The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1120 Black Birch Dr.A65-94Morrow Stream Margin Review A65-94 2735-013-07-011 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 C" (303)920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES U 3 CITY: -63250-134 GMP/Conceptual -63270-136 GMP/Final -63280-137 SUB/Conceptual -63300-139 SUB/Final -63310-140 All-2 Step Applications -63320-141 All 1 Step Applications �a -63330-150 Staff Approval -63432-157 Zoning Plan Check -63432-157 Sign Permit -MR011 Use Tax for Sign Permits HISTORIC PRESERVATION: -63335-151 Exemption -63336-152 Minor -63337-153 Major Devel. -63338-154 Sig0. Devel. -63339-155 Demolition COUNTY: -63160-126 GMP/General -63170-127 GMP/Detailed -63180-128 GMP/Final -63190-129 SUB/General -63200-130 SUB/Detailed _ -63210-131 SUB/Final _ -63220-132 All 2 Step Applications -63230-133 All 1 Step Applications -63240-149 Staff Approval -63450-146 Board of Adjustment -63235-148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: -63360-143 Engineering - County 00115-63340-163 Engineering - City 00123-63340-190 Housing 00125-63340-205 Environmental Health PLANNING OFFICE SALES: -63080-122 County Code -69000-145 Other (Copy Fees) TOTAL U D Name: v &4"te /�/� Phone: / / -7 (� Address: -Z 3 )(�- t Project: %i l 6 �t e-11) z 1 7 -7 ,-Z Check # _ _Date: No of Copes: 0 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 08/26/94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2735-013-07-011 A65-94 STAFF MEMBER: KJ PROJECT NAME: Morrow Stream Margin Review Project Address: 1120 Black Birch Drive Legal Address: APPLICANT: Darrell C. Morrow - Suite 2500, First City Tower Applicant Address: 1001 Fannin Street, Houston, TX 77002-6760 REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Poss & Assoc. 925-4755 Representative Address/Phone: 605 E. Main Aspen, CO 81611 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- FEES: PLANNING $ 978 # APPS RECEIVED 5 ENGINEER $ 96 # PLATS RECEIVED 5 HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 1074 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: X 2 P&Z Meeting Date c PUBLIC HEARING: YES VESTED RIGHTS: YES CC Meeting Date DRC Meeting Date STEP: NO PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO REFERRALS: City Attorney X Parks Dept. School District X City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other Zoning Energy Center Other DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: v / DUE: ---------------------- ----------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: /-INITIAL:✓i'i' City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Open Space Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: • 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Morrow Stream Margin Review DATE: October 4, 1994 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Morrow Stream Margin Review with conditions. APPLICANT: Darrell C. Morrow, represented by Chris Ridings, Bill Poss and Associates LOCATION: 1120 Black Birch Dr., Lot 12 Black Birch Estates ZONING: R-15, PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Stream Margin Review approval for the enlargement of a residence along Castle Creek . PROPOSAL: The applicant wishes to expand an existing 4 bedroom residence from 2,489 s.f. to 4,320 s.f. Included in the proposal is a new spa, rebuilt deck and relocated irrigation ditch. The gross lot size is 15,113 s.f. with a net lot area for FAR purposes of 13,338 s.f. (1,775 s.f. lies below high water line.) The building site lies within 100' of the high water line of Castle Creek. The proposed building footprint meets the City's required setbacks. The homeowner's association has approved variances to the subdivision's more restrictive side yard setbacks and height limits. A new garage will be incorporated into the proposed addition. Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the application information. The project has gone through special review for the FAR overlay as the structure is proposed at 99% of allowable FAR for the site. The special review was advisory only because the parcel is over 9,000 s.f. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Engineering: The blueprints for construction must contain all relevant information concerning drainage, erosion control and construction techniques. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant must submit a letter from an architect or engineer that certifies the elevation of the proposed addition's lowest floor, including basement, versus the elevation of the 100 year flood and certifies 1 • 0 that any relevant floodproofing requirements of the small portion of the addition that is located in the 100 year floodplain (compliance with Ordinance 62 of 1985 and Ordinance 32 of 1987), and includes a revised survey with the 100 year floodplain indicated as shown on the FEMA map. Also, a letter of certification of as -built conditions shall be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy Because of the limited area between the building and the waterline and the riparian vegetation within this space, there shall not be construction activity outside of the building footprint and the mean high water line. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights - of -way from City Streets Department. Parks: In conversations with Parks staff, the proposed ditch relocation is acceptable. Tree relocation permits are required for any tree over six inches in diameter. 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: The proposed expansion and site improvements are located above the 100 year flood plain so the base flood elevation will not be affected. 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: The City -owned Meadows Open Space is located across the river. No trail has been designated across the subject parcel. 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 makes no specific recommendations for this 2 site. However, staff is increasingly concerned with riparian and wetland vegetation on riverside parcels. Parks staff identified a small wetland patch where the garage will be located. This appears to be the result of the irrigation ditch system. Upon further review by a consultant and Mike Claffey of the Army Corps of Engineers, it was determined that a Nationwide Permit #26 would be issued for purposes of placing fill in this area. This permit is valid for two years from August 29, 1994. Criteria 4: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. Response: The application states that existing vegetation will not be disturbed along Castle Creek and that barriers will be placed around tree trunks. The revised deck will allow the existing trees to remain through the deck. Staff has conditioned the project that excavation shall take place from the "inside out" of the building footprint (away from the river) and that a barricade must be erected just outside of the building footprint to prohibit construction activity (ie. grading, filling, materials storage) between the footprint and the river. During construction the applicant has committed to placing straw and erosion control fabric to prevent sedimentation into the creek. Any disturbed areas adjacent to the structure on the river side shall be revegetated with native riparian species. 