HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Gross.40A-86 ■
. - L11Jf1,Vfl] JUrintfril JtSGG' '
City of Aspen 273 "1- 115 ! /
1 - Cc
DATE RECEIVED (P F I ti L l it C, NO. ���
t�',1��J
DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: / p ' �'(� - r 1r - STAFF: _ S, --
PROJECT NAM : '�T L ' � .1) / ' t T ( ,l I) ( (010. " , 1 . )
( iPPLICANT: ( : , y'- , 6o /
Applicant A ress(Phone. g.•�" \ u` 'eat, ( 18111 (!_, ;i 7 «
REPRESENTAT E: ;CI� ?l,�� [4 i ) , - v
y ) /-7—cric,
Representative Address /Phone: C' t - blt :./2 4 . ,,_: t . A i f,_}
Type of Application: 514)) —
I. GMP /Subdivision /PUD
1. Conceptual Submission 20 $2,730.00
2. Preliminary Plat 12 1,640.00
3. Final Plat 6 820.00
II. Subdivision /PUD
1. Conceptual Submission - 14 $1,900.00
2. Preliminary Plat 9 1,220.00
3. Final Plat 6 820.00
III. All "Two Step" Applications 11 $1,490.00
IV. All "One Step" Applications ✓ / 5 $ 68
V. Referral Fees - Environmental
Health, Housing Office
1. Minor Applications 2 $ 50.00
2. Major Applications 5 $ 125.00
Referral Fees -
Engineering /
Minor Applications/ 80.00
Major Applications 200.00
0 CC MEETING DATE: 4 \AV \S PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
rryy (gypp , +
DATE REFERRED: C : , iO9 INITIALS: /7 �(
REFERRALS:
� City Atty Aspen Consol. S.D. School District
✓ City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd)
Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric StateHwy Dept (Gr.Jtn)
City Electric Fire Marshall Bldg: Zoning /Inspectn
Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other:
Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center
` FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED:
- 1 1 - $ 1 INITIAL: 1 "1
Li City Atty V City Engineer Building Dept.
Other: Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
CASE DISPOSITION: r tin 2 (f P 11;
Reviewed by: (1 j P &Z City Coun4
c'A-T. h, "a76 1 2
lmwr�,rv n l•� y unr .0. , 1t:tr
i,,�pww'" �` ( 41 /�t .' .,F i ", 3 e -rdziA
1) The first floor elevation shall be raised five feet
above the average grade of the building site as shown
in the Elevation Certificate. The foundation shall be
constructed with openings to allow for the unimpeded
movement of flood waters, as described in the Elevation
Certificate FEMA regulations, subject to approval of
construction drawings by the Engineering Department and
Planning Office prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
2) All existing trees shall be retained and there shall be
no change in the existing grade of the site, as repre-
sented in the application.
3) The Army Corps of Engineers shall be consulted to
determine whether a 404 or Nationwide permit is needed.
A copy of that permit or letter stating no permit is
required, shall be submitted to the Engineering
Department and Building Department prior to issuance of
a building permit.
Reviewed By: Aspen PO, Cit Council
` C "` n DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Pr `�'
a ° P � 2f � SACRAMENTO DISTRICT CAPITOLM CORPS ALL OF ENGINEERS NOV 2� 1986
o n I
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814 4794
R EPLY TO
4rF ° ATTENTION OF
November 25, 1986
Regulatory Section
Mr. Jeff Simonson
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc.
1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. Simonson:
This is in regard to your letter of transmittal dated
November 19, 1986 concerning a lot on Bay Street in Aspen,
Colorado. The letter requested that we determine whether this
consequently requiring CarpermltEfornthesproposedi wetlands,
building.
A representative from this office inspected the site on
November 23, 1986. The site has not met all of the parameters
required to term the area a wetland; therefore, we have no
jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
As requested, 1 am returning the submitted photographs.
Should you have any questions, you may contact Judy Geniac of
this office by telephoning (303) 243 -1199.
S n erely,
Grad . McNure
C ef, R gulatory Unit 4
64 Hori on Drive, Room 211
(Grand J ction, Colorado 81506 -8719
Enclosure
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Gross Stream Margin Review
DATE: November 18, 1986
LOCATION: Lots 10,11 and 12, Block 2, Oklahoma Flats Sub-
division, City of Aspen (just west of the pedestrian bridge off
Rio Grande Trail to Smuggler neighborhood).
ZONING: R -30 (PUD).
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests permission to
construct a single - family dwelling of approximately 4,800 square
feet on the merged three lots. A deck attached to the house
would be built next to the River; and a detached garage would be
located off Bay Street.
APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: Stream Margin and Flood
Hazard Review, Section 24 -6.3 was amended by Ordinance 62, Series
of 1985 at the behest of the City Engineer and City Attorney to
better meet revisions in the National Flood Insurance Program.
The principal objective of the revisions was to change Aspen's
regulations so that federal flood insurance would be available to
property owners exposed to flood hazards.
The Intention Statement of Section 24- 6.3(a) as amended in reads:
"To guide development and encourage appropriate uses of land
in proximity to designated natural water courses, to promote
safety from flooding, to prevent impediment of natural water
flow, to insure provisions for adequate protection and
preservation of designated natural water courses as impor-
tant natural features, and to restrict development in flood
hazard areas."
Plan specifications to be submitted as part of the stream margin
review submitted include, in part (Section 24- 6.3(d)):
"When development is proposed in a special flood hazard
area: accurate elevations (in relation to mean sea level) of
the lowest floor, including basement, of all new or substan-
tially improved structures; a verification and recordation
of the actual elevation in relation to mean sea level to
which any structure is constructed; a demonstration that all
new construction or substantial improvements will be
anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement;
a demonstration that the structure will have the lowest
floor, including basement, elevated to at least two (2) feet
above the base flood elevation, all as certified by a
registered professional engineer or architect."
Review criteria that shall be considered by P &Z are stated
in Section 24- 6.3(e) as follows:
"1) No development shall occur within a special flood
hazard area unless it can be demonstrated that there
will be no increase in base flood elevation as a result
of the development, as shown by an elevation certif i-
cate prepared by a professional engineer registered to
practice in the State of Colorado.
2) In the event there is a trail designated by an approved
trail plan within the development site, such trail
shall be dedicated for public use.
3) All attempts should be made to implement the recommend-
ations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan prepared by
the Roaring Fork Greenway Committee.
4) Vegetation shall not be removed nor any slope grade
changes made that may produce erosion of the stream
bank.
