HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 1989-90 Stream Margin ApprovalCASELOAD 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:
Exhibit 12
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-ystabl 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 a1
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
a2 :,..
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 81601July26, 1988 Isar_raze
a l 003) 945-1004
r 1MUD,, rr, EXHIBIT-ENUSIEMi:-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. Iwantedtosummarizefortherecord, on behalf of our client, some ofthepreliminaryconclusionsIreachedwithrespecttothefillplace-ment situation.
I was unable to resolve further the relationship between the date oftheFEMAstudyandthedateofcompletionoftheworkasindicatedbythebuildingpermit. I tried my best to get some sort of feedback fLomeitherthestateorfederalauthoritiesonthe "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 Idid, it does not appear we are going to get any concrete answers fromtheseauthorities. In order to try defining preliminarily the effectthefillwouldhaveonthefloodplain, we performed some quick Manningsequationcalculations. It appears that the effect of the fill is smallenoughthattheManningsequationwillreallynotbesensistivetoanycalculatedchanges. I would anticipate that a more rigorous 11EC-IIanalysismightshowacalculatedeffectofseveralhundrethsofafootand, 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 atthislocation, the streambed has a very significant carrying capacityanditshouldbeexpectedthatsmallchangesinrivercrosssectidnwillnotbereflectedinsignificantdifferencesinhydrauliccalculations.
In turn, removal of any materials in the river will have little, ifany, effect on the theoretical carrying capacity on the floodplainelevationoftheriverinthislocation.
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) 945-1004unosa
WHIM, ri EXHIBIT-Eat., 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. Iwantedtosummarizefortherecord, 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 bythebuildingpermit. I tried my best to get some sort of feedback fLo,ueitherthestateorfederalauthoritiesonthe "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 Idid, it does not appear we are going to,ng get any concrete answers, fromtheseauthorities. In, order to try defining, preliminarily the effectthefillwouldhave' 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 anycalculatedchanges.. I would, anticipate that a more rigorous HEC-II
analysis might show a 'calculated effect of several hundreths of a footand, 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 atthislocation, the streambed: has a very significant carryinganditshouldbeexpectedn9 capacitypected: that small changes in river cross sectionwillnotbereflectedinsignificantdifferencesinhydrauliccalculations.
In turn, removal of any materials in the river will have little, ifany, 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 cnt_ainspapproxtima=tel 2 455quare 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 floon .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 unt.ionk,. -.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, - of1
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 enclosedat-the-~rearof 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."
14 /
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 relocationservayp
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-trt. 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•g5Recordedat_. 32 ._Ø......o'clock..J'IA
ri¢.
7Li1>e Mane,
Reception No.»_..»._..._.»:2.w... .._... Rev) EXHIBIT' B
4,t7
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 dadasthe 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 DRegularMeeting1973
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) 945-1004July26, 1988 galna aXii EXHIBITEw11111114/ 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 1Ms1R1JANLL
ne
i... SACRAMENTO.CALIFORNIA 95814-4794
CitY rJ WeerREPLYTO
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.
iy 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$10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years,or both.
Do not send a permit processing fee with this application. The appropriate fee will be assessed when a permit is issued.
7861 Y
Z"'E X
i
4 1 r„ . 7866 .\
NATI6ilAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
1+ r t/ a4
r „e g" .a,z:'
ER '
i ?
v 1.r' i> Il ilf '
1? FIRM
1.e l iE
Footo,aye
A`
7875
l C',
T\
i
EN ZC1NE X t ..--7878 •,es o
nti /
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
v 1
bfiM
7 fl O
y VA
Footoridge C,
t•
lt-
y;: R' " y , y s,,,
V i! PITKIN COUNTY,
iif
c
11,
111
WI COLORADO ANDr` , `' / i INCORPORATED AREASY '(,'
ZONE
SrR ,IfXa.7=-—,.,/ 2
7898er ` 7905 l'
7885 P I IQeIill
FN®
4,,:iir .-'e: y / " ®
III 1
PANEL 204 OF 325
NS w, -
7892 7913
7894
I , ------ 1 ill twM*
7094 W
4`'f~bE Footbridge 7917,, II - c• twre•m run
11..'44 N ci 7921 I} .>
n.a,.o< R«.... C
r ATM nwm..
z
r0 f ,??'
Q?
ZZ. ®
i,:
i s. - 4y c,,,, 1 1 S
T' "°
MK Ai .:.rmr....m•.....c
0
4t. N f tv. fNV I
ooPER o WI 7926 f ;
II
IW
I III J
fN V
RqN
z ,, 7936
7931 ,
1 I a, I 08097CO204 C
1
q
I 4-,, EFFECTIVE DATE:
NV m/ 1.... 7'\ JUNE 4, 1981
in
ZONE :-E''' ''
2
14 TE's 7942/ N
i Federal Etner°ency Management Ajen\
ZO EX \ Q IM
CITY OF ASPEN .
Od0147
9-‘
4 f...
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0 5007956
RIVER510E
0 500
1- CENTENNIAL
n CIRCLE
1966
y CRYSTAL LAKE
Salvation (analI.ROAD
9 1c Footbridge
1 00 t till
i X982
7991
7990
7988 s w
AREA REVISED g$
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
1rI. . . . . . . . . . . . + CZrr177iGahNNhhr- 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 OQ703iJ
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 LCI4-1 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 7Hyy
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
L0Y
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
Iblhart
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 yi1r:(i 1/ rte ' 1 l 1 t+. J
K vAr
r, : FT.
O 00
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
y1.
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
oo
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.,...
rcam
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
JJ
sr
4,•A
C r r
rvrl
f =
v........._.„„..z,.......................„....•
J..:.
E
at
v . '. . .
7 ri ^,-' ' •.,, i. ib '`y ,Vi + t z.,
Y-''!. s'•° fi::"''^ -.N4,,-....
