HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportBO
FJ
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST Floodplain Special Use Permit to construct a bridge
and culvert across Four Mile Creek
APPLICANT / OWNER Don and Janice Berger
LOCATION 4451 County Road 117 (Four Mile Road) just below
deadman's curve on the east side of the CR 117
PROPERTY SIZE 10 acres
WATER Well
SEWER ISDS
ACCESS CR 117
EXISTING ZONING ARRD
I. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
The Applicant proposes to construct a driveway across Four Mile Creek to access their property. In
doing so, this driveway will require crossing two braids of Four Mile Creek requiring a culvert and
a bridge to span the two sections of the creek. Four Mile Creek is a mapped floodplain which is
regulated by FEMA and administered by Garfield County. Presently, the property has access from a
neighboring property located off CR 126 (Black Diamond Road) just to the northeast. The
Applicant states that the proposed driveway crossing Four Mile Creek will be a shared driveway
providing access across the creek from Four Mile Road to not only the Applicant's property, but
also the adjoining neighbor to the south. The official Floodway Map (FEMA) depicts the floodplain
broken into the floodfringe (black) and the floodway (white). The area where the Applicant
proposes to cross the floodplain is characterized by two channels of Four Mile Creek with an island
in the middle. The floodway and floodfringe have been mapped in both the east and west channels.
It appears the proposed driveway will cross both the floodfringe and floodway in both channels of
the creek.
More specifically, the Applicant proposes to cross the east channel by installing a 4 -foot wide
culvert and large amounts of fill in the floodway and floodfringe. The Applicant proposes to cross
the west channel with a bridge in order to span the floodway and floodfringe.
1
II. REFERRAL COMMENTS
Staff referred the application to the following referral agencies and / or County Departments for
their review and comment. Comments received have been incorporated throughout the
memorandum and have also been attached to this memorandum.
A. US Army Corps of Engineers: No comments received other than previous correspondence
provided in the application materials where the Corps indicated that no permit could be
approved without approval by the County Floodplain Administrator by way of a Special Use
Permit.
B. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department: Indicated that a driveway access permit to
County Road 117 had been granted by the District 1 Forman. (Exhibit F)
C. Resource Engineering: Reviewed the project, conducted a site visit, and concluded that the
analysis of the culvert / fill in the east channel is in the floodway and that the analysis does
not adequately demonstrate that there will not be a 0.00 rise in the 100 year base flood
elevation. (Exhibit G)
III. STAFF COMMENTS
500•Year Flood Boundary
100.Year Flood Boundary -
FLQ(M)WAY FK1NC
1UUNear Hood Boundary
SUU•Yrar
Hood Boundary
Approximate 100.Year
flood Boundary
proposed bridge spanning the west channel.
The FEMA Floodway Map shown above depicts the
floodway (white) and floodfringe (Black). The panel
on the right also shows the location of the proposed
fill and culvert crossing the east channel and the
2
The map below was taken from the Flood Plain Study completed in 1982 which mapped the base
flood elevations in Four Mile Creek as tributary to the Roaring Fork and Colorado Rivers. The
purpose of this map is to show, in slightly more detail, the boundaries of the floodway, floodfringe,
and upland areas. Additionally, this map comports with the 1986 FEMA map on the previous page
showing that both east and west channels of Four
Mile Creek contain mapped floodways.
The proposed crossings are shown on the map to the
right. The area inside the dashed lines on the map is
the boundaries of the floodway. As measured, the
floodway in the east channel is approximately 1.5-20
feet wide. The floodway in the west channel is
approximately 45 feet.
The proposed bridge crossing of the west channel is
shown to be approximately 42 feet long which Staff
believes may not be long enough to entirely span the
floodway as measured on the map above. Secondly,
the proposed fill and culvert crossing of the east
channel is located entirely within the floodway which
is prohibited pursuant to Section 6.09.01(1)(A) of the
Zoning Resolution which states the following:
6.09.01
(1) Prohibited Uses and Activities. The following
uses and activities are prohibited in the
Floodway:
(A) Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other
development unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that encroachments shall not
result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. If
the technical evaluation satisfies the requirement, all new construction and substantial
improvements shall be required to meet the performance standards set forth in Section
6.09.02(3).