5) All efforts shall be made to reduce pollution and
interference with the natural changes of the river,
stream or other water course, and to enhance the value
thereof an important natural feature.
6) Written notice shall be given to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relo-
cation of the water course, any a copy of said notice
shall be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.
7) In the event a water course shall be altered or
relocated, the applicant and applicant's heirs,
successors and assigns shall provide maintenance to
assure that the flood carrying capacity is not dimin-
ished.
8) Copies shall be submitted of all necessary federal and
state permits relating to work within the one hundred
year floodplain. "
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Engineering Department - In a memorandum from Jim Gibbard
2
dated November 8, 1985 the following comments were made:
1) The elevations shown on the submitted elevation
certificate indicate that there will be no increase in
the base flood elevation as a result of this develop-
ment.
2) The applicant should comply with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency regulations when constructing the
foundation of this structure, which would require an
opening to be provided to allow flood water flow -
through.
3) The Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted to
determine whether of 404 or a nationwide permit is
needed and a copy of that permit should be submitted.
4) The applicant has indicated that will be no vegetation
removed or slope grade changes made that may produce
erosion of the stream bank.
5) The applicant has also indicated that there will be no
alteration of the watercourse and the plans indicate
the location of this development is such that it will
not increase pollution significantly.
Additional comments were made in a memorandum dated
November 13, 1986 by the Engineering Department
(attached). The Department's position is that it would
better serve the public interest if a determination
were made by FEMA regarding the map revision first
proposed by the applicant.
B. Planning Office Comments: The applicant must demonstrate as
part of plan specification d(7) and review criterion (e) (1)
that: 1) there will be no change in the base flood elevation
within the special flood area and 2) elevation of the lowest
floor will be two (2) feet above the base flood elevation.
On the elevation certificate prepared by architect Dave
Gibson (attached) base flood elevation is shown to be
7873.33 feet and the lowest floor will be at elevation
7875.5 feet. In a letter from project engineer Jeff
Simonson dated October 29, 1986 (attached) it states that
"there will be no rise in base flood elevation due to the
construction of the proposed residence."
It should be noted that the applicant first attempted to
demonstrate that the project area was outside the special
flood area through a site specific study. However, when it
was determined by the Engineering Department that this
result would necessitate an amendment to the FEMA map,
taking about 4 months to go through FEMA process, the
3
applicant chose to agree with the existing FEMA map.
Because the Engineering Department believes that map
revision, as approved by FEMA, would be in the public
interest, we encourage the applicant to pursue the map
amendment in cooperation with the City. This would be the
most desireable alternative.
There is a disagreement between the applicant and City
Engineering Department regarding the appropriate construc-
tion procedures, given that the average grade of the
building site is below the base flood elevation and the
first floor will be 5 feet above the present site grade.
The applicant has stated that the construction will consist
of a wooden structure on a concrete perimeter. No openings
would be incorporated in the foundation design to allow for
the movement of flood waters.
The Engineering Department recommends that the applicant
comply with Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations
on foundation construction set forth as part of the Eleva-
tion Certificate. It is stated therein that the "floor...at
ground level is not considered the building's lowest floor
if the walls of the unfinished enclosed areas are construc-
ted with openings (such as with parallel sheer walls, open
latice walls, discontinuous foundation walls, and combina-
tions thereof) to facilitate the unimpeded movement of flood
water or the walls are breakaway walls."
In addition to the Engineering Department recommendation,
our stream margin regulations require the applicant to
submit an elevation certificate (Review Criteria (1)) and
submit copies of "all necessary federal and state permits
relating to work within the one hundred year floodplain"
(Review Criteria (8)). Therefore, it is clear that the FEMA
construction procedure stated above is required by FEMA and
recognized by the City's Stream Margin Review.
The proposal appears to comply with all other criteria of
stream margin review. The applicant has stated that no
vegetation will be removed nor will any grade by changed
(Criteria (4) ) . This is an important commitment because
there are mature cottonwoods along the river bank and a
cottonwood and aspen grove near Bay Street. No trails are
designated in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Trails
Element within the development site (Criteria (2)) . The
Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan, referred in Criteria 3,
encourages "maintaining the Greenway as a natural area by
keeping construction to a minimum." We feel that the
applicant is restricting development from the most environ-
mentally sensitive area directly adjacent to the river.
Care should be taken during the construction phase to
minimize disturbance of the site so as not to cause erosion
or pollution (Criteria (5)) . No alteration to the water-
course will occur, therefore, Criteria (7) is not appli-
cable.
4
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office agrees with the Engineering
Department that the construction procedures should include
openings to facilitate movement of flood water. We recommend
approval of the Gross Stream Margin Review subject to the
conditions as follows:
1) The first floor elevation shall be raised five feet
above the average grade of the building site as shown
in the Elevation Certificate. The foundation shall be
constructed with openings to allow for the unimpeded
movement of flood waters, as described in the Elevation
Certificate FEMA regulations, subject to approval of
construction drawings by the Engineering Department and
Planning Office prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
2) All existing trees shall be retained and there shall be
no change in the existing grade of the site, as repre-
sented in the application.
3) The Army Corps of Engineers shall be consulted to
determine whether a 404 or Nationwide permit is needed.
A copy of that permit or letter stating no permit is
required, shall be submitted to the Engineering
Department and Building Department prior to issuance of
a building permit.
If the applicant is not willing to meet the conditions of
approval, then we recommend that he table this application until
the FEMA map revision is undertaken and a lower ground floor can
be considered.
SB8601
5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: November 13,1986
RE: Gross Stream Margin Review
The Engineering Department would like to amend its previous
recommendation in regard to the above application by adding the
following comments:
1. The applicant has submitted information from a hydrological
study done by Schmueser, Gordon and Meyer, which in demonstrating
that there is no increase in the Base Flood Elevation as a result
of this development, also indicates there would be a change in
the boundary shown on the present Federal Insurance Study map.
2. Channel deepening was done in this area by another property
owner with the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission
after the Flood Insurance Study was made but before the Stream
Margin Review Ordinance was amended to require that FEMA be given
written notice prior to any altercation of a water course.
3. The attached FEMA document indicates that the Federal Insur-
ance Study may require revision due to new information becoming
available or through physical changes in floodplains.
4. Even though the applicant has decided not to use the Base
Flood Elevation determined by the above hydrologic study, the
Engineering Department feels that it would be in the public
interest to revise the existing Federal insurance Study map.
5. The Engineering Department recommends that approval of this
application by the Planning and Zoning Commission be subject to a
condition that FEMA make a determination on the requirement of a
Federal Insurance Study map revision.
