on disturbed sites to prevent accelerated on-site soil loss and sediment delivery to streams. Restore ground cover using certified native plants as practicable to meet revegetation objectives. Avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. 2. Monitoring. Monitor connected disturbed areas and culverts removed. 3. Restoration. Reclaim remaining sediment sources. Provide stable drainage that disconnects as much disturbed area as practicable. Revegetate using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. 14 - SOIL QUALITY Soil quality determines vegetation growth capability in all terrestrial ecosystems. Soil depth, structure, organic matter, and nutrients are critical to sustaining this potential. Management measures and design criteria to protect soil quality apply to all actions that may impact these soil qualities. 14.1 -Management Measure (13) Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned soil and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced soil to no more than 15% of any activity area. Severe burns kill soil biota, alter soil structure, consume litter and humus, and remove organic matter and nutrients. Severe fires occur when humus and large fuels are dry and heavy fuels near the ground conduct much heat into the soil. Recovery takes years (USFS 1990). R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.2510 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 25_of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA Soil compaction is caused by the weight of vehicles and animals on the ground. It increases soil density and reduces large pores so that water absorption and root growth are impaired. Clay and loam soils compact more than sandy soils. Soils compact more when soil moisture exceeds the plastic limit. Detrimental compaction may occur with few passes in moist soils but may take many passes in dry soils. Ground cover, deep snow, and frozen soil reduce compaction. Severe compaction can extend to two feet in roads, major skid trails, and log decks; tree growth may be greatly reduced and recovery may take decades (USFS 1990). The 15% limit applies to all natural and human disturbances that may impact soil structure, organic matter, and nutrients in areas allocated for vegetation production (R2 FSH 2509.18). Where excessive soil impacts already exist from prior activity, the emphasis should be on preventing any additional detrimental impacts and on reclamation where practicable. As defined in the National Soil Handbook (FSH 2509.18) soil quality standards are intended for areas where management prescriptions are being applied, such as timber harvest areas and range allotments. They are not intended to apply to administrative sites or other areas with dedicated uses such as the permanent transportation system, well pads or ski areas, for example. 1. Design Criteria. a. Restrict roads, landings, skid trails, concentrated -use sites, and similar soil disturbances to designated sites. NOTE: FSH 2509.18; WRENSS (V.29, V.35). b. Operate heavy equipment for land treatments only when soil moisture is below the plastic limit, or protected by at least 1 foot of packed snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. NOTE: This measure limits compaction. Soil moisture exceeds the plastic limit if the soil can be rolled into 3 mm threads without breaking or crumbling. c. Conduct prescribed fires to minimize the residence time on the soil while meeting the burn objectives. This is usually done when the soil and duff are moist. NOTE: This measure prevents severe soil heating (USFS 1990, page IV -90). d. Allow dispersed winter motorized recreation when snow depths are sufficient to protect soils. Specify a minimum unpacked snow depth of 12 inches unless a site- specific analysis shows a different snow depth is adequate to protect soils. Allow use of snowcats or grooming machines when unpacked snow depths equal or exceed 18 inches. Evaluate special use permit conditions on a site specific basis. 2. Monitoring. Monitor extent of severely burned and detrimentally compacted, displaced, and eroded soil in those activity areas with the most disturbances. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.2510 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 26_of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA 3. Restoration. Subsoil and till to mitigate detrimental compaction. Seed, fertilize, and mulch severe burns. Use certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Close and reclaim, or permanently armor, any site that has soil pedestals or rills and is subject to concentrated use. 14.2 - Management Measure (14) Maintain or improve long-term levels of organic matter and nutrients on all lands. Nutrient loss occurs when organic matter and nutrients contained in leaves, limbs, litter, humus, and topsoil is moved offsite. Bole -only timber harvest and careful slash piling that keeps soil in place minimizes loss (USFS 1990). Careless piling that moves topsoil may remove much nitrogen and other nutrients from the site. Long-term soil productivity is reduced because organic matter that supplies nutrients over time is displaced offsite (USFS 1990). Total -tree harvest removes the whole above -stump tree from the site. Loss of nitrogen and other nutrients can be several times that with bole -only harvest (Woodard 1993). Nutrient studies show that soil productivity may be reduced by one total -tree clearcut in poor soils and repeated clearcuts in rich soils. However, total -tree harvest may be necessary to reduce fuel loadings, prevent soil damaging high severity fires and restore natural disturbance regimes. 1. Design Criteria. a. On soils with surface soil (A -horizon) thinner than 1 inch, topsoil organic matter less than 2%, or effective rooting depth less than 15 inches, retain 80 - 90% of the fine (less than 3 inches in diameter) post treatment logging slash in the stand after each clearcut and seed -tree harvest. Consider need for retention of coarse woody debris slash in each activity area to balance soil quality requirements and fuel loading concerns. NOTE: Base this measure strictly on onsite soil investigations, NRCS (SCS, 1993) rating for whole tree harvesting and slash levels. Exceptions may occur when high fire hazard overrides the need to leave slash onsite. Apply this measure to complement site regeneration. b. If machine piling of slash is done, conduct piling to leave topsoil in place and to avoid displacing soil into piles or windrows. NOTE: USFS (1990, pages 11-25, 11-54, IV -91). 2. Monitoring. Monitor slash and litter removal, and soil in piles and windrows. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.2510 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 27_of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 — WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA 3. Restoration. Return slash to the site, fertilize, or add sludge to restore site organic matter and nutrients; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. 15 -WATER PURITY Chemicals and pathogens impact water purity. Management measures and design criteria to protect water purity intend to avoid contamination of all waters. 15.1 -Management Measure (15) Place new sources of chemical and pathogenic pollutants where such pollutants will not reach surface or ground water. Chemicals and pathogens can travel long distances in water. Pollutants must be filtered out before they reach surface or ground water. 1. Design Criteria. a. Locate pack and riding stock sites (for example corrals and loading areas), sanitary sites, and well drill -pads outside the water influence zone (WIZ). NOTE: This measure and those under section 12.1 minimize water pollution. Some minor bacterial input from dispersed livestock and wildlife use is unavoidable. b. Locate vehicle service and fuel areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps and areas on gentle upland sites. Mix, load, and clean on gentle upland sites. Dispose of chemicals and containers in State -certified disposal areas. NOTE: Keep such sites out of valley bottoms due to mobility of many chemicals. c. Locate temporary labor, spike, logging and fire camps such that surface and subsurface water resources are protected. Consideration should be given to disposal of human waste, wastewater and garbage and other solid wastes. 2. Monitoring. Monitor water quality and location of pollutant sources. 