1.......:-,-..,-,-...--.),:
Y- ..^ 4J. t Y I,`t C
1 Ty
L ..~ V•n J ..
S..
i fiI .-!.
4...,1
f r 0• 4-.J
f i j- I f p rJ sr
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 RomerOctober19 , 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 floodwaybutnotthe100-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
lerF 303) 945-1004. (303)925-6501
1111 '—A! i Fax (303) 945-5948
May 29, 1990
WO* r, JYVIis CONSULTING ENGINEERS&SURVEYORS/
Mr. Jun I ibhard, Project Engineer
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611 i ttJ 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
N8esi 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 AgencyYZa
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 FIRMii,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 AREASr
X 7885 ::e88 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 SOMAMq
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 CgLEr
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 051G
aZOEX
CITY OF ASPEN
080143
a -APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
RIVERSIDE
500 07956
9 00
L.
F2 0
CENTENNIAL
F CIRCLE
965
N CRYSTAL LAKE
ROAD Salvation Canal
r`
1,
j9 t) Footbridge
1°' 8 001 eIIMINEmmis1X982Moloitimi
7991
0I7990
01161.1 '.
I#' 7988 i 1 ' >. 1si
AREA REVISED Aga
8014 '
f ,' 8019REVISEDTO
061
7`
Foa b°d°19
7 AONt ZONE X
4
ZONE X EFLECT LOMB A -m
DATED NOV 15 1990
8021/
8024
0
Wtor.ACJ
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
4LCD1"..
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
riC4
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
4Q
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
A1)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
rIke
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
UWy
VC)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
0w
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
ri0
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 .-
E10C)1.
4
0
W
Z
C
0
8
CI
o0
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
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 topropertyownersincommunitiesthatadoptandenforcefloodplainmanagementmeasurestoreducefuturefloodlosses. The Program provides flood hazardmapsandriskinformationonwhichlocalfloodplainmanagementmeasuresarebased.
One aspect of a sound flood plain management program is the maintenance of afloodwayareatoassurethattheelevationsoffuturefloodswillnotbeincreasedsignificantly. The adoption of a floodway by a community preservesthenecessaryconveyanceareaforpassageofthefloodwatersbyrestrictingactionswithinthefloodwaywhichwillresultinanyincreaseinfloodelevation.
After a floodway is adopted, a community may encounter a compelling need tochangetheconfigurationoftheirfloodwayandthereforerequestthatthefloodwaymappreparedbytheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency (FEMA) berevised. The purpose of these conditions and criteria is to set forth thenatureandextentofthematerialneededtosupportsucharequest.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 theFloodBoundaryandFloodwayMap (FBFM) prepared by FEMA for adoption by thecommunitytoregulatefloodwaysinaccordancewithTitle44, Part 60.3(d) oftheCodeofFederalRegulations.
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 onstreamchannelsandfloodways. The purpose of the studies is to supportstateandlocaleffortsto:
1) regulate the development of land which is exposed to flood damage,
where appropriate,
2) guide proposed construction away from locations which are threatenedbyfloodhazard,
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 Providinginformationtostateandlocalregulatingagencies. 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 thewatersofthebaseflood (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 canformulateandadoptafloodwayforregulatorypurposes. 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 floodwayandprovidescopiesofthemapstousers.
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 floodplainareasthatmustbereservedinordertodischargethe100-yearfloodwithoutincreasingfloodheightsbyaspecifiedamount. Thepurposeforestablishingafloodwayistoprovideforthebalancingofthecompetingusesofdevelopmentagainsttheresultingincreaseinfloodhazards. FEMA has set a minimum standard, limiting the floodway width tothatwhichwillnotresultinanincreaseoftheethan1.0 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 statutemputesfloodwaysbaseduponthesestandards. Oncethefloodwayhasbeenadopted, encroachments, including fill, newconstruction, substantial improvements, and other development within theadoptedfloodwaythatwouldresultinanyincreaseinfloodlevelswithinthecommunityduringtheoccurrenceofthebaseflooddischargeisprohibited.
C. Floodway Revision - General Policies
Within the criteria established by FEMA, many floodway configurations maybegenerated. However, once adopted by a community, a particularfloodwayconfigurationbecomesadministrativelyestablished, ouch thesameasothercommunityregulations. An adopted floodway represents areasonableallocationofanareaforthepassageoffloodwatersanddoesnotnecessarilyrepresenttheminimumarearequiredtomeettheFEINminimumstandard. Once the floodway is adopted, the floodway boundariesareintendedtoremainstatic.
During a restudy, the existing floodway configuration should be checkedtoassurethatitmeetsacceptablesurchargelimitsunderpresentconditions. Where surcharge limits are exceeded, the floodway should beexpanded.
A floodway may be reduced in size if the discharges have been reduced asaresultofaphysicalchange, such as a diversion of the flow, or theconstructionofadamorothermajorretentionmeasures. A floodway mayalsobereducedasaresultofstreammodifications. Floodway changesshouldnotbebasedonphysicalchanges, unless it has been establishedthatadequatemaintenancehasbeenprovidedtoassurecontinuationofthestructuraleffects.
A further basis for a floodway revision is the desire by a community torespondtoasocialoreconomicneedfordevelopmentwithinafloodway.This need may be met by shifting the floodwayhydraulicanalysis, while maintaining
Y boundaries,
flood
des,
using
capacity of the floodway. carrying
After a floodway is established, development may occur in the fringe areatheareawithinthefloodplainbutoutsidethefloodway) , ' but shouldnotoccurinthefloodwayunlessitisshownthatthedevelopmentwillnotreducetheconveyanceofthefloodway. 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 therevisedfloodwayruns.