JG/jg /gross
cc: Jay Hammond
,
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
SUITE 203 AREA CODE 303
ASPEN. COLORADO 61611 TELEPHONE 446.4614
September 12, 1986
Flie rlQn •
wE
o 10 "
31omP-
City of Aspen
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
Attn: Mr. Steve Burstein
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: City of Aspen - -Gross stream margin review
Dear Steve:
This letter is to apply on behalf of Mr. Jenard Gross
for stream margin review for his proposed single family
dwelling on Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 2, Oklahoma Flats
subdivision.
Mr. Gross has entered into a contract for the purchase
of the property subject to stream margin review approval.
The contract is available for review by Paul Taddune if he so
desires.
Mr. Gross wishes to construct a single family dwelling
of approximately 4800 square feet on the lot which faces the
Roaring Fork River. The lot lies between an existing trail
that is constructed with a high berm and an existing
substantial house built directly adjacent to the river. The
construction would be entirely within the 100 year flood
plain line as it is currently mapped.
Ordinance 62, series of 1985 provides certain review
criteria. The primary provision reads as follows:
"No development shall occur within a special flood
hazard area unless it can be demonstrated that
there will be no increase in base flood elevation
as a result of the development, as shown by an
elevation certificate prepared by a professional
engineer registered to practice in the State of
Colorado."
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a letter from Jeff
Simonson of the engineering firm of Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer,
which reaches the conclusion that there will not be an
increase in base flood elevation as a result of Mr. Gross's
house. With regard to the remaining criteria, there is no
trail designated on the site, we are unaware of any roaring
fork greenway plan recommendations although Mr. Gross will
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LA W
keep the stream side as natural as possible. No vegetation
is to be removed nor slope grade changes made that may
produce erosion of the stream bank. There will be no
alteration of the water course. We are not sure if a federal
permit is necessary, but we are checking that and will
provide that information as soon as it is received.
In addition to the engineering report attached hereto,
we have included the engineer's back up flood plain study and
architect David Gibson's drawings as to a site plan and
overall site plan, the latter of which shows the other
dwellings built in Oklahoma flats, particularly the one on
the lot adjacent to that of Mr. Gross, which provides certain
aesthetic limitations upon what Mr. Gross could otherwise do
with his lot. Please advise us of the hearing date before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, and if we can provide you
with any other information, please let us know.
Sincerely, �.
Gt. ^)' (�U
J. Nicholas McGrath, P.C.
Applicant's signature:
/ 7 / . /
6:1gross.911
�����
SCHMUESER u'. ON MEYER /���� \�\ 1512 ( 1 ND AVENUE, SUITE 212
Ito ;Ea * GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
• sansAmej (303) 945 -1004
October 29, 1986 "„�� p
\�\ \��t.Y CONSULTING ENGINEERS RSURVEYORS/
Mr. Nicholas McGrath 3 1 S
600 East Hopkins, Suite 203
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Nick:
As per the results of the meeting with the City Engineering Staff, we
have re-ran the floodplain study for the Gross property.
The information used in this run was obtained directly from the FEMA
Flood Insurance Study for the City of Aspen. Specifically, the
information (i.e., cross sections, manning roughness coefficients,
starting conditions and flows) was obtained directly fran the HEC -2
runs as prepared by the Denver Engineering Corporation (DEC) for the
flood insurance study. This information is on file at the City of
Aspen.
The conclusion of the results from this run is that there is no rise in
base flood elevation due to the construction of the proposed residence.
Fran my understanding of the outcome of our meeting on October 23,
Chuck Roth was more interested in knowing the amount of deplaced water
due to development. The HEC -2 run, as previously stated, confirms that
there will be no increase in base flood elevation; thus, there is no
displaced water due to development.
Also, Mr. Roth was interested in knowing the elevation of the floor of
the proposed residence. Based upon the results of the study at the
east side of the house, this elevation should be no less than 7872.21
which is two feet higher than the floodplain elevation at this loca-
tion. I have submitted a sketch of the Oklahoma Flats area with the
floodplain boundary drawn on it. This sketch is traced from a 1:400
scale map by Cooper Aerial Surveys.
I hope this information and the results frail this run clear up the
matter as to the location of the floodplain.
Your comments and questions are welcome.
Sincerely, U
SCHMUESER GDRDON MEYER, INC. 0 759 J p(`
h 1'"
,
• 7. hnonson , n ��
JS:lc/6121 [ U �
xc
xc: Dave Gibson, Gibson & Reno Architects 1' ` U
(9
Enclosure ,�
,`) v)
ballot-16 141.t 142 , 143, 144 Atte A1.1- Fee- headaSELt,aNS
SE4no4 14z.1 , 14r.z ,142.3 t 14e.4 ARE ALL INrllPoLAtxp
LBoS4 4ecno,JS F2oM nutria .
•
1
\ ts■li
\ )
i i 4' � s :rni� _ - -110 O
....„,.
1,43 .....
•
____,...„.k.
, ,,____ Im ilit
1�_ ,..,
/\
#vn' Aria
4{e -rLK iced Lai A
14.rs. 4.4.M, , r,.1z .
to /tq /sit .
NOV 1 786 jLi\\!
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: November 13,1986
RE: Gross Stream Margin Review
a aaaaam a
The Engineering Department would like to amend its previous
recommendation in regard to the above application by adding the
following comments:
1. The applicant has submitted information from a hydrological
study done by Schmueser, Gordon and Meyer, which in demonstrating
that there is no increase in the Base Flood Elevation as a result
of this development, also indicates there would be a change in
the boundary shown on the present Federal Insurance Study map.
2. Channel deepening was done in this area by another property
owner with the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission
after the Flood Insurance Study was made but before the Stream
Margin Review Ordinance was amended to require that FEMA be given
written notice prior to any altercation of a water course.
3. The attached FEMA document indicates that the Federal Insur-
ance Study may require revision due to new information becoming
available or through physical changes in floodplains.
4. Even though the applicant has decided not to use the Base
Flood Elevation determined by the above hydrologic study, the
Engineering Department feels that it would be in the public
interest to revise the existing Federal insurance Study map.
5. The Engineering Department recommends that approval of this
application by the Planning and Zoning Commission be subject to a
condition that FEMA make a determination on the requirement of a
Federal Insurance Study map revision.
JG/jg /gross
cc: Jay Hammond
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department`s
DATE: November 5,1986
RE: Gross Stream Margin Review
The Engineering Department has reviewed the above application and
had the following comments to make:
1. The elevations shown on the submitted elevation certificate
indicate that there will be no increase in the base flood
elevation as a result of this development.