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: The improvements will be mitigated by revegetation. Care will be taken to prevent pollution of the river. The natural changes of the river channel will not be adversely affected. 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: Not Applicable 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: The applicant has provided a letter to this effect although the water course is not affected by this project. Criteria 8: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year 3 floodplain. Response: Not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Morrow Stream Margin Review with the following conditions: 1. A tree removal permit must be obtained from Parks prior to issuance of Building Permit for any trees removed over 6" diameter. 2. The blueprints for construction must contain all relevant information concerning drainage, erosion control and construction techniques. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant must submit a letter from an architect or engineer that certifies the elevation of the proposed addition's lowest floor, including basement, versus the elevation of the 100 year flood and certifies that any relevant floodproofing requirements of the small portion of the addition that is located in the 100 year floodplain (compliance with Ordinance 62 of 1985 and Ordinance 32 of 1987), and includes a revised survey with the 100 year floodplain indicated as shown on the FEMA map. 4. A letter of certification of as -built conditions prepared by the architect or engineer shall be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 5. There shall not be construction activity outside of the building footprint closer to the mean high water line. 6. The Nationwide Permit #26 for purposes of placing fill in the wetland area is valid until August 29, 1996. Any work taking place in the wetland beyond this date must receive an extension of this permit 7. Excavation shall take place from the "inside out" of the building footprint (away from the river) and a barricade must be erected just outside of the building footprint to prohibit construction activity (ie. grading, filling, materials storage) between the footprint and the river. During construction straw and erosion control fabric must be placed along the barricade to prevent sedimentation into the creek. 8. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from City Streets Department. 4 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Morrow Stream Margin with the 7 conditions of approval presented in the staff memo dated October 4, 1994." Exhibits: "A" - Application Information "B" - Referral Memo "C" - 8/29/94 Letter from Army Corps of Engineers 5 0 • PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT _JP) , APPROVED , 19 BY RESOLUTION MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department (2-/E-1 Date: September 16, 1994 Re: Morrow Stream Margin Review (Lot 12, Black Birch Estates Subdivision; 1120 Black Birch Drive; SW 1/4 Sec. 1, T10S, R85W 6PM) Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. 100-year Floodplain Line - There is a substantial difference between the 100-year floodplain line shown in the application packet and the line shown on the FEMA map (Engineering Department Drawing No. 832-35). However, even with the corrected floodplain line, only a small portion of the addition would be located within the 100-year floodplain. I have met with the applicant's representative, and it appears that the planned floor elevation is already above the base flood elevation. The addition is planned to have only a crawl space and not a basement. Therefore, the only necessary mitigation is that the portion of the addition located within the floodplain must be floodproofed. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a letter stamped and signed by an architect or engineer that itemizes compliance with applicable sections of Ordinances No. 62 (Series of 1985) and No. 32 (Series of 1987) and a revised survey with the 100-year floodplain line indicated as shown on the FEMA map. The blueprints for construction must contain all relevant information concerning drainage, erosion control, and construction techniques from the stream margin review application and from the above referenced ordinances. 2. Riparian Ve eg tation - It is questionable how much existing, riparian vegetation is acceptable for removal under the guidelines of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. It is recommended that existing riparian vegetation between the building footprint and the mean high water line be preserved and that no construction activity be permitted between the building footprint and the mean high water line. This is a very small space. The addition is about 20' from the mean high water line at its greatest distance and about 14' at its least distance. This is very little riparian vegetation to preserve. • 3. Work in the Public Ri t-0f--way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). cc: Cris Caruso c 5� 0 I3101T[$I►7GI►Ibill UT To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department CL Date: September 28, 1994 Re: Morrow Stream Margin Review - Addendum (Lot 12, Black Birch Estates Subdivision; 1120 Black Birch Drive; SW 1/4 Sec. 1, T10S, R85W 6PM) I have reviewed item one of my previous memo which discusses floodplain issues. I am attaching a copy of the ordinances that are referenced. The letter of certification by an architect or engineer will certify the elevation of the proposed additions lowest floor, including basement, versus the elevation of the 100-year flood and will certify any relevant floodproofing requirements of the small portion of the addition that is located in the 100-year floodplain, such as anchoring "to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure," construction with "materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage using methods and practices that minimize flood damage," and related floodproofed construction information as specified in the ordinances. Additionally, please add a condition of approval that a similar letter of certification for as - built conditions will be required prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy to ensure that the structure is built as designed. M44.341 SENT BY:COE WEST COLO REG "PLY To Arrsunor 011 0-29-94 2:36PM 3032CCITT G3:# 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION u.