Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.McClain 1108 Waters Ave.21A-89 } CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 3/29/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: tt`1b3 Fsj 2737-181-24-003 21A-89 STAFF MEMBER: ,-e-S l•-e_ PROJECT NAME: McClain Stream Margin Review Project Address: 1108 Waters Avenue, Aspen Legal Address: Lot 11, Calderwood Subdivision Nom a_ APPLICANT: Shane McClain Applicant Address: REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates Representative Address/Phone: P. O. Box 8485 Aspen, CO 81612 5-6958 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $780.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 6 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: ✓ 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES (" VESTED RIGHTS: YES CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District ✓ City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork ' Other Aspen Consol. Energy Center S.D. // DATE REFERRED: �/ <6! 77 INITIALS: a_ FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: `l 7a--7/0 INITIAL: X- City Atty City Engineer ✓ Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: At the June 26, 1989 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Stream Margin Review subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat shall indicate the surveyed floodway and 100-year floodplain lines and the floodway and 100-year floodplain lines as indicated on the current FEMA mapping. 2 . A registered engineer shall submit documentation indicating the amount of fill or encroachment placed within the 100- year floodplain and within the floodway and documentation indicating the effect of the fill on the base flood elevation and the effect on the location of the floodway and 100-year floodplain lines. This material, together with the plat as corrected to reflect item (1) above, shall be submitted to the Denver • office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in order to determine if a modification or amendment is required for the Floodplain Study. If an amendment is required by FEMA, the applicant shall perform the amendment to FEMA's and the Engineering Department's satisfaction. 3 . The applicant shall confer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and obtain any permits or perform any measures required by that office. 4 . Any portion of the wood decking determined to be in the floodway shall be removed. Any portion of the wood decking determined to be in the 100-year floodplain shall be examined and corrected if need be for structural soundness in resisting floatation or other failure in the event of the 100-year flood. 5. If it is determined that the fill which was placed has resulted in unacceptable changes to the base flood elevation of the locations of the floodway and/or 100-year floodplain lines, then a registered professional engineer shall determine to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department what amount of material shall be removed in order to mitigate the impacts of the fill materials on the flooding characteristics of the river. 6. A fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River shall be granted. 7 . Existing vegetation shall be preserved and slope stabilization measures, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department, shall be implemented to reduce erosion along the southern slope during construction and subsequent to occupancy of this home on this site. 6 410 411 8. The applicant must obtain a variance for construction of the garage and the exterior stairs from the Board of Adjustment. The Planning and Zoning Commission expresses neither support nor opposition to the variance request by this action. 7 June 21 Jim : I ' ve been trying several days to reach you on the phone . Having met with no success I ' m trying to reach you by letter . I ' m very concerned about what is happening with the: McLain Stream Review problem . I did attend both P&Z sessions . At the last one no comments were requested from the audience , I said nothing , a vote was taken , and I ' m not sure what happened , or how things stand . I certainly noticed no appreciable opposition to what the McLain ' s were requesting , or any appreciable concern on the part of P&Z as to what was happening to the river front property due to this construction , not to mention the slightest sense of disturbance over the fill having illegally been placed in the river in 1985 . There does seem to be a concern over what happens when the river floods , which I take to mean the period of each year when the flow is highest though this may or may not be considered a "flood" since it normally remains within its boundaries , except for maybe a foot or two . Is this to be the criteria by which it is judged okay to pour fill into the river? I ' m very concerned that something as damaging as what went before is about to happen again . They are certainly to my understanding not being penalized for what they already did . Please contact me at home ( 925-2653) in the early morning or in the evening about this . Thank you . JU aV1 �� z i'Lut- Joan Leatherbury MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: McClain Stream Margin Review DATE: June 20, 1989 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to "legalize" an existing deck along the Roaring Fork River, enclose an existing ground floor storage area and a front entryway, and build an exterior stairway, two decks, garage, and walkway. All of the proposed developments are (withTinz. 1ROOfeet{(E}o�frtYie ,.hiwghwaterREli�ne? thus `requia—ii Stieamt.Marg . eview-: Several elements of the proposal will require variances from the Board of Adjustment. Development of the garage, which encroaches in the front yard and side yard setbacks, requires a variance from the Board of Adjustment as does the exterior staircase. The application for variances will be submitted to the Building Department as phase two of the project. At the June 6 Planning and Zoning meeting, this application was tabled until June 20 per the applicant' s request. It was necessary for the applicant to provide' additional information in order to determine the amount of fill in the floodway. The Engineering Department, having worked with the applicant's consultant, has resubmitted referral comments that better address staff's concerns pertaining to the possible alteration of the river's floodway. APPLICANT: Norma and Shane McClain, represented by Sunny Vann, Vann Associates LOCATION: 1108 Waters Avenue, Lot 11, Calderwood Subdivision, City of Aspen. ZONING: R-15 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Stream Margin Review approval for the remodeling of an existing single family home and an existing river deck. HISTORY: The lot and structure are non-conforming pertaining to various dimensional requirements. The structure is below the maximum allowable floor area of approximately 4, 080. In 1973 a Stream Margin Review was approved for an approximately 150 square foot addition. In 1985, the property was "red tagged" by the Building Department for failure to obtain a building permit to do foundation work. A permit was issued in September • • of 1985 for a foundation and storage area. According to the application, neither the Applicant nor the Building Department were aware that Stream Margin Review was required for the foundation work. After repairs were made, a lower river deck was constructed, again without Stream Margin review. The application also suggests that the foundation work and construction of the river deck "resulted in the deposition of a minor amount of fill along the river bank and a number of smaller boulders within the river itself. These rocks were unearthed in conjunction with the repair of the residence's foundation and some apparently were inadvertently dislodged into the river. " The applicant now wishes to "legalize" the existing deck built in 1985 and enclose the existing ground floor storage area and front entryway, and build an exterior stairway, two decks, garage, and walkway. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DISCUSSION: The application properly states that a variance is necessary for the garage as it encroaches into the required 25 foot front yard setback and 10 foot side yard setback. A variance is also necessary from the side yard setback for the exterior stairway, pursuant to Section 3-101, because it sits within the setback and exceeds 30 inches above natural grade. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Engineering: Having received additional information from the applicant's consultant the Engineering Department has resubmitted the following comments: 1. The plat shall indicate the surveyed floodway and 100-year floodplain lines and the floodway and 100-year floodplain lines as indicated on the current FEMA mapping. 2 . A registered engineer shall submit documentation indicating the amount of fill or encroachment placed within the 100- year floodplain and within the floodway and documentation indicating the effect of the fill on the base flood elevation and the effect on the location of the floodway and 100-year floodplain lines. This material, together with the plat as corrected to reflect item (1) above, shall be submitted to the Denver office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in order to determine if a modification or amendment is required for the Floodplain Study. If an amendment is required by FEMA, the applicant shall perform the amendment to FEMA's and the Engineering Department's satisfaction. 2 • e In conjunction with the FEMA consultations, the applicant shall confer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and obtain any permits or perform any measures required by that office. 3 . Any portion of the wood decking determined to be in the floodway shall be removed. Any portion of the wood decking determined to be in the 100-year floodplain shall be examined and corrected if need be for structural soundness in resisting floatation or other failure in the event of the 100-year flood. Additionally, the Engineering Department suggests that consideration be given to requesting a fisherman's easement at least to the mean high water line of the Roaring Fork River and perhaps to a corridor width of five feet above the mean high water line. We also suggest that consideration be given to a set-back requirement of any improvement of structure, decks included, from the edge of the river as identified by the mean high water line. This is appropriate in the context of other stream margin issues such as "what is" appropriate development in the river corridor. 4 . If it is determined that the fill which was place has resulted in unacceptable changes to the base flood elevation of the locations of the floodway and/or 100-year floodplain lines, then a registered professional engineer shall determine to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department what amount of material needs to be removed in order to mitigate the impacts of the fill materials on the flooding characteristics of the river. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 7-504 outlines the criteria for Stream Margin Review as follows: CRITERION 1: It can be demonstrated that any proposed develop- ment which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. RESPONSE: According to the improvement survey, the application states that "all improvements (both existing and proposed) are located outside the 100 year flood plain. No increase in the base flood elevation, therefore, will occur as a result of the Applicant's proposed development. " There has already been some deposition into the river. According to the Engineering Department the 1988 letter from Schmueser Gordon Meyer Inc. 3 • (attached) addressing the effect of fill on the flood plain is inconclusive. It is necessary to determine the extent of change to the river and/or floodplain that has occurred during fill activity. Any change or effect to the river's capacity must be mitigated. CRITERION 2: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. RESPONSE: According to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan a trail has not been designated to cross the project site. However across the river from the site a trail is proposed connecting with the 1010 Ute Avenue/Gordon Callahan river crossing and the bridge at the east end of Hopkins. Any mitigation effort on the McClain site should be sensitive to the future Trails Plan across the river. CRITERION 3: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. RESPONSE: The Plan does not pertain to the site specifically and the application states that "the proposed improvements. . . will have no significant effect on the site's existing river front vegetation nor will the natural appearance of the River be impacted in any foreseeable manner. " The existing river deck provides little area for revegetation along the river. Concern for the illegally placed fill and the change to the river bank has been expressed by the Engineering Department earlier in this memo. CRITERION 4: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. RESPONSE: According to the application "no vegetation will be removed nor any slope regraded such that the River would be adversely affected. The storage area to be enclosed at the rear of the residence contains an existing concrete floor slab and foundation. No additional excavation will be required. Appropriate safeguards will be used during construction of the new decks to prevent sedimentation of the River, and all disturbed areas will be revegetated. " Staff has a great deal of cconcernpertang� tothe-ystab l ityofh ems;bankthatw.illbe mppacted by the 'pr-oposed_aldeck. :a ndrf:ata> rs,aconnect- ngytthe-1.si -;o,fu tithe, housei„:to_the,_a,ower„rimer deck;( ,,#3LL:-on-map,)_ The bank is very steep and removal of existing vegetation may increase the potential of erosion. Preservation of the vegetation and bank stabilizing measures are recommended. CRITERION 5: To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural 4 ® • 2 . A registered engineer shall submit documentation indicating the amount of fill or encroachment placed within the 100- year floodplain and within the floodway and documentation indicating the effect of the fill on the base flood elevation and the effect on the location of the floodway and 100-year floodplain lines. This material, together with the plat as corrected to reflect item (1) above, shall be submitted to the Denver office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in order to determine if a modification or amendment is required for the Floodplain Study. If an amendment is required by FEMA, the applicant shall perform the amendment to FEMA' s and the Engineering Department's satisfaction. 3 . The applicant shall confer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and obtain any permits or perform any measures required by that office. 4 . Any portion of the wood decking determined to be in the floodway shall be removed. Any portion of the wood decking determined to be in the 100-year floodplain shall be examined and corrected if need be for structural soundness in resisting floatation or other failure in the event of the 100-year flood. k75 A registered/professional engineer shall determine to the '",046 satisfaction of the Engineering Department what amount of material nee4s--tea be removed in order to mitigate the impacts of the fill materials on the flooding characteristics of the river. 6. A fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a '"1 width of 5 feet along the west bank of the river shall be granted. Existing vegetation shall be preserved and slope stabilization measures, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department, shall be implemented to reduce erosion along the southern slope during construction and subsequent to occupancy of this home on this site. 8. The applicant must obtain a variance for construction of the garage and the exterior stairs from the Board of Adjustment. The Planning and Zoning Commission expresses neither support nor opposition to the variance request by this action. ljl/mcclain 6 b� 3 V-k-t-41 ..,,/,„,./'-_, , - ,,:,,,,,,:47, ' �, Wit- _ _ __ m0 4 a ..