As this section of the Zoning Resolution requires, no fill or new construction can occur unless the
Applicant provides a technical evaluation that demonstrates that encroachment shall not result in
any increase (0.00) in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. No such
analysis was provided or proposed for the fill and culvert crossing of the east channel.
The Applicant characterized the east channel as a "swale" which "carries water during high water
flow rates. The April 23, 2005 spring runoff level was mapped and indicated minor standing water
depth (less than 1.5 -ft deep x 3 -feet wide). It is proposed to cross this swale with a 4 -ft diameter
CMP culvert and fill section." Again, Staff points out that the "swale" is actually a FEMA mapped
channel in the 100 -year floodway and floodfringe and regulated such that the provision provided
above applies to both channels and not just the west channel. As a result, Staff cannot recommend
3
approval to the Board of County Commissioners for the proposed crossing finding that the
Applicant has not satisfied 6.09.01(1)(A) of the Zoning Resolution.
IV. APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS
A. The property is located in the ARRD zone district. More importantly, the proposed crossing of
Four Mile Creek with a bridge / culvert in the floodplain requires a Specila Use Permit which
is regulated by the provisions in Section 6.0 of the Zoning Resolution. The following is an
analysis of the proposed development with the required zoning regulations of the ARRD zone
district.
1) To assure that all necessary permits have been received from those governmental agencies
from which approval is required by Federal or State Law, including Section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1344.
Staff Response
M addition to a Special Use Permit from the County, the Applicant also needs approval from the
US Army Corps of Engineers for cut and fill within the 100 -year floodway to install the culvert
and place the additional fill. The Corps provided a letter in the application that basically states
they cannot comment or provide any permits to the Applicant until the Local Floodplain
Administrator who administers FNMA regulations (Planning Director) has made a determination
of approval or not. In this case, the Floodplain Administrator cannot recommend the Board
approve the project based on both the east and west channel crossing designs. This requirement
has not been met.
2) To determine whether proposed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding, and that
the structure will be in compliance with the applicable provisions for uses and standards for
construction set forth in this Resolution.
Staff Response
The property does contain a building site reasonably safe from flooding. In fact, the building site
is not located in the floodplain and the County has recently issued a building permit for the
property. The subject of the Floodplain SUP is only the access to the lot across Four Mile Creek.
3) To determine if the proposed development is located in the floodway. If located in the
floodway, assure that encroachment provisions of Section 6.09.01(1) (A) are met.
Staff Response
Staff has determined, assisted by Resource Engineering, the proposed development is located in
the floodway. Further, Staff has also determined that Section 6.09.01(1)(A) has not been met.
More specifically, this section of the Zoning Resolution requires, no fill or new construction can
occur unless the Applicant provides a technical evaluation that demonstrates that encroachment
shall not result in any increase (0.00) in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood
discharge.
Staff referred the Application to Resource Engineering for a technical analysis of the proposal.
These comments are provided here (Exhibit G):
4
The submittal shows use of the FIRM map data but does not include the floodway mapping. The
FEMA floodway map shows an approximate 45 foot wide floodway for the main channel and an
approximate 20 foot wide floodway for the flood overflow channel. The proposed bridge appears
to span the floodway, but the applicant must demonstrate this fact by including the floodway on
the maps in the submittal. The culvert and associated fill are within the floodway. The regulatory
floodway mapping was discussed with the Applicant during the field meeting along with the
criteria of Section 6.09.01(A) of the County Floodplain Regulation. The additional submittal on
January 30, 2006 does not demonstrate that placement of the culvert and fill will result in a 0.0
foot rise in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.
The additional submittal does not acknowledge the existence of the Regulatory Floodway and
indicates that the culvert fill is in the flood fringe district. The submittal does not comply with the
criteria of Section 6.09.01 of the County Floodplain Regulation. The remaining portions of the
driveway fall within the floodplain are within the flood fringe district. The proposed construction
within the flood fringe appears to comply with the criteria in Section 6.09.02 of the County
Floodplain Regulation.
We recommend the applicant revise their submittal to confirm that the bridge spans the floodway
and to address the floodway issue for the culvert crossing. We otherwise recommend denial of
the permit for non-compliance with Section 6.09.01 of the County Floodplain Regulation
As a result, this standard of the Zoning Resolution has not been met.