2. The applicant should comply with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency regulations when constructing the foundation of
this structure.
3. The Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted to determine
whether a 404 or a Nationwide permit is needed and a copy of that
permit should be submitted.
4. The applicant has indicated there will be no vegetation
removed or slope grade changes made that may produce erosion of
the stream bank.
5. The applicant has also indicated that there will be no
alteration of the watercourse and the plans indicate the location
of this development is such that it will not increase pollution
significantly.
jg/gross2
cc: Jay Hammond
-
Ace MAN
A� Federal Emergency Management Agency
c4 i Washington, D.C. 20472
CONDITIONS AND CRITERIA
FOR MAP REVISIONS
A. Introduction
This document describes the conditions and criteria for revising a
Flood Insurance Study (FIS) under Part 65 of the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) recognizes that FISs may require revision due to new
information becoming available or through physical changes in flood
plains. This document defines the situations that fall under Part
65 of the NFIP regulations and describes the procedures for correcting
or updating Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and Flood Boundary and
Floodway Maps (FBFMs).
B. Definitions
A Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) issued under Part 70 of the NFIP
regulations indicates whether or not a structure(s) or proposed
structure(s) is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as shown
on a FIRM or Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM). A LOMA removes a
property from the SFHA and thereby makes inapplicable the Federal
requirement for the purchase of flood insurance. For more information
regarding LOMAs, refer to "Conditions and Criteria for Letters of
Map Amendment."
A Conditional Letter of Map Revision, or belief letter, issued under
Part 65 of the NFIP regulations is FEMA's comment on the effectiveness
or impacts of a proposed flood control project or flood plain
modification. It is based on FEMA's review of the proposed project
and states that were the proposed project built as designed, it would
be cause for a map revision.
A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) can be issued under Part 65 of the
NFIP regulations as an expeditious means of revising a FIRM or FBFM.
The LOMR gives a detailed description of the Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) and graphic changes that will be made to the SFHA currently
delineated on the effective FIRM and /or FBFM. LOMRs involving BFE
changes are always succeeded by a physical map revision.
A Physical Map Revision under Part 65 of the NFIP regulations involves
changing and republishing the existing FIRM and /or FBFM to reflect
any updated condition. Valid LOMAs and LOMRs are incorporated into
map revisions.
C. Reasons for Revision
FEMA will revise an effective FIS to reflect new information which
shows the original FIS to be incorrect and to reflect physical changes
which invalidates the original FIS analyses or presentation of data.
Updated or corrected topographic mapping, hydrologic data or hydraulic
data constitute new information which may warrant a revision. Flood
-
protection projects and any form of topographic alterations (cut and fill)
constitute physical changes which may also warrant a map revision.
D. General Revision Policy
Within the statutory criteria established for appeals, revision requests
will be evaluated based on the possession of knowledge or information
indicating that the effective elevations are scientifically or
technically incorrect. In certain situations where new information
shows mathematical or measurement errors in the original FIS, FEMA
will accept the responsibility for revising the FIS provided the
requestor submits the basic data necessary to correct the problem.
Where revision requests are based on the application of alternative
methods, appellants are required to demonstrate that the new analyses
result in more correct estimates of base flood elevations, thus
demonstrating that FEMA's estimates are incorrect. In these situations,
where a revision request is being made based on imprn.+od data, mnthndv,
- or applications, the community (or requestor through the community)
must accept responsibility for providing all data and analyses necessary
to update the PIS.
If a physical change resulting from development warrants a revision
to the existing analyses, FEMA will not undertake this new technical
analysis. The requestor, through the community, must accept
responsibility for providing all data and analysis necessary for
updating the FIS.
E. Community Map Revision Requests
The map revision process cannot be initiated without the community's
endorsement since it is the community that adopts the effective FIS.
Therefore, any individuals requesting a change to the FIS, must do
so through the community. The community, in turn, may support the
request and forward the information to FEMA for evaluation. FEMA
will review the request to ascertain that the following conditions
are met before evaluating the revision request.
Condition Number 1
The community must endorse the revision request and demonstrate
preparedness to accept responsibility for the operation and /or
maintenance of any structural measures (e.g. channel improvements
or levees) involved. The request submittal should include the
following:
1.1 A statement that the community endorses the revision request.
1.2 If the basis for the revision request is a channel modification,
the completion of a dam, levee, or any other structural measure,
evidence is required to demonstrate the design is adequate and
that maintenance and operation provisions, where applicable,
have been made.
a. For a channel modification or similar structural measure,
the community is responsible for maintenance of the channel.
2/6 FEMA 12/30/85
b. For a levee, the community must develop and offically adopt
a formal maintenance and operation plan that describes the
type and frequency of the maintenance activities that will
be performed and the operation of any closure.
1.3 The submittal must indicate that, where necessary, state approval
of the revision has been obtained.
Condition Number 2
If the revision request is based on information showing a mathematical
or measurement error in the original analysis, the submittal must
include the following:
2.1 Documentation that identifies the specific source of the error.
2.2 A written description of the new information and how it differs
from the existing FIS information.
2.3 Basic data supporting the revision request to enable FEMA to
revise the FIS. In most cases, this data must be certified by
a registered professional engineer or licensed land surveyor.
Updated topographic maps, revised community boundary maps including
annexation ordinances, and channel, dam, or bridge structure
plans which illustrate the correct dimensions are examples of
the basic data required.
Condition Number 3
If the revision request is based on improved application of hydrologic,
hydraulic, or other methods, or use of better data in applying such
methods, the requestor must submit the following:
3.1 Documentation that identifies the error in the application or
in the inferior data in the original analysis and supports why
the application is incorrect or the data is inferior.
3.2 Engineering analyses applying the same basic methods utilized
by FEMA but with the changes itemized.
3.3 Alternative engineering analyses utilizing the methods or
assumptions determined to be correct.
3.4 Background technical information which supports the requestor's
changes as being more correct.
3.5 Certification by a registered professional engineer or licensed
land surveyor of the correctness of any alternate data utilized
or measurements made.
3.6 Documentation of all locations where the requestor's base flood
elevations are different from FEMA's.
3/6 FEMA 12/30/85
' All engineering analyses performed must substantiate that the revised
hydrologic or hydraulic analyses meet FENA requirements as well as
any state or community requirements.
F. General Technical Guidance
Flood plain revisions should be based on the hydraulic model used
to develop the flood profile and flood boundaries currently in effect.