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACR -12 IT �, APPROVED Coaps Of EMaINEEAB 19 BY RESOLUTION lass J $TRK[T SACIlAMENTO, cAUFORN1A 9"14-2022 August 29, 1994 Regulatory S*Cticn (199473137) Mr. Lee Rosenstein Bill Pass Architects 605 last Kain street Aspen, Colorado 91611 Dear Mr. Rosenstein: I am responding to your request for a Department of the Army permit to discharge fill material into 200 square feet located isolated wetlands in Aspen, Colorado. The prof ect near Castle Creek in section 1, Township 10 South, Range 85 west, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The Chief of Engineers has issued a nationwide general permit number 26 which authorizes the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States for projects located above the headwaters or in isolated wetlands. Your project can he constructed under this authority provided the work masts the conditions listed on the enclosed information sheet. This permit verification will be valid for a period of two years from the date of this latter unless the nationwide permit is modified, reissued, or revoked. You should contact this office if work will extend beyond this date. We have assigned number 199475287 to your project. PlOasif rater to this number in any correspondence with xichaaliClaffaygof you have any questions, pasacon this office or telephone number (303) 243-1199. sincerely, Grady L• McNurs late Chiet, qu Western Colorado Rery Off ice 402 Rood Avenue, Grand ,junction, Enclosure Roos 143 Colorado 81501-2563 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT —�r APPROVED r 29 BY RESOLUTION MORROW RESIDENCE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION AUGUST 26, 1994 As stated on the Land Use Application Form, the proposal consists of a single story addition on the south side of the existing house, second floor addition above the existing single story, remodel of the existing deck , exterior spa, paved driveway, relocation of ditch and new landscaping. Compliance with Stream Margin Review Guidelines are as follow: 1. Erosion Control. Snow fence with a minimum of 10" straw and erosion control fabric will be located along Castle Creek. Culverts will be located in existing ditches and covered with erosion control fabric during construction. 2. Vegetation. Existing vegetation along Castle Creek will not be disturbed. Barriers will be placed around tree trunks. Vegetation removed during construction will be replaced with native plants and grasses except for areas at the edge and center of the driveway which may include flower beds. 3. Setbacks. The existing structure lies within the front setback. This non- conformance will be reduce with partial demolition of the existing structure. Approval from the homeowners association has been granted to exceed neighborhood association setbacks which are more restrictive than city codes. 4. Building Height. Approval from the homeowners association has been granted to exceed neighborhood association height limits which are more restrictive than city codes. Please refer to the attached Item #11 for explanation of compliance with review standards as a response to Attachment 4 of the Stream Margin Review submittal requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ITEM 8 I t �a v P 10 I 9 B � vaj,, P- CPUC 1 Mozeo" 2F{ r - 1 1 1 � s�rr+a-t I N- 8 • ZG • q'�- • 0 t�WY I17 of T _ f11 N�Li ADGr110K �i v� j 4i4 vwruzpp T%Ui I ` � ' I I • I �1 %"� f.4arrT(G '�..kNTS �-jY.l�..E �i�jr�—� ��-� --_ —_ _,�—_� , .•, is „5Z ,� - • . f ... -{bpi-�tY UHF � $,uST prfLF+- .J.H•�rc. F;.OtH 1�51 *� 30 f .kGI&P N .:uu.At 5 Souk 1,:�L�FVW ioN 26' kfA4 11" ��1 �— mwnuw•r� /�•i4� w�� %�� .1 / �s iirr n ■.I�11 law �t�, �1'��ui► f� Gii:� �L��r1 Elm Pan associates 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 3031925-4755 FACSIMILE 3031920-2950 MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson City of Aspen Planning Department FROM: Chris Ridings DATE: August 26, 1994 RE: MORROW RESIDENCE, 1120 BLACK BIRCH DRIVE, ASPEN This is the Stream Margin Review application package for the -Morrow Residence located at 1120 Black Birch Drive, Aspen, Colorado. Please review the following list of application items. 1. Preapplication Conference Summary 2. Deposit of $1,074.00 3. Land Use Application Form 4. Applicant Payment Agreement 5. Letter Authorizing Representation of Applicant 6. Disclosure of Ownership 7. Vicinity map 8. Project Description 9. Zoning Analysis 10. Homeowners Variance Approval 11. Explanation of Compliance 12. Letter from Civil Engineer on 100 Year Flood Plain 13. Water Course Guarantee 14. Wetlands Delineation Report 15. Site Survey 16. Site Plan: 1" - 10" scale 17. Floor Plans: 1/8" scale 18. Elevations: 1/8" scale 19. Existing Plans and Photographs If you find anything missing or needing further information please call. 1S ► - ; City of Aspcn Pre -Application Conference Summary -` C _Planncr • � . may, ' y' 4is i Project #} Applipnt s epresentanve G Represenl.live's Plane 4 7S ro Owner's Name dyer^ ?f f r _ r � h Typc of Application y�F S I Description of the prujcc eve opntcnl emg r ueste r !te 1 _., The applicant has been requcsictl to respond to (he following items and provide the following T reports: Land Use Code Scciloo Cunuocnis Referral Agencies The review is: & only (CC only) (P&Z and CC) ' Public Ileariog: (yes) no) q,, Dclotsil for the Application Review: i y q yhy ( Itcfcrml agcncy Ill( fuss: p TOTA L D E POSIT (Additional hours are Wiled t o rate ol 3,10.tr•) r Tu Apply Submit (lie Fullutrilix luformation: ?/J U w) t. 1. Proof of ownership. 2. Signctl fcc agrecmcnl. "j • - }. Applicant's name. address and Iclephooc number in a letter signed by [lie applicant wbiclt also slates the oamc, address and lelc1'honc ntunbcr of the rcprescnWlive. r: d, e1„+sit lio review al the apphcallon E O7 '3• a opics of the Couydcic application p.6 „1t' !o1ps. % �� ` `• .( •, J �..y�'fi. n nary letter czplaiuing 1hC rcyucst (cslsting cum liliuns auJscJ uses), including� .. street address and IcRal description of the proPcrlY. 7. An 8 If2" by I I" vicinity neap ioca(iog the parcel wililin the City of Aspen. 8. Site plan shall include properly boundaries, lot size, proposed access, and physical f features (drainageways, streams, rivers, etc.) 9. .a 10. �^ L ,4. These items need to be subuli(ted if circled: , List of adjacent pruperty uwocrs within JW fete of the subject properly with addresses. _ iy. b. Site pholm. C. Proof of Icgal acce s it) the Infect. C d. Historic Prescrvaliun Commission review/approval. `w � r �F'L/"v /'Rid/-)� l/�YZ � • f • y{ A..