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 regulatoryfloodway. Thus, an individual should appeal the floodway designation to,
or seek amendments from, the community. The community, in turn, maysupporttheamendmentandrequestFEMAtorevisetheoriginal, 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 developthefloodwaycurrentlyineffect. 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 effectiveflowareasasestablishedintheoriginalanalysisandbecalibratedto
3/7 FEMA 8/27/84
reproduce the original base flood elevations within 0.1 foot. wherereproductionoftheoriginalbasefloodelevationswithin0.1 foot is notpossible, or results in unsound engineering practices, the communityshouldcontacttheappropriateFEMARegionalOfficefordirection.
After the model has been checked and matches the original base floodelevations, the model can be modified for new floodway runs. Theanalysiswillbeaccomplishedasspecifiedforthefollowingbasisforrevision:
Discharge Decreases
Floodways may be revised when a base flood discharge decreases as aresultofstructuralimprovements, such as the construction of a floodcontroldamorothersignificantretentionfacilities. Floodways shouldnotberevisedbasedonacomputeddischargereductionwhichresultsfromchangedmethodologyorlongerstreamgagerecords, unless the change isstatisticallysignificant. The statistical significance criteria arediscussedinSection2-6 'Hydrologic Analyses" of FEMA's Guidelines andSpecificationsforStudyContractors (dated September 1982) . In caseswherethestatisticalsignificancetestdoesnotapply, a determinationbyastateorFederalagencythatthechangeissignificantmaybeacceptedasabasisforafloodwayrevision. If evident that the changeisstatisticallysignificant, the original hydraulic model should bererun, changing only the discharges. This will serve as the base run forthesubsequentfloodwayencroachmentruns. The floodway model shouldthenbemodifiedtoincludecurrentconditions, as well as anyencroachmentthatmayhaveoccurredsincetheoriginalmodelwasproduced. The resulting floodway elevations must not exceed the base runelevationsbymorethan1.0 foot, or as specified by the state orcommunity.
Discharge Increases
If watershed conditions have resulted in a significant increase indischarge, the original hydraulic model needs to be run with theincreaseddischarges. The resulting base flood profile will serve as thebaseforthefloodwayruns. The floodway runs must include anyencroachmentthatmayhaveoccurredsincethedelineationoftheoriginalfloodway.
Channel Modification
The original model will be modified to include the channel modification,
and any other encroachment occurring subsequent to the original floodwaydelineation. The resulting base flood profile will serve as the base forthefloodwayruns. The floodway runs must include any encroachment thatmayhaveoccurredsincethedelineationoftheoriginalfloodway. Theresultingfloodwayelevationsmustnotexceedthenewbasefloodelevationsortheoriginalbasefloodelevationsbymorethan1.0 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 baseprofileforthenewfloodwayrun. The model would then be modified toaccountforanyencroachmentinthefloodplainsincetheoriginalstudy.The new floodway limits are to be set in a manner which will not resultinanincreasetotheoriginalbasefloodelevationinexcessofthatpermittedbyFEMAorthestate.
Condition Number 3
Submittal includes technical data that enables FEMA to determine whetherthefloodwayrevisionmeetstheFEMAminimumstandard. Submittal mustincludethefollowing:
3.1 A copy of the printout for the original hydraulic computer model
representing the 100-year flood profile run for conditions existingatthetimethecurrentlyeffectivefloodwaywasdeveloped. The
printout must include full input and output listings.
3.2 A copy of the printout for the original hydraulic computer modelrepresentingthefloodwayrunforconditionsunderwhichthecurrentlyeffectivefloodwaywasdeveloped. The printout mustincludefullinputandoutputlistings.
3.3 A copy of the printout from the hydraulic computer modelrepresentingthenew100-year profile. The model should be thesameasthatusedinitem3.1, but modified to include any channelmodification, 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 modelrepresentingthefloodwayrunfortheproposedfloodway, including
channel modifications and encroachments since the original floodwaywasestablished. The equal conveyance reduction method should be
used to compute the revised floodway limits unless agreements havebeenmadewithaffectedpropertyownerstoutilizeadifferentmethod. The printout must include full input and output listingswithallinputchangesfromtheoriginalmodelhighlighted. Theneteffectofthechannelmodifications, the encroachments made
subsequent to the establishment of the original floodway, and thenewproposedfloodwaylimitsmustnotincreasethewatersurfaceelevationbymorethan1.0 foot above that computed in item 3. 1,
and also must not exceed 1.0 foot above the new 100-year elevationscomputedinitem3.3.
3.5 A copy of the revised Floodway Data Table representing data for theproposedfloodwayconfiguration.
3.6 One copy of the currently effective FBFM showing the existingfloodwayandonecopyshowingtheproposedfloodwayconfigurations.
5/7 FEMA 8/27/84
3.7 Certification from a registered professional engineer that thephysicalparametersusedintheproposedfloodwaydelineationrepresentactualconditionsandthatthestandardscontainedinthese "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 structuralmeasure, evidence is required to demonstrate the design isadequate, and that maintenance and operation provisions, whereapplicable, have been made. The submittal must indicate whatentityhasmaintenanceresponsibilityandhowmaintenancewillbeaccomplished. If maintenance is to be accomplished by agenciesotherthanthecommunity, a legal provision for communitymonitoringandback-up assistance is required.
3.9 Documentation of approval of the proposed floodway revision fromtheappropriatestateagencyforcommunitieswherethestate
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. Itisrecognizedthatwhilethefloodwayisadoptedbyacommunity, Flood
Insurance Study users other than the community may request copies of thefloodwaydelineations. Therefore, in support of the community and otherusers, 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 anddistributethemtorecognizedusers. Significant floodway revisions areidentifiedbasedonthesizeofarea, as well as the number of interests
affected by the revision.