The community should request, through the FEMA Regional Office, a
copy of the input data used in the computer model for its effective
FIS. Where the input data representing the original•hydraulic model
is unavailable, or where a technically superior model can be used,
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 FIS which established
the original BFEs. The model must use the same effective flow areas
as established in the original analysis and must be calibrated to
reproduce the original base flood elevations within 0.1 foot. Any
differences between the new analysis and the original profile must
be justified on an engineering basis.
After the model has been checked and matches the original base flood
elevations, the model can be modified for new flood plain runs. The
analysis will be accomplished as specified for the following conditions:
Discharge Decreases. Hydraulic analyses may be revised when a base
flood discharge decreases as a result of structural improvements,
such as the construction of a flood control dam or other significant
retention facilities. Hydraulic analyses should not be revised based
on a computed discharge reduction which results from changed method-
ology or longer stream gage records, unless the change is statistically
significant. The statistical 'significance criteria are discussed
in Section 2 -6 "Hydrologic Analyses" of FEMA's Guidelines and
Specifications for Study Contractors (dated September 1985). If it
is evident that the change is statistically significant, the original
hydraulic model should be rerun, changing only the discharges. In
cases where the statistical significance test does not apply, a
determination by a state or Federal agency that the change is
significant may be accepted as a basis for a map revision.
Discharge Increases. If watershed conditions have resulted in a
significant (defined as above) increase in discharge, the original
hydraulic model must be run with the increased discharges.
Channel Modification. The original hydraulic model will be modified
to include the channel modification, and any other encroachment
occurring subsequent to the original flood plain delineation.
In all situations, the revised hydraulic analysis should be modified
to include current conditions as well as any encroachment to the flood
plain that may have occurred since the original model was developed.
The revised hydraulic analysis should also include a zone determination,
and if only a portion of the existing hydraulic analysis is revised,
4/6 FEMA 12/30/85
the upstream and downstream portions of the revised analysis should
coincide with the effective FIS profiles, i.e., hydraulic calculations
should be continued for a great enough distance upstream and downstream
of the revised area until water- surface elevations coincide with those
in the effective FIS.
The submittal must include the technical data that enables FEMA to
determine whether the flood plain revision meets FEMA's requirements.
The submittal must include the following:
o 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 hydraulic
analysis was developed. The printout must include full
input and output listings.
o A copy of the printout from the hydraulic computer model
representing the new 10T, 50 -, 100 -, and 500 -year profiles.
The model should be the same as that used in the preceding
item, but modified to include any channel modification,
fill or other encroachment that may have occurred in the
flood plain since the original flood plain was delineated.
o Delineation of the 100- and 500 -year flood boundaries and
the location and alignment of cross sections and flow line
used in the hydraulic model. This information should be
shown on a map of suitable scale and topographic definition
to provide reasonable accuracy.
o A copy of the currently effective flood profiles showing
the existing and the revised flood elevations.
o Certification from a registered professional engineer that
the physical parameters used in the proposed flood boundary
delineation represent actual conditions and that the standards
contained in these "Conditions and Criteria" are met.
When a map is revised as a result of a new hydraulic analysis, the
effect_-. of the revised hydraulics on the floodway must also be
considered. If a revised floodway analysis is necessary, the community
should refer to the "Conditions and Criteria for Floodway Revisions"
for additional information that will be required.
G. FEMA Response to Map Revision Request
FEMA will evaluate a request from the community for a revision and
respond by one of the following means:
(1) A preliminary copy of the revised FIS will be sent to the community
for their review. If the revision involves BFE changes or the
establishment of new BFEs, FEMA will initiate a 90 -day Appeals
Period. Upon review and resolution of any comments and /or appeals
received, FEMA will issue a new effective FIS which will be sent
to all previous recipients of the maps.
5/6 FEMA 12/30/85
(2) Send a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to the community stating
that the review of the submitted material has resulted in an
official map revision but that a physical map revision is not
warranted at this time. The LOMR will give a detailed description
of the BFE and graphic changes that have been made to the SFHA
currently delineated on the effective FIS. The material, in-
cluding a copy of the maps showing the revised information, will
be filed for incorporation at a later time into a physical map
revision. The approved map revision copies will be dated. Since
it is possible that FEMA has responded to a map revision request
in this manner, all FIS users are encouraged 'to contact the
community before proceeding with plans for development within
the flood plain areas. LOMRs that result in an increase in BFE
will also be preceded by a 90 -day appeals period. An appeals
period for a LOMR which only decreases BFEs will be provided
subsequent to the issuance of the LOMB.
(3) Send a letter to the community with a copy to any other requestor
stating that the submitted material is not adequate to make an
evaluation and offer them the option of submitting additional
information.
(4) Send a letter to the community with a copy to any other requestor
stating that the submitted material appears to justify a map
revision, but because not enough information was submitted the
community will be placed on a list for restudy consideration,
as funds permit, unless the community can submit additional infor-
mation.
(5) Send a letter to the community with a copy to any other requestor
stating that the submitted material does not substantiate their
request for a map revision and that the file will be closed unless
the community can submit additional information to substantiate
their request.
H. Submittal of Material
Submit material to the FEMA Regional Office. The Regional Office
will review material for completeness, concur with the proposed changes,
approve any maintenance ordinances, and forward the necessary material
to FEMA Headquarters.
FEMA Headquarters will review the hydrologic /hydraulic backup material,
engineering design, and any plans of operation and maintenance (where
appropriate), request additional information as necessary, then respond
to the community by means of the appropriate action defined under
Section F above.
To obtain further information on the conditions and criteria for map
revisions, communities are encouraged to contact the appropriate FEMA
Regional Office or FEMA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., at (202)
287 -0700, prior to requesting a map revision.
6/6 FEMA 12/30/85
t r.
NAN
im 46,
Z Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
•
CONDITIONS AND CRITERIA FOR FLOODNAY REVISIONS
FOREWORD
The National Flood Insurance Program makes flood insurance available to
property owners in communities that adopt and enforce flood plain management
measures to reduce future flood losses. The Program provides flood hazard
maps and risk information on which local flood plain management measures are
based.
One aspect of a sound flood plain management program is the maintenance of a
floodway area to assure that the elevations of future floods will not be
increased significantly. The adoption of a floodway by a community preserves
the necessary conveyance area for passage of the flood waters by restricting
actions within the floodway which will result in any increase in flood
elevation.
After a floodway is adopted, a community may encounter a compelling need to
change the configuration of their floodway and therefore request that the
floodway map prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) be
revised. The purpose of these conditions and criteria is to set forth the
nature and extent of the material needed to support such a request.