�„ PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY ITEM 1 �, • ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM 1) Project Name Morrow Residence 2) Project Location Lot 12 Black Birch Estates Addrress: 1120 Black Birch Aspen CO 81612 3) Present Zoning R - 15 PUD 4) Lot Size 15.113 total-13.338 usable 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Darrell C. Morrow - Suite 2500 First City Tower, 1001 Fannin Street Houston TX 77002-6760 (713) 758-2222 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Bill Poss & Associates 605 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-4755 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): Conditional Use _ Conceptual SPA _ Conceptual Historic Special Review 8040 Greenline X Stream Margin Mountain View Plan Condominiumization Final SPA Conceptual PUD Final PUD Subdivision Text/Map Amendment Development _ Final Historic Development _ Minor Historic Development _ Historic Designation GMQS Allotment GMQS Exemption Lot Split/Lot Line Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approximate sq ft; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). One two-story wood -framed house 2489 sq. ft., four bedrooms one wood deck facing Castle Creek gravel drive for parking. 9) Description of Development Application Single story addition on south side of existing house second floor addition above existing single story, remodel of existing deck exterior spa, paved driveway relocation of ditch and new landscaping 10) Have you attached the following? yes Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents yes Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents yes Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for your Application LAND USE APPLICATION ITEM 3 U ASPENTITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and &uc-L.... (�' 4i��i� (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. S. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN By: Diane Moore City Planning Director Pj APPLICANT By: EC-Amo-- Maili Address: � 1L3 ec, ' zG cot)P7- ! L t1 I X-77e)74- _ Date•-,f425 June 7, 1994 City of Aspen Planning Office Aspen, CO 81611 Gentlemen and Ladies: I, Darrell C. Morrow, will be making certain applications for consent to modify and expand my home at Aspen which is situated at 1120 Black Birch on Lot 12, Black Birch Estates, being a part of the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the sixth prime meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado. Set forth below are my current addresses and telephone numbers. At present, my primary address is the one set forth first. Darrell C. Morrow Suite 2601, First City Tower 1001 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77002-6760 (713) 651-2176 Darrell C. Morrow 1120 North Black Birch Drive Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-8621 The name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act for me on all matters with the respect to my applications are set forth below: Bill Poss and Associates 605 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-4755 Sincerely, Darrell C. Morrow LETTER AUTHORIZING REPRESENTATION OF APPLICANT ITEM 5 OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORT 2387AB Made For: Morrow/GSH STC%VART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that the owner of Lot 12, BLACK BIRCH ESTATES SUBDIVISION County of Pitkin, State of Colorado - __ �r•i.::><. :.lei. • 4 -•,( ". rr. $100.00 h } i ar-Mrs J . tr;r c Pi Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of riarrell C. Morrow and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following: A Geed of Trust dated July 12, 1985, executer] by Darrell C. Morrow, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of 331G,000.00, in favor of First National I:ank. in Aspen, recorded July 12, 1985 in Book 489 at Page 661 as Reception No. 2G9G09. NOTE: The beneficial interest under said Geed of Trust was assigned of record to Residential Funding Corporation, a•Delaware'Corporation by First National Bank in Aspen rectilydPd August 8, 1985 in book. 492 at Page G46 .as Reception No. 2704.25. NOTE: The beneficial interest under said Geed of Trust was assigned of record to First Wisconsin Trust Company as Trustee by Residential Funding Corporation recorded February 24, 1986 it hook 505 at Page 882 as Reception No. 275828. EXCEPT all easements, right-of-ways, restrictions and reservations of record. EXCEPT any and all unpatfi taxes and assessments. This report does not reflect any of the following matters: 1) Bankruptcies which, from date of adjudication of the most recent bankruptcies, antedate the report by more than fourtccn (14) years. 2) Suits and judgments which, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period. 3) Unpaid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years. Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Certificate is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc., neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any state- ment contained herein. Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this l7th day of October A.D. 19 3)at O' 00 A . M _ STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. BY420A//)( Authorized Signature ti DJ,SGIQSUrE�Q.F QWNERSHIP ITEM 6 b 0 ii6 and associates MORROW RESIDENCE ZONING ANALYSIS - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AUGUST 26, 1994 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 12, Black Birch Estates Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado ZONE DISTRICT: R-15 (PUD) DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: SUBDIVISION CITY CODE COVENANTS Minimum Lot Size: 15,000 s.f. NA Minimum Lot Width: 75 ft. NA Minimum Front Yard: 25 ft. 25 ft. Minimum Side Yard: 10 ft. 15 ft. (1) Minimum Rear Yard: 10 ft. 10 ft. (1) Maximum Height: 25 ft.(2) �24 ft. (1) Minimum Stream Setback: NA 15 ft. (1) NOTE: (1) Variance my be granted by homeowners association (2) 30 feet to ridge OFF STREET PARKING RQMTS: 1 space/bedroom TOTAL LOT SIZE: ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: EXISTING: Upper Level Entry level Existing FAR ADDITION: Upper Level Entry Level NEW F.A.R. 15,113 s.f. 1,775 s.f. below high water line 13,338 s.f above high water line 4,080 s.f. 304 s.f. 7 s.f./100 s.f. lot 4,384 s.f. Total Allowable 1,038 s.f. 1,482 s.f. 2,520 s.f. Total Existing < 110 s.f.