HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.City Footbridges.27A.1985 • - CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET -
City of Aspen
DATE RECENED:#.1-1-C \$S tt - ^� A .
DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: 5 \9S CASE N0. O
STAFF: < e
PROJECT NAME: S Vv‘ - 1‘•"- �i•ew.. Q.a1 C °A I% g
APPLICANT: (-- "•k 0C- A-, -.
Applicant Address /Phone:
REPRES ENTATIVE: 0-AA-GA( ti-o
Representative Address /Phone:
Type of Application:
I. GMP/SUBDIV IS ION/PUD (4 step)
Conceptual Submission ($2,730.00)
Preliminary Plat ($1,640.00)
Final Plat ($- 820.00)
I�. SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step)
Conceptual Submission ($1,900.00)
Preliminary Plat ($1,220.00)
Final Plat ($ 820.00)
III. EXCEPTION /EXEMPTION /REZONING (2 step) ($1,490.00)
W. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) ($ 680.00)
Special Review
Use Determination
�. Conditional Use
Other: 5 c\ aA -
P &Z CC MEETING DATE: Srk 3 PUBLIC HEARING: 5 e.)
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: A /Q.,j'
REFERRALS:
City Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. _ School District
City Engineer _ Mtn. Bell _ Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd)
Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric _ StateH
City Electric _ Fire Marshall wy De I)
Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief — Ot Zoning/Inspect
Other:
FINAL ROUTING : DATE ROUTED: y
OUTED: 9� � ti INTTIAL:
-
City Atty City Engineer t Building Dept.
Other: n� _ Other: /
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: l ('d af2-e< ! / / ��
,SE DISPOSITION:
-3 �s
Reviewed by: aspen P City Council
"M d Z ap frovad -k C F Pi�2 WL t Mt is key; sa, yett iv Ikkaellt Gnat.tr
Q . l , rr,tn A1, - d- k 411 eit 10 h4,p d n
4 xi, 0‘141., te�// d na a 1. Ga� , h <f , / 1,y„ri.«.. •
. •
n Y /� /
2 p ru 44,n,' .,441 c 41 , , , l - 9 !�M li t. .L7 anti titaip rah FJ ntn. �'�", •
1 A �'�M✓IM}h
k
•
Reviewed By: Aspen P &Z City Council
1
MEMORANDUM
TO Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE City Footbridges Stream Margin Review
DATE: September 3, 1985
==
REQUEST: The City of Aspen requests approval of a stream margin
review to raise three (3) footbridges to a minimum of two (2) feet
above the 100 -year floodplain, based on the most recent 100 -year
floodplain study.
Findings of the
Locations of Bridge Distances to be Raised:
1. Smuggler Area Footbridge (on bike path 1.6 ft.
leading north of Herron Park)
2. Hopkins Street Footbridge (between East 1.8 ft.
Hopkins Street and Dale Avenue)
3. Upper Aspen Club Footbridge (between housing 3.0 ft.
project and Club)
APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: Section 24 -6.3 (C) of the Municipal Code
states the review criteria for stream margin reviews. See Chuck
Roth's letter attached for a detailed discussion of the review
criteria.
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: As stated in the July 29, 1985 letter from
Chuck Roth of the City Engineer Department "current design standards
call for bridges to be a minimum of two (2) feet above the 100 -yaer
floodplain height in order for debris to pass underneath the bridges
durin a flood." The above criteri mentioned bridges
on and problems with the passage of debris n
is haveoccurred as l a
result.
The stated objective of raising the footbridges is directly in support
of Stream Margin Review criteria Section 24- 6.3(c)(1). The timber
falsework to be placed temporarily underneath the bridges would cause
some disturbance to the stream bed that should be monitored. Efforts
should be made to minimize these disturbances. The pouring of
concrete on the existing abutments may cause a disturbance of bank
vegetation; and revegetation should be accomplished in accordance with
the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. Similarly, modifying the paved trails
in order to match the grade of the raised bridges may cause some
disturbance of bank vegetation, and revegetation should follow.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of this
Stream Margin Review subject to the following conditions:
1. The Engineering Department shall monitor the construction and
make all efforts to keep disturbances to the stream channel and
bank at a minimum.
2. Revegetation shall be accomplished in accordance with the
Roaring Fork Greenway Plan.
SB.32
4.
CITY ,;+ 4, PEN
oi
130 _ - ' reet
'
asp -. --, 611
s
31 1
July 29, 1985
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Stream Margin Review - Raise Footbridges
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Greetings.
This letter is a request for a Stream Margin Review pursuant to
Section 24 -6.3 of the Aspen Municipal Code, for the City of Aspen
work to raise three footbridges.