Compliance with the criteria described herein will allow FEMA to review the
material and revise the floodway maps as appropriate in a timely manner.
rey 5. Bragg
A dministrator
Federal Insurance Administration
FEMA 8/27/84
Y .✓ - _
MEMORANDUM
1
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department" .
DATE: November 5,1986
RE: Gross Stream Margin Review
acavaaaaaaa aeaaaaaaaaaaaaa�aa
The Engineering Department has reviewed the above application and
had the following comments to make:
1. The elevations shown on the submitted elevation certificate
indicate that there will be no increase in the base flood
elevation as a result of this development.
2. The applicant should comply with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency regulations when constructing the foundation of
this structure.
3. The Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted to determine
whether a 404 or a Nationwide permit is needed and a copy of that
permit should be submitted.
4. The applicant has indicated there will be no vegetation
removed or slope grade changes made that may produce erosion of
the stream bank.
5. The applicant has also indicated that there will be no
alteration of the watercourse and the plans indicate the location
of this development is such that it will not increase pollution
significantly.
]g /gross
cc: Jay Hammond
•
• .
• BAY STREET 0 • •
7g -0+ •
•
• ��
E isting T sss ' ./ " qw
•
I • ` -ts 10, 12 I
I • I = OCK 2 ' '
I . ; ' 1 626 SF 1 •
i 1 •
/j • •
a
le i/
- . e�. - ..I, • / 2 —CAW I
AEI Gravel 13 �.'. j Gi4f1AO
V / I •• L 103.5 Ft •= 1
�. • I l a
• m
..... .2 : 1 ,
. ,
..•.. . 4'4) : 1111H1 . . 1 _
a 1 I IQ a
• •oi m Z
r PROPOSED 2 —STORY • I 3 1 '1
/ � :;E:: RAME G % •d; I D
480 07•
2 • • .) r
5 Ft. •
• `
I
I w L 1 awl
1I 11 11 II it 1111111 I t A
, 101011
ii o �
OF = a nSi tau .. • \ \ 1 04'
. `
"Sit' 1 • -
�. ���I` 1 1 o a
I sat
11.1". --...%1 • tom 100
Existing Tree 1' "•►�_ \ /
(-L111!.. - Water) ....`
g „ 0 , ` as,
ROARING FORK RIVER
1 _�
m
�� SITE P LAN .
GROSS RESIDENCE 9/10%
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
1E: Gross Stream Margin Review
Parcel IDI 2737 - 073 -11 -001
DATE: October 7, 1986
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Nick McGrath on behalf of his clients, Jenard and Gail Gross
requesting stream margin review to construct a single family
dwelling of approximately 4,800 square feet on Lots 10, 11, and
12, of Block 2, Oklahoma Flats Subdivision.
Please review this material and return your referral comments to
the Planning Office no later than November 4, 1986 so Steve has
adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P &Z on
November 18, 1986.
Thank you.
��itt 1512, AND AVENUE, SUITE 212
SCHMUESER 4v{tDON MEYER .. moat GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
j1 1fli ni (303) 945-1004
van v
wane-, I CONSULTING ENGINEERS 8 SURVEYORS/
August 14, 1986
Mr. David Gibson
Gibson & Reno
418 E. Cooper
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Gross Floodplain Study
Dear Dave:
This letter is intended to serve as a report on the findings of the
floodplain study performed tq Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. for the pro-
posed Gross residence in Aspen, Colorado.
I would first like to summarize the study approach:
Hydrological data for this study was obtained from the floodplain study
performed by Denver Engineering Corporation (DEC) for the City of
Aspen.
From this study, we obtained the 100 -year flow (Q=3300 cfs) and start-
ing conditions (i.e., water surface elevations of selected cross
sections).
Our initial approach reviewed the DEC floodplain study for its applica-
bility to the site. In this review, it was seen that the DEC modeled
the Roaring Fork River at a cross section just upstream of the pedes-
trian bridge and approximately 350 feet downstream of the site. The
report showed that the subject property fell within the 100 -year flood -
plain and not the 100 -year flood way, prompting the question whether or
not construction of the house would greatly affect flow conditions of
the Roaring Fork River. There is some question whether DEC has modeled
the river with existing houses in the 100 -year floodplain. Finally, we
found that the site and proposed construction was subject to require-
ments by the city for development in a special flood hazard area.
Upon drawing conclusions from the preliminary review of the floodplain,
we determined that a more "site specific" study was warranted.
Our site specific study required the acquisition of field data to be
utilized with the HEC -2 water surface profile program. The field data
obtained was that of river cross sections upstream and downstream of
the DEC study, cross sections on the upstream property line and a
section in the middle of the property.
We structured our study approach to model the river without the
proposed development, and with the proposed development. With pro-
posed develanent, one building footprint was modeled. The footprint
EXHIBIT A
August 14, 1986
Mr. Dave Gibson
Page two
can be described as being square consuming approximately the southern
one -half of the property.
Upon completing the hydraulic analysis of the Roaring Fork River for
proposed and existing conditions, we were able to draw the following
conclusions:
1) The footprint had no effect upon the base flood elevation.
2) Any observed bank overtopping in the Oklahoma Flats area is due
to overtopping near section 2 of this study (downstream of the
proposed construction approximately 250 feet).
In summary, the effects proposed construction from the footprint
will cause no increase in base flood elevation on the Roaring Fork
River.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER CORDON MEYER, INC.
// 1 7
AL
er Simonson 0 :• Gordon, P.E.
lent
JSS:DWG:lec /6121
Enclosure
- �P R o o � -�
O AZ r
# r
m*•t1 ;u
I �u w
i ��,� a , n O
1 /C € 4 a l
e
1i+ \OF`CON-
ill 6 a 331 a ,6 e x a e t • Y 6-
6 E efe x
i
, I I
A
c� I � II E � ��' I � � e
� � , j n E o I o - I.� �;
N I I Is N N I N � . N I { { ° i
H II
e e 1 p � , N I
n 6 `( i^ li ' y E C! \ p y e l l ` • 2 2 1 . �y I j ` 1 p B i e
I 1
6 / K/ `!
E�! A I 1‘ ;
41 1
/ e
t 1 (.. i t,
1 . g 0
, 1 0
I 6 i6. i�
CROSS - SEC i •. O
N N II
•
\----\ 2, , , I g
or t
\'
. u�
k ! 6 ,6
9
\ 1111
2
c
A
x
1 m \ • 1 111
\ \ \ 9 k 1111 E •
6 \ �
1 , 1 4 I
CROSS-SEC I
T) 5
CROSS
SECTIO
X 3 . 1 1 1 I I
/ , I ' �I %
ti r _ -�� •
R O O�
1\.