--- ---/ -2 :,..4.-.,'.7 J r_.. \ f / g o� :.- /�S ai., .�--— / ' ,0 ® ,I`sx tr i s's d r, i .; 0 1 --../..,.-07-.1:1\-.<1.+4:.- .P.% --- -- ...- ---0 IL At i 423t. •.,•.";•'•We,41.,'.. • ' '2 '1/*V. 1,,I,, X.)e'," , . -� 'll-1 ', / :., Slf a ,Y'. ill s %.!,..-.6_,-:. fl \ 7► ? 1_ c o ��-'' ,',' "ice 0 d li svgs ' :S�fe( °h • (:1 Q \ 4 r yy.•0 r• v =�.� \' , a Z F ' . #�. / rte ` a f Q r " w (I) tt - inic Xs .. y r rte,.++r y 5 f.. ? w J 1'qF-KSS \ ., 0- W 1 z i -2 �- ,' ? Z?I ....� 4 b ,oi CL w uJ p :� p C p 4•j' :; �� t- -, r/ W C9 - 714_ S, ;9) : 0. \ . O ,r- •••.?. I II 1 .,:,ifi.e.„_I'f.;_*.i..,:., 6-,, L:,----r.:,-,' \ 0 • , <:*,,,,, < Y- . �SCNMUESERGORDONMEYER / ��i�� 1512 Gran enue, Suite 212 `` AN"AMON Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 July 26, 1988 Isar_raze ����._a��l 003) 945-1004 �.r�1 MUD,, rr, EXHIBIT-E NUSIE Mi:-CONSULTING ENGINEERS II SURVEYORS/ Mr. Jay Hammond, City Engineer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: McClain Residence, Waters Avenue Dear Jay: This is to follow up our meeting at the McClain residence last week. I wanted to summarize for the record, on behalf of our client, some of the preliminary conclusions I reached with respect to the fill place- ment situation. I was unable to resolve further the relationship between the date of the FEMA study and the date of completion of the work as indicated by the building permit. I tried my best to get some sort of feedback fLom either the state or federal authorities on the "official" time of com- pletion of fild work; the test I could get would be described as "evas- ive", at best. Unless someone pushes the inquiry much harder than I did, it does not appear we are going to get any concrete answers from these authorities. In order to try defining preliminarily the effect the fill would have on the floodplain, we performed some quick Mannings equation calculations. It appears that the effect of the fill is small enough that the Mannings equation will really not be sensistive to any calculated changes. I would anticipate that a more rigorous 11EC-II analysis might show a calculated effect of several hundreths of a foot and, in any case, I would anticipate that effect to be less than one- tenth of a foot. Because of the slope and velocity of the river at this location, the streambed has a very significant carrying capacity and it should be expected that small changes in river cross sectidn will not be reflected in significant differences in hydraulic calculations. In turn, removal of any materials in the river will have little, if any, effect on the theoretical carrying capacity on the floodplain elevation of the river in this location. Please feel free to call me if I can further respond to this situation. • Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dean ' Cord. , P.E. Presiient DWG:1-c/806 cc: . S y Vann Mr. • .ck McClain MEMORANDUM To : Leslie Lamont, Planning Office nn From: Chuck Roth, Interim City Engineer (I Date : June 15, 1989 Re : McLain Stream Margin Application This memorandum is submitted with current conditions of approval for the above referenced application. 1 . The plat shall indicate the surveyed floodway and 100-year floodplain lines and the floodway and 100-year floodplain lines as indicated on the current FEMA mapping. 2 . A registered engineer shall submit documentation indicating the amount of fill or encroachment placed within the 100-year floodplain and within the floodway and documentation indicating the effect of the fill on the base flood elevation and the effect on the location of the floodway and 100-year floodplain lines . This material, together with the plat as corrected to reflect item ( 1 ) above, shall be submitted to the Denver office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in order to determine if a modification or amendment is required for the Floodplain Study. If an amendment is required by FEMA, the applicant shall perform the amendment to FEMA's and the Engineering Department 's satis- faction. In conjunction with the FEMA consultations, the applicant shall confer with the U.S . Army Corps of Engineers and obtain any permits or perform any measures required by that office . 3 . Any portion of the wood decking determined to be in the floodway shall be removed . Any portion of the wood decking determined to be in the 100-year floodplain shall be examined and corrected if need be for structural soundness in resisting floatation or other failure in the event of the 100-year flood . Additionally, the Engineering Department suggests that considera- tion be given to requesting a fisherman 's easement at least to the mean high water line of the Roaring Fork River and perhaps to a corridor width of five feet above the mean high water line . We • • also suggest that consideration be given to a set-back require- ment of any improvement or structure, decks included, from the edge of the river as identified by the mean high water line . This is appropriate in the context of other stream margin issues such as "what is" appropriate development in the river corridor . 4 . If it is determined that the fill which was placed has resulted in unacceptable changes to the base flood elevation of the locations of the floodway and/or 100-year floodplain lines, then a registered professional engineer shall determine to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department what amount of material needs to be removed in order to mitigate the impacts of the fill materials on the flooding characteristics of the river . cc: Bob Gish Jim Gibbard memo_89 . 56 �ue�� 1512�and Avenue, Suite 212 SCHMUESER GORDON ER INC.eist ∎ AN, Assiot Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Oar rill* (303) 945-1004 VOINFAM ����t34) CONSULTING ENGINEERS&SURVEYORS/ M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 8, 1989 20: Mr. Sunny Vann, Vann Associates - FROM: Dean W. GD ft P.,E. RE: McClain Res..en.- Suggested word . g for . anning and Zoning conditional approval is as follows: 1. Show on the site plan both the surveyed floodway boundary line and the interpolated boundary line location from the FEMA map. 2. The Applicant shall have a registered engineer determine the amount of fill or encroachment in the floodway and the effect of this fill and/or encroachment on the base flood elevation. 3. Any portion of the wood decking determined to be in the floodway shall be'removed. 4. In the event it is determined by the Engineering Department that the amount of fill has caused a significant increase in the base flood elevation, then it shall be determined by a registered pro- fessional engineer to what extent that fill will need to be removed in order to reduce the impact on the base flood elevation • to an insignificant impact. 5. In the event there is any fill material placed within the flod- way, but it is determined that the fill has an insignificant effect on the base flood elevation, the Applicant shall:- (a) Present such findings to FEMA; in the event that FEMA re- quires a modification or amendment to the Floodplain Study, the Applicant shall prepare such an amendment or modification and receive approval of the same from FEMA; and (b) obtain an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit for the place- ment of such fill within the floodway. • EWG-- 8063/lec MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: McClain Stream Margin Review DATE: June 6, 1989 SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to "legalize" an existing deck along the Roaring Fork River, enclose an existing ground floor storage area and a front entryway, and build an exterior stairway, two decks, garage, and walkway. All of the proposed developments are within 100 feet of the high water line thus requiring Stream Margin Review. Several elements of the proposal will require variances from the Board of Adjustment. Development of the garage, which encroaches in the front yard and side yard setbacks, requires a variance from the Board of Adjustment as does the exterior staircase. The application for variances will be submitted to the Building Department as phase two of the project. APPLICANT: Norma and Shane McClain, represented by Sunny Vann, Vann Associates LOCATION: 1108 Waters Avenue, Lot 11, Calderwood Subdivision, City of Aspen. ZONING: R-15 APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Stream Margin Review approval for the remodeling of an existing single family home and an existing river deck. HISTORY: The lot and structure are non-conforming pertaining to various dimensional requirements. The structure is below the maximum allowable floor area of approximately 4, 080. In 1973 a Stream Margin Review was approved for an approximately 150 square foot addition. In 1985, the property was "red tagged" by the Building Department for failure to obtain a building permit to do foundation work. A permit was issued in September of 1985 for a foundation and storage area. According to the application, neither the Applicant nor the Building Department were aware that Stream Margin Review was required for the foundation work. After repairs were made, a lower river deck was constructed, again without Stream Margin review. The application also suggests that the foundation work and • construction of the river deck "resulted in the deposition of a minor amount of fill along the river bank and a number of smaller boulders within the river itself. These rocks were unearthed in conjunction with the repair of the residence's foundation and some apparently were inadvertently dislodged into the river. " The applicant now wishes to "legalize" the existing deck built in 1985 and enclose the existing ground floor storage area and front entryway, and build an exterior stairway, two decks, garage, and walkway. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DISCUSSION: The application properly states that a variance is necessary for the garage as it encroaches into the required 25 foot front yard setback and 10 foot side yard setback. A variance is also necessary from the side yard setback for the exterior stairway, pursuant to Section 3-101, because it sits within the setback and exceeds 30 inches above natural grade. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Engineering: Having reviewed the application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. As was mentioned in the application, previous construction resulted in the deposition of fill material at the edge of the river. This fill and part of the lower river deck that was constructed on top of it, encroach into the floodway according to the boundary shown on the FEMA map. The submitted site plan needs to have the flood plain and floodway boundary line adjusted to match the boundary line shown on the FEMA map so the degree of this encroachment can be determined. 2 . The attached engineering report by Schmueser, Gordon and Meyer is not conclusive in regard to the impact of this fill on the carrying capacity of the river. In any case, since FEMA and City Code regulations prohibit placing any obstruction, including fill , in the floodway, the Engineering Department requires that this fill and at least part of the lower river deck be removed. The amount of fill to be removed needs to be determined by a registered engineer and approved by the Engineering Department. 3 . The submitted plat needs to have the high water line drawn and labeled. 4. The Engineering Department recommends that the applicant grant a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork river and for a width of 5 feet along the west bank of the river. 2 STAFF COMMENTS: Section 7-504 outlines the criteria for Stream Margin Review as follows: CRITERIA 1: It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development. RESPONSE: According to the improvement survey, the application states that "all improvements (both existing and proposed) are located outside the 100 year flood plain. No increase in the base flood elevation, therefore, will occur as a result of the Applicant's proposed development. " There has already been some deposition into the river. According to the Engineering Department the 1988 letter from Schmueser Gordon Meyer Inc. (attached) addressing the effect of fill on the flood plain is inconclusive. It is necessary to determine the extent of change to the river and/or floodplain that has occurred during fill activity. Any change or effect to the river's capacity must be mitigated. CRITERIA 2: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. RESPONSE: According to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan a trail has not been designated to cross the project site. CRITERIA 3: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. RESPONSE: The Plan does not pertain to the site specifically and the application states that "the proposed improvements. . . will have no significant effect on the site's existing river front vegetation nor will the natural appearance of the River be impacted in any foreseeable manner. " The existing river deck provides little area for revegetation along the river. Concern for the illegally placed fill and the change to the river bank has been expressed by the Engineering Department earlier in this memo. CRITERIA 4: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. RESPONSE: According to the application "no vegetation will be removed nor any slope regraded such that the River would be 3 • adversely affected. The storage area to be enclosed at the rear of the residence contains an existing concrete floor slab and foundation. No additional excavation will be required. Appropriate safeguards will be used during construction of the new decks to prevent sedimentation of the River, and all disturbed areas will be revegetated. " Staff has a great deal of concern pertaining to the stability of the bank that will be impacted by the proposed deck and stairs connecting the side of the house to the lower river deck( #3 on map) . The bank is very steep and removal of existing vegetation may increase the potential of erosion. Preservation of the vegetation and bank stabilizing measures are recommended. CRITERIA 5: To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary. RESPONSE: According to the application "the existing and proposed improvements will have no adverse effect upon the natural changes normally experienced by the River. All construction is located outside the 100 year flood plain and above the high water line. " It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the fill has created change to the regular flow of the River and the existing river deck does encroach into the floodway as is depicted on the FEMA maps. CRITERIA 6: Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. RESPONSE: Although the application states that no alteration or relocation of the existing water course will be required by the proposed development, the applicant is requesting to "legalize" a riverside deck which, in the opinion of staff encroaches into the floodway. The river bank has been altered by illegal fill. An interpretation, by the Denver Office, of FEMA regulations requires the removal of obstructions within the floodway. CRITERIA 7: A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. RESPONSE: According to the application this criteria is not applicable. However, staff believes that this criteria is applicable as past development may have diminished the carrying capacity of the River. It is important to determine to what extent and to correct the damage. CRITERIA 8: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year 4 floodplain. RESPONSE: During a site visit by a representative of the Army Corps it was determined that the amount of fill would be considered under the federal "Nationwide Permit" for bank stabilization which does not require formal notification of the Army Corps. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Stream Margin Review subject to the following conditions: 1. The flood plain and floodway boundary line on the submitted site plan shall be adjusted to match the boundary line shown on the FEMA map. 2 . FEMA and City Code regulations prohibit placing any obstruction, including fill, in the floodway, therefore before a building permit is issued the fill shall be removed. The amount of fill to be removed shall be determined by a registered engineer and approved by the Engineering Department. 3 . The high water line shall be drawn and labeled on the submitted plat. 4 . A fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of 5 feet along the west bank of the river shall be granted. 5. Existing vegetation shall be preserved and slope stabilization measures, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department, shall be implemented to reduce erosion along the southern slope during construction and subsequent to occupancy of this home on this site. 6. The applicant must obtain a variance for construction of the garage and the exterior stairs from the Board of Adjustment. The Planning and Zoning Commission expresses neither support nor opposition to the variance request by this action. ljl/mcclain 5 /SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC.""'"�� 1512 Granikenue, Suite 212 /t•;NIMa Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 July 26, 1988 Mir - ani (303) 945-1004 uno►sa��� • WHIM, ri EXHIBIT-E ��a t., CONSULTING ENGINEERS i SURVEYORS/ Mr. Jay Hammond, City Engineer • City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: McClain Residence, Waters Avenue Dear Jay: This is to follow up our meeting at the McClain residence last week. I wanted to summarize for the record, on behalf of our client, some of the preliminary conclusions I reached with respect to the fill place- ment situation. I was unable to resolve further the relationship between the date of the FEMA study and the date of completion of the work as indicated by the building permit. I tried my best to get some sort of feedback fLo,u either the state or federal authorities on the "official" time of com- pletion of fild work; the best I could get would be described as "evas- ive", at best. Unless someone pushes the inquiry much harder than I did, it does not appear we are going to, ng get any concrete answers, from these authorities. In, order to try defining, preliminarily the effect • the fill would have' on, the floodpIain,, we performed some quick Mannings. equation calculations. It appears that the effect of the fill is small enough that the Mannings equation, will really not be sensistive to any • calculated changes.. I would, anticipate that a more rigorous HEC-II analysis might show a 'calculated effect of several hundreths of a foot and, in any case, I would 'anticipate that effect to be less than one- tenth of a foot. Because of the slope and velocity of the river at this location, the streambed: has a very significant carrying and it should be expected �' n9 capacity pected: that small changes in river cross section will not be reflected in significant differences in hydraulic • calculations. In turn, removal of any materials in the river will have little, if any, effect on the theoretical carrying capacity on the floodplain elevation of the river in this location. • Please feel free to call me if I can further respond to this situation. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dean Cords , P.E. Presi:ent DWG:1-c/806 cc: . S y Vann Mr. • 'ck McClain Do-op- MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department LAY DATE: May 23 , 1989 RE: McClain Stream Margin Review Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1 . The submitted site plan needs to have the flood plain and floodway boundary line adjusted to match the boundary line shown on the FEMA map. 2 . As was mentioned in the application, previous construction resulted in the deposition of fill material at the edge of the river. The attached engineering report by Schmueser, Gordon and Meyer is not conclusive in regard to the impact of this fill on the carrying capacity of the river. In any case, since FEMA and City Code regulations prohibit placing any obstruction, including fill, in the floodway, the Engineering Department requires that the above mentioned fill be removed. The amount of fill to be removed needs to be determined by a. registered engineer and approved by the Engineering Department. 3 . The applicant indicated that the lower river deck was constructed without Stream Margin approval. The Engineering Department requires that a registered engineer evaluate the foundation and anchoring of this deck and determine whether or not there would be any potential for breaking loose during flooding. 4. The submitted plat needs to have the high water line drawn and labeled. 5 . The Engineering Department recommends that the applicant grant a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork river and for a width of 5 feet along the west bank of the river. jg/McClain cc: Chuck Roth pc-0 MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department C' DATE: May 23 , 1989 RE: McClain Stream Margin Review Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1 . As was mentioned in the application, previous construction resulted in the deposition of fill material at the edge of the river. This fill and part of the lower river deck that was constructed on top of it, encroach into the floodway according to the boundary shown on the FEMA map. The submitted site plan needs to have the flood plain and floodway boundary line adjusted to match the boundary line shown on the FEMA map so the degree of this encroachment can be determined. 2 . The attached engineering report by Schmueser, Gordon and Meyer is not conclusive in regard to the impact of the above mentioned fill on the carrying capacity of the river. In any case, since FEMA and City Code regulations prohibit placing any obstruction, including fill, in the floodway, the Engineering Department requires that this fill and at least part of the lower river deck be removed. The amount of fill to be removed needs to be determined by a registered engineer and approved by the Engineering Department. 3 . The applicant indicated that the lower river deck was constructed without Stream Margin approval. The Engineering ' Department requires that a registered engineer evaluate the foundation and anchoring of this deck and determine whether or not there would be any potential for breaking loose during flooding. 4 . The submitted plat needs to have the high water line drawn and labeled. 5 . The Engineering Department recommends that the applicant grant a fisherman's easement in the Roaring. Fork river and for a width of 5 feet along the west bank of the river. jg/McClain cc: Chuck Roth - • VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning Consultants • March 28, 1989 fj r- �;_ , � ', ,r \'.. tfi , a HAND DELIVERED MAR ' 9 Ms. Roxanne Eflin Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: McClain Stream Margin Review Dear Roxanne: Please consider this letter an application for stream margin review for the remodeling of an existing single- family residence located at 1108 Waters Avenue in the City of Aspen, Colorado (see Pre-Application Conference Summary attached hereto as Exhibit A).., The application is sub- mitted pursuant to Section 7504 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by Mrs. Shane McClain, the owner of the prop- erty ( see Release of Deed of Trust, Exhibit B) . Permis- sion for Vann Associates to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit C. Project Site As the accompanying improvement survey illustrates, the project site consists of Lot 11 of the Calderwood Subdivi- sion. The property is zoned R-15, Moderate-Density Resi- dential and contains approximately. 10,056 square feet of land area. Site improvements are limited to the existing residence, which c nt_ainspapproxtima=tel 2 455 quare feet of floor area, and various outdoor decks and fences. Both the lot and structure are non-conforming with respect to various dimensional requirements of the. R-15 zone dis- trict. The structure, however, is well below the site' s max mum' 'allowable f loon .area of approximate'lyn4",.1u50 ;squared feet. Proposed Development In general, the Applicant wishes to enclose various exist- ing areas of the residence, and to add several new decks and a garage. The total proposed increase in floor area 230 East Hopkins Avenue•Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-6958 • Ms. Roxanne Eflin March 28, 1989 Page 2 is approximately 600 square feet. The specific improve- ments to be— undertaken by the Applicant are summarized below and are identified numerically on the improvement survey. -1. Enclose an existing storage area and an adjacent closet, both of which are located at grade at the rear of the residence. The increase in floor area will be approximately 345 square feet. 2. Install an exterior stairway to access the area referred to in item #1 from the existing deck above. 2.1L �3 . Construct a new "mid-level" deck and steps to access the existing lower deck located adjacent to the adal River. Enclose the existing front entry walk. The increase in floor area will be approximately , 130 square feet. 5. Construct a new "front" deck to replace the entry walk referred to in item #4 and to provide access to the mid-level and River decks. ---6. Construct an approximately 625 square foot garage adjacent to Waters Avenue. 7. Construct a covered walkway from the garage to the residence' s main entrance. All new decks will be less than 30 inches above grade and are exempt from floor area calculations. Similarly, all but 125 square feet of the proposed garage is also exempt, as is the covered walkway. With the exception of the garage, all improvements comply with the various dimen- sional requirements of the R-15 zone district. The ga- rage, however, will require a variance from the Board of Adjustment as it encroaches within the 25 foot front yard setback. It is anticipated that the proposed improvements will be constructed in two phases, with the garage and covered walkway constituting the second phase. An application for the required variance will be submitted to the Building Department at such time as the Applicant proceeds with phase two. Inasmuch as the garage will have no material effect on the River, the receipt of stream margin approval • • Ms. Roxanne Eflin March 28, 1989 Page 3 concurrent with the approval of phase one will eliminate the necessity of submitting an additional application at a later date. It should be noted that the property in question was the subject of a previous Cs;treammar,gn. ,.regew 'apg'l ica`tion. capproval° twos granted on: November flu,,6 1d9T31:for an 4Prox ,-.„ -'^C"'�Si � Y tW - mately.: 15.0 square_:` foot addition" to the north side of the- residence (see P&Z minutes attached hereto as Exhibit D) . The property was also <Itagged ' by, the Building Depart- ment in September of 1985 because the Applicant failed to e4jQ obtain jabuildnga permit , forprepair-s n beng7gmade KrtorR the,- i5"" foundat%on at the rle,agof _the= redidence A permit-wag'" subsequently issued and 'the-unenclosedJ toragerarea,,, re- Aerred t to" nr� item#4#�l a"bovee,was xcons;tructed 4rifl con un t.ion �k,. -.J„.wt>,�. 's^'' rF" `'"'-e '"9�,fr ° p�,_ _. �...a :tt... ...� _��:t��s�tz_:zs ..�•--w']�'. .. LwIth tl e Yfoundartiion repo' r worgr: Apparently, however, neither the Applicant nor the Build- ing Department were aware of the fact that stream margin c review was required for the repair ,work„.„ Upon completion of the repairs, the Applicant rcoristructed they lower , River deck E which" was T also��� nsta�_ led `�with'but <the,',arecei t, - of 1 �S stream ,matrgln �approval4: Inasmuch as -these improvements * occurred outside the ,-City s--formal review process, the Applicant wishes to "'@legaTll :z:e! them in connection with ' stream margin approval for the proposed remodeling. \^c , arc Review Requirements ► ,�'_ -Pursuant to Section 7-504 of the Land Use Regulations, all development within 100 feet of the high water line of the _Roaring Fork River is subject to stream margin review. As all of the Applicant' s proposed improvements are located within 100 feet of the River, review and approval pursuant to the City' s stream margin regulations is required. The specific review criteria, and the proposed development' s compliance therewith, are summarized as follows. 1. "It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel pro- posed for development." As the accompanying improvement survey illustrates, all improvements ( i.e. , both existing and proposed) are lo- cated outside the 100 year flood plain. No increase in Ms. Roxanne Eflin March 28, 1989 Page 4 the base flood elevation, therefore, will occur as a result of the Applicant' s proposed development. 2. "Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Tra- ils plan map is dedicated for public use." According to the adopted trails plan map, no trail has been designated across the project site. 3. "The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for devel- opment to the greatest extent practicable." The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan contains no site specific recommendations with respect to the project site. The proposed improvements, however, will have no significant effect on the site' s existing river front vegetation nor will the natural appearance of the River be impacted in any foreseeable manner. 4. "No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank." raiLle. No vegetation will be removed nor any slope regraded such that the River would be adversely affected. The storage area to be enclosed at-the-~rear of a residence contains an existing concrete floor slab and foundation. No addi- tional excavation will be required. Appropriate safe- guards will be used during construction of the new decks to -prevent sedimentation of the River, and all disturbed areas will be revegetated. It should be noted that the construction of the existing River deck may have resulted in the deposition of a minor amount of fill along the river bank and a number of small- er boulders within the river itself. These rocks were unearthed in conjunction with the repair of the resi- . dence' s foundation and some apparently were inadvertently dislodged into the River. However, as the attached letter from Dean Gordon of Schmueser Gordon Meyer indicates ( see Exhibit E) , the Applicant' s prior excavation activities are expected to have no significant effect on the carrying capacity of the River in this location. III Ms. Roxanne Eflin March 28, 1989 Page 5 t^m 5. "To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary." 1 4 / The existing and proposed improvements will have no ad- verse effect upon the natural changes normally experienced by the River. All construction is located outside the 100 year flood plain and above the high water line. . 6. "Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Con- k tion Board prior to any alteration or relocation serva y � p of a water course, and a copy of said notice is �, submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agen- cy." No alteration or relocation of the existing water course will be required. 7. "A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the develop- er and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished." This review criteria is not applicable. 