FEMA will respond to a request from the community for a floodway revisionbyoneofthefollowingmeans:
1) Reprinting the affected FBFM panels with corresponding map reviseddates. 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 Studyreportwillaccompanythefloodwaymaps. Included in the report
will be a description of the revision and revised Floodway DataTables.
2) Send one copy of the FBFM designating the approved floodwayrevisiontothecommunity, 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 butareprintingoftheFBFMisnotwarrantedatthistime. The
6/7 FEMA 8/27/84
material, including the copy of the FBFM showing the revisedfloodway, will be filed for incorporation at a later time into afloodwaymaprevision. The approved FBFM revision copies will bedated. Since it is possible that FEMA has responded to a floodwayrevisionrequestinthismanner, all Flood Insurance Study usersareencouragedtocontactthecommunitybeforeproceedingwithplansfordevelopmentwithinthefloodfringeareasornearfloodways.
3) Send a letter to the community stating that the submittal materialisincompleteand/or that the revised floodway does not meet FEMAminimumcriteria.
F. Submittal of Material
Submit material to the FEMA Regional Office. The Regional Office willreviewmaterialforcompleteness, concur with the proposed changes,approve any maintenance ordinances, and forward the necessary material totheFEMACentraloffice.
FEMA Central will review the hydrologic/hydraulic back-up material,engineering design, and any plans of operation and maintenance (whereappropriate) , request additional revisions or corrections as necessary,then respond to the community by means of the appropriate action definedunderSectionEabove.
G. To obtain further information on the conditions and criteria for floodwayrevisions, communities are encouraged to contact the appropriate FEMARegionalOfficeorFEMACentralinWashington, D.C. at (202) 646-2767,
prior to the request for a floodway revision.
7/7 FEMA 8/27/84
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 1
Chapter 26.410
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
Sections:
26.410.010 General
26.410.020 Procedures for review
26.410.030 Single-family & duplex standards
26.410.040 Multi-family standards
26.410.050 Appeals
26.410.010. General
A.Intent. The City’s Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between
residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve
historic neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do
require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape.
The Residential Design Standards are intended to achieve the following objectives:
1.Connect to the Street. Establish a visual and/or physical connection between residences and
streets and other public areas. The area between the street and the front of a residential building
is a transition between the public realm of the neighborhood and the private realm of a dwelling.
This transition can strongly impact the human experience of the street. Improve the street
experience for pedestrians and vehicles by establishing physical and visual relationships
between streets, and residential buildings located along streets. Porches, walkways from front
entries to the street, and prominent windows that face the street are examples of elements that
connect to the street.
2.Respond to Neighboring Properties. Reduce perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings
from all sides. Encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and
scale. Create a sense of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape.
Providing offsets or changes of plane in the building facades or reducing the height near side
lot lines are examples of responding to neighboring properties.
3.Reflect Traditional Building Scale. Retain scale and proportions in building design that are in
keeping with Aspen’s historic architectural tradition, while also encouraging design flexibility.
Reinforce the unique character of Aspen by drawing upon the City’s vernacular architecture
and neighborhood characteristics in the design of structures. Encourage creative and
contemporary architecture, but at a scale that respects historic design traditions. Ensure that
residential structures respond to “human-scale” in their design. Ensure that residential
structures do not visually overwhelm or overshadow streets. Windows that are similar in size
to those seen in historic Aspen architecture or limiting the height of a porch to be in line with
the first story of a building are examples of reflecting traditional building scale.
Attachment B : Residential Design Standards
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 2
B. Applicability. Except as outlined in Section 26.410.010.C, Exemptions, this Chapter applies to all
residential development in the City, except for residential development within the R-15B zone district.
Specific applicability for each standard is identified within each standard.
C. Exemptions. No residential development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter
unless the Community Development Director determines that the proposed development:
1. Is an addition or remodel to an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the
building; or
2. Is a remodel of a structure where the alterations proposed change the exterior of the building,
but are not addressed by any of the residential design standards; or
3. Is a residential unit within a mixed-use building; or
4. Is a designated historic resource listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures. New buildings on a historic landmark lot are not exempt.
D. Remodels. Where work is proposed on any element of an existing building that is addressed by the
Residential Design Standards and that is not in compliance with the Standards, the property owner shall
make a reasonable effort to bring that element into compliance. The Community Development Director
may grant exceptions for remodels that would require significant additional work above and beyond
the scope of the remodel in order to ensure that all features are brought into compliance.
For example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a porch structure that is currently smaller
than the minimum square footage required by the Residential Design Standards. If the porch is being
replaced with a new porch, the new porch will be required to meet the minimum size requirements in
the Residential Design Standards. If only the porch posts are being replaced, the existing porch may
remain without needing a variation even though it does not meet the minimum size requirements in the
Residential Design Standards.
As a second example, consider a remodel involving modifications to a non-orthogonal window where
the maximum number of non-orthogonal windows allowed by the Residential Design Standards is
exceeded. If the window is being moved to a new location or the size or shape of the window is being
changed, the new window will be required to meet the non-orthogonal window limit in the Residential
Design Standards. If the modifications to the window are being made in place and do not expand or
change the size or shape, the existing nonconforming non-orthogonal window may remain without
needing a variation even though it exceeds the maximum number of non-orthogonal windows allowed
by the Residential Design Standards.
E. Definitions. Unless otherwise indicated, the definitions of words used in these regulations shall be
the same as the definitions used in Chapter 26.104 of the Land Use Code. In ad dition, the following
definitions shall apply:
Curvilinear Lot. A lot in which a curve comprises 50% or more of the total length of the front lot
line.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 3
Façade. An exterior face of a building. It can be applied to any side. Projections, such as open porches,
are not considered a façade.
Front Façade. The street-facing exterior face of a building that contains the primary building entry.
The front façade may include multiple wall planes that make up the front face of the building. See
Figure 1.