CFOSS_SECTION •3 -------- L)
1ao$1 n
g Si \._---\--------: II `
6 9 a n
= I ' 0 y § � A CNpSS- SECTIO 5 I 0.
I •
e ] J • •• •
.
\-
^� F -1 Sr. R ‘.
iil ,� �[ -/ •� F,L A LAIN \ � 1 r
p •! C '4.. .M660 / II M ' 6)I -� •••• •)•• t''' \ , ,`\ 1 N \ , ` +�
' � O A
• a /
H W ER 01 T U . yr
• , !I; Ii r �_
• ' i BLOCK "-NI II 1
� N
���1 1 i
J i k� r T ,:: s ' ., si. .,/ . ME 0 f
I \.
�J \ as a 1 TY T? 1 'LC.- •
- C-� ) a I 1 §. y Sm ti
�\ „ fri.fia I T
----) . % . • ar nil k < w�, �. I :,
11/ C I
lariliC STP . .. -1:-. % . -."'‘ liti I ::;.:::::::::".."‘ . <:<..d..e
lira l....�e "'tom :a:— iart /, , ,T /. ��
N
O••■::::4 OVERALL SITE PLAN
Scale: FEET GROSS RESIDENCE
0 8 50 0 900 OIBSON 8 RENO ARCHITECTS
•
BAY STREET O
. _
75.02 I •
•
O v
•
• E feting T see
1 / O '
• •/ , ,O
-ts 10 12 , � I
. 1 OCK 2 1 1
' I 1 = 26 SF ' •
•1 1
y j � ' /
N
i Oravei d . j GAflAGE
ci I V ' • • : r / 103
O. i ----. . . I . .8Ft / // 9
II i • 41)91 1
f•
j PROPOSED 2-STORY Le I ' 3
FRAME DWELLING % •s I \
%/�/� 4500 SF •3 r
IIV • Floor Elevation 103.6 Ft. • `\
j • I 01 • 108'
1111 - _ Ill! III 1l II I I �IIIIIII : ; ` A ID
of = - .+ =I ' • • \ N `� 404
• •
, _ I� 1 • ' _
..�- -�- - �. --..,,/ ••1- 3.100'
Existing Tropes , ""••••••` J
_. — — •
'-"� \
star)
ROARING FORK RIVER
gl
2
0
M ., Q
m
SITE PLAN
G ROSS RESIDENCE 9//0 Ma
Seals
OIBSON & RENO ARCHITECTS
. T*^°^"' .. e.•. m•.. vCx' mrei rrIDSwtligjeSeFit.ee4.. . 77...± (c. r . ..7
OMB 3067 -0077
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Expires: June 1984
z NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM -
ELEVATION CERTIFICATE
This form is to be used for: 1) New /Emergency Program construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas; 2) Pre -FIRM constrtictionafter
September 30, 1982; 3) Post -FIRM construction; and, 4) Other buildings rated as Post -FIRM rules.
•
BUILDING OWNER'S ADDRESS
NAME
Mr Jenard Gross 5718 Westheimer,._600 Houston. Texas 77057
PROPERTY LOCATION (Lot and Block numbers and address if available)
Lots 10. 11. 12 Block 2 Oklahoma Flats Subdivision Aspen, Colorado 81611
I certify that the information on this certificate represents my best efforts to interpret the data available. I understand that any false
statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S. code, Section 1001.
z SECTION - I ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION (Completed by Local Community Permit Official or a Registered Professional Engineer,
Architect; or Surveyor)
COMMUNITY NO. PANEL NO. SUFFIX DATE OF FIRM FIRM ZONE DATE OF CONSTR. BASE FLOOD ELEV BUILDING IS ,
Iln AO Zone, use depth) D(New/Emergency
080143 0001 B 12/4/85 A3 spring 1987 7873.33(hl het)' ❑ Pre -FIRM Reg.
P g Q O Post -FIRM Reg.
It I
YES NO It is intended that the building described above will be constructed in compliance with the community's flood plain
KI ❑ ordinance. The certifier may rely on community records. The lowest floor (including basement) will be at an elevation
• of . 7875.5_ ft, NGVD. Failure to construct the building at this elevation may place the building in violation of
the community's flood plain management ordinance.
YES NO The building described above has been constructed in compliance with the community's flood plaid management
Ta .. ❑ ordinance based on elevation data and visual inspection or other reasonable means.
If NO is checked, attach copy of variance - issued by the community. - -
YES - NO The mobile home located at the address described above has been tied down (anchored) in compliance with the
❑ ❑ community's flood plain management ordinance, or in compliance with the NFIP Specifications.
MOBILE HOME MAKE - MODEL YR. OF MANUFACTURE SERIAL NO. DIMENSIONS
... X,.._
(Community Permit Official or Registered Professional Engineer, Architect, or Surveyor) . -
NAME Gibson & Reno Architects ADDRESS 418 East Cooper, Suite #207
TITLE Partner y Aspen - . ' STATE Colorado zip 81611
SIGNATURE HATE 10/20/86 PHONE (303) 925 -5968
SECTION II ELEVATION CERTIFICATION (Certified by a Local Community Permit Official or a Registered Professional Engineer,
Architect, or Surveyor.)
FIRM ZONE A1-A30: I certify that the bujIding et the property location described above has the lowest floor (including basement)..
at an elevation of f 8 M.? _.feel NGVD (mean sea level) and the average grade at the building site is at
an elevation of 7870 5 feet, NGVD. - -
•
FIRM ZONES V, Vi -V30: t certify that the building at the property location described above -has the bottom of the lowest floor beam: -
at an elevation of feet, NGVD (mean sea level), and the average grade at the building site.
is at an elevation of feet, NGVD.
FIRM ZONES A, A99, AH and EMERGENCY PROGRAM: 1 certify that the building at the property location described above has the lowest
floor elevation of feet, NGVD. The elevation of the highest adjacent grade next to the building is feet, NGVD.
•
FIRM ZONE AO: I certify that the building at the property location described above has the lowest floor elevation of
feet, NGVD. The elevation of the highest adjacent grade next to the building is feet, NGVD. -
SECTION III FLOODPROOFING CERTIFICATION (Certification by a Registered Professional Engineer or Architect) ..
I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, that the building is designed so that the building is watertight, with
walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic
and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy that would be caused by the flood depths pressures velocities, impact and uplift -
forces associated with the base flood. .
YES ❑ NO IX In the event of flooding, will this degree of floodproofing be achieved with human intervention?