3. Restoration. Move pollutants to State -certified disposal areas. Reclaim source areas. Remove contaminated sediments from waters. 15.2 - Management Measure (16) Apply runoff controls to disconnect new pollutant sources from surface and ground water. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 28 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA Even favorably located pollutant sources need controls to trap pollutants during major runoff events. Keep discharges free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. 1. Design Criteria. a. Install contour berms and trenches around vehicle service and refueling areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps to fully contain spills. Use liners as needed to prevent seepage to ground water. Prepare Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan per the requirements of 40 CFR 112. NOTE: Standard contingency runoff control for chemical use and storage sites. b. Reclaim each mine waste dump when its use ends, using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Stabilize waste dumps and tailings in non-use periods to prevent wind and water erosion. If non-use will exceed one year, perform concurrent reclamation. Require removal or encapsulation of waste material as necessary to prevent contamination of nearby water bodies before operator abandons site or reclamation is accepted as final. NOTE: Avoid unreclaimed pollution sources throughout a watershed. c. Prevent contaminated runoff from waste dumps and/or tailings from reaching surface and/or ground water. Potential techniques include use of lined ponds to catch runoff, diversion ditches or other runoff controls to divert runoff around waste dumps/tailings piles, capping or treating waste piles on site or off-site disposal of waste as appropriate. If ponds are used, build tailings dams with a 95% chance of containing floods (100 -year event) over their design life. Permanently stabilize dams at final shaping. NOTE: Lined ponds are a standard practice on new mines. Use clay plus synthetic liners if the pond will hold known chemicals. Geotechnical engineers must approve all designs. d. Clean wastewater from concrete batching and aggregate operations before returning the water to streams, lakes, or wetlands. NOTE: Needed to prevent major sediment and cementation impacts in streambeds. e. Inspect equipment used for transportation, storage or application of chemicals daily during use period for leaks. If leaks or spills occur, report them and install emergency traps to contain them and clean them up. Refer to FSH 6709.11, chapter 60 for direction on working with hazardous materials. R2 AMENDMENT 2509.25-2006-2 2509.25_10 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/5/2006 Page 29 of 29 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. FSH 2509.25 —WATERSHED CONSERVATION PRACTICES HANDBOOK CHAPTER 10 — MANAGEMENT MEASURES AND DESIGN CRITERIA NOTE: Standard practice for pesticide equipment (USFS 1990, page II -60). f. Report spills and take appropriate clean-up action in accordance with applicable state and federal laws, rules and regulations. Contaminated soil and other material shall be removed from NFS lands and disposed of in a manner according to state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 2. Monitoring. Monitor water quality and status of runoff controls. 3. Restoration. Move pollutants to State -certified disposal areas. Reclaim source areas using certified local native plants as practicable; avoid persistent or invasive exotic plants. Remove contaminated sediments from waters. 15.3 - Management Measure (17) Apply chemicals using methods that minimize risk of entry to surface and ground eater. Pollution risk depends on chemical mobility and persistence, application mode and rate, and distance from water (USFS 1990). Risk of entry to surface water is highest for broadcast and aerial treatments and for fine droplets. Risk of entry to ground water is highest over sandy soils and shallow water tables. 1. Design Criteria. a. Favor pesticides with half-lives of 3 months or less when practicable to achieve treatment objectives.. Apply at lowest effective rates as large droplets or pellets. Follow the label directions. Favor selective treatment. Use only aquatic -labeled chemicals in the WIZ. NOTE: Standard practice for pesticides (USFS 1990, pages II -55 to II -60). b. Use non-toxic, non -hazardous drilling fluids when practicable. NOTE: Standard practice for oil and gas drilling operations. Oil-based drilling fluids are required for deep wells. 2. Monitoring. Monitor vegetation near water and chemicals in water. 3. Restoration. Remove or neutralize contaminants or avoid further application. , A^ COLORADO r Parks and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources Area 8 - NW Region 0088 Wildlife Way Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P 970.947.2969 1 F 970.947.2936 Honorable Dave Chapin October 21, 2021 Vail Town Council Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Dear Mayor Chapin, Town Council 8t Planning Et Environmental Commission members, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) is responsible for the management and conservation of wildlife resources within the state. Our statutory mission is implemented through our 2015 Strategic Plan, and the goals it embraces are designed to make CPW a national leader in wildlife management, conservation, and sustainable outdoor recreation to inspire current and future generations to serve as stewards of Colorado's natural resources. In many ecoregions in the west, healthy riparian areas are a resource that is integral for overall water quality and ecosystem health. CPW understands that many of the riparian areas within and adjacent to the town limits of Vail have already been impacted by human development and presence, further emphasizing the need to protect, and restore the remaining corridors. Insulating the riparian zone from continued impacts will help many wildlife species that require these habitats. CPW supports the greatest possible setback in riparian areas, and is supportive of the Town of Vail's (TOV) proposed no -mow -zone and updated setback requirements. Riparian zones typically comprise a small percentage of the landscape, often less than 1 %, yet they frequently harbor a disproportionately high number of wildlife species and perform a disparate number of ecological functions when compared to most upland habitats. Almost all wildlife species that exist in Colorado require riparian habitat to survive. Riparian areas provide food, water, refuge from heat and cold, cover from predators, and breeding and rearing areas for a wide variety of terrestrial, avian, and aquatic species. Much of the native riparian habitat in the state has been altered or removed in some way, be it in the form of housing developments, trail system development, commercial uses, or even agricultural development. Studies have shown that riparian areas act as corridors, and many terrestrial species prefer to move through wider riparian corridors as opposed to more narrow and denuded riparian corridors (Hilty, et al, 2004). In addition, the tighter the corridor is in relation to the length by which it is restricted will deter wildlife use and act to further fragment an already heavily fragmented ecosystem (even a long, tight riparian corridor would act as a barrier to wildlife movement). Furthermore, a healthy riparian zone - the vegetated buffer between the aquatic and upland habitats - can serve to protect and improve water quality. Permanent vegetation functions to trap, and remove various pollutants, contaminants and sediments. Many wildlife species use riparian areas year round, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, crustaceans, birds, invertebrates, and fish. Other wildlife may only use the area seasonally OF 0010 Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair * r J for a variety of reasons, including moving from summer/fall range to winter grounds, nesting/breeding/rearing young. Various raptor species have been known to use the area for wintering, roosting, and nesting. Furthermore, elk, moose, and deer usually calve and fawn in areas within 400 feet of free flowing water and on hillsides with dense vegetation in the spring, when snow typically precludes movement higher up onto the slope. Protection of any remaining intact riparian areas is essential, as