Figure 1
Street-Facing Façade. Any side of a building that faces a street. A street -facing façade may refer to
multiple wall planes on a building face that face the street or right-of-way. See Figure 2.
Figure 2
Front-Most Wall. The wall of the front façade of a building that is closest to the street or right-of-way.
See Figure 3.
Figure 3
Front-Most Element. The front most building feature associated with a primary building or garage.
In many cases, this element may be located forward of the front façade, such as an open front po rch or
projecting garage overhang. See Figure 4.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 4
Figure 4
Non-orthogonal Window. A window with an opening that is not rectangular in nature and does not
possess right angles at each of its four corners and vertical or horizontal orientation of all edges.
One Story. A portion of a building between the surface of the finished floor and the ceiling
immediately above; or the wall plate height where no additional stories are located above. One story
shall not exceed 10 feet for purposes of the Residential Design Standards.
Open Front Porch. A porch on the front façade of a building that is open on at least two (2) sides,
one of which faces the street. Open shall mean no element of enclosure, except screens.
Street. A way or thoroughfare, other than an alley, containing a public access easement and used or
intended for vehicular traffic. The term street shall include the entire area within a right-of-way. For
the purpose of Chapter 26.410, street shall also include private streets and vehicular access easements
serving more than one (1) parcel. Streets shall not include public or private trails.
26.410.020. Procedures for Review
A. Determination of Applicability. The applicant may request a preliminary Residential Design
Standards pre-application conference with Community Development Department staff to determine the
applicability of the requirements of this chapter for the proposed development.
B. Administrative Review. Consistency with the Residential Design Standards shall be determined
administratively, unless a variation is requested. The Administrative Review process will result in a
determination of approval or denial for compliance with the Residential Design Standards.
All projects will be reviewed for compliance with the Flexible and Non-flexible Standards contained
within the Residential Design Standards. Flexible and Non-flexible Standards are defined as follows:
1. Flexible Standards. Flexible Standards are standards for which additional flexibility around the
specific requirements of a standard may be granted administratively. If an application is found
to be inconsistent with any of the Flexible Standards, but meets the overall intent of the standard
as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3, Alternative Compliance
may be granted. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with
conditions, or deny Alternative Compliance. If an application does not meet the overall intent
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 5
of a Flexible Standard, the applicant may either amend their proposal or seek a variation,
pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations.
2. Non-flexible Standards. Non-flexible Standards are those standards that shall be met by all
projects subject to the Residential Design Standards, with no Alternative Compliance permitted,
unless otherwise stated in this chapter. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any of
the Non-flexible Standards as written, the applicant may either amend their proposal or seek a
variation, pursuant to Section 26.410.020.C, Variations.
C. Variations. Any application that does not receive Administrative Review approval described above
may apply for a variation, pursuant to Section 26.304.030, Common Development Procedures. An
applicant may also choose to apply directly for a variation if desired. The Planning & Zoning
Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, during a duly noticed public hearing, shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny an application for variation, based on the standards of review in
Section 26.410.020.D, Variation Review Standards. A variation from the Residential Design Standards
does not grant an approval to vary other standards of this Chapter that may be provided by another
decision-making body. The review process is as follows:
Step One – Public Hearing before Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation
Commission.
1. Purpose: To determine if the application meets the review standards for Residential Design
Standard variation.
2. Process: The Community Development Director shall provide the Planning and Zoning
Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, with a recommendation to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, based on the standards of review.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission if the property is
designated or is located within a historic district, shall approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the application after considering the recommendation of the Community Development
Director and comments and testimony from the public at a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Standards of review: The proposal shall comply with the review standards of Section
26.410.020.D, Variation Review Standards.
4. Form of decision: The decision shall be by resolution.
5. Notice requirements: Posting, Mailing and Publication pursuant to Subparagraph
26.304.060.E.3.a), b) and c).
D. Variation Review Standards. An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design
Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would:
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated
in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section
26.410.010.A.1-3; or
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 6
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
26.410.030. Single-family & duplex standards
A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all
single-family and duplex development.
B. Location and Massing.
1. Articulation of Building Mass (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a
property as viewed from all sides. Designs should promote light and air access between
adjacent properties. Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to
break up large expansive wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulati on
that convey forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings. This
standard is critical in the Infill Area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys
and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent. Designs should change the plane of a
building’s sidewall, step a primary building’s height down to one-story in the rear portion
or limit the overall depth of the structure.
c) Standard. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and
create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential
buildings.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Maximum Sidewall Depth. A principal building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet
in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. An
accessory building that is completely separated from the main building is permitted.
Garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for an
accessory building. See Figure 5.
Figure 5
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 7
(2) Off-set with One-Story Ground Level Connector. A principal building shall provide a
portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The
connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least
an additional five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The
connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth, as
measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. Accessible
outdoor space over the connecting element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be
covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a connecting
element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and
building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. See Figure
6.
Figure 6
(3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. A principal building shall provide
increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal building is two stories,
it shall step down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step
down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front-most
wall toward the rear wall. The increased side setbacks shall be at least five (5) feet
greater than the side setbacks at the front of the building. See Figure 7.
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 8
Figure 7
2. Building Orientation (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and streets to create
an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding
neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges physically or
visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a component of the
streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Building
orientation should provide a sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings
and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas of the city, but is particularly
important in the Infill Area where there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to
the street. Designs should prioritize the visibility of the front façade from the street by
designing the majority of the front façade to be parallel to the street or prominently visible
from the street. Front facades, porches, driveways, windows, and doors can all be designed
to have a strong and direct relationship to the street.
c) Standard. The front façade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is
located.
d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front façade
of a building shall be parallel to the street. On a
corner lot, both street-facing façades of a building
shall be parallel to each street. See Figure 8.