8. "Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred r °'i-. (100) year f loodplain." fir; ,� No federal or state permits are required to construct the ).t , v proposed improvements. Similarly, the placement of the /) relatively small amount of fill within the River that occurred during the Applicant' s prior foundation repair work would most likely have been considered under the so- -Q , called federal "Nationwide Permit" for bank stabilization. t As a result, no formal notification of the Army Corps of Engineers would have been required ( see Exhibit F, letter from Schmueser Gordon Meyer dated March 14, 1989) . Based on the above, the Applicant believes that both the existing and proposed improvements are in compliance with the intent and requirements of Section 7-504 of the Land Use Regulations and, consequently, will have no adverse effect upon the Roaring Fork River. The Applicant, there- fore, respectfully requests stream margin approval for the Ms. Roxanne Eflin March 28 , 1989 Page 6 remodeling of the existing residence as depicted on the accompanying improvement survey, and for the existing improvements which were previously installed without the benefit of formal review. Should you have any questions , or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. As the Appli- cant wishes to commence construction as quickly as possi- ble, any assistance you might be able to provide in expe- diting the application' s review would be sincerely appre- ciated. Very truly • VANN • •SOCIATES, INC. Su ny Van /AICP SV:cwv Attachments CITY OF ASPEN EXHIBIT A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY f (� PROJECT i- !K,I'1 t C C 6._i h 5-1--c4-r,.._,- J cc 7 / Lc` II _.,;-c-•..=f-:--, :.,77.`z�"�..- :5;,, , APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: 5 "✓ h Lij k j li. rl r REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: C 6(.1 ';- ' OWNER'S NAME: )v\c C. n..l h SUMMARY \ 1. Type of Application: ‹IfY''-r'1^+�- /✓k^r= ►'1 -7 - 50 4( ) 2 . D/Tpscribe action/type of development being requested: / f'- t' C:-` :• :-------■ -1-,' %., - '-- --_-v___--8 c„.:2, s •:--- .11. . re._ . P1^-- -,ii-1--€11--- Cif -frysn re 0 r•L- .6-,_ J' l . ;'..G-t rt. ri.t - i-3 be bya ., 3 . Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments Q 4 . Review is: (P&Z Only) ) (CC Only) (P&Z then to CC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES) (NO) 6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJAt OPERTY OWNERS? (YES)4 OD Disclosure of Ownership: /YES) (NO) 7 . What fee was applicant requested to submit: 79^ �c, 8. Anticipated date of submission: A ik P 9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: Spy A")(1-1 -?' / • . g•g5 Recorded at_. 32 ._Ø......o'clock..J' ......IA ri¢. 7Li1>e Mane, ��( �,� Reception No.»_..»._..._.»:2.w... .._... Rev) EXHIBIT' B •4,t 7 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That, Whereas, Norma. J. McC. a n oi( Aspen, Coto. , by DEED OF TRUST dated the Dec. 24, 19L day of. ,19 , and duly recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of the . County of Pitkin ,in the State of Colorado,on the :314.t day of Decd,ben , 19 77 in book 260 , on page 450 , (Film No. ,Reception No. 149326 ),conveyed to the Public Trustee in said County of P.i thin ,certain real estate in said Deed of Trust described,in trust to secure to the order of f ob.e1t t Wadden and Dnno L L . Madden the payment o2r the mde l:euness mention erein. AND WHEREAS, Said indebtedness has been paid.and the purposes of said trust have been fully satisfied; NOW, THEREFORE, At the request of the legal holder of the indebtedness secured by said Deed of Trust,and in consideration of the premises,and in further consideration of the sum of Three Dollars,to me in hand paid,the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, I, as the Public Trustee in said County of pi do hereby remise,release and quit-claim unto the present owner or owners of real estate and unto the heirs, successors and assigns of said owner or owners forever, all the right, title and interest which I have in and to the said real estate,as such Public Trustee,in said Deed of Trust mentioned;and more particularly described as follows,to wit: Lot 11, Caedehwood Subdi.v.iA.i_on seconding 10 the plat .thekeob b.L,Zed On necond a4 Coewnent No. 112674 in Ditch Book 2A at Page 264 ob the Rtacixxdacxilixolocty.aixx Records o4 P.i ki.n County. situate, lying and being in the County of pi tithe and State of Colorado. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same, together with all and singular the privileges and appur- tenances thereunto belonging forever.And further,that the said Trust Deed is,by these presents,to be considered as fully and absolutely released, cancelled and forever discharged... .(;t)x`::`11;;. WITNESS my hand and seal,this /...2-t- day of Q,c ,'v‘..ry t!o j" 9•t 7` As le to d //� -� ;Countj?.of.�' /: �• B3, 1_�...0 o��Y7[-FGC�I, 'V�e�i•pl�a�rJd• STATE OF COLORAD _ J ' ,' � � 8S. County Of // The foregoing instrument yeas acigiowledged before me this LQ/Lr� �T�/ day of j L(�t.Y . """, ';1 by Public Trustee in said County of -� `'•�•f..',,.col dad as the � �.; o o. My Commission expires :4 l/ 1O Witness my hand and official j- Q /ll 1-j/ •'-'�C i ym. The Public Trustee in said County of : e''''‘CIi,.,,,;"o'' Please execute this release, the indebtedness secured by the above mentioned Deed of Trust having been fully paid. ■■ The legal bolder or the Ledobtedaeee secured by sad Rod or Trust. No. 935aumasSB OP DEED OF TRUST BY TES PUBLIC TRUSTER.—Bredtord PubWblae Co.,1884-40 Stout Sheet.Doom.Colorado EXHIBIT C March 28, 1989 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Alan Richman Planning and Development Director Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Permission to Represent Dear Mr. Richman: Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Inca to represent me in the processing of my application for stream margin review approval for various proposed improvements to my residence which is located at 1108 Waters Avenue. Mr. Vann is hereby autho- rized to act on my behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 925-7347. Sincerely, Shane McC ai SV:cwv MOul (11 f'hiu.l t ( M it.' •` LsAr11 :_ .... XHIBIT D Regular Meeting ; 1973 Vidal stated that tip lul: th• u••v.•louor could not climi= nate 100,_ of the parking, and should provide some. Commission discussed height and massing of the buildings. Felt that they had tried to keep the height on the north side down. Vidal stated that the 1-1 ratio is low for the core area. Chairman Adams stated he would like to see some other alternatives. Windes stated that they planned to handle transportation for guests in lieu of guests bringing their own vehicles. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office considerations for this project were: (1) density in terms of people - impact in numbers must be evaluated; (2) transportation plan needs to be evaluated; (3) recommend tabling for further consideration by the Commission Vidal pointed out that the developer had reduced com- mercial space for hotel units and that the floor area ratio proposal was low. Pointed out that this repre- sents a trade-off. Further, subject to validation of AR and density before the Commission could proceed. } Geri Vagneur left the meeting. Commission suggest applicant return with better massing plans, which would also designate heights of surround- ing buildings. McClain Stream Ms Baer explained that this was a request to add an Margin Request a ditio 1 room of 10' x 15' . Stated the residence was located in Calderwood. Applicant submitted photographs of the site. Johnson made a motion to approve the proposed stream margin request on the condition that if there is a trail on the river plan designated, applicant must donate the easement. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #19 \ Bartel explained that the amendment included the follow- AMENDMENT ing: (1) makes clarification on what is exempted and permitted; (2) allows Planning Office to make deter- minations on remodel-type proposals, with the concurrence of the Commission. Explained that this would be interior remodel only; (3) includes provision for setting density. Bartel pointed out that the amendment would require a public hearing by the City Council, but would like to have a recommendation from the Commission. Johnson made a motion to recommend the changes included in the amendment, seconded by Gillis. All in favor, motion carried. Gillis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. eeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ere / yeor T.T • VL-- •'�?§.''"w Fri • IF • y • 1512 Gel Avenue, Suite 212 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC.Iva%%IN ' thq.al01a111a Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 . lsar:;POMO (303) 945-1004 July 26, 1988 galna�aXii ( ) EXHIBITE w1111111∎4�/ EXHIBIT_.E CONSULTING ENGINEERS&SURVEYORS/ Mr. Jay Hammond, City Engineer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: McClain Residence, Waters Avenue Dear. Jay: This is to follow up our meeting at the McClain residence last week. I wanted to summarize for the record, on behalf of our client, some of the preliminary conclusions I reached with respect to the fill place- ment situation. I was unable to resolve further the relationship between the date of the FEMA study and the date of completion of the work as indicated by the building permit. I tried my best to get some sort of feedback fLOut either the state or federal authorities on the "official" time of oom- 'pletion of fild work; the best I could get would be described as "evas- ive", at best. Unless someone pushes the inquiry much harder than I did, it does not appear we are going to get any concrete answers from these authorities. In order to try defining preliminarily the effect the fill would have on the floodplain, we performed some quick Mannings equation calculations. It appears that the effect of the fill is small enough that the Mannings equation will really not be sensistive to any calculated changes. I would anticipate that a more rigorous HEC-II analysis might show a calculated effect of several hundreths of a foot and, in any case, I would anticipate that effect to be less than one- tenth of a foot. Because of the slope and velocity of the river at this location, the streambed has a very significant carrying capacity and it should be expected that small changes in river cross section will not be reflected in significant differences in hydraulic calculations. In turn, removal of any materials in the river will have little, if any, effect on the theoretical carrying capacity on the floodplain elevation of the river in this location. Please feel free to call me if I can further respond to this situation. • Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER (DRDON MEYER, INC. Dean Gord. , P.E. Presi.ent DWG:1-c/806 cc: S y Vann Mr. • 'ck McClain :,,,;�� 1512 GrAvenue, Suite 212 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC./�Ja���� Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Om pant (303)945-1004 March 14, 1989 mist >A��� ��..., EXHIBIT F CONSULTING ENGINEERS&SURVEYORS/ • Mr. Sunny Vann Vann Associates P.O. Box 8485 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: McClain Residence, Aspen, Colorado Dear Sunny: This letter is in response to your questions concerning permitting processes which the Army Corps of Engineers might use in the evaluation of the fill placement at the McClain residence. Since fill was placed below the ordinary high water mark, the placement of that material does require a 404 permit. The permit under which this work falls would, in my opinion, be consid- ered under the Nationwide Permit #13, which applies to bank stabiliza- ion. The most pertinent evaluation criterion under that permit are as follows: 1 ) The length of improvements measured along the streambed cannot exceed 500 feet. 2) No more than on one cubic foot per running lineal feet of project can be placed below ordinary high water mark. 3) Fill must be placed for bank stabilization purposes. If these criterion are met, the work is covered under the nationwide permit, which essentially means that one is not required to formally contact the Corps of Engineers, but may proceed with the work at their own discretion. As a courtesy, I normally inform the local office in Grand Junction of any activity that is covered under the nationwide • permits available, emphasizing again however, that that is not a formal requirement. I trust the above begins to address your questions. As always, I remain available to provide further input to the situation. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. De W. t.rdon, P.E. • -sident LW - : 863 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: McClain Stream Margin Review DATE: April 4, 1989 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Sunny Vann on behalf of his client, Shane McClain, requesting Stream Margin Review approval. Please review this material and return your comments to me no later than May 24, 1989 so that I have time to prepare a memo for the P&Z. Thank you. ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 April 4, 1989 Sunny Vann Vann Associates P. O. Box 8485 Aspen, Colorado 81612 RE: McClain Stream Margin Review Dear Sunny, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application is complete. We have scheduled your application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, June 6, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4 : 30 P.M. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the Planning Office. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant /`4T• DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NECEi1k T 't6 SACRAMENTO DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS IW' -���' 1" 650 CAPITOL MALL JAN 2 1Ms „1R1 JAN L L ne i... SACRAMENTO.CALIFORNIA 95814-4794 �% CitY rJ Weer REPLY TO l»R P ATTENTION OF January 16 , 1991 Regulatory Section ( 199100026 ) Ms . Norma J . McClain 1108 Waters Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ms . McClain: I am responding to a letter dated December 17 , 1990 submitted on your behalf by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Incorporated. This correspondence included your Department of the Army permit application concerning the discharge of fill material into the Roaring Fork River in the City of Aspen, Colorado . We have reviewed and considered the information in your permit application. Based upon our analysis , we have determined that the material placed below the ordinary high water elevation of the Roaring Fork River is less than ten cubic yards and is part of a single and complete project. Accordingly, this work is subject to the terms and conditions of nationwide general permit #18 . Additional authorization from the Corps of Engineers is not required. While we acknowledge that this work is subject to nationwide general permit authorization, we are concerned about the composition of the fill material and its stability during anticipated high flow events . In the event that you lose portions of this material during high water, we recommend that you repair and further stabilize the damaged fill with large angular stone . You should also consider establishing native riparian vegetation ( i .e . , native willows ( Salix spp. ) and alders (Alnus tenuifolia) ) upon the existing material to further enhance its stability. However, prior to commencing any additional work in this area, we strongly recommend that you provide us with an opportunity to review your proposal . We have assigned Number 199100026 to this work . Please refer to this number in correspondence submitted to the Corps of Engineers concerning this project . Should you have questions or wish to discuss future stabilization, please contact Gary Davis at telephone number ( 303 ) 243-1199 . Sincerely, Grady L. McNure Chief, Western Colorado Regulatory Office 402 Rood Avenue , Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563 Copies Furnished: Mr. Jefferey S . Simonson, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Incorporated, 1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E , Glenwood Springs , Colorado 81601 V/f1r. Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department , City of Aspen, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mr. Brian R. Hyde , Colorado Water Conservation Board, 721 State Centennial Building , 1313 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado 80203 2. 1C " Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E /SCHMUESER GO 4 MEYER INC., C good Springs, Colorado 81601 (30m 945-1004 (303) 925-6501 Fax (303) 945-5948 Vi �```\LCONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/ December 17, 1990 Mr. Gary Davis Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Unit #4 400 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, CO 81501 RE: McClain Residence, Waters Avenue Roaring Fork River, Aspen, Colorado Dear Gary: Per our phone conversation of December 14, 1990, I am writing this letter to submit a 404 Permit Application for fill that was placed in the Roaring Fork at the above- named location. You will find attached the 404 Permit Application itself, along with photos of the area in question. You will note on the 81/2" x 11 " maps attached to the 404 Permit, the areas of fill that were estimated to have been placed in the Roaring Fork River. Also, I have attached a copy of the FEMA Floodway Revision dated November 15, 1990. I hope this information serves its intended purpose. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. i i) fe ey S. Simonson, P.E. JSS:lec/8063 Enclosures cc: Shane McClain „04A1 Federal Emergency Management Agency w Ilfi{”` o Washington, D.C. 20472 ' !� qo o CERTIFIED MAIL IN REPLY REFER TO: NOV 2 C 'C� RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 102A The Honorable Bill Sterling Community: Pitkin County, Mayor, City of Aspen Colorado and 130 South Galena Street Incorporated Areas Aspen, Colorado 81611 Map Panel Number: 08091CO204 C Effective Date - of This Revision: NOV 1 5 1990 Dear Mayor Sterling: This is in response to a letter dated June 29, 1990,. from Mr. Jim Gibbard, City of Aspen Engineering Department, regarding. the effective Flood Insurance Study report and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Pitkin County, Colorado and incorporated areas. In his letter, Mr. Gibbard requested that we revise the effective FIRM to show the effects of a revised hydraulic analysis of the effective floodway along the Roaring Fork River between cross sections ER and ET as shown on the effective FIRM. All data required to evaluate this request were submitted by Mr. Gibbard with his June 29 and September 11, 1990, letters and by Mr. Brian Hyde, Colorado Water Conservation Board, with his October 19, 1990, letter. We have completed our review of the submitted data with regard to the data used to produce the effective FIRM and have revised. the FIRM to modify the floodway boundary delineations of a flood having a 1-percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) along the Roaring Fork River, between cross sections ER and ET, as shown on the effective FIRM. The basis for this revision is a revised hydraulic model for the 100-year floodway. The modification is shown on the enclosed annotated copies of FIRM Panel 08097CO204 C and the Floodway Data Table for the Roaring Fork River. This Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) hereby revises this panel of the effective FIRM dated June 4, 1987. Because of current funding constraints, we must limit the number of physical map revisions. Consequently, we will not publish a revised FIRM for Pitkin County, Colorado and incorporated areas to reflect modifications at this time. However, if in the future we revise and republish the FIRM panel affected by this LOMR, we will incorporate the previously described modifications at that time. The floodway is provided to your community as a tool to regulate floodplain development. Therefore, the floodway modifications described in this letter, while acceptable to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), must also be acceptable to your community and adopted by appropriate community action, as specified in Paragraph 60.3(d) of the National Flood Insurance Program 2 (NFIP) regulations. Please be aware that the placement of fill within the effective floodway prior to a floodway revision is a violation of your community' s floodplain management ordinances and NFIP regulations. In the future, a floodway revision should be requested and approved by FEMA before the City allows development within the effective floodway. If a proposed floodway revision cannot be accomplished within the allowable surcharge limits, the requirements of Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations must be fulfilled or the revision request will be denied by FEMA.. This modification has been made pursuant to Section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) and is in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, P.L. 90-448), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 44 CFR, Part 65. As required by the legislation, a. community must adopt and enforce floodplain management measures- to ensure continued eligibility to participate in the NFIP. Therefore, your community must enforce: these regulations using, at a minimum,- the base (100-year) flood elevations, zone designations, and floodways in the Special Flood Hazard Areas shown on the FIRM for your community, including the previously described modification. This response to your request is based on minimum floodplain management criteria established under the NFIP. Your community is responsible for approving all proposed floodplain developments, including this request, and for ensuring that necessary permits required by Federal or State law have been received. With knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, State and community officials may set higher standards for construction, or may limit development in floodplain areas. If the State of Colorado or the City of Aspen has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP requirements. The community number and suffix code listed above will be used for all flood insurance policies and renewals issued for your community on and after the effective date listed above. The modifications described herein are effective as of the date of this letter. However, a review of the modifications and any requests for changes should be made within 30 days. Any request for reconsideration must be based on scientific or technical data. This LOMR will not be printed and distributed to primary map users such as - local insurance agents and mortgage lenders; therefore, the community will serve as a repository for these new data. We encourage you to disseminate the information reflected by this LOMR widely throughout the community in order that interested persons such as property owners, insurance agents, and mortgage lenders may benefit from this information. We also encourage you to consider preparing an article for publication in the community's local newspaper that would describe the changes that have been made and the assistance the community will provide in serving as a clearinghouse for these data and interpreting NFIP maps. 3 If you have any questions regarding the modifications described herein, please call the Chief, Natural and Technological Hazards Division, FEMA, in Denver, Colorado, at (303) 235-4830, or Mrs. Cynthia M. Croxdale of my staff in Washington, D.C. , at (202) 646-3458. Sincerely, 01 , 4• J. Matticks Ch - , Risk Studies Division Federal Insurance Administration Enclosures cc: The Honorable Herschel Ross Chairman, Pitkin County Board of Commissioners Mr. Jim Gibbard Engineering Department, City of Aspen Mr. Jeffrey S. Simonson, P.E. Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. 5. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ADJOINING PR iTY OWNERS, LESSEES, ETC.,WHOSE PROPER LSO ADJOINS THE WATERWAY Harlan Lee Elizabeth Jones Riverside Joint Ventures Anthony Kastelic 1106 Waters Ave. Box P. Ted Eulow 570 S. Riverside Aspen, Co. 81611 Aspen, Co. 81612 Box 655644 Aspen, Co. 81611 Dallas, Tx. 75265 6.WATERBOOY AND LOCATION ON WATERBODY WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED Approximately 800 ft. upstream of Hwy 82 crossing of Roaring Fork River 7. LOCATION ON LAND WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED ADDRESS: 1108 Waters Ave. , Aspen, Co. 81611 STREET,ROAD,ROUTE OR OTHER DESCRIPTIVE LOCATION _. • Tax Assessors Description: (If known) Pitkin Colorado 81611 COUNTY STATE ZIP CODE Map No. Subdiv. No. Lot No. White River National Forest City of Aspen LOCAL GOVERNING BOGY WITH JURISDICTION OVER SITE sec- Twp. R9e. B. Is any portion of the activity for which authorization is sought now complete? OYES ONO If answer Is"Yes"give reasons,month and year the activity was completed. Indicate the existing work on the drawings. All work shown on drawings was completed in October 1987. . Fill was placed as erosion protection for deck construction. 9.List all approvals or certifications and denials received from other federal,interstate,state or local agencies for any structures,construction, discharges or other activities described In this application. • ISSUING AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NO. DATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF APPROVAL DATE OF DENIAL FEMA Ltr. of map revision 102A 6/29/90 11/15/90 N/A • City of . Stream margin •• Aspen review 21A-89 3/29/89 N/A N/A 10.ApplIcation is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application,and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information Is true,complete,end accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities or I am acting as the duly authorized agent of the applicant. i y�� 4a /!`mow.. ' de // - _ f� f� ��- 9) I. I I i 12/18/90 SIGNATU;' ' AP'LI, •NT DATE -IG • URE OF AGENT DATE Norma J. McClain J ,'fe ey S. Simonson, P.E. I The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed actiuity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in Block 3 has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C.Section 1001 provides that: Whoever,in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of The United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals,or covers up by any trick,scheme,or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false,fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry,shall be fined not more than$10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years,or both. Do not send a permit processing fee with this application. The appropriate fee will be assessed when a permit is issued. 7861 Y �. Z�"'E X � i �4 �1�r„ . 7866 .\ �� NATI6ilAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 1+ r t/ a4 ,"r „e g" .a,z:' � � ER 'i �?v 1.r' ✓i> ) \ Il�ilf '1? FIRM 1. e ®� l � iE Footo,aye A` ��7875 �l C',T�\�i EN ZC1NE X t ..--7878 •,es o�nti / FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP v 1 bfiM ,/ '7 fl�O �, \ y VA Footoridge (C,t• lt- y;: R' " y , y \s,,, -V i�! PITKIN COUNTY, iif ® ` ` ` �c ( 11,111 WI COLORADO AND r` , �`�' / i � ( INCORPORATED AREAS ', Y '(,' ZONE SrR , If X a.7=�-—,.,/ 2 7898er ` 7905 �� l' 7885 : P I I� -.: / Qe I ill FN® 4,,:iir .-'e: y / " ® III 1 PANEL 204 OF 325 NS ,w�, -� 7892 " ":..-- 7913 7894 .. .>I , ------� 1►ill twM* 7094 ® W 4`'f~bE Footbridge <7917,, II - c• twre•m run '11..'44 N ;,�! :ci '7921 I} .>n.a,.o< ....R«.... C �/,/� r ATM nwm.. z r0 f ,??'Q?ZZ. ®i,:� �i s. - 4 y c,,,, 1 1 . . .,,S T' "°MK Ai .:.rmr....m•.....c 0 .' 4t. N f tv. fNV , I ooPER o /' �WI� 7926 f ; : II , IW I III J fN .:V RqN /z ,, ® 7936 7931 ,1 I a,� I 08097CO204 C 1 q� �- ` I 4-,, �;��,.,;; EFFECTIVE DATE: ,NV m/ $1.... 7'\ = JUNE 4, 1981 in / !� ZONE :-E''' '' °2 +'14 TE's 7942/ = • N ••i Federal Etner°ency Management Ajen\ �� ZO EX \ Q ,\\ IM ® CITY OF ASPEN . Od0147 9-‘4 f... APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 500 7956 RIVER510E \ 0 500 • -1- CENTENNIAL (n CIRCLE ® 1966 `'y CRYSTAL LAKE Salvation (anal �� I. ROAD '�9 1c Footbridge 1� 00 t till /i X982 ---� ® 7991 • ® ' 7990 �� 7988 s w AREA REVISED ' �g$a r \ 5 ,' ..,� .ou ` ' ,< TO 8014'/ r$¢ 7rf � 8019 .% ` y L1:-1� '. 'd ksl J.,:..) 6 :r°4_, 0 8020— r, Footbridge � 1 .' r �9$ r ZONE X 'aks r ZONE x p%� C6...-1.• 1 �. a s .-Y: IS) DATED NOV 1 5 �: �yy J -4., . , 3 .. . ' 8021/ 8024 4) CD ..� o b4-1 4) 4) 0 0 0 x 1 ON 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 0 h t0 t0 10 10 V' r-4 t11 N N h F .- U CU 0 0 0 0 0 r� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c.. L'7 Z >1 o o tC _ r-4 03 h h h N M N 1.0 to CO V' V• 10 10 CO N N LO r1 N N Lf1 t0 t0 N 1°• 3 L • • • • • I • • • E-4 +■ 4) •-4 d h m co 01 0 r♦ v r1 CO 0 0 () V' d 111 tft VI ■0 t0 h h • h 4 --4 Q 4) tf1 10 h o co C0 ON 01 O •-4 44 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ® g. . 3'. 00 C4 ON 01 01 ON ON 01 01 O1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O , , p g 1� r� . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . + CZ ►rr�177i Ga h N N h h r- h N 00 00 co 00 co co oo CO 03 0 CO 00 CO 00 0 CO 00 +� �� 6oc.+d w @..14 Q MI .-1 03 h 'D 00 N Col h 10 to 00 d CO 10 01 N t0 10 0 01 '-4 N m as ON eWod �O ►Q7 0 3 iJ • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • . • . �� 4) '-4 V` h e'1 h CO 0 0 s} ch CO 0 0 C'1 M V' d d III 111 10 10 10 10 10 �C14 s.) 4) to 10 N 0 03 CO 01 01 0 .-4 4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N -.1 01 01 01 01 01 ON 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W3' r-1 --. tl� � . . .. . . . •. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . N h h r rN h N N. 00 00 CO m CO CO 0 Co-03 CO C0 CO CO CO CO CO CO oD >1 L Q rl co h 10 CO N ri h 10 in co 4! CO 10 O• N %O t0 o O► .-1 h c0 a 01 to 4) r-ivhCIh0000dr� m00rlrn .r ' Li 41 � 1o '0 It, tat .i 4) Lt1 10 N 03 03 03 01 01 0 .-1 41 N N N N N C•4 N N N N N N N N !0 tr. 010 01 a 0101010100000000 0 00 0 00000 DI •- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 h h h h h h h h CO Co 03 C0 Co 03 m CO Co co CO 03 03 CO Co Co CO C4 a y CI >, L CI 4-1 a >4 C -.4 04 10 K1 b (1 C �7 01 ON N ON CO 01 0 01 10 00 CO 01 N N h N N N d r1 N d r1 d• O i• 4-1 Q) (,) N 0 01 ('1 r1 h 10 CO 01 O1 01 N N CO r1 tf1 tt1 1f1 to 10 10 N .-4 -4 -.10 CD 04 N .-• ,-4 _i r-4 .-1 -4 en �' �� cU • 47 5 4 jg tf1 m r1 O to to CO d r1 r1 CO 01 10 r1 01 t0 N 01 CO h 4 10 d M d § '.O co r1 tf1 tf1 N N ••1 r1 d r1 to u1 0 CO N CO N N r 4 N N 03 01 CO .-1 r§7 C N r1 r1 N CO d d d M r1 r1 N N V' 00 t11 to tft to tf1 tf1 N r) t11 N >t b C4 .-i N N N 7 H y y U Co 4) Vl b 4) • 1 -.a -C j CT CO 0 '7 d t11 10 01 •1 CO 0 .-1 0 at .-4 r1 V' r1 tf1 10 0 d 0 0 b 1J s t0 01 V' O CO ON t0 CO CO 01 M M st 0 t0 t0 t0 t0 r• O1 CO t0 0 0 1J V .-4 .-4 .4 r1 V LC) 4) C] w -4 0 4) y U Lt) 0 tf1 u1 0 to Lt1 0 lf1 0 0 tf1 to V) 0 0 VI u1 to to 0 0 to UI 0 -•1 C CO .-4 N 0 N 0 V' tf1 10 N tf1 O tf1 u1 tf1 to h O tf1 N t0 r4 0 0 UN a 00 10 N 0 d N 01 01 0 03 r-4 r-t r1 r1 '0 CO r1 to t0 CO r-4 r� 1O N 0 N -'� .a.t . . . . . . . . ..a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CO LA 10 N h 00 CO CO O• 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-4 .1 r4 r♦ N N N M V' d W •C1 .i r-1 .-I r♦ r-1 .-4 r•1 r4 r-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N A (_� D .-{ r-4 .-) r-1 r-1 r� . r-4 r-1 .� ./ •-4 r a . r 1 14 r-/ ri •� r-1 r 1 ri .1 b �g 4) L 0 y Co rA z C -L )'•• 0 Y wc O V > 4)tr4 O C v N M P a U W W W c 2 : 2 2 Rya 62i 62r 6a trfl Gr 2 L 6aLt rA w > 3) O en ..- 4) U 0 tr+ r-4 36 ?¶ s►ao"n[nna s5 /saSa.L_'- , GOLF COURSE \ ' ` ' "� ti ----�TUI '• Iblhar • / .t ©, /wpl ' '?1 M•7 0 71.D7-4.14.: eel r wen oven�\���/! \ i�r !` /��' h a{ \C3 jUnne f Sa! ggl:it 74.010 ! •. i �L Trar no i� .sp a/ -[fir--7.i.,.__. ...., :, .. +��1-' ••r, •(• . Pvkl! f is \o 1-t.si 1: . .