we continue to see significant declines of deer and elk populations in the Gore and Eagle Valleys. Gore Creek is identified as a "Gold Medal" fishery, defined as "a lake or stream that supports a trout standing stock of at least 60 pounds per acre, and contains an average of at least 12 quality trout per acre. Additionally, anglers contribute significantly to the local Eagle County economy ($28.7 million, CPW 2012). Healthy riparian areas that are properly vegetated are a critical contributor to stream health. During low water years, it can shade the stream during hot summer months and provide cover for fish that are more exposed in shallower waters. Riparian areas also provide food input in the form of invertebrates and plant matter utilized by both fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates as food. Impacts to our local fisheries during stressful summer months have recently been documented and are contributing to the local decline of certain species of sportfish. Reductions to the amount of protected riparian cover will only add to the impacts affecting the local fisheries, this could lead to reduced angling opportunity and experience essential to the local economy. The proposed Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance will insulate the creek to continued impacts and provide for improved water quality, stream health and recreational opportunities, all essential to local communities. Vail is known for its beautiful, wild landscapes and diverse wildlife supported by the creek corridors that run through the heart of the town. Not only does the natural surroundings and wildlife draw many visitors to the area, it characterizes the high quality of life that entices people to live here, as well. Our natural resources, supported by protected and healthy riparian areas, are a significant economic driver to our local economy. CPW strongly encourages municipalities to do everything they can to be active stewards of our natural resources when developing their communities. Please consider approving the proposed Gore Creek Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance. CPW appreciates the opportunity to comment on this stream protection ordinance and looks forward to continued work with the town in conserving the natural resource. If you have any questions or concerns please contact District Wildlife Manager Devin Duval at 970-930-5264. Sincerely, Devin Duval District Wildlife Manager - Vail OF 0010 Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Taishya Adams • Robert W. Bray • Charles Garcia • Marie Haskett Carrie Besnette Hauser • John Howard • Marvin McDaniel, Acting Vice -Chair • Luke B. Schafer • Eden Vardy • James Vigil, Secretary • Michelle Zimmerman, Acting Chair * r J From: Christie Hochtl To: Peter Wadden; LudikCalcomcast.net; Kevin Hochtl; Karl Hochtl Subject: Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Date: Saturday, October 23, 20212:44:40 PM Good Afternoon PEC, Ludwig Kurz, and PeteWadden, Please pass the proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance with the 10 foot no mow zone and the 25 foot setback from the high water mark for buildings. This ordinance will help our efforts to "Restore the Gore" and restore habitat for fish and birds, etc. Thank you, Christie and Karl Hochtl 890 Red Sandstone Circle Vail, CO 81657 970 476 1125 landline 970 376 1893 c-jbhochtl 4gmail.com From: Kaitlyn Merriman To: Peter Wadden Subject: In Support of the Proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance Date: Monday, October 25, 2021 12:40:26 PM H i Pete, I am writing to you to officially support the proposal for the stream corridor protection ordinance. Please pass the proposed Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance with the 10 foot no mow zone and the 25 foot setback from the high water mark for buildings. This ordinance will help our efforts to "Restore the Gore" and restore habitat for fish and birds, etc. Thank you, Kaitlyn Merriman City of Vail, Colorado VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 25, 2021 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to adjust property lines in the vicinity of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0050) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. City of Vail, Colorado VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 25, 2021 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of a portion of Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing (826 Forest Road) from Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) to Outdoor Recreation (OR) and to zone a portion of the Forest Road ROW to Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0051) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. City of Vail, Colorado VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 25, 2021 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 816/826 Forest Road / Lots 14/15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing No. 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0045) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. City of Vail, Colorado VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 25, 2021 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 826 Forest Road/Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0048) The applicant has requested this item be tabled November 22, 2021. City of Vail, Colorado VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 25, 2021 ITEM/TOPIC: October 11, 2021 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 101121.pdf October 11, 2021 PEC Results PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 11, 2021, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN tXLOeRs9QKieoSkwg888Jw 1.2. Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Brian Gillette, Henry Pratt, Rollie Kjesbo, Karen Perez, Reid Phillips, Pete Seibert Absent: None Main Agenda 2.1. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 10 min. 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the expansion of an outdoor dining patio, located at 297 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot E -H, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21- 0033) Applicant: Michael Gehl (Big Bear Bistro) Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. This Conditional Use permit approval is solely for the seating within the former smoking area and does not include seating on the Mill Creek Bridge. Planner Spence gave an overview of this and the next three applications and why they are coming before the Commission. These are all for the expansion of outdoor seating in Vail Village. These locations and dining were in place during covid as a result of the Governor's actions and subsequent Town actions to allow these during the pandemic. Kurz asked if the PEC can review the furniture for these dining areas. Spence answers that the furniture and barrier systems would be reviewed by the DRB. Gillette asked if these were in place last year. Spence answers that yes, in some version these dining areas have been out there during the pandemic. Planner Spence introduces the Big Bear Bistro application. They currently have a CUP for outdoor dining but expanded the area during the pandemic administratively. The application is to utilize the outdoor smoking area for additional seating, but the bridge may not be used for seating after October 31 st No Public Comment. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.2. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 10 min. 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of an outdoor dining patio, located at 228 Bridge Street Unit B/Lot A Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21- 0037) Applicant: Drew Riley (Russell's) Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence explains that Russell's was allowed one or two seats along the north of the building and one by the menu board due to covid allowances. There was also an outdoor bar while it was allowed but is no longer permitted or proposed. The application now asks for one table by the vegetable garden and two in the inset where the bench is currently situated. Music does have a decibel limit. 