(2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front
façade of a building shall face the street. On a corner
Figure 8
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 9
lot, one street-facing façade shall face each intersecting street. See Figure 8.
The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot
characteristics:
3. Build-to Requirement (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of 25 feet or greater.
(2) Lots that are curvilinear.
(3) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a consistent physical pattern of front façades close
to and parallel to streets in order to frame the street. The placement of buildings should
respond to the street by framing street edges physically. Buildings should be located to
provide a strong physical presence and integration within the streetscape, which consists of
the street itself and the buildings that surround it. This standard is most important in the
Infill Area where a strong pattern of smaller front setbacks and consistent building
orientation exists. Designs should maximize the amount of the front façade that is close to
the street while still providing articulation and expressing a human scale. Porches, front
façade walls, rooflines and other elements can all contribute to framing the street.
c) Standard. At least sixty percent (60%) of the front
façade of a principal building shall be within five
(5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line.
On a corner lot, this standard shall be met on at
least one (1) of the two intersecting streets. A
front porch may be used to meet this requirement.
See Figure 9.
4. One-story Element (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish human scale building features as perceived from the
street and express lower and upper floors on front façades to reduce perceived mass.
Figure 9
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 10
Designs should utilize street-facing architectural elements, such as porches, that imitate
those of historic Aspen residential buildings. Buildings should provide visual evidence or
demarcation of the stories of a building to relate to pedestrians. This standard is important
in all areas of the city. Front porches or portions of the front-most wall of the front façade
should clearly express a one-story scale as perceived from the street. Changes in material
or color can also be incorporated into these elements to help to strengthen the establishment
of a one-story scale.
c) Standard. A principal building shall incorporate a one-story element on the front façade.
Duplexes in a side-by-side configuration are required to have a one-story element per
dwelling unit.
d) Options.
(1) Projecting One-Story Element. The front façade
of the principal building shall have a one-story
street-facing element that projects at least six (6)
feet from the front façade and has a width
equivalent to at least twenty percent (20%) of the
building's (or unit’s) overall width. This one story
element may be enclosed living space or a front
porch that is open on three sides. This one story
element shall be a minimum of 50 square feet in
area. Accessible space (whether it is a deck,
porch or enclosed area) shall not be allowed over the first story element; however,
accessible space over the remaining first story elements on the front façade shall not be
precluded. See Figure 10.
(2) Loggia. The front façade of the principal
building shall have an open loggia that is
recessed at least six (6) feet but no more than
ten (10) feet from the front façade, and has a
width equivalent to at least twenty percent
(20%) of the building’s (or unit’s) overall
width. The loggia shall be open on at least two
(2) sides and face the street. This one story
element shall be a minimum of 50 square feet
in area. See Figure 11.
Figure 10
Figure 11
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 11
(3) One-Story Stepdown. The principal building
shall include a one-story component on one
side of the building that remains one story
from the front façade to the rear wall. The
width of the one-story portion shall be a
minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the
building’s (or unit’s) overall width. The one-
story portion may be fully enclosed and used
as living area. Accessible space (whether it is
a deck, porch or enclosed area) shall not be
allowed over the first story element; however,
accessible space over the remaining first story
elements on the front façade shall not be precluded. See Figure 12.
The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot
characteristics:
C. Garages.
1. Garage Access (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley
or private street.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles
by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the street where pedestrian activity is
highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the
visibility of opaque and unarticulated garage doors
from streets by placing them in alleys wherever
possible. Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley
as an opportunity to place the garage in a location that
is subordinate to the principal building, further
highlighting the primary building from the street.
This standard is important for any property where an
alley is available, which is most common in the Infill
Area.
Figure 12
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 12
c) Standard. A lot that has access from an alley or private street shall be required to access
parking, garages and carports from the alley or private street. Where alley access is
available, no parking or vehicular access shall be allowed forward of the front façade. See
Figure 13.
2. Garage Placement (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have
vehicular access from an alley or private street.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the
street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature
driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages
behind principal buildings so that the front façade of the principal building is highlighted.
Where locating the garage behind the front façade of the principal building is not feasible
or required, designs should minimize the presence of garage doors as viewed from the street.
This standard is important in all areas of the city where alley access is not an option.
c) Standard. A garage or carport shall be placed in a way that reduces its prominence as viewed
from the street. On a corner lot, this standard shall apply to both street-facing façades.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Set Back Garage. The front-most element of the
garage or carport shall be set back at least ten
(10) feet further from the street than the front-
most wall of any street-facing façade of the
principal building. See Figure 14.
(2) Side-Loaded Garage Forward of Street-Facing
Façade. A garage or carport located forward of
a street-facing façade shall be side-loaded. The
garage or carport entry shall be perpendicular to
the street. For lots on curved streets, the garage
door shall not be placed on any street-facing
façade of the garage. See Figure 15.
The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot
characteristics:
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 13
3. Garage Dimensions (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject
to the Residential Design Standards.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize the presence of wide
garages as perceived from streets and ensure that garages are
subordinate to the principal building. Designs should
promote an active streetscape that is not dominated by wide
expanses of garage doors. Garage doors should either be
hidden from public view or their width minimized. This
standard is important in all areas of the city. See Figure 16.
c) Standards. The width of the living area on the first floor of a
street-facing façade on which a garage is located shall be at least
five (5) feet greater than the width of the garage or carport.
The total width of all vehicular entrance(s) to garage(s) or
carport(s) that are visible from the street, whether on the same
plane or offset from one another, shall not exceed twenty-four (24)
feet. See Figure 17.
4. Garage Door Design (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject
to the Residential Design Standards.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote a streetscape that maximizes visual interest by
minimizing unarticulated expanses of garage doors. Garage doors that utilize increased
articulation, changes in façade depth and profile of materials, windows and other features
to break up the garage door should be prioritized. This standard is critical for any property
where garage doors are visible from the street.
c) Standard. A garage door that is visible from a street or alley shall utilize an articulation
technique to break up its façade.
d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
Figure 16
Figure 17
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 14
(1) Two Separate Doors. A two-car garage door shall be
constructed as two separate doors. See Figure 18.