- (Human intervention means that water will enter the building when floods up to the base flood level oc-
cur unless measures are taken prior to the flood to prevent entry of water (e.g., bolting metal shields over
doors and windows).
YES Or NO ❑ Will the building be occupied as a residence?
If the answer to both questions is YES, the floodproofing cannot be credited for rating purposes and the actual lowest floor must be
completed and certified instead. Complete both the elevation and floodproofing certificates.
•
FIRM ZONES A, Al -A30, V1 -V30, AO and AH: Certified Floodproofed Elevation is 71B pg4 (NGVD).
THIS CERTIFICATION IS FOR ❑ SECTION II 0 1C BOTH SECTIONS II AND III (Check One) ..• v �`.t V( V �•�.,
CERTIFIER'S NAME COMPANY NAME LtefiLYS O. (or Affix - ,
David F. Gibson Gibson & Reno Architects
TITLE'" ADDRESS -
DAB F. GIBBON _
Partne 418 Fast Cooper SllitA 207 R181.1 = B4.238 r.
SIGNATURE DATE CITY STATE • - PHONE ...
• / N.)
The Insurance
second copy should be supplied to the opoll yholder the third copy retained by th/ `, +`
Aype1 s 1 1s tat,,•
' INSURANCE AGENTS MAY ORDER THIS FORM
•
•
FEMA Form 81 SEP 83 REPLACES FEMA FORM 8131, APR 82, WHICH IS OBSOLETE.
New/Emergency Program Construction:
For the purposes of determining insurance rates, buildings for which the start of construction or substantial improvement
commenced after September 30, 1982, are New /Emergency buildings.
Pre -FIRM Construction:
For the purposes of determining insurance rates, buildings for which the start 01 construction or substantial improvement
was on or before December 31, 1974 or the effective date of the Initial Flood Insurance Rate Map (date printed on commu-
nity FIRM), whichever is later. Special Note: If an approved building permit is dated prior to December 31, 1974, construction
must have commenced not later than 180 days atter the date of the approved budding permit. "Existing Construction" and
"Pre -FIRM Construction" have identical meanings for the purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Post -FIRM Construction:
For insurance rating purposes buildings for which the start of construction or substantial improvement commenced after
December 31, 1974 or the effective date of the initial Flood Insurance Rate Map (date printed on community FIRM), which-
.
i ever is later. "New Construction" and "Post -FIRM Construction" have identical meanings for the purposes of the National
Flood Insurance Program.
' ! Substantial Improvement: •
I I Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a building, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market
value of the building either (a) before the improvement or repair is started, or (b) if the building has been damaged, and is
being restored the market value before the damage occurred. For Flood Insurance Program purposes substantial improve-
ment is started when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences,
whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. However, the term does not include either
any project for health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions;
i or any alteration of a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places.
Lowest Floor – The lowest floor is the lowest floor (including basement) of the enclosed area. I he tollowing community modi-
fications of the lowest floor definition are permitted in order t meet •
• 1 y permit practices:
j (1) In Zones A, AO, AH, A1-A30, B, C, D, and Emergency Program areas which are not•oceanside building sites,
(a) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area at ground level or above, which is a crawl space. or space within the foun-
dation walls, usable as areas for building maintenance. access. parking vehicles. or storing of articles and maintenance
j equipment (not attached to the building) used in connection with the premises is not considered the building's lowest floor
-. ; if the walls of the unfinished enclosed areas are constructed with openings (such as with parallel sheer walls, open lattice
walls, discontinuous foundation walls, and combinations thereof) to facilitate the unimpeded movement of flood waters or
1 the walls are breakaway walls.
(b) The floor of an attached unfinished garage used for parking vehicles and storing articles and maintenance equip -
ment used in connection with the premises and not attached to the building is not considered the building's
the walls of the unfinished enclosed areas are constructed with openings (such as with parallel sheer walls, open
' walls, discontinuous foundation walls, or combinations thereof) to facilitate the unimpeded movement of flood waters or
the walls are breakaway walls.
i (2) In Zones V and V1 -V30; and Emergency Program areas which are Oceanside building lots, the following exceptions
apply:
i
(a) For flood plain management purposes. the floor of an unfinished enclosed area is not considered the building's
I • lowest floor if the area's walls are constructed as breakaway walls. However, for insurance rating purposes:
(i) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area less than 300 square feet is not considered the building's lowest
floor if the walls are breakaway walls.
(ii) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area equal to or greater than 300 square feet is considered the building's
lowest floor even if the walls are breakaway walls.
(b) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area with walls made of insect screening or open wood constructed break-
away lattice work (regardless of the size of the area enclosed) is not considered the building's lowest floor.
Lowest Floor Elevation – The lowest floor elevation is the elevation of the bottom•of the floor beam of the lowest floor in
Zones V, V1 -V30. In all other zones, the lowest floor elevation is the elevation of the top of the lowest floor.
ON WITH - ON ON
SLAB BASEMENT - PIERS SLAB
A
A I ZONES V LOWEST
ZONES _ A ZONES FLOOR
LOWEST FLOOR ` — Y- ZONES jl V
,rii WINDOW LOWEST FLOOR 1 ( ZONES
� � li{1
ELEVATION OF lil LOWEST FLOOR IF m • LOWEST
BASE AVERAGE GRADE BASEMENT IS L l i
FL000 BASE FLOODPROOFED 1, j BASE FLOOR •
ELEVATION FLOOD 1
FLOOD
ELEVATION �. AVERAGE i' ELEVATION
\----'r ; GRADE 1,.:1
ELEVATION OF LOWEST FLOOR i ��
IF NOT FLOODPROOFED `,
1
,�`� - i. •
• - NOTE: ''.,,,
( A Zones – A;•AO, AH, A1-A30, A99, Emergency Program other than Oceanside Building Sites
-� V Zones – V, V1 -V30, Emergency Program Oceanside Building Sites (beach areas subject to wave action during severe •
•
r - storms).- ' 4 '
•
• B ase stood Elevation – Flood plain management requirements including the Base Flood Elevation are shown on the
FIRM for Zones AH, Al -A30, V1 -V30 For FIRM Zone A, V, and Emergency Program Special Flood Hazard Areas the com-
munity permit otfictal or the builder has estimated this elevation by the reasonable interpretation of available data.
Enter that estimated elevation in the space provided in Section I of the Elevation Certification tor Base Flood Elevation.
• ' if this comm.unit?permit official or the builder has not selected an estimated Base Flood Elevation, enter N.A
its-
.
' 1