65 is the limit, which can go up to 80 during "Apres", then must return to 65 after apres. Pratt asks if this is a total of two tables. Spence answers that there is a total of three tables being proposed. Kurz asks if this is only summer. Spence answers that the applicant has only asked for summer seating. Kurz has concerns about the choke point at this point in Bridge Street. Drew Riley, the applicant, states that yes, this is only summer. They will be able to fit two tables in that area where the bench is. It allows for enough space to sit as well as serve. Pratt believes the triangular space by the bridge seems a bit forced. He is not comfortable with that location. Perez agrees on that corner space. People are choked at that point and could cause issues. Gillette asks if there has been a table in that location in the past. Spence does not believe so. Riley says they would be willing to move it back towards the building and away from foot traffic. They open only in the evening, so they miss most of the foot traffic. Gillette asks if the applicant is willing to table and take this to the next meeting. Riley agrees to table for four weeks. Kjesbo would like to see a site plan Pratt asked why the path along the side of the building is not proposed for seating. Riley said he believed he was told he was not allowed to because of the zoning for that stream tract. No Public Comment. Brian Gillette moved to table to November 8, 2021. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 10 min. 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of an outdoor dining patio, located at 254 Bridge Street Unit C/Lot C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0040) Applicant: Kathleen Barron (Gorsuch Ski Haus) Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. This Conditional Use Permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. The applicant shall operate the outdoor patio in a manner generally consistent with the approved site plan dated 07/17/2019. Planner Spence introduces the application. Gillette asks if the tables come in at night. Kathleen Barron confirms that they do come in. No public comment. Perez asks what we do about wandering, as she has seen this one moving from time to time. Spence answers that he regularly walks that village to try and keep them in check. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.4. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 10 min. 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of an outdoor dining patio, located at 304 Bridge Street/Lot E -H, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21- 0047) Applicant: Jennifer Linzinmeir (The Red Lion) Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. This Conditional Use Permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. The applicant shall operate the outdoor patio in a manner generally consistent with the approved site plan dated 07/17/2019. Planner Spence introduces this application. It is for a new outdoor dining area that was not previously a CUP. This was done only during covid and is proposing to come in for full approval. This one tends to wander and gather more seats than feasible for the location. The seat by the t shirt shop to the south will not be allowed after the 31St of October. Kjesbo asks if we are still doing sleeves for posts. Spence answers that we are not as those have been seen to be a trip hazard. If spaces tend to move, we will look at acceptable way to keep that from happening. Jenn Linzinmeir asks if there will a direction for the stations. Spence answers that the DRB will be reviewing that portion and will be forthcoming. Planters may be an option. Gillette asks if planters in the winter would be treated with appropriate plantings. Spence confirms. No public comment. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 40 min. Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to add an exemption to allow vaults for car lift systems to be excluded from the GRFA calculation and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0046) Applicant: KH Webb Architects & Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Planner Roy introduces amendment and addresses existing code and proposed language. He touches on the criteria needed for an underground vault to be exempted from GRFA. Kjesbo asks if it effects how parking is calculated right now? Roy says we would allow them to count them as required spaces so you could accommodate more parking on the inside. Gillette asks how is it not counted currently? Roy says we exempt only 600 sf of a garage from GRFA. Gillette asks for clarification on basement exemptions. Roy clarifies it's the 6 -foot rule. Gillette says you do not need all the proposed exemptions. Roy says that would be another way to look at it. Gillette says he was never in favor of that language to begin with. Roy says this language will be very specific to underground vaults to avoid confusion. Gillette asks for clarification. Roy says it would be cleaner for the proposal to have its own section than add to existing. Gillette says the thinks the exemption list is excessive. Phillips likes that there is more interior parking, and that the structure is exclusive for vehicle storage. Wants it to be added as number nine in the code, rather than reworking 6 ft off grade issue. Gillette asks where number nine would be added? Roy points to the list of exemptions currently in the code. Phillips asks how do you handle the credit for the parking spots? Roy says it would be additional parking, you could have a four car garage in a two car space. He references the code and how where the proposal would fit in the GRFA section. Gillette and Roy discuss where the amendment should best be placed. Pratt says there is currently no size limitation, what would stop people from using this as an elevator with additional space. He also asks if the machine room is exempt? Roy says the car lift system would be enclosed in the vault. Pratt is concerned there is no size limit in the regulations, and someone would add 6 vehicles. Roy says staff is open to the possibility of adding language that would limit the size of the vaults in area. Dominic Mauriello speaks on behalf of the applicant. He says Exemption B addresses what Pratt is worried about. Pratt clarifies he is worried about lateral size. Mauriello doesn't' have a problem with that, especially if it is below grade. He says it makes sense to have the criteria built in here. The original basement code led to confusion in some instances. Environmentally it also helps to have less pavement and parking on the grounds. Pratt says this doesn't count against the 600 sf. This is free garage space. Gillett asks if you have two cars you get 600 sf? Pratt says this is free square footage for a garage. He likes the concept, but he doesn't see limits on size. If it doesn't count against the 600sf, its' essentially free space. Mauriello says you can get up to 1,200 square feet of exempted garage space in certain zone districts. Roy clarifies the code allows 600 sf per allowable unit. Pratt doesn't want it to be an elevator or a lift. Do we care if somebody wants to stack three cars? Phillips says they can't do it under this 16 foot height limit. Gillette why does someone with a car lift gets a bigger basement deduction than someone that doesn't? What is the purpose? Spence says this is an area not being counted towards GRFA, not a deduction. Gillette says the fire department won't allow this to be the only egress. Spence says that is the case at a house on Mill Creek where it has been approved. Kjesbo says the public benefit is getting the parking off the surface. Gillette says none of this makes sense to him. Kjesbo proposes a condition: two parking spaces per each allowable unit. Roy says the garage vault would be limited to two parking spaces per allowable unit. Mauriello knows a case where someone used GRFA for a four -car garage. He asks should people be able to have additional underground spaces. Kjesbo says we can let staff craft the language on this. Spence proposes that the area of the underground space is limited to only the area beneath the garage. Pratt would like to keep the language simple and at two spaces per allowable unit. Gillette asks how you're defining a garage space? Roy says the size is 10x20 ft. We can limit it to two per allowable unit within the footprint of the garage. Spence says staff will write the language. Spence and Mauriello discuss proposed language. Gillette says you can't fit two cars in a 600 square foot garage. Spence says that people in town are doing it with less space. He says regulations can't account for everything but have