(2) Appearance of Two Separate Doors. A two-car garage door
shall be constructed with one door that is designed to appear
as two separate doors by incorporating a vertical separating
element that is at least one (1) foot in width.
D. Entry Features.
1. Entry Connection (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings
and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a
connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers
or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and
site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from
the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and
other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city.
c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary
entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one
(1) of the two intersecting streets. Duplexes in a side-by-side configuration shall have one
(1) entry connection per dwelling unit.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Street Oriented Entrance. At least one (1) entry door
shall be provided on the front façade of the principal
building. The entry door shall face the street and
shall not be set back more than ten (10) feet from the
front-most wall of the front façade of the principal
building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other
permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to
the door. See Figure 19.
Figure 18
Figure 19
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 15
(2) Open Front Porch. The front façade of the principal
building shall have a front porch that is open on at
least two (2) sides, a minimum of 50 square feet,
face the street, and have a demarcated pathway that
connects the street to the front porch. The front
porch shall contain the primary entrance to the
building. Fencing, hedgerows, walls or other
permitted structures shall not obstruct visibility to
the porch or the demarcated pathway. See Figure 20.
For lots located in the Smuggler Park and Smuggler Run Subdivisions: the front porch
is not required on the front façade, but the front-most element of the porch shall be
within twenty-five (25) feet of the front-most wall of the building. The porch shall meet
all other requirements of this standard.
The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot
characteristics:
2. Door Height (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to retain historic architectural character by ensuring modestly
scaled doors that are not out of scale when compared to historic Aspen residential buildings.
Large, oversized doors should be avoided so as not to
overwhelm front façades and distort the sense of human
scale as perceived from the street. This standard is important
in all areas of the city.
c) Standard. All doors facing a street shall not be taller than
eight (8) feet. A small transom window above a door shall
not be considered a part of the door for the purpose of this
standard. See Figure 21.
3. Entry Porch Height (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
Figure 20
Figure 21
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 16
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard promotes porches that are built at a one-story human-scale that are
compatible with historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard prevents porches that
are out of scale with the street and traditional porches seen in the surrounding neighborhood.
Porch designs should reinforce the one-story scale and help reduce perceived mass as
viewed from the street. This standard is critical for buildings in the Infill Area.
c) Standard. An entry porch or canopy on the front façade of a
principal building shall not be more than one-story in height
as defined by this chapter. See Figure 22.
E. Fenestration and Materials.
1. Principal Window (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front façades of
principal buildings. A building should incorporate a significant sense of transparency on the
front façade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front
façade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is
important in all areas of the city.
c) Standard. A principal building shall have at least one (1) street-facing principal window or
grouping of smaller windows acting as a principal window on the front facade. Duplexes in
a side-by-side configuration shall have one (1) principal window per dwelling unit.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Street-Facing Principal Window. The front façade shall
have at least one (1) window with dimensions of four
(4) feet by four (4) feet or greater. See Figure 23.
Figure 22
Figure 23
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 17
(2) Window Group. The front façade shall have at least one
(1) group of windows that when measured as a group
has dimensions of four (4) feet by four (4) feet or
greater. See Figure 24.
2. Window Placement (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to preserve the historic architectural character of Aspen by
preventing large expanses of vertical glass windows that dominate street-facing façades.
Overly tall expanses of glass on a street-facing façade do not relate well to human scale.
Designs should utilize windows that provide a sense of demarcation between stories and
pedestrian scale. Where an upper story window is located
directly above a lower story window, a gap with no window
should be provided between them that is easily recognizable
from the street and clearly differentiates lower and upper
stories. This standard is important in all areas of the city.
c) Standard. A street-facing window on a building shall not
vertically span more than one story as defined by this chapter.
See Figure 25.
3. Non-orthogonal Window Limit (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots outside of the Aspen Infill Area.
(2) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or bel ow
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to encourage rectilinear window shapes seen in Aspen’s historic
residential architecture and discourages the proliferation or overuse of round or diagonal -
oriented windows. Designs should minimize the use of non-orthogonal windows that face
the street in order to help preserve the historic character of Aspen. This standard is critical
in the Infill Area where many of Aspen’s historic residential buildings are located.
c) Standard. A building shall have no more than one (1) non-
orthogonal window on each façade of the building that faces
the street. A single non-orthogonal window in a gable end
may be divided with mullions and still be considered one (1)
non-orthogonal window. See Figure 26.
Figure 24
Figure 25
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 18
4. Light well/Stairwell Location (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize negative visual impacts to the street and discourage
visual and physical disconnection between buildings and streets. Building designs should
avoid placing light wells, areaways, skylights, and stairwells between primary buildings and
streets. These features should be located away from the front of
buildings. Designs should locate these elements at the sides or
rear of a principal building. This standard is most important in all
areas of the city with smaller setbacks.
c) Standard. A light well, areaway, skylight or stairwell shall not be
located between the front-most wall of a street-facing façade and
any street. See Figure 27.
5. Materials (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard applies to all residential development in the city that is subject
to the Residential Design Standards.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to reinforce historic architectural character by preventing the use
of materials on single-family and duplex buildings that is in sharp contrast with use of
materials seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. Buildings should use materials
consistently on all sides of a building instead of simply applying a material on one façade
of a building. Buildings should seek to use heavier materials, such as brick or stone, as a
base for lighter materials, such as wood or stucco. Buildings should use materials that are
similar in profile, texture and durability to those seen in historic residential buildings in the
city. This standard is important in all areas of the city.
c) Standards. The quality of the exterior materials and their application shall be consistent on
all sides of the single-family or duplex building. See Figure 28.