> to be demolished 481.5 s.f. 1,428.5 s.f. 1,910.0 s.f. 4,320.0 s.f. Total Existing & Addition ZONING ANALYSIS ITEM 9 1110 Black Birch Dr. Aspen CO 81611 August 3, 1994 T0: All 31ack Birch Estates Homeowners SUBJECT: Setback Variances, Lots No. 6 and Nio. 12 As of Saturday, July 30, we had received =j signed forms, dated from July 19 to July 29, all a'oDroving the setback variances requested by the owners of Lots c ?nd 12. ?fie a_sc received a -hone call to ;reform us t:^at an additional aaproval ;.vas cn the .,,ray. The a_^iarces .:ereforE Cee_^_ ap moved 90% o- slack Er:rc. zs 7.. yes -omeow-ers.,, ...ore ?:an meeting she 30% recuired ty +'^.e cove"ar .s. The signed copies are available for _nspec- �;on in t :e Association files ma;_Ltai_-ed by Sec- retary Felix Pogliar.o at the above address. Thank you all very much for one fast response! 33LACK 37 cH _ESTATS : cr... c,F: L-iS ASS0C1ATI� , �, l.:'i , 1 i r 1, . S� 1 6 4i lli am A. ruenberg President HOMEOWNERS VARIANCE APPROVAL ITEM 10 Pa,dab ssociates 605 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 3031925-4 755 FACSIMILE 3031920-2950 August 26, 1994 City of Aspen Planning Office Aspen, CO 81611 RE: MORROW HOUSE ADDITION, STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Explanation of compliance with the substantive development review standards - response to Attachment 4, Stream Margin Review standards: 1. The proposed development will not increase the base flood elevation. See letter from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, dated 10/09/89- 2. There are no trails dedicated for public use. 3. Recommendations for the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan do not apply. 4. The new development will not cause any erosion or sedimentation of the stream bank: removal of vegetation or change of slope grade along the river will not occur. See letter from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, dated 10/09/89. 5. The new development will not affect the stream margin in any way in terms of pollution or interference with the natural changes of the water. 6. A written notice to the Colorado Water Conservation Board is not required. 7. For a guarantee to ensure the flood carrying capacity please see the attached letters from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, dated 10/09/89, and from the owner Mr. Darrell C. Morrow, dated 12/12/89. 8. The proposed development does not require work within the 100 year flood plain. A wetlands delineation report was requested by the City of Aspen Parks Department. Please see the attached report (Item #14) from Aztech Environmental, dated July 29, 1994. At the time of this application submission the Army Corp of Engineers had given oral approval of this project. A written approval will be submitted by the Army Corp of Engineers at a later date. i T Y1L'f EXPLANATION OF COMPLIANCE ITEM 11 October 9, 1989 Mr. Johannes Kastner 239 E 33rd Street, Suite 4B New York, P?Y 10016 Dear Mr. Kastner: 1 Grand Avenue, butte 212 C wood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945-1004 This letter is to address some of your concerns regarding the proposed addition to the existing house on Lot 12, Black Birch Estates in the City of Aspen, Colorado. The proposed addition to the south of the existing house will require the relocation of the irrigated ditch shown on our survey maps. The ditch relocation will not affect any water rights of ditch owners as the size and carrying capacity of the relocated ditch will be the same as the existing ditch. Easements for the ditch relocation should be obtained from the Black Birch Homeowners Associations who, as I under- stand, are the owners of the ditch. The proposed addition is above and, therefore, outside the 100-year floodplain and, as such, will not increase in any way the base flood elevation or impact the flood carrying capacity of the property. The proposed addition also does not interfere with the natural channel of Castle Creek, nor is it close enough to cause deterioration of the stream bank. The area disturbed during construction will be landscaped arr_1 drainage away from the building will be designed in such a way as to eliminate or reduce to historic rates any runoff or sedimentation into Castle Creek. Since the existing structure and proposed addition are within 100-feet of Castle Creek, a Stream Margin Review application to the City will be required. The addition may be exempt from review, however, provided the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 7-504B.1-5 (attached) can be met. I hope this letter answers your concerns. questions. Sincerely, SCHMUESER CORDON MEYER, INC. Ken Wilson, R.L.S. Survev Manager KW:lc/9185 Please call if you have any WATER COURSE GUARANTEE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT I, Darrell C. Morrow, the owner of Lot 12, Black Birch Estates, being a part of the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th prime meridien, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "Land"), the street address of which is 1120 North Black Birch Drive, Aspen, Colorado 81611, hereby agree and guarantee, on behalf of myself and my heirs, successors, and assigns, that if in connection with any development that may occur on the Land a water course is altered or relocated, such alteration or relocation will not diminish the flood carrying capacity of the Land. This Guarantee shall be a covenant running with the Land and shall be binding on the undersigned. party and his heirs, successors, and assigns. . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Guarantee hereby is executed effective as of and from December 12, 1989. FWAIMRELL O..O STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF HARRIS § The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of December, 1989 by Darrell C. Morrow. /zx/ Gisele LaFrance Tisserand r P•tc, r.,r:;.c Notary Public in and for Er Harris County, Texas r'✓=� dry Comm. crp. Jan. 19, i^•e? t My Commission Expires: 1/19/92 WATER COURSE GUARANTEE ITEM 13 • 0 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT MORROW RESIDENCE ASPEN, COLORADO PREPARED FOR MR. LESLIE ROSENSTEIN BILL POSS & ASSOCIATES 605 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4755 (303) 920-2950 (FAX) PREPARED BY MARTIN MILLER AZTECH ENVIRONMENTAL 2277 El Verano Court Grand Junction, Colorado 81503 (303) 243-9565 JULY 26, 1994 RECEIVED AUG 0 4 1994 WiLLIAM JOHN POSS a ASSOC. ASI1 EN, COLORADO WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT ITEM 14 I. INTRODUCTION A. OBJECTIVE The objective of this report is to determine the presence and extent of federal jurisdictional wetlands on the subject property for the purpose of satisfying requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. B. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located adjacent to Castle Creek at 1120 Black Birch Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and within Section 1, Township 10 South, Range 85 West, 6th P.M. A location map is included in this report. The property owner is Morrow, 1120 Black Birch Drive, Aspen, Colorado 81611. The principle contact is Mr. Leslie Rosenstein, Bill Poss Associates, 605 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (303) 925-4755. C. WETLAND DEFINITION The following definition of wetlands is used by the Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies for administering the Section 404 permit program: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." D. REGULATORY AUTHORITY Jurisdictional wetlands which occur on the property fall under the regulatory authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Federal Register, 1986, 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330). Section 404 requires that any individual or entity proposing to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, obtain a Department of the Army permit prior to such a discharge. The jurisdictional wetlands on this property are isolated; the wetlands are not a part of a surface tributary system to interstate or navigable waters of the United States. Therefore, the discharge of dredged or fill material into these wetlands is subject to authorization under Nationwide General Permit #26, Headwaters and Isolated Discharges (33 CFR 330). — - — - ----___':V_-- ice` `-=•�,��_'_� Cp (. 1 ♦,,1 •--- 82 �_ ter/ n!u•r•=JS- �� R-._-_^---� 7. •�1 'i'_ �J� <<R� �' +tea ! r `!_ � _ 1i { - :A ,��i L� ^ -."r� � rat �w .• ,/F'�` - _i-1 � r\ (rain) r#Y Cr ' ., = ,• � I � ` r r .d ' ^`' ,r-'^ `J �Ypeir C+:r. i.. � _ .i _ - �py�sy_ I�.+'' � __,� r i fry' _ r, .ita Fp`!': i "Y--s-_•_-•. --- ~�4 \ � ' ' 3 .3C= I = = — N— i \ ai , r' .,.rr �� ^"� �•� rwp "�` [r :.a r �. / I I . ..��Vrlbiee t� ✓� .'Y „� '�'r •ur. \7 � i� �' �� Y'�,rn�• - r IF\YyroWrusw Ski Ana•° c. �p�'•��`��~ pia .'�� /ly'f r�._t sNw -{ 1 T E R I V'E R ��..^ 6-.-�_:r :I s�m.r Nt rip y i ax 11" •I; rr:iwr w.�..r a� � ._-,s•�`' _ � � �, "fir--3.1.�' ' `� /�%�s:..r,� ��I � _' �' rC r },:• �-- it _ 3,�=� '-.. rye j _ �.i` �. .c.'' trioeoenaences r .. -r_ ,'�.:J\ •i ati' - ?i Pau Rpaa '. 1`, a•r �* ri� 1 c"r �r — �. w•""', wi r_`-. `ice.A I sb ....;- �... / \ \ sew r_"/ ` '1 :"b •\ �- V'.•• r - .r C.— 10, -=12JIfr wbwrwV 4..r. ti'N ATIOAL 9S` ��4 �� '�/� — \ al; :i �y �_ �ez Comund— BNfs-Sno.nn+ss rt;� L» '\ C 0 L L E G I�' �..nw.• .�.t"rs.w _ 3bi. Fo `\ serr :�7 C� - ,wf/J<�(R r'-i/��-- Y AL Mwrrn �a\ ■�,�.v ��...:'j•-/' --- '; �`� �;` �_ � ,'� �'Fssi `-fir✓ ' j JI .1A ;'• ;- !� ,,, !rilQl/s 1 ., ,a„-_,117r�ar . • '1 rwor..: hu /� .?1� -�'i1 Caen \ ' jt� _ 1 ♦_ by / 1\ YwvO► �A w� Mml cw..• .tY„p'« '�iva't.% ' `. a=r�(i u�. .w.\ �'\ ajy ••. .r .I f \ ' p Atw. ��.�� c:. .. �� —\ ra ruaraY^ ei rG«e.wr '•e"" ,i; �.� . ` .Yw r ,Jj=e 'e_ f tQ��7 � rw� ; r.r..rr• ` t 3 fnJor �ha y♦ sr.• ..w `.r ® yundR ► G } wl...'X... s..r 'n..«. 1 S( '�^� _ NATIONAL FORM T/h a. k_ ha jr'• , 1 C r _l i r �ct,:+� �� r�n.•rn�_ea� n'Yialisv 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 KILOMETERS 1 Continue on Page 58 - - MILES 1 0 2 4 The scope of this wetland delineation report is limited to a recommended determination of the area of federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The delineation was performed in conformance with the procedures specified in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual dated January 1987 (the "1987 Manual'). This report is not an official determination of jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act until verified in writing by the Corps of Engineers. As stated in Regulatory Guidance Letter Number 90-6 (RGL 90-6), issued by the Corps of Engineers on August 14, 1990, wetland jurisdictional delineations, once verified, are valid for three years from the date of submission to the Corps of Engineers by a consultant to the project proponent or property owner unless new information warrants revision of the delineation before the expiration date. RGL 90-6 also stipulates that complete and accurate documentation (data sheets, maps, and drawings) accompany the delineation to allow a reasonably accurate replication of the delineation at a future date. Guidance for wetland delineation consultants issued by the Grand Junction Regulatory Office of the Sacramento District Corps of Engineers also requires similar documentation. This report was designed to satisfy these requirements. Once verified by the Corps of Engineers in writing, this report will be valid until July 1997 and can be duplicated with the same results within that time frame by reference to test sites and corresponding maps and data forms included in this report. II. METHODS The method used in this study is the "three parameter" approach to wetland delineation. The three parameters used as delineation criteria are: the presence of wetland dependent vegetation, the presence of saturated or hydric soils, and evidence of inundation or surface saturation for significant time periods. This report was compiled by closely following procedures specified in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual dated January 1987. The method used identifies the presence and geographic extent of aquatic and wetland areas on the site by using multiple indicators of aquatic and wetland soil, hydrology, and vegetation conditions. Based on the regulatory definition of wetlands (33 CFR Section 328.3 and 40 CFR Section 230.3), the following general diagnostic environmental characteristics or parameters are evidence of the presence of jurisdictional wetlands: 1. Wetland Vegetation Conditions: The prevalent plant species associated with the plant community are typically adapted for life within habitats that have permanent or periodically inundated or saturated soil conditions. Wetland plant species are organisms that, because of morphological or physiological adaptations and/or reproductive strategies, have the ability to achieve maturity and reproduce in an environment where soils within portions of the root zone become anaerobic (without oxygen) during the growing season. A check list of plants characterized on a wetland to upland ecological spectrum has been developed by a technical committee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The "National List of Plant Species That Occur In Wetlands: Intermountain (Region 8)" was used for this study. Z. Wetland Soil Conditions: The soils within portions of the root zone become saturated permanently or periodically during the growing season. A list of wetland soil types (hydric soils list) has been developed to augment field identification criteria. The local USDA Soil Conservation Service County Soil Survey and Hydric Soils List were used for this study. 