to account for the vast majority of situations. Pratt says the vault should stay within 600 square feet. Spence reiterates there is up to 1,200 sf of garage deductions in some existing zones. Gillette asks how is the basement deduction is currently calculated? Is it proposed or existing? Spence says whichever is more restrictive. The idea with the vaults is that they are below grade. Gillette says you could create a mound a get it below grade. He points out that the language is finished grade not existing grade. Kurz wants to move towards a motion with conditions that satisfy the concerns being expressed. Gillette reviews the board's concerns. Kjesbo says you're only two parking spaces per allowed unit. Spence proposes the maximum size of any underground parking vault shall be 600 sf per unit. Pratt is not comfortable with the 600 sf. He would prefer to go back to two lift spaces per allowable unit. Mauriello says to think about the practicality of construction. Pratt's concern is that 600 square feet is more than two parking spaces. You're giving them extra space for storage. Spence says it's a scissor system, about the size of the car. Pratt says the lift is not the size of the car. Gillette says a 15 -foot -tall garage could hold multiple cars. Spence says GRFA takes careful consideration. Pratt says his concern is that rules can't be abused and create storage. Spence we can table this, and applicant can bring in an engineer. Pratt likes two cars per allowable unit vs 600 square footage language. Gillette there is nothing that says they will be used for cars. Mauriello says 10x20 is a pretty good size for cars. Spence proposes a 400 square feet allowable size if that is what the board wants. Kjesbo the maximum size is 400 square feet per allowable unit. We want the regulations to fit the structure not the use. So that whether you're a single family or a duplex the rules are the same. Phillips says the lift mechanics are included in the 16' height which also makes it harder to stack cars. He references past projects in town. Gillette asks for clarification about proposed language and Spence says the staff will incorporate the PEC's comments. Kjesbo says let's write the language and come back in two weeks. No public comment. Motion to Table to October 25. Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to October 25, 2021. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.6. A request for recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 60 min. 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for the adoption of the West Vail Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0036) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by SE Group Planner: Matt Gennett Community Development Director Matt Gennett reviews the previous meeting and the actions taken to prepare for this meeting. Gabby Voeller with SE Group addresses the track -changes version of the West Vail Master Plan that includes comments from the PEC, Vail Fire and Emergency Services (VFES), and the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA). Gillette asks to go through the comments. Ellie Wachtel reads through the comments from the PEC. Voeller goes through comments in the document. The first one addresses sunlight, sustainability, and green -building practices. She also touches on grocery stores, additional residential units, and variable heights to preserve sun exposure. Perez asks a question about the specific grammar which Wachtel answers. Wachtel and Voeller address additional comments added by VLHA. Gillette asks if Council will know who the comments are from. Gennett says a majority of PEC can concur or disagree with changes suggested based on comments received and Council will review the revised document which will be the product of this process. Voeller moves on and states the consultants disagree with a VLHA comment regarding bulk and mass standards controlling density rather than number of units and GRFA. Gillette asks if you're recommending there would be no GRFA? Voeller says it is not recommended for the commercial areas. Gennett says GRFA is applicable and calculated based on the specific zone district. Pratt is against bulk and mass standards, says developers will build to those lines. Gillette says parking is biggest caveat in controlling density. Pratt reiterates his concerns about bulk and mass. Gillette is ok with the VLHA comments. Pratt asks what council will do with this document? Gennett says Council will be reviewing the document that the PEC recommends approval of. Voeller says it is important to think about town -wide consistency. It could be complicated if there are different calculation methods in different parts of town. Gillette says there should be flexibility with the density requirements. He asks for a straw poll. Phillips has an issue with going away from the consistency of what the town is already doing. He supports the consultant's recommendation. Kurz says they should go down the line on this item. Kjesbo agrees with consultants, Kurz agrees, Gillette agrees for simplicity, Pratt is against using bulk and mass, and Siebert agrees. Perez is also in agreement suggests adding language like "as the market permits" so that there is some flexibility if the unit type and count needs to change. Kurz agrees with this statement. He reviews the process of the plan so far, says the PEC can make recommendations to council but that we are not yet at the point of a finished product. The document will not be perfect at this time and will change in the future. He gives credit to those that produced it and try and come up with something to send to council. Voeller addresses Fire Departments comments that design guidelines will be responsive to public safety considerations. Voeller moves to Chapter 3. She addresses the VLHA comment regarding deed -restricted units in Zoning Recommendation #1. Gillette asks how we decided on these specific numbers? We didn't want to make it infeasible to redevelop these properties. Wachtel says it was to keep in spirit with the VLHA comment. Pratt says it is self-defeating that if you go above 9 units per acre, the rest must be deed restricted. Gillette asks for clarification with the numbers. Wachtel reiterates the VLHA comments about the specific numbers. Gillette says if you want to increase density to something over 9 units per acre, half of the additional units have to be deed restricted. Wachtel says they will remove VLHA's comments in this regard. Pratt clarifies that half the units over 9 would be deed restricted. The Consultants disagree with VLHA suggestion for a minimum density with market rate units. At least 4 commissioners agree with consultants (Phillips, Kjesbo, Kurz, Siebert). Wachtel says a lot of the recommendations are aimed at reducing the number of non -conformities. Voeller addresses a comment that no short-term rentals are allowed in this zone district for any property that is benefitting from the zoning. Gillette and Phillips say if redevelopment occurs it would trigger this clause. Wachtel says there are around 10 short term rentals in the Chamonix area and around another 10 in the Geneva area. Pratt says the proposed language of the other two is infringing on property rights. Phillips says if they utilize the redevelopment zoning, then they cannot have short term rentals. Otherwise, it is a little iffy legally. Gillette says if you have a non -conforming property and redevelop, you are benefitting from the zoning. Perez asks whether we grandfather in the existing unit? Gillett asks doesn't short-term rentals mean it is being utilized as housing. Voeller says not necessarily and cites examples. Gillette asks where we go with this? Pratt says somehow, we must allow people their property rights if they want to redevelop, but if people are benefitting from what they have now than there will be no short-term rentals. Gillette says he is not necessarily in favor of getting rid of the old stuff. Perez says you grandfather in to get rid of the old stuff and replace with new stuff, with additional units prior to redevelopment. Gillette says it is getting too complicated, it shouldn't be different from the rest of town. Pratt doesn't want to take away property rights. Gennett says there would be no need for grandfathering, existing structures would be conforming with the new zoning. Gillette says any redevelopment would be benefitting from the