Materials shall be used in ways that are true to their characteristics. For instance, stucco,
which is a light or nonbearing material, shall not be used below a heavy material, such as
stone. See Figure 29.
Figure 28 Figure 29
26.410.040. Multi-family standards
Figure 26
Figure 27
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 19
A. Applicability. Unless stated otherwise below, the design standards in this section shall apply to all
multi-family development.
B. Design standards.
1. Building Orientation (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to establish a relationship between buildings and streets to create
an engaging streetscape and discourage the isolation of homes from the surrounding
neighborhood. The placement of buildings should seek to frame street edges physically or
visually. Buildings should be oriented in a manner such that they are a component of the
streetscape, which consists of the street itself and the buildings that surround it. Bu ilding
orientation should provide a sense of interest and promote interaction between buildings
and passersby. Building orientation is important in all areas of the city, but is particularly
important in the Infill Area where there is a strong pattern of buildings that are parallel to
the street. Designs should prioritize the visibility of the front façade from the street by
designing the majority of the front façade to be parallel to the street or prominently visible
from the street. Front facades, porches, driveways, windows, and doors can all be designed
to have a strong and direct relationship to the street.
c) Standard. The front façade of a building shall be oriented to face the street on which it is
located.
d) Options. Fulfilling one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Strong Orientation Requirement. The front façade
of a building shall be parallel to the street. On a
corner lot, both street-facing façades of a building
shall be parallel to each street. See Figure 30.
(2) Moderate Orientation Requirement. The front
façade of a building shall face the street. On a corner
lot, one street-facing façade shall face each
intersecting street.
The availability of these options shall be determined according to the following lot
characteristics:
Figure 30
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 20
2. Garage Access (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that have vehicular access from an alley
or private street.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to minimize potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles
by concentrating parking along alleys and away from the street where pedestrian activity is
highest. This standard also seeks to minimize the visibility of plain, opaque and
unarticulated garage doors from streets by placing them in alleys wherever possible.
Properties with alleys shall utilize the alley as an opportunity to place the garage in a
location that is subordinate to the principal building,
further highlighting the primary building from the
street. This standard is important for any property
where an alley is available, which is most common in
the Infill Area.
c) Standard. A multi-family building that has access
from an alley or private street shall be required to
access parking, garages and carports from the alley or
private street. See Figure 31.
3. Garage Placement (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard is required for all lots that do not have vehicular access from
an alley or private street.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of unarticulated facades close to the
street and ensure garages are subordinate to the principal building for properties that feature
driveway and garage access directly from the street. Buildings should seek to locate garages
behind principal buildings so that the front façade of the principal building is highlighted.
Where locating the garage behind the front façade of the principal building is not feasible
or required, designs should minimize the
presence of garage doors as viewed from the
street. This standard is important in all areas of
the city where alley access is not an option.
c) Standard. The front of a garage or the front-
most supporting column of a carport shall be
set back at least ten (10) feet further from the
street than the front façade of the principal
building. See Figure 32.
Figure 31
Figure 32
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 21
4. Entry Connection (Non-flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to promote visual and physical connections between buildings
and the street. Buildings should use architectural and site planning features to establish a
connection between these two elements. Buildings shall not use features that create barriers
or hide the entry features of the house such as fences, hedgerows or walls. Buildings and
site planning features should establish a sense that one can directly enter a building from
the street through the use of pathways, front porches, front doors that face the street and
other similar methods. This standard is critical in all areas of the city.
c) Standard. A building shall provide a visual and/or physical connection between a primary
entry and the street. On a corner lot, an entry connection shall be provided to at least one
(1) of the two intersecting streets.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Street Oriented Entrance. There shall be at least one
(1) entry door that faces the street for every four (4)
street-facing, ground-level units in a row. Fencing,
hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall
not obstruct visibility to the entire door. See Figure
33.
(2) Open Front Porch. There shall be at least one (1)
porch or ground-level balcony that faces the street
for every street-facing, ground-level unit. Fencing,
hedgerows, walls or other permitted structures shall
not obstruct visibility to the porch or the demarcated
pathway. See Figure 34.
5. Principal Window (Flexible).
a) Applicability. This standard shall apply to all lots except:
(1) Lots with a required front yard setback of at least ten (10) vertical feet above or below
street grade.
b) Intent. This standard seeks to prevent large expanses of blank walls on the front façades of
principal buildings. A building should incorporate significant transparency on the front
façade. Designs should include prominent windows or groups of windows on the front
Figure 33
Figure 34
City of Aspen Land Use Code
Part 400 – Residential Design Standards
Page 22
façade to help promote connection between the residence and street. This standard is
important in all areas of the city.
c) Standard. At least one (1) street-facing principal window or grouping of smaller windows
acting as a principal window shall be provided for each unit facing the street. On a corner
unit with street frontage on two streets, this standard shall apply to both street-facing
façades.
d) Options. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard:
(1) Street-Facing Principal Window. The front façade shall
have at least one (1) window with dimensions of three
(3) feet by four (4) feet or greater for each dwelling unit.
See Figure 35.
(2) Window Group. The front façade shall have at least one
(1) group of windows that when measured as a group
has dimensions of three (3) feet by four (4) feet or
greater for each dwelling unit. See Figure 36.
26.410.050. Appeals
A. An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Community Development Director regarding
administration of this Chapter may appeal the decision to the Administrative Hearing Officer, pursuant
to Chapter 26.316.
B. An applicant aggrieved by a decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic
Preservation Commission as applicable, may appeal the decision to the City Council, pursuant to
Chapter 26.316. In such circumstances, the Commission’s decision shall be considered a
recommendation to City Council.
Figure 35
Figure 36