• t I. ( v `\\r ••'� /�ari`,j, z •� •. ter \ •i(. .J.�/r(.ir r,� Y ate ` /�I� ��hre..;ice - : .• 04 • ���• ' r 1, 7•1P( , r i/( f t\,,'• \\,�\�' •h .ti•:•fyl ' -".Irk,' o r ?l.,, i? l; . -1•<.,�,.. 'qtr ti � •L d' �' (' /!' l! J•rJf/p�A' \ •(,;-- ��' _ ,., ; -1-7C7. ,• -_fr4 }- i( a\ .s.—:,fir', / 4 0J i.\� �,_ ��2Ti �`% ' \•• ` \'"-='• / ti ?/ !//(/, '�,, c, ` 1 L li 7,/ , � .tea.it,,, -- dl 1 7,,,,„„/„. :7/7-----,•: )III � `' ���,��� �� i,;� 'a �, ';�l/J ���!:�� y i 1r:(�i►1/ /rte ' 1� l 1 t+. J K ,vAr ,r, : FT. . O 0 • 0 /PO "'. . ' - ED: . • •�.` ,� • -a�/' • : . - EDGE OF RIVER• 0US' :._• HOUSE . • • . :�1 h/p�s .. .. ��� • MCCLA/N RESIDENCE• P1M7Z-Qs EDG SF RIVER .4t/Eiy(JF ,r' HO • . •. .40-. ..k. • Oos - 40' • • 0 .. . ...• qui, I./ 1 . •:, NL. ,i ) , , - - oG _: . : i 'i .• , . . . , -.•- • . . • • ..., ... . 4,4/ a . . . . • _____49 Iliri o .o / OC/ / /ON I GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 150 0 I n o r NI 1-'1 Ok OW :4141 � `^ O N �D ,O ZO Mr, N .. 0 -1 8 a o y 1. Z P1 p 1 Ar ,-• Aro • . c.) o •- t *A • : ' 1 --- a e'er' )0 c'l CD -,&:410k; : .: : : iv- cl r C :., t fob! .i;p:://. /47 F4 \ WOOD W0: :4,04 DECK 1 /\. \\---—1' ‘\ / tliat PI r-1 c) ?3 c./ / 1 // /// ROO PI _0 s 11-1 n \ / I / / �/ S I �, I Z � ` r / I ° ii z-T1 ti " y C r/ v y i T r�nT la I- • ,,cZj 0~I - ^/i � 0 i -I ao o ) � n �\o o z � 1 0 0 O Z t O 1 1 0 1) nr o 0O � - r--,z \° 1. C' nI. a00 crl pi rl �o � o Z(,) tick i i XN N ^k1 . �J .( r' t J' ! i,:• / '. tN et ' .1'. #t .'*. ' ' :i j¢i ' W icl • • I ti • a r�. r"f S r 1 '1.614'.4 • i .L + 1 l! ;•:•1.,... r cam + • S L � �V+w r :'1,-.R^,m ". i....w O ,rye a_i4w ..4- [ ._: �` 4� -'iy "J+ ' �... -.e 'ycp„ ,.r r, • ? �l'MK .�.e"• i.. r .�: b. - : =, t tir ;7 3 -- { @� :` ' is t•` wsue`• S 5 + J J sr _ .4,•A . ,C r� r rvrl f = .. .....v........._.„„..z,.......................„....• '•J..:. , �^E ;at • �.,v . '. . . . . • ��)• 7 r i ^,-' ' •.,, } i. ib '`y�� ,Vi + ,. t z., Y-''!�. � s'•° fi::"''^ -.N ;.-� ` :4,,-.... _ --."-.1.......:-,-..,-,-...--.),: Y-� �..^ 4J. t Y I,`t C � � 1 T y L ..~ �V•n J .�. � • .. :•S.. `i �fi I .-!.4...,1 f r 0• 4-. •• - • J f i j�-� I f p rJ� s r • Ai 1 .. ,, .: ., y, i• ,� r .. --_,`:(,..„4:4,Z..,' -: --.....% - a/4 _ . - ' . ' 1 .. . ,�_.,... ..12,.., =rte 4 � _ y -. --dG- _ _ fit, ... '- .•_ .- , _ ' - * � by��a. i n..�/'j .���+ •� �� � , _tts T. Yom^ pi.'_ .' f t s STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD Department of Natural Resources 721 State Centennial Building . �,•i 1313 Sherman Street Denver,Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 866-3441 Roy Romer October 19 , 1990 Governor J.William McDonald Director David W.Walker Deputy Director Mr . Jim Gibbard, Project Engineer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr . G bard: We are responding to your request regarding the MacLain property which is located along the Roaring Fork River in Aspen, Colorado. The site in question lies partly within an identified 100-year floodplain. We have reviewed the information prepared by Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, Inc . , for the McLain property. The information is to support a proposed modification of the FEMA floodway delineation for this particular reach of the river . As you know, this project involves revising the floodway but not the 100-year floodplain. In view of that fact, our role with regard to the National Flood Insurance Program and with regard to the CWCB designation process is only to provide comments on the proposal, not to approve it . As we understand the situation, the property owner placed fill in the floodplain of the Roaring Fork River without obtaining a floodplain development permit from the City of Aspen. Because the area of this illegal filling is currently shown in the floodway, the property owner is now seeking to have the floodway revised. The Map Revision would show the fill as being in the flood fringe and not the floodway. The applicant ' s hydraulic analysis includes one computer run which shows the current floodway. That floodway allows no encroachment on the west bank or on the east bank. The analysis also includes a computer run showing a revised floodway with a 10 foot encroachment (flood fringe) on the west bank and no change on the east bank. That revised floodway run shows no change in water surface elevation. The brief discussion at the end of Mr . Simonson' s letter of May 29, 1990, does not fully explain the reason for this 10-foot difference. 3403E* Mr . Jim Gibbard, Project Engineer October 19 , 1990 Page 2 Despite the lack of a full explanation for the 10-foot difference in the two floodways, there is a computer run and an engineering analysis that support the revised floodway. The computer run shows no impact to others except a small increase in velocities . For that reason, we do not object to the proposed floodway revision. We do have a concern about the conclusion that erosion is not a problem at the site . The current mean velocity of 11 . 5 feet per second is highly erosive . The proposed mean velocity of 12 . 4 feet per second is also high. Both of those velocities would generally lead to streambank erosion. The Roaring Fork River has had a history of aggradation and degradation in various locations between Aspen and Glenwood Springs . Bank erosion is associated with a significant percentage of all bed materials in the aggrading stream reaches . The degree of aggration and degradation in the Roaring Fork River suggests that the potential for bank erosion should always be considered . We hope that the potential for erosion at the McLain residence will be examined carefully, and that any necessary streambank measures will be implemented . We have a final concern. As a state resource agency for the Corps of Engineers 404 Permit program, we call your attention to that program. Have 404 Permit requirements been met for the MacLain Property? We presume the site has been identified by the Corps of Engineers as part of the wetlands associated with the Roaring Fork River, and that a permit is , therefore, required . We trust this letter addresses your concerns . Sincerely Brian R. Hyde Sr . Water Resource Specialist Flood Control and Floodplain Management Section BRH/dbr cc : John Matticks , FEMA Michelle Monde, Baker Engineer Jeff Simonson, Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer Grady McNure, Corps of Engineers , Grand Junction 4 1)' Federal Emergency Management Agency • Washington, D.C. 20472 0 0 CERTIFIED MAIL IN REPLY REFER TO: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 102A • The Honorable Bill Sterling Community: Pitkin County, Mayor, City of Aspen Colorado and 130 South Galena Street Incorporated Areas Aspen, Colorado 81611 Map Panel Number: 08097CO204 C Effective Date of This Revision: NOV 1 1990 Dear Mayor Sterling: This is in response to a letter dated June 29, 1990, from Mr. Jim Gibbard, City of Aspen Engineering Department, regarding the effective Flood Insurance Study report and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Pitkin County, Colorado and incorporated areas. In his letter, Mr. Gibbard requested that we revise the effective FIRM to show the effects of a revised hydraulic analysis of the effective floodway along the Roaring Fork River between cross sections ER and ET as shown on the effective FIRM. All data required to evaluate this request were submitted by Mr. Gibbard with his June 29 and September 11, 1990, letters and by Mr. Brian Hyde, Colorado Water Conservation Board, with his October 19, 1990, letter. We have completed our review of the submitted data with regard to the data used to produce the effective FIRM and have revised the FIRM to modify the floodway boundary delineations of a flood having a 1-percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) along the Roaring Fork River, between cross sections ER and ET, as shown on the effective FIRM. The basis for this revision is a revised hydraulic model for the 100-year floodway. The modification is shown on the enclosed annotated copies of FIRM Panel 08097CO204 C and the Floodway Data Table for the Roaring Fork River. This Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) hereby revises this panel of the effective FIRM dated June 4, 1987. Because of current funding constraints, we must limit the number of physical map revisions. Consequently, we will not publish a revised FIRM for Pitkin County, Colorado and incorporated areas to reflect modifications at this time. However, if in the future we revise and republish the FIRM panel affected by this LOMR, we will incorporate the previously described modifications at that time. The floodway is provided to your community as a tool to regulate floodplain development. Therefore, the floodway modifications described in this letter, while acceptable to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), must also be acceptable to your community and adopted by appropriate community action, as specified in Paragraph 60.3(d) of the National Flood Insurance Program 2 (NFIP) regulations. Please be aware that the placement of fill within the effective floodway prior to a floodway revision is a violation of your community's floodplain management ordinances and NFIP regulations. In the future, a floodway revision should be requested and approved by FEMA before the City allows development within the effective floodway. If a proposed floodway revision cannot be accomplished within the allowable surcharge limits, the requirements of Section 65.12 of the NFIP regulations must be fulfilled or the revision request will be denied by FEMA. This modification has been made pursuant to Section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234) and is in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (Title XIII of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, P.L. 90-448), 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 44 CFR, Part 65. As required by the legislation, a community must adopt and enforce floodplain management measures to ensure continued eligibility to participate in the NFIP. Therefore, your community must enforce these regulations using, at a minimum, the base (100-year) flood elevations, zone designations, and floodways in the Special Flood Hazard Areas shown on the FIRM for your community, including the previously described modification. This response to your request is based on minimum floodplain management criteria established under the NFIP. Your community is responsible for approving all proposed floodplain developments, including this request, and for ensuring that necessary permits required by Federal or State law have been received. With knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, State and community officials may set higher standards for construction, or may limit development in floodplain areas. If the State of Colorado or the City of Aspen has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP requirements. The community number and suffix code listed above will be used for all flood insurance policies and renewals issued for your community on and after the effective date listed above. The modifications described herein are effective as of the date of this letter. However, a review of the modifications and any requests for changes should be made within 30 days. Any request for reconsideration must be based on scientific or technical data. This LOMR will not be printed and distributed to primary map users such as local insurance agents and mortgage lenders; therefore, the community will serve as a repository for these new data. We encourage you to disseminate the information reflected by this LOMR widely throughout the community in order that interested persons such as property owners, insurance agents, and mortgage lenders may benefit from this information. We also encourage you to consider preparing an article for publication in the community's local newspaper that would describe the changes that have been made and the assistance the community will provide in serving as a clearinghouse for these data and interpreting NFIP maps. 3 If you have any questions regarding the modifications described herein, please call the Chief, Natural and Technological Hazards Division, FEMA, in Denver, Colorado, at (303) 235-4830, or Mrs. Cynthia M. Croxdale of my staff in Washington, D.C. , at (202) 646-3458. Sincerely, \!' 1 • Ji . Matticks Ch - , Risk Studies Division Federal Insurance Administration Enclosures cc: The Honorable Herschel Ross Chairman, Pitkin County Board of Commissioners Mr. Jim Gibbard Engineering Department, City of Aspen Mr. Jeffrey S. Simonson, P.E. Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. �.r��� 11 1rand Avenue, Suite 2-E / SCHMUESER GO. I MEYER INC.A-�� �, Gib,iwood Springs, Colorado 81601 ler F (303) 945-1004. (303)925-6501 /1111 '—■A! i Fax (303) 945-5948 May 29, 1990 WO*�� r, J Y VI�i�s� CONSULTING ENGINEERS&SURVEYORS/ • Mr. Jun I ibhard, Project Engineer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 i t tJ 0 1 RE: McLain Floodway Revision Floodway Revision Request Please let this letter serve as an official request for a floodway revision of the floodway location on the Roaring Fork River. The location on the Roaring Fork River for which the request is being made is (in referencing the City Floodplain work maps) between cross sec- tions 153 and 155. These cross sections also correspond to Sections AI and AK of the published report by FEMA entitled Flood Insurance Study for The City of Aspen, Colorado, Pitkin County. Further, these cross sections are also identified as cross sections ER and ET of the pub- lished report by FEMA entitled Flood Insurance Study for Pitkin County, Colorado, and Incorporated Areas. We have attached the supporting data to provide technical assistance in evaluating the request. We have also attached the FEMA correspondence of August 27, 1989, "Conditions and Criteria for Floodway Revisions". The supporting data attached for technical assistance follows: 1 . Hydraulic calculations inclusive of the FEMA model and the revised FEMA model (for new floodway) . 2. Existing information (FEMA) concerning the location of the revision: Panel 204 of 325 entitled Flood Insurance Rate Map, Pitkin County and Incorporated Areas, FEMA Profile, pages 11-P and 12-P from the City of Aspen, Colorado Flood Insurance Study and Table 3 "Floodway Data" from Pitkin County, Colorado, and Incorporated Areas Flood Lnsurance Study report dated June 4, 1987. 3. Revised FEMA mapping: Plan and profile of study area entitled McLain Floodplain Study "Roaring Fork River Plan and Profile" and under that, entitled McLain Floodplain Study "Cross Sections". In referencing the August 27, 1984, FEMA oorres ondence entitled (n��l t l�t�q ld Cr f er Fa for Fl ryr nv T expanding the effort on the floodway revision. Condition No. 1 identi- fies that the following conditions must he met: - 1. 1. Copy of Public Notice of intent to modify the floodway. - 1.2. A statement that the community has ratified, and obtained grovel from, any adversely impacted property owners or adjacent jurisdictions. impact. i May 29, 1990 Mr. Jim Gibbard, Project Engineer City of Aspen Page two • - 1.4. A copy of the notification of the floodway changes to the State (CWCB) . Condition No. 2 identifies an engineering analysis has been performed to substantiate that the revised floodway meets FEMA minimum standards as well as any state or community requirements. Condition No. 3 requires the following: - 3. 1. A copy of the printout for the original hydraulic computer model representing the 100 year flood profile run for condi- tions existing at the time the currently effective floodway was developed. The printout must include the full input and output listings. - 3.2. A copy of the printout for the original hydraulic computer model representing the floodway run for conditions under which the currently effective floodway was developed. The printout must include full input and output listings. - 3. 