new code. Phillips cites the example of a 6 -plea Anyone that has a non -conforming structure will benefit from rezoning. Gennett they will become conforming with adoption of new zoning. Phillips says only the new units added in the benefit would be no short-term rentals. Gillette reminds that some of the units will be deed restricted. Perez says when you apply for a short-term rental license you must put in the address. Gennett confirms. Voeller says certain addresses would be registered as not allowed to have short term rentals. Siebert says you can't take the original six units and cut back on property rights. Voeller says it is not a property right that you get to short-term rent your house. She cites court cases to this effect. The TOV has leeway here. Perez says we are not allowed to buy out these deed restricted units as a property right. Gillette says we do allow this. Siebert asks for clarification. If I lose the ability to short-term rent that is a property right that I lost. Gennett won't speak for town attorney. It is allowed as ancillary or accessory to the residential use by right. The town could change course on short-term rentals, and changes would be legal by his understanding. There will be additional steps for public comments and consideration during the rezoning process. We're not changing the zoning with the adoption of this plan. These are recommendation and rezoning would come afterwards. Voeller says she is hearing consensus from the board, Gillette asks a question about deed restriction buyouts or exchanges. Spence says you must go through the process and be conforming with zoning in the end. Voeller addresses additional comments. Wachtel says there are two approaches regarding the rezoning in West Vail. The consultant team is proposing a West Vail Multifamily 2 zoning districts to address the next VLHA comment and Wachtel outlines details of this comment. Voeller clarifies this is a lower density version of West Vail Multifamily 1 Wachtel says the other option is to extend West Vail Multifamily 1. Gillette asks what is existing in the Geneva/Alpine neighborhood. Wachtel covers the existing numbers, there are 36 lots, 67 units. She outlines these numbers under the different proposed zoning scenarios if every lot was redeveloped. Gillette and Pratt like the lesser density here. Phillips agrees on Multi -Family Zoning 2. Wachtel says the deed restriction requirements would be in line with those previously discussed. Voeller and Wachtel show the new suggested zoning maps, incorporating the PEC comments from the previous meeting. Gillette and Phillips ask about the end of Alpine Drive. They want to make sure the new map conforms to the discussions from previous meetings. Wachtel says the small lot sizes were removed in the new map. Phillips agrees these are the small lots on the west side of Alpine Dr. Voeller says they're trying to capture the multiplexes in the area. Phillips agrees with the recommendation of not including those smaller lots. Gillette asks about Geneva and Matterhorn. Wachtel says it was looked at but not changed at this point Phillips talks about the existing character of the area, says the current delineation is good. Voeller says they endorse the VLHA comment about changing the code to grandfather in nonconforming properties. Spence says that creates challenging situations for zoning when neighbors have different rules Wachtel says if this makes sense to do, it will apply to some non -conforming structures but that it would not be area wide. Voeller addresses VLHA comments in Recommendation #1. She uses 4- plex example; when it is redeveloped it would be allowed to keep some of the non -conformities. Wachtel says they wanted to include VLHA's comments, but grandfather in nonconforming properties strategically. Voeller asks what the board position is? Gillette says make the changes they've discussed and leave the rest alone otherwise it will be impossible to manage. He doesn't want to fuss around with the existing zoning. Kjesbo says the affected lots can go to the PEC at that time and Pratt agrees. Voeller addresses VLHA comment on Recommendation #2 regarding site coverage and building height. SE Group suggested an additional 5-10% of site coverage to allow additional units to be built. VLHA wanted no number to be named. She says again it would be complicated if the town had a different system here than elsewhere. Gillette asks where this would be in effect? Wachtel says all over West Vail. Gillette wants to contain all these recommendations to the new zone districts. The PEC will review this at the appropriate time. Kjesbo agrees, wants it to be consistent with the rest of town. Wachtel addresses the VLHA comment in Recommendation #3 regarding GRFA requirements. Pratt is against unlimited GRFA. Gillette says PEC disagrees with this comment, and GRFA is important to control massing. Wachtel addresses VLHA comment in Recommendation #4 regarding. She says 400 sf is relatively large for a studio, that could be decreased. Spence says there are currently no minimums or maximums relating to EHUs. Pratt and Gillette say to delete the comment on Recommendation #4. Voeller addresses VLHA comment underneath Recommendation #4. The consultants say its outside the scope of this plan. Gillette asks for staff comment and Spence agrees with consultants. Voeller addresses VLHA comment in Recommendation #6. There is a lot of public comment against parking lots with rows of cars backing in and backing out. The majority of PEC agrees with the consultant's language. Voeller addresses Fire Department comment that parking requirement deductions should include analysis of emergency service requirements. Wachtel says VLHA said further study is needed here. Voeller says VLHA wanted to remove highlighted text in Scenario 1. Gillett says it should be accessed from either side. Gillette asks if Chamonix units are deed -restricted in the plan? Wachtel said they would have to be deed -restricted with current zoning. She is recommending that is changed in the new plan to support redevelopment. Voeller says Commercial Core 3 is currently 100% deed restricted and the goal is to reduce that to 50. Voeller clarifies that group disagrees with massing controls. Voeller addresses comment about deed -restricted units that some would be purchased, and some would be rental units. She gives examples of how the two paths would work. Gillette asks who gets to sell and who gets to rent. Voeller says it's a master plan, they will have to see how it plays out. Gennett says it is flexible, we don't regulate ownership structures today. Voeller addresses VLHA comments on page 25. Pratt says a mixture of unit sizes is desirable, but he's not sure how you control it. Perez says a developer will do a market study and do what makes sense for them. Voeller cites examples from Denver and other cities which are trying to retain families with higher unit development. There is a policy choice here, what is your vision? Pratt says parking will drive the end account. As a policy, Pratt and Phillips and Gillette agree with comment. Wachtel addresses comments about short-term rentals on pg. 26. Perez brings up that we said no additional units in this language. Wachtel says this will be revised to match the board's wishes. Voeller addresses VLHA comment regarding Policy and Program #6, consultants do not agree. Perez has a problem with the use of the word solely. Kjesbo says there cannot be different design standards in West Vail. Bellm says Policy Recommendation #5 was never discussed with the board. When a plan recommends waiving fees 100%, you're restricting what future councils can do. You're saying that deed -restricted units can be built for free. Perez has a problem with waiving all fees. Suggests handling fee waivers for deed -restricted units on a case-by-case basis. We can't hamstring the council or hurt the community that relies on some of these fees. Gillette says this town adds a lot to the cost of building, then wonders why housing is so expensive. Says it's just a recommendation and is appropriate for now. Phillips agrees. Bellm says she agreed with Perez that the waivers are considered on a case-by-case basis, rather than waiving all fees. Perez says it could be used in West Vail but not the rest of town. Phillips says there is a huge benefit to waiving the fees to incentivize that type of development. But perhaps you