3. Wetland Hydrological Conditions: The area is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater permanently or periodically during the growing season. The local County Soil Survey was used to obtain any hydrological information recorded for the study area. Evidence of at least one positive indicator for each of the above three parameters must be found before a positive determination of wetlands can be made. Evidence may be developed from historical data, recent existing data and/or observations made in the field. Remote data sources used in this study include the U.S. Geological Service quadrangle maps and the USDA Soil Conservation Service county soil survey. Direct field study included vegetation inventories, soil sampling and hydrological analysis. A. VEGETATION SAMPLING: Transect baselines were located on a property boundary parallel to the nearest watercourse or hydrological gradient. The number and position of transects were determined in accordance with the Corps of Engineers manual procedures modified by specific site conditions. One transect was established at the mid -point of each baseline increment. All vegetation communities on the property were included in the transects. Representative observation points in each vegetation community along each transect were selected, and dominant plant species were determined within a five foot radius of each observation point. Transect locations and observation points or test sites are depicted on the attached delineation map. Dominant plant, wetland soil conditions and hydrologic evidence were recorded on the appropriate field data sheets (Appendix A) to correspond with each of the transects and observation points depicted on the map. B. SOIL SAMPLING: Climate, parent material, topographic relief, biological processes and time affect the characteristics of wetland soil. However, it is the hydrologic regime that is the overriding factor in the formation of identifying characteristics. The unique characteristics of hydric soils result from the influence of periodic or permanent inundation or saturation of sufficient duration to create anaerobic conditions. In an oxygen depleted state caused by water saturation, chemical reductions of some soil components, primarily iron, lead to the development of soil colors and other physical characteristics that are usually indicative of wetland or hydric soils. The soil series and phase on the property were identified from maps contained in the County Soil Survey. The soil type identified on the property by the soils maps was compared with the local list of hydric soils. At each observation point in the transects established for vegetation sampling, a soil pit was dug circumscribing a one foot diameter area to expose eighteen inches of the soil profile. Color is often the most diagnostic of soil characteristics. Soil color was compared to a Munsell Color Chart to determine how closely the colors match a "gley" index. Gleyed soils develop when anaerobic conditions result in a pronounced chemical reduction of iron, manganese and other elements, thereby producing a gray color. The soil was also examined for the following indicators of hydric soil: organic material; upper organic layer (histic epipedon); sulfidic material; aquic moisture regime; and the presence of mottles. Mottled soils are marked with spots of contrasting color indicative of a fluctuating water table and are characteristic of a wetland soil. The soil information was recorded on the appropriate data sheets (Appendix A). C. HYDROLOGY SAMPLING: Bore holes in the transect area were examined for evidence of standing water and soil saturation. Bore holes approximately 18 inches deep were made and depth to standing water was recorded. Evidence of surface inundation such as drift lines, water marks, sediment deposits, drainage, patterns, and scour areas was recorded. The property and surrounding areas were examined for the presence of dams, levees, ditches, or other structures that might affect hydrology on the site. The area was also examined for evidence of upstream diversions, channelization, or groundwater extraction which might alter drainage patterns on the site. The information was recorded on the appropriate field data sheets (Appendix A). • III. RESULTS An investigation of the site was conducted on July 25, 1994. The property is a residential lot within an established subdivision approximately 30 years old. A house, driveway, parking area, and other usual amenities exist on the property. Castle Creek forms the east boundary of the property, and Black Birch Drive forms the west boundary. Houses exist on the adjoining lots to the north and south. A small irrigation ditch crosses the property along Black Birch Drive and another outlets into Castle Creek at the southeast comer of the property. The information on vegetation, soils, and hydrology collected at the site and a discussion of this information follows: A. VEGETATION: The following list includes the dominant plant species found at test sites and the wetland indicator status of each species: SCIENTIFIC NAME Equisetum laevigatum Equisetum arvense Lonicera involucrata Rubus idaeus Rosa woodsii Populus acuminata Dactylis glomerata Stmptopus amplexifolius Heracleum lanatum Epilobium angustifolium Agropyron sp. Taraxacum officinale COMMON NAME STATUS Scouring Rush FacW Field Horsetail _ Fac+ Bearberry Honeysuckle Fac Red Raspberry FacU Woods Rose Fac- Lanceleaf Cottonwood Fac+ Orchard Grass FacU Twisted Stalk FacW Cow Parsnip Fac Fireweed FacU Wheatgrass FacU? Common Dandelion FacU+ The wetland vegetation community at Test Site #1 occupies a small depression which was a previous channel of the irrigation ditch before the ditch was moved approximately 10 feet to the west. This community consists primarily of Scouring Rush with Cottonwood, Honeysuckle, Twisted Stalk, and Rose along the perimeter. A narrow fringe wetland community exists adjacent to portions of the irrigation ditches. This fringe wetland community includes Sedge in addition to the species found at Test Site #1. The upland vegetation community at Test Sites #2, 3, and 4 which surrounds the wetland community is dominated by Cottonwood, Field Horsetail, Raspberry, Rose, Orchard Grass, Cow Parsnip, Fireweed, Dandelion, and Wheatgrass. B. SOILS: The soils observed in the wetland area at Test Site #1 was dark brown, 10YR2/1 to 10YR 2/2, without mottles. The soils observed in the upland areas at Test Sites #2, 3, and 4 were also dark brown, 10YR 2/2, without mottling. The wetland soil was saturated to the surface whereas the upland soil was dry. None of the soils showed signs of recent deposition. Much of the site was likely cleared and graded at the time of construction of the house. The wetland area can be considered to be an area of previous soil disturbance because it occupies an area of the original location of the constructed irrigation ditch. C. HYDROLOGY: Castle Creek borders the property but appears to have no influence on the hydrology of the surface soils. The property is approximately