3. A copy of the printout from the hydraulic computer model repre- senting the new 100-year profile. The model should be the same as that used in item 3. 1, but modified to include any channel modifications, fill or other encroachment that may have occurred in the floodplain since the original floodplain was delineated. - 3.4. A copy of the printout from the hydraulic computer model repre- senting the floodway run for the proposed floodway, including channel modifications- and encroachments since the original floodway was established. The equal conveyance reduction method should be used to compute the revised floodway limits unless agreements have been made with affected property owners to utilize a different method. The printout must include full input and output listings with all input changes from the original model highlighted. The net effect of the channel modifications, the encroachments made subsequent to the establishment of the original floodway, and the new proposed floodway limits must rot increase the water surface elevation f_c16L ,..lJ. _ � I iL aJii i_ _., l� _ li computed in item 3. 3. - 3. 5. A copy of the revised data table representing data for the pro- posed floodway configuration. - 3. 6. One copy, of Lhe currently effective FriFm �howi_lr� Lhe existing floodway and one owy showing the proposed f'1,- 1437 con f iiur- May 29, 1990 Mr. Jim Gibbard, Project Engineer City of Aspen Page three - 3.7. Certification from a registered professional engineer that the physical parameters used in the proposed floodway delineations represent the actual conditions and that the standards con- tained in these "conditons and criteria" are met. - 3.8. If the basis for the proposed floodway revision is a channel modification, the completion of a dam, or any other structural measure, evidence is required to demonstrate that the design is adequate and that maintenance and operation provisions, where applicable, have been made. The submittal must indicate that the entity has maintenance responsibility and how maintenance will be accomplished. If maintenance is to be accomplished by agencies other than the community, a legal provision for com- munity monitoring and backup assistance is required. - 3.9. Documentation of approval of proposed floodway revision from the appropriate state agency for communities where the state regulates the floodway. - 3. 10 Documentation of any variation from condition 2 and/or condition 3 (this includes approval form the appropriate agencies asnd an explanation of the reason for variation) . In reviewing the information attached, you will note that the infor- mation by nature of its content will satisfy condition No. 2 and condition No. 3. Regarding condition No. 1, assistance is needed from the City to satisfy the conditions listed. For item 1. 1, a copy of the Public Notice for the Stream Margin review would have to be submitted. For item 1. 2, a letter must be received from the Colorado Water Conser- vation Board addressing this floodway change must be submitted. Item 1.3 is self-explanatory. Item 1.4, a copy of the notification of the floodway change to the Colorado Water Conservation Board must be submitted. Regarding the information we are submitting as it relates to the data required to support the request, it should be noted, and it can be observed from floodplain study, that we are not requesting the revision of the base flood elevations. Our request deals only with the horizontal location of the floodway/floodway fringe boundary between Sections 153 and 155. The approach to the work performed was to '. 0 1 �1 r1'Xde a i n ,IYA0 1•l ':h 1. base ;rxxiel up invesLicgaLe t_ e max multi location )r location of the floodway line. This maximum location of encroachment was modeled specifically at Section 154. In referencing the attached mapping entitled McLain Floodplain Study "Cross Sections" , it is observed that the floodway boundaries are coincident with the flood- plain boundaries. to essence, it appears that the f ioud,-gay Ln Ole original FE'+1A run was not: located to encroach the natural stream channel encroachment _real -d a May 29, 1990 Mr. Jim Gibbard, Project Engineer City of Aspen Page four surface elevation of one foot or less. You will note that at cross section 154, the proposed encroachment allows for a revised floodway location between the natural channel of the stream and the floodplain line itself. In essence, we are identifying an encroachment at cross section 154 of ten feet from the floodplain line. The result of this encroachment does not increase the base flood elevation at cross section 154, but the increase (or impact) is seen in the increase of mean velocity from 11.5 feet per second to 12.4 feet per second. We view this as not being an adverse impact because of the natural armouring of the streambed and the size of boulders along the stream bank through this area. In essence, we feel that the increase of velocities in the stream would not result in velocities high enough to promote erosion in the stream itself. In referencing the attached map entitled McLain Floodplain Study "Roaring Fork River Plan & Profile ( 100 scale map)", the proposed floodway location line is observed between cross sections 153 and 155. I trust this report is adequate in helping to obtain the floodway revision for this area between cross sections 153 and 155. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, •SCHMUESER CORDON MEYER, INC. A/PI ) 1 • Je e1S. Simonson, P.E. JSS:lec/8063 Enclosures • �s��Y MAN'C 'N8 esi 2;, Federal Emergency Management Agency ✓ 1111111�� ��� Washington, D.C. 20472 (202)646-3403 CERTIFIED MAIL IN REPLY REFER T0: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 65-ACK Mr. Jim Gibbard Date: SEP 2 0 1990 City of Aspen Case Number: 90-08-43P Engineering Department Re: Roaring Fork River 130 South Galena Street Community: City of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Colorado Dear Mr. Gibbard: This is to acknowledge acceptance of your request for a revision to the Flood Insurance Rate Map and/or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map for the referenced community. Our preacceptance review of the request indicates that we have the minimum data we need to begin our evaluation. If we need additional data to complete our evaluation, or if delays are encountered, we will notify you in writing within 30 days of the date of this letter. If you write to us about your request, please include the case number (shown above) in your letter. If you have any questions about the status of your revision request, please call Michael Baker, Jr. , Inc. , our Technical Evaluation Contractor, at (703) 838-0400, and ask for the Revisions Coordinator for your state. Sincerely, eAtfara:t-Q John L. Matticks Chief, Risk Studies Division Federal Insurance Administration cc: The Honorable Bill Sterling Mayor, City of Aspen G1" MA ygC , x6 Federal Emer enc Management Agency Y Z a � `\S. = ,,°IIIuhI ;C Washington, D.C. 20472 yo oI- (202)646-3403 CERTIFIED MAIL IN REPLY REFER T0: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 65-INTa Mr. Jim Gibbard Date: October 25, 1990 Engineering Department, Case Number: 90-08-43P City of Aspen Re: Roaring Fork River 130 South Galena Street Community: City of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Colorado Dear Mr. Gibbard: This is in regard to your letter dated June 29, 1990, in which you requested a revision to the Flood Insurance Rate Map and/or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map for the referenced community. Our letter to you dated September 20, 1990, stated that we were reviewing the data submitted in support of your request and, within 30 days of the date of that letter, would notify you if we needed additional data or encountered delays. However, with a letter dated October 19, 1990, from Mr. Brian M. Hyde, Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), we also received comments and concerns regarding the floodway revision along the Roaring Fork River at the McLain property, submitted by the CWCB. We will review the additional data and will inform you of our findings within 15 days of the date of this letter. If you write to us about your request, please include the case number (shown above) in your letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Mrs. Cynthia M. Croxdale of my staff in Washington, D.C. , at (202) 646-3458. Sincerely, Nt1"1041t4.12 John L. Matticks Chief, Risk Studies Division Federal Insurance Administration cc: The Honorable Bill Sterling Mayor, City of Aspen Mr. Brian R. Hyde Colorado Water Conservation Board i 61 54 78 t;i 7866\ E X\ ' at NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ►ROCRAM E" A FIRM ii,Footbridge \7875 EN ZONE X i 7878 Creso %�����'�, / FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP r Footbridge '9�ACC � ` I '' �, ti PITKIN COUNTY, ® ;�4, y Z �0 ' ( COLORADO AND 8 rP O E s a r� / INCORPORATED AREAS r X 7885 ::e 88 �� 7898 EEr 7905�/ I Iii ii,■a Nop ��/ `1►�1► o) ' PANEL 204 OF 325 kl / "�w..�C±.is t-.w.. ^ `� 7892 P \:' °f f 13 `� > '!�/ CONTAIN( 7894 MA, /�, ALENUE Footbridge ¢ i 2y' 7917 r COW UNIiY [OYMUNIiY I�M2l 1 hM N / JW I NA/At MIIYIFII MOMA SOMA Mq _ y,. C , ,/..7921 O it AWN CITY Or oloiu 0201 c MAIN COUNTY `q yEN i gyK2� + IIiij wIOCO.ron.rco.n.a aozu ono C VE ) y`-___s_tt 0 rf 1 7926 et W k CgLE /r 0 00 awl ., R ..f'- l �yN`E 7936 z' 7931� ` PO qN� , I �i 08097CO204 C � q� . //�o� I ^ .,_�� EFFECTIVE DATE: eNVe mr c l/ ,,:. .Z•,,.. ----) /,�,, ✓ JUNE 4, 1987- -- co, ZONE AE 82 `ate Wq tERS A 7942/ 9461 Federal Emergency Management Agency II ENVE ' 051 G� a ZO EX ® \ CITY OF ASPEN 080143 `a� - APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET RIVERSIDE ` 500 0 7956 9 00 L. F2 •,0 (, CENTENNIAL F CIRCLE ® /965 N { CRYSTAL LAKE / ROAD Salvation Canal r` 1,j9 ,.<t) Footbridge 1°' — 8 001 e IIMINEmmis - - --�/1 X982 Moloitimi ® 7991 " 0I 7990 ' .01161.1 '. I#' 7988 i 1 ' >. 1si�AREA REVISED Aga �,., - '�} �" 8014 ' f ,' �� 8019 REVISED TO 061 7` Foa b°d° 19 7 AONt ZONE X 4 ZONE X EFLECT LOMB A - m DATED NOV 15 1990 8021/ 8024 0 W tor. A CJ C) 0 0 0 r-1 01 0 o to O o 0 0 0 o n t0 W. to to d r� in n n I's C 4 C) • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • • I • • • • G? C Cu x 0 0 0 0 .4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 aawr 4 " LCD ® .1"..M. Z >1 0 A r♦ m n N N CV M N tD to m •d d t0 t0 m N N to M N N in to to !+.a:---. ®, Fi .0 3 1-I • • • • • • • • • • • . - C` H y •p ) r-1 d n re) m 01 0 � d M co o • t'1 sr d' uf1 in in t0 t0 • N • N� e "� 8 C1 to to n m m CO 01 ON 0 r-1 .-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ik4 3 _ 0\ 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 t ' ri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w W C� NNNN t. . . . co. . co mmmaocommmm mmm _ cn 0 ?, ....j ii.... 7 A ri m n 1/40 m N M n 10 in CO d CO 1/40 01 N to to O 01 r♦ n CO 01 01 FQ] 0 3 +) • • • • • . • • • • • • • • Lotsw C) r-1 V' Nmnm00 r'. a aMm V' vrin tntot0t0 '.0t0 Lila Lull l'ICC C4 4.) C) to to n co co co 01 01 0 rl r-{ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 •rt C4 01 01 0101 01 01 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ilmwo� W ri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C4 n n n n n n n n co co m co m co co co co co m co co co co co co CO 4 Q r-4 m n to CO N M n to U1 m �' m t0 01 N 10 to O 01 ra n CO 01 01 a+ i� • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • A C) r-1 d n M n CO 0 0 d M CO 0 0 (11 M d d d in to to to to to 10 r♦ C) in t0 n co co co 01 01 O r-4 r-1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 7 Cct ON 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Qt -i . . . . . . . . . . . . n . . . . . o O . . . . .n n n n n n n n m m m m cm m m m m cCm m m m m a A 1) A � a A 0 ,r,, °i c 01 0/ N 01 m 01 0 ON t0 CO CO 01 N n n n n N d M n d M d A 8 O • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 a. 4-4 d 0 N O 01 M M n to CO 01 tT 01 N N CO Mtn to u1 1/40 1/40 1/40 N , kAi N •r rl r-1 ri 4-1 r♦ Ike • 1 C) C) M yy 4J 5. C) "C k+ LE) rf M O t11 to CO d M M CO 01 1/40 M O1 1/40 N 01 CO n ri t0 d M d Jr , � '00mintnNN --imdmtninommmnNriNN m01m C C) NMMNm dddMMMNNdmtntntntnantoNMtoN A b . . - . 'C 114 -el H ' ri N N N 7 U W y V C) r-1 ..3 CT CO O d d in to 01 d CO 0 ri rl 0 01 ri M d M to 1/40 O d o o A '7 G) - t0 01 V. 0 CO 01 t0 CO CO 01 M M d 0 1/40 1/40 1/40 t0 n 01 co 1/40 0 0 � .� ill r .-4 ,..I V" :., d I 3 0 w ,-4 O d 4■ 0 tnoinin0inin0in a0 in inin00inininin oo 411 in0 -.4 C CO r-1 N 0 n 0 V' to 10 N to O to in in in n 0 in N 1/40 1--1 0 d in A 1/40 N O V' N 01 01 0 m r I ri m M d m M t11 t0 m r-1 ri t0 N O N •8 N in ■0 N n CO m m 01 at 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-♦ ri r-4 r♦ N N N M d d •ri 0 r-1 ,..1 .-4 r-4 ri .-1 ri ri ri N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P-4 rl ri ri r1 i ri 1-1 r-I i ri ri r-1 r-4 8-1 .-4 r-4 r-4 r-♦ r-1 1-1 r1 r-I .-♦ E 10 C) 1.4 0 W Z - C " 0 8 CI .o 0 W u Cv a)U) C 2 W W W W W W c W CQo. CWy Ctct CEtt W Cu W W W Cry W 2 W kar 0 CO A .� C) U gO C" 4) r4 36 HA. �,fi z , Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 CONDITIONS AND CRITERIA FOR FLOODWAY REVISIONS FOREWORD The National Flood Insurance Program makes flood insurance available to property owners in communities that adopt and enforce flood plain management measures to reduce future flood losses. The Program provides flood hazard maps and risk information on which local flood plain management measures are based. One aspect of a sound flood plain management program is the maintenance of a floodway area to assure that the elevations of future floods will not be increased significantly. The adoption of a floodway by a community preserves the necessary conveyance area for passage of the flood waters by restricting actions within the floodway which will result in any increase in flood elevation. After a floodway is adopted, a community may encounter a compelling need to change the configuration of their floodway and therefore request that the floodway map prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) be revised. The purpose of these conditions and criteria is to set forth the nature and extent of the material needed to support such a request. Compliance with the criteria described herein will allow FEMA to review the material and revise the floodway maps as appropriate in a timely manner. Ade A • rey S. Bragg Administrator Federal Insurance Administration FDA 8/27/8 4 • CONDITIONS AND CRITERIA FOR F OODWAT REVISIONS This document sets forth FEMA policy concerning requests for revising the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) prepared by FEMA for adoption by the community to regulate floodways in accordance with Title 44, Part 60.3(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations. A. FEMA Role in Establishing Floodways The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, Section 1361 authorized FEMA to carry out flood studies relating to encroachments and obstructions on stream channels and floodways. The purpose of the studies is to support state and local efforts to: (1) regulate the development of land which is exposed to flood damage, where appropriate, (2) guide proposed construction away from locations which are threatened by flood hazard, (3) assist in reducing damages caused by floods, and (4) otherwise improve the long-range land management and use of floodprone areas. The section is explicit in that FEMA shall work closely with, and provide necessary technical assistance to, state, interstate, and local government agencies in their efforts toward sound flood plain management. The FEMA role consists of establishing minimum standards and Providing information to state and local regulating agencies. Established criteria are contained in Part 60.3 (d) of Chapter 1, Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulation states that when FEMA has provided data from which a regulatory floodway shall be designated, the community shall select and adopt a regulatory floodway based on the principle that the area chosen for the regulatory floodway must carry the waters of the base flood (100-year) without increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than 1.0 foot at any point. However, the community may adopt a more restrictive floodway in which the surcharge limit is less than 1.0 foot. The FEMA role, therefore, is to provide data from which the community can formulate and adopt a floodway for regulatory purposes. From a practical standpoint, FEMA coordinates with communities during the data generation stage and prepares data on a single floodway delineation which reflects community input. Once a floodway is adopted by the community, FEMA continues to support the community in its efforts to enforce the floodway and provides copies of the maps to users. 