could get fees back rather than get waived on the front end. Gillette asks for clarification. Spence cites current regulations. Kjesbo likes the idea of a refund at the end Bellm says we can't legally waive construction use tax; it has to be refunded after. You can still return all the money, but we shouldn't promise it up front. Gillette says they may have an easier time getting financing if the fee is waived up front. Kjesbo disagrees and agrees with Bellm. Phillips says how do you get building fees back if the project decides not to be deed restricted. He thinks a rebate process is a simpler process. Kurz says the board agrees with the intent and wants to proceed. Gillette says let's revise it where it is a refund and not a waiver of the fee. Gennett confirms. Wachtel addresses comments in transportation section. This includes Fire Department comments about emergency access, Pratt's concern about unnecessary signage, speedbumps, and road diet. The board has no additional comments on this. Voeller moves to the implementation chapter. Wachtel addresses VLHA comment on Special Development Districts (SDD) which consultants do not agree with. Gennett doesn't want to create a limitation in the zone district, where you cannot apply for an SDD. Says it is more equitable, allows for creativity, wants to keep a level playing field. Perez agrees and says the PEC can still address these applications as they come. Voeller disagrees with VLHA suggestion of removal of language that the planning department and housing department coordinate. Gillette agrees. Gennett addresses condition of approval should PEC forward recommendation of approval. Board is recommending approval of a document that includes their final recommendations. Kurz asks for public comment. Jack Bergey is a homeowner in West Vail. He likes Perez's idea of a grandfather clause. He wants to revisit the zoning map. Gillette clarifies the lots that were removed on Upper Chamonix. Bergey says he has a 3000 square foot lot that is perfect for employee housing. He clarifies the existing boundaries with the board. He asks for clarification regarding the recommendation for additional units. Gillette says you have to build 9 units/buildable acre, including 1 deed restricted. Phillips asks about Bergey's current situation. Gillette says if you redevelop you have built 9 units/buildable acre, including 1 deed -restricted. Perez says Jack is asking can I rebuild my 6 units? Gillette says you could rebuild with 4 units, 2 market rate and 2 deed restricted. He says you are grandfathered on short-term rentals not deed restrictions. Gennett says because of maximum density, could you still build back 6 units if that is existing. Phillips says the existing non -conforming units could be rebuilt under the new code (keep the existing number of units). Your 6 units carries forward, restrictions apply to the number of new units. Bergey clarifies what is currently eAsting. Phillips wants to give Jack the ability to rebuild at 6. Perez thought that was present in the language. Phillips doesn't want to lose housing stock. Non -conforming units would carry over under the new zoning without penalty. Gillette says by allowing these properties to be redeveloped you could lose housing stock. Phillips wants Bergey to be able to rebuild what he had before and then potentially add to it. Gillette wants to preserve housing stock, through some deed -restrictions. Perez asks can he build back what he has? If he adds additional units, how many of those are deed -restricted? Phillips says he understood that non -conforming units would carry forward; clipping the number of units removes the incentive to redevelop. Perez and Gillette are concerned that these will become unaffordable to workers. Phillips says this example makes no sense if regulations restrict redevelopment to fewer units. Voeller clarifies the language in Town Council Recommendation #1. Perez says the issue is he can't redevelop to the existing number of units. Gillette brings up the short-term rental again. Wachtel says the intention is to reach a level of density (9-18) that people feel comfortable with, without resorting to spot -zoning. That has been the current strategy. Voeller reiterates language in Zoning Recommendation #1. Gillette asks what he is allowed to do currently with existing zoning. Kjesbo says he can put two units and an EHU on the property. Spence says existing duplexes on lots less than 15,000 square feet can be redeveloped and an EHU can be added. Gillette says we're not taking anything away from him and is concerned we're going to lose employee housing stock. He says there is a right number that should be used everywhere. Kjesbo he should be allowed to put 6 units with no deed restrictions since that is existing. Gillette and Kjesbo discuss rental market. Voeller says the deed restriction issue can be solved. She asks about the number of units that should be deed -restricted? Gillette says keep it simple for the whole zone district. Kjesbo says you have to look at existing conditions of a specific lot. Spence says just because you have that allowable density, doesn't mean it will be realized along with meeting the other regulations. Kjesbo he shouldn't be penalized for the number of units he already has. Spence says Gillette's concern is by replacing existing stock you will lose affordability. The question here is does retaining six units benefit the town? Phillips says we can sit here all day and speculate rents. Gillette and Phillips discuss the correct number of deed -restricted units. Phillips says the goal is not to lose numbers of housing stock. Gennett says in aggregate the goal is no net loss and to increase housing stock, despite a small number of exceptions. Perez says the Town Council's directive was clear, to increase housing stock in West Vail. Voeller reviews new language for Zoning Recommendation #1. She says deed restrictions rules would also apply. Kjesbo and Perez agree. Gillette agrees as long as deed restrictions are in place. Kurz says the board engaged in some negotiation that is not necessarily their charge. Their responsibility is to look at the bigger picture and not necessarily individual cases. Gillette says public comment is appreciated if it stirs discussion. Voeller and Phillips agree. Motion for recommendation to Town Council with the condition that the modifications agreed to by the PEC be incorporated into the final draft of the plan upon adoption. Rollie Kjesbo moved to recommend approval with conditions. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Pratt 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. September 27, 2021 PEC Results Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Pratt 4. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Pratt The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Ad #: TNyqupgJEMAnVABhjgSq Customer: Danielle Couch 10/25/21 PEC Agenda PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO) SS COUNTY OF EAGLE) I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of, says: The Vail Daily, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty- two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 22 Oct 2021 in the issue of said newspaper. Total cost for publication: $86.87 That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated on those dates. Publi her Subscribed to and sworn to me this date, 10/22/2021 N64W Public, Eagle County, Colorado My commission expires: August 19, 2024 JERI MEDINA NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO y NOTARY 10 20164029599 Advertiser: MYCO'MSIONEXPIRES AUGUSf19.2024 Community Development Department own of Vail 75 S Frontage Rd W Vail, Colorado 81657 9704792139 See Proof on Next Page 10/25/21 PEC Agenda - Page 1 of 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 26, 2021. 1:00 PPA Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Val 1, Colorado, 01657 1. Call to Older 1.1. Register in advance for this webinar: httpsllus02web. zoom.uslwebinarlregister/W N_QJybkNzgQ2eMGM YxH6FEOg 1.2 Attendance 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 9C-3, Conditional Uses, \0 Town Code, to amend the approved conditional useppermit to reflect an increase in student enroltmerrt, located at 3000 Booth Falls RoadlLot 1, Vail Mountain School, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0026) 20 min. Applicant: Vail Mountain School Planner: Jonathan Spence 22. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council far a Prescribed Ree�lation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendrner.t Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-15-3 Detinihon, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to add an exemption to allow vaufts for car IR systems to be excluded from the GRFA calculation and setting forth details in regard thereto. [PEC21-"6] 15 min. Applicant: KH Architects & Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 2.3. A reequ�est for the review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12-3, Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for an adjustment to the location of the platted Wildirrqq enveloae for Lot 14 First Amendment to Spraddfe Creek Estates, Iocaked at 1326 Spraddle C€eek Road and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEal-0049) 2O min. Ap licant: SC Mountain Topp LLC and TLM Really Holding LLC, represented by Davis Urban LLC and English &Assoc. Planner: Greg Roy 2.4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Reegqulation Amendment pursuant to Section 127 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-14-17 Setback From Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and Waterbody Setback Regulations, Vail Town Code, to change the waterbody setbacks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0043) 60 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Pete Wadden Planner: Greg Roy 2.5. A request for review of a Minor Subdivision pTursuant to Section 13-4,pMinor Subdivisions, Vail Of Lots Code,4 nd adjust to Block 1, Vity i! Villllagemein 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0050) 2 iron. The ap�lcant has requested this item be tabled Novem er 22, 2021. Appplicant: Mexamer Forest Road LLC: represented b } H Webb Amhitects Planner. Jonathan Spence 2.6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, ursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town ..to allow for the rezoning of a portion of Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filing (826 Forest Roadfrom Two Family PrimarylSecondary Res€dential PSj to Outdoor Recreation OR) and to zone aportion of the Forest Road to Two-Family Pnrraryl Secondary Residential P5 and setting forth details n regard (hereto. [PEC 1-051) 2 min. The apgicant has requested this Item be tabled Novem er 22, 2021. Applicant: Mexamer Forest Road LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner. Jonathan Spence 2.7. A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Cade, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parkin,, in accordance wth the provision of Section 12-g , Variances, Vail Town Cade located at 8161826 Forest Road ! Lots 14115, Block 1, Vail Village Fling No. 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. {PEC21-0045] 2 min. Theapplicartt has requested this Item be tabled November 22, 2021. Applicant: Mexamer Forest Road LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.8. A request for the review of a Vailance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Sloes, Vail Tc m Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17 Variances Vail Town Code, located at 826 Forest Pbadlt-ot 15, Block 1, Vail VillaFilinngq 6 and set ng forth details in regard thereto. PEC2i-0048] 2 min. Theapplicant has requested this Item be tabled November 22, 2021. Appplicant: Mexamer Forest Road LLC, represented by HH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. October 11, 2021 PEC Results 4. Adjournment The applications and information at are approximate, subject to change, and cannot bE relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meetinngq time. Community Development Departmen? PUBLISHED IN THE VAIL DAILY ON FRIDAY. OCTOBER 22. 2021. 10/25/21 PEC Agenda - Page 2 of 2 Ad #: 8TggE3sK4adDHNo1y5Ny Customer: Danielle Couch 10/25/21 PEC Notice PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO) SS COUNTY OF EAGLE) I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of, says: The Vail Daily, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty- two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 8 Oct 2021 in the issue of said newspaper. Total cost for publication: $100.54 That said newspaper was regularly issued and circulated on those dates. Publi her Subscribed to and sworn to me this date, 10/08/2021 N64W Public, Eagle County, Colorado My commission expires: August 19, 2024 JERI MEDINA NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO y NOTARY ID 2616402V129 AdvertMY W"ss*. LJPIREs AUGUST 19, M24 Community Development epa men own of Vail 75 S Frontage Rd W Vail, Colorado 81657 9704792139 See Proof on Next Page 10/25/21 PEC Notice - Page 1 of 2 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Val will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12- 36, Vail Town Code, on October 25 2021 at 1:00 prn in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Register A advance for this webinar: ht[ps Ilus02web. zoom.uslwebinarlregisterMlN_ QJ ybkNzgQ2eMGMYxH6FE0g A reqquest for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 9G3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to amend the approved conditional use ppermit to reflect an increase in student enrollmerti, located at 3000 Booth Falls RoaclLot 1, Vail Mountain School, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC2OM26) Applicant: Vall Mountain School Planner: Jonathan Spence A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed REeqqulation Amendment pursuant bo Section 12�7,4nriendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-1417 Setback from Watercourse and add a new Section 12-21-17 Riparian Protection and Waterbodv Setback Reeggulations, Vail Town Code, t0Miange the wafefbody setbacks and setting to an details in regard thereto. (PE621-0043) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Peter Wadden Planner: Greg Roy A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor SubdivisiOls, Vail Town Code, to adjust property lines in the vicinity of Lots 14 and 15, Block 1 Vzail Village Filing 6, and setting torth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0050) Appplicant: Mexamer Forest Road LLC, represented b HH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council fora zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 123-7, Amendment, Vail Town Forest Road LLC, represented Planner: Jonathan Spence Arequest for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the maximum percent of fot covered by driveways and surface parlunqq,, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-T7, Variances, Vail Town Cade, located at 816 Forest Rcad(Lot 14, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC21-0045) Applicant: Mexamer Forest Road LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence A request for the review of a Variance from Section 12-21-12, RestdctBons in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to alkaw for a variance from the maximum percent of lot covered by driveways and surface parking, in accordance with the provision of Section 12-17 Variances Vail Town Cade, located at 626 Forest kawVUI: 15, Block 1, Vail Village Filinq 6 and setting forth details in regard thereto. [PEC2i-0048) Applicant: Mexamer Forest Road LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence A request for thereview of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-123, Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for an adjustment to the location of the platted building envelope for Lot 14 First Amendment to S ra the Creek Eslates, located at 1326 Spraddle Creek Road and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: SC Mountain Top LLC and TLM Realty Holding LLC represented b Davis Urban LLC and Englisgand Associates. 1 Y. Planner: Greg Roy The ap�lcations and information about the proposals are available for public inspection duanq office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Depariment, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is irlvded to attend site visits. Please call 970-479-2138 or visit www.vaiigov.conV planning for additional information- 4 nformation. Sioqn language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour noUtication, dial 711. Published October 8, 2021 in the Vail Daily. PUBLISHED IN THE VAIL DAILY ON FAfDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2021. 10/25/21 PEC Notice - Page 2 of 2