three feet above the high water line of the creek and the 100 year flood plain line approximately follows the top of bank of the creek. No signs of recent flooding were observed on the property. A narrow band of fringe wetlands exists along the creek below the 100 year flood plain boundary and is supported by the streamflow. The source of hydrology for the wetland is likely seepage from the irrigation ditch approximately 10 feet west of the wetland. Because the wetland occupies an old channel of the irrigation ditch, the elevation of the bottom of the wetland depression is about the same as the bottom of the ditch. Because the irrigation ditch is below the surface of the adjacent ground and because the soils are relatively course textured, seepage from the irrigation ditch appears to have no influence on the surface soil hydrology of the remaining portion of the property. D. WETLAND DETERMINATION: The jurisdictional wetland boundaries determined by this study are shown on the attached drawing titled "Wetland Map, Morrow Propertydated July 29, 1994. The total area of the small pocket of jurisdictional wetland located at Test Site #1 was determined to be approximately 200 square feet (0.0046 acre). The fringe wetlands associated with the irrigation ditches were determined to be non -jurisdictional. • APPENDIX A CJ -1 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSrrE DETERMNATION METHOD' Field Investigatgr s): / Date: Proiecvshe: ` ",10 State: Z o County: 777,147 ApgScarrt/Owner. Plant Community X/ ame: l Note: tf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. --------------------------------------------------- Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes ✓ No (if no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, sods, and/or hydrology been s nificant disturbed? Yes ✓ No (tf yes, explain on back) O�� "* L cG Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status 3. 4. /4oS4 i✓o cd1 i 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. VEGETATION Stratum Dominant Plant Species � 11. s 12. 13. 14. 2_ 15. 16. 17. - 18. 19. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OEL. FACK and/or FAC r �� is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ✓ No Rationale: 1-�07 SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric sails list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No ✓ Kstic spoedon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes fzoy— Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color °yR 2 �'�` - Mottle Colors: Other hydric sod indicators. Is the hydric sod criterion met? Yes ✓ No Rationale: /c w tir/"o*y2 r a9y/'C /proke HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No ✓ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes ✓ No Depth to free-standing water in prt/soil probe hole: v�✓� List other field evidence of surface inundation or sod saturation. Ls the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes ✓ No Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland?. Yes ✓ No Radio�+ale for jurisdictional decision' fl/l .3 varaN.e f�t'S' pot' Ind -razor Status Stratum 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Sod Assessment Procedure and the Pfarrt Community Assessment Procedure. Z Classification according to -Sod Taxonomy.' 8-2 ' 4 • DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD' Field Investigator(s): ��i//c'/^ Date: Projecvshe: >o�iaW State: Gu County--�17 Applicant/Owner. Plant Community #AUme: Z>, Note: tt a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. --------------------------------------------------- Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils. and/or hydrology been significantly disturbe ? Yes No ✓ (tf yes, explain on back) �sr9 VEGETATION Indicator IWX=or Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 2 TaN a ��/ O iGi�N� FaCUr� 3. re 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. - 19. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC -7 Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No Rationale: SOILS Serieslphase: Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Hisiosol7 Yes No �S � Kustic epipedon present? Yes No ✓ Is the soil: MottVe�?d��s� No ✓ G{eyed? Yes No � Matrix Color. �. Mottle Colors: Other hydric soil indcators: Is the hydric sod criterion met? Yes No ✓ Aatiogale: HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No ✓ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standnq water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or sod saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No Rationale: Ijip JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? _ Yes Ratio a� for jurisdrdional ion: No ✓ 1 This data farm can be used for the HydUric Sod Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 CLassiircation accordInq to 'Sod Taxonomy.' B-2 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERNNATION METH001 Field lrtvestigaiAr(s): , 'ale Date. 7'2 S %� Project/she: l"/orr State: Coun;y: AppFkanvOwner. Plant Community S/Name- Note: If a more detwled site description is necessary, use the back of data forth or a field notebook. --------------------------------------------------- Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes ✓ No (H no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, sacs, and/or hydrology been significantly nificantly distu,rbe� s> war , '1z:'V_r& 6L1,,/ f Yes No ✓ (If yes, explain on back)� S'Si6f� gi VEGETATION Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. �9 vim, v,+� �rrvt�il Je fcrG � 3. 3. 0�2 s'; i ,Q -aG — S 4. a G/C v.tl 7. 8. 9. 10 Dominant Plant Species il. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Percent of dominant species that are 08L. FACK and/or FAC Ls the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes ✓ No Rationale: SOILS Seriesiphase: Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No-l4istic spoadon present? Yes No Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No —� Glayed? Yes No Matrix Color. 1 oy7/�27_ Morde Colors: Qther hydric sod indicators: Is the hydric sod criterion met? Yes No ✓ Rationale: 9 . row HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No ✓ Surface water depth: !s the soil saturated? Yes No Depth to free-standing water diin pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or sod saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No ✓ Rationale: /1/o j vra h JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? - Yes No ✓ Rationale for jurisdtdional decision: Indicator Status Stratum 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Sod Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soli Taxonomy.' B-2 1 EXISTING PLANS AND PHOTOGRAPHS ITEM 19/1 f' CZ 0W Tz %P 5414'45� IJPP01Z LOVER, Py�r ITEM 19/2 110 Ers Sk OST wig OMW -Art 'low VV