Current design standards call for bridges to be at a minimum
elevati^- of two feet above the 100 -year flood height in -'rder
for deb..- to pass underneath tite bridges during a floc.... The
past three snowmelt seasons have been a problem with debris
getting caught on footbridges.
A new 100 -year floodplain study has recently been performed of
the rivers within the City of Aspen. Our most problematic bridge
was missed by that study. This has been called to the attention
of the engineers, and hopefully we will have that bridge, the
upper Aspen Club footbridge, amended into the study. The high
water of this past June was up to only a few inches below that
bridge, so this bridge is undoubtedly within the 100 -year flood -
plain. The upper Aspen Club footbridge is important because the
next bridge down the river has a city water main on it which
could be damaged if the upper bridge washed out.
The heights above 100 -year floodplain of the other footbridges
are as follows:
Art Museum footbridge 1.2 feet
Smuggler area footbridge 0.4 feet
Hopkins Street footbridge 0.2 feet
Lower Aspen Club footbridge 0.8 feet
In terms of the debris which accumulates on the bridges, the next
most critical bridge after the upper Aspen Club footbridge is the
Hopkins Street footbridge, as can be seen from the above informa-
tion.
It is the Engineering Department's intention to raise the upper
Page Two
Stream Margin Review - Raise Footbridges
July 29, 1985
Aspen Club footbridge three feet during this construction season,the
summer of 1985, and the Hopkins Street and Smuggler area footbridges
during the construction season of 1986.
The following are the responses to the review criteria:
"(1) No building shall be located so as to be within a flood
hazard area designated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers
Floodplain Report for the Roaring Fork Valley River."
The footbridges are existing structures which are in the 100 -year
floodplain, and it is our intention to raise them to a height two
feet above the 100 -year flood level to provide for debris clear-
ance. In order to accomplish this, the Engineering Department
will raise the abutments and piers to provide two foot debris
clearance and modify the asphalt paved trail approaches to
match the raised bridges. This will require us to construct
timber falsework in the riverbed on which to jack up the bridges
in order to be able to do the formwork and concrete pours underneath
them.
"(2) In the event that there is a trail designated by an approved
trail plan within the development site, such trail shall be
dedicated for public use."
All of the above referenced footbridges are within the City trail
system.
"(3) All attempts should be made to implement the recommendations
of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan prepared by the Roaring
Fork Greenway Committee."
It is not anticipated that any existing vegetation will be
disturbed. Any revegetation necessary will be performed in
accordance with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan.
"(4) Vegetation shall not be removed nor any slope grade changes
made that may produce erosion of the stream bank."
We do not anticipate removing any existing vegetation, nor will
there be any slope grade changes made which will produce erosion
of the stream bank.
"(5) There shall be permitted no changes to the stream channel
or its capacity, and no activity shall be allowed which will
increase stream sedimentation and suspension loads."
There will be no excavation within the river channel. Although
we do not plan to have to enter the river with any construction
Page 3
Stream Margin Review - Raise Footbridges
July 29, 1985
equipment, we need to retain the flexibility should the need to
do so arise. All activities within the river will be kept to
a minimum, and every effort will be made to maintain existing water
quality for the duration of the project.
"(6) All efforts must be made to reduce stream pollution and
interference with the natural changes of the stream, and to
enhance the value of the stream as an important natural
feature."
The reason for raising the footbridges is to permit the 100 -year
flood and debris to pass underneath and not dam up, presenting a
potential threats to property.
The Engineering Department requests that you approve this stream
margin review application so that we may provide bridge heights
meeting current design standards.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
C4 b
Chuck Roth
Assistant City Engineer
CR/cr /footbridge.strm.marg
I
vie
MEMORNDOM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: City Footbridges - Stream Margin Review
DATE: August 9, 1985
Attached for your review and comments is an application submiteed by
Chuck Roth requesting stream margin review pursuant to Section 24 -6.3
of the City C••- • aise three footbridges. Please review this
material .•• return you referral comments to the Planning Office no
later th.n , f .„ 0 in order for this office to have adequate
time to • -,__are for its .' - sentation before City P &Z on September 3,
1985.
Thank you. ( `. " e i i
)
("4 (J
el:
Q �
Al i
Se- / C
•
i fi g f
e
�'�;:�
I' St eG k M Ar n Rtuie
lc; cheu -ForttOr 1.2 0,$ 2
m u J �aV f rl'�',tru ^ ,_
aAftdiA 0 - i y 00 p t kW
1,, p p
< U ✓rexfi+�t iy in 4 �� Cwl�ht (GJ .
i1
i
! o),al/Vh p ip ItiLet prkitiv (U�Y .r/ 1n i'Mi Molt So i 1 , oks^h�a f wyJi f a t
gLOo J J Si (ch
p
ntU55eum f n Jtbr�i�e
�'I