1/7 FEMA 8/27/84 B. Definition and Purpose of Floodway The floodway is defined as the channel of a stream and any adjacent flood plain areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100-year flood without increasing flood heights by a specified amount. The purpose for establishing a floodway is to provide for the balancing of the competing uses of development against the resulting increase in flood hazards. FEMA has set a minimum standard, limiting the floodway width to that which will not result in an increase of the e than 1.0 foot. Several states have adopted requirements year flood by more increases to less than the FEMA minimum standard. which limit the state has adopted more stringent standards by In cases where the or regulation, FED computes Y legally enforceable statute mputes floodways based upon these standards. Once the floodway has been adopted, encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development within the adopted floodway that would result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge is prohibited. C. Floodway Revision - General Policies Within the criteria established by FEMA, many floodway configurations may be generated. However, once adopted by a community, a particular floodway configuration becomes administratively established, ouch the same as other community regulations. An adopted floodway represents a reasonable allocation of an area for the passage of flood waters and does not necessarily represent the minimum area required to meet the FEIN minimum standard. Once the floodway is adopted, the floodway boundaries • are intended to remain static. During a restudy, the existing floodway configuration should be checked to assure that it meets acceptable surcharge limits under present conditions. Where surcharge limits are exceeded, the floodway should be expanded. A floodway may be reduced in size if the discharges have been reduced as a result of a physical change, such as a diversion of the flow, or the construction of a dam or other major retention measures. A floodway may also be reduced as a result of stream modifications. Floodway changes should not be based on physical changes, unless it has been established that adequate maintenance has been provided to assure continuation of the structural effects. A further basis for a floodway revision is the desire by a community to respond to a social or economic need for development within a floodway. This need may be met by shifting the floodway hydraulic analysis, while maintaining Y boundaries, flood des, using capacity of the floodway. carrying After a floodway is established, development may occur in the fringe area (the area within the flood plain but outside the floodway) , ' but should not occur in the floodway unless it is shown that the development will not reduce the conveyance of the floodway. If it becomes necessary to 2n TEMA 8/27/84 revise the floodway, the original hydraulic model must be used to establish the base profile for the new encroachment analysis. The model would then be modified to include the in-place encroachment for the revised floodway runs. D. Community Floodway Map Revision Request The floodway designation is not 'appealable' to FEMA by individuals, since it is the community that selects and adopts the regulatory floodway. Thus, an individual should appeal the floodway designation to, or seek amendments from, the community. The community, in turn, may support the amendment and request FEMA to revise the original, FEMA- produced Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) . FEMA will review the _ request to ascertain that the following conditions are met before expending effort on the revision: Condition Number 1 The community must demonstrate that it is prepared to adopt the modified floodway and that all legal requirements will have been met before the floodway is revised. Before changes are made to community regulated areas, communities are required by the state - to follow certain administrative procedures. The request to FEMA needs to include evidence that appropriate procedures have been followed. Typical information to be submitted are as follows: 1.1 Copy of a public notice of the intent to modify the floodway. 1.2 A statement that the community has notified, and obtained approval from, any adversely impacted property owners or adjacent jurisdictions. 1.3 In lieu of the above, a statement that the change will result in no adverse impact. 1.4 A copy of the notification of the floodway change to the state. Condition Number 2 An engineering analysis has been performed to substantiate that the revised floodway meets FEMA minimum standards as well as any state or community requirements. Floodway revisions must be based on the hydraulic model used to develop the floodway currently in effect. The community should request, through the FEMA Regional Office, a copy of the input data used in the computer model for its effective Flood Insurance Study. Where the input data representing the original hydraulic model is unavailable, an approximation should be developed. A new model should be established using the original cross section topographic information, where possible, and the discharges contained in the Flood Insurance Study which established the original floodway. The model must use the same effective flow areas as established in the original analysis and be calibrated to 3/7 FEMA 8/27/84 reproduce the original base flood elevations within 0.1 foot. where reproduction of the original base flood elevations within 0.1 foot is not possible, or results in unsound engineering practices, the community should contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office for direction. After the model has been checked and matches the original base flood elevations, the model can be modified for new floodway runs. The analysis will be accomplished as specified for the following basis for revision: Discharge Decreases Floodways may be revised when a base flood discharge decreases as a result of structural improvements, such as the construction of a flood control dam or other significant retention facilities. Floodways should not be revised based on a computed discharge reduction which results from changed methodology or longer stream gage records, unless the change is statistically significant. The statistical significance criteria are discussed in Section 2-6 'Hydrologic Analyses" of FEMA's Guidelines and Specifications for Study Contractors (dated September 1982) . In cases where the statistical significance test does not apply, a determination by a state or Federal agency that the change is significant may be accepted as a basis for a floodway revision. If evident that the change is statistically significant, the original hydraulic model should be rerun, changing only the discharges. This will serve as the base run for the subsequent floodway encroachment runs. The floodway model should then be modified to include current conditions, as well as any encroachment that may have occurred since the original model was produced. The resulting floodway elevations must not exceed the base run elevations by more than 1.0 foot, or as specified by the state or community. Discharge Increases If watershed conditions have resulted in a significant increase in discharge, the original hydraulic model needs to be run with the increased discharges. The resulting base flood profile will serve as the base for the floodway runs. The floodway runs must include any encroachment that may have occurred since the delineation of the original floodway. Channel Modification The original model will be modified to include the channel modification, and any other encroachment occurring subsequent to the original floodway delineation. The resulting base flood profile will serve as the base for the floodway runs. The floodway runs must include any encroachment that may have occurred since the delineation of the original floodway. The resulting floodway elevations must not exceed the new base flood elevations or the original base flood elevations by more than 1.0 foot, or as specified by the state or community. 4/7 FEMA 8/27/84 Social or Economic Where it is desired to shift the floodway for social or economic reasons, the base flood elevations from the original model would serve as the base profile for the new floodway run. The model would then be modified to account for any encroachment in the flood plain since the original study. The new floodway limits are to be set in a manner which will not result in an increase to the original base flood elevation in excess of that permitted by FEMA or the state. Condition Number 3 Submittal includes technical data that enables FEMA to determine whether the floodway revision meets the FEMA minimum standard. Submittal must include the following: 3.1 A copy of the printout for the original hydraulic computer model _-representing the 100-year flood profile run for conditions existing at the time the currently effective floodway was developed. The printout must include full input and output listings. 3.2 A copy of the printout for the original hydraulic computer model representing the floodway run for conditions under which the currently effective floodway was developed. The printout must include full input and output listings. 3.3 A copy of the printout from the hydraulic computer model representing the new 100-year profile. The model should be the same as that used in item 3.1, but modified to include any channel modification, fill or other encroachment that may have occurred in the flood plain since the original floodway was delineated. 3.4 A copy of the printout from the hydraulic computer model representing the floodway run for the proposed floodway, including channel modifications and encroachments since the original floodway was established. The equal conveyance reduction method should be used to compute the revised floodway limits unless agreements have been made with affected property owners to utilize a different method. The printout must include full input and output listings with all input changes from the original model highlighted. The net effect of the channel modifications, the encroachments made subsequent to the establishment of the original floodway, and the new proposed floodway limits must not increase the water surface elevation by more than 1.0 foot above that computed in item 3. 1, and also must not exceed 1.0 foot above the new 100-year elevations computed in item 3.3. 3.5 A copy of the revised Floodway Data Table representing data for the proposed floodway configuration. 3.6 One copy of the currently effective FBFM showing the existing floodway and one copy showing the proposed floodway configurations. 5/7 FEMA 8/27/84 3.7 Certification from a registered professional engineer that the physical parameters used in the proposed floodway delineation represent actual conditions and that the standards contained in these "Conditions and Criteria" are met. 3.8 If the basis for the proposed floodway revision is. a channel modification, the completion of a dam, or any other structural measure, evidence is required to demonstrate the design is adequate, and that maintenance and operation provisions, where applicable, have been made. The submittal must indicate what entity has maintenance responsibility and how maintenance will be accomplished. If maintenance is to be accomplished by agencies other than the community, a legal provision for community monitoring and back-up assistance is required. 3.9 Documentation of approval of the proposed floodway revision from the appropriate state agency for communities where the state regulates the floodway. 3.10 Documentation of any variation from Condition 2 and/or Condition 3. This includes approval from the appropriate agencies and an explanation of the reason for variation. E. FEMA Response to Floodway Revision Request FEMA will review a community's request for a floodway map revision. It is recognized that while the floodway is adopted by a community, Flood Insurance Study users other than the community may request copies of the floodway delineations. Therefore, in support of the community and other users, FEMA maintains a system for distributing floodway information and revising delineations as the need arises. When the revision is considered to be significant, FEMA will revise floodway maps and distribute them to recognized users. Significant floodway revisions are identified based on the size of area, as well as the number of interests affected by the revision. FEMA will respond to a request from the community for a floodway revision by one of the following means: (1) Reprinting the affected FBFM panels with corresponding map revised dates. The panels will be accompanied by a revised index panel showing the most up-to-date floodway panels maintained at FEMA. Copies of the revised floodway panels will be sent to previous recipients of the floodway maps. A revised Flood Insurance Study report will accompany the floodway maps. Included in the report will be a description of the revision and revised Floodway Data Tables. (2) Send one copy of the FBFM designating the approved floodway revision to the community, and a letter of floodway revision stating that the review of the submitted material has resulted in the determination that FEMA minimum requirements have been met but a reprinting of the FBFM is not warranted at this time. The 6/7 FEMA 8/27/84 . material, including the copy of the FBFM showing the revised floodway, will be filed for incorporation at a later time into a floodway map revision. The approved FBFM revision copies will be dated. Since it is possible that FEMA has responded to a floodway revision request in this manner, all Flood Insurance Study users are encouraged to contact the community before proceeding with plans for development within the flood fringe areas or near floodways. (3) Send a letter to the community stating that the submittal material is incomplete and/or that the revised floodway does not meet FEMA minimum criteria. F. Submittal of Material Submit material to the FEMA Regional Office. The Regional Office will review material for completeness, concur with the proposed changes, approve any maintenance ordinances, and forward the necessary material to the FEMA Central office. FEMA Central will review the hydrologic/hydraulic back-up material, engineering design, and any plans of operation and maintenance (where appropriate) , request additional revisions or corrections as necessary, then respond to the community by means of the appropriate action defined under Section E above. G. To obtain further information on the conditions and criteria for floodway revisions, communities are encouraged to contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office or FEMA Central in Washington, D.C. at (202) 646-2767, prior to the request for a floodway revision. • 7/7 FEMA 8/27/84