4) To assure that adjacent communities, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Federal
Emergency Management Agency have been notified of the proposed watercourse alteration or
relocation.
Staff Response
No notice was necessary as the original proposal did not propose to relocate the watercourse. If a
new application is made requesting the alterations to the east channel of the floodplain, Staff will
send the application to the abovementioned entities.
5) To assure that the carrying capacity of the altered/relocated watercourse is maintained.
Staff Response
Upon substantive review, the application proposed a crossing that may or may not alter the
carrying capacity of the watercourse. As stated earlier, the applicant did not provide a technical
evaluation that adequately demonstrates that the encroachment (culvert / fill and bridge crossing)
shall not result in any increase (0.00) in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood
discharge. This requirement has not been met.
B. The Applicant shall also specifically address the following review criteria for development in
the floodplain pursuant to Section 6.09.02 of the Zoning Resolution:
(1) Prohibited Uses and Activities. The following uses and activities are prohibited in the
Flood Fringe/Flood Prone Areas:
A. The development, use, fill, construction, substantial improvement or alteration on or
5
above any portion of the Flood Fringe or Flood Prone Areas which alone, or
cumulatively with other activities, would cause or result in the danger of substantial
solid debris being carried downstream by floodwaters.
B. The storage or processing of materials that in times of flooding arebuoyant,
flammable, explosive or otherwise potentially injurious to human, animal or plant
life.
C. The disposal of garbage or other solid waste materials.
D. Any obstruction which would adversely affect the efficiency of or restrict the flow
capacity of a designated floodplain so as to cause foreseeable damage to others.
Staff Response
The Applicant proposes to place development, fill, and construction in the floodway which is
prohibited unless a technical evaluation that demonstrates that encroachment shall not result in
any increase (0.00) in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. The
Applicant submitted a subsequent analysis; however, this analysis does not demonstrate that the
encroachment shall not result in any increase (0.00) in flood levels. As a result, it cannot be
determined that the bridge and or culvert and fill might become an obstruction which would
adversely affect the efficiency of or restrict the flow capacity of Four Mile Creek so as to cause
foreseeable damage to others. This requirement has not been met.
(2) Permissible Uses. All Special Uses permitted in the Floodway, and all lawful uses
permitted by the underlying zoning, subject to Section 6.09.02(1) of this Regulation and the
regulations concerning the Special Use Perinit, are permitted in the Flood Fringe and Flood
Prone Areas.
(3) Performance Standards. The following performance standards must be met for
development in the Flood Fringe or Flood Prone Areas:
A. The lowest floor, including basement, of any new or substantially improved building
designed for residential occupancy shall not be less than one (1) foot above the
maximum water elevation of the 100 Year Flood.
Staff Response
This does not apply to a bridge / culvert crossing of Four Miler Creek. The Residence that was
permitted is not located in the floodplain.
B. All new construction or substantial improvements shall be reasonably safe from
flooding.
C. Any new construction or substantial improvement designed for commercial or
industrial uses shall either:
(i) Elevate the lowest floor level, including basement, to not less than one (1) foot
above the maximum water surface elevation of the 100 Year Flood; or
6
(ii) Provide flood -proofing improvements so that below an elevation of one (1) foot
above the maximum water elevation of the 100 Year Flood, the structure,
together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, is water tight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water. Structural components shall
be capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of
buoyancy. Evidence shall be submitted and certified by a registered
professional engineer or architect that the flood proofing meet the standards as
set forth herein.
Staff Response
This does not apply to a bridge / culvert crossing of Four Miler Creek.
D. Any proposed development shall be reviewed by the Floodplain Administrator to
insure that the potential for flood damage by the 100 Year Flood is minimized that
all public utilities and facilities are located, designed and constructed so as to
minimize damage by the 100 Year Flood and that adequate drainage is provided to
reduce exposure to flood hazards.
Staff Response
The Floodplain Administrator has reviewed the proposed crossings. Because it appears the
proposed bridge is not long enough to fully span the west channel and the culvert and fill crossing
the east channel is located in the floodway, the Floodplain Administrator cannot insure that the
potential for flood damage by the 100 Year Flood is minimized, that all public utilities and
facilities are located, designed and constructed so as to minimize damage by the 100 Year Flood
and that adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards. This standard is not
met.
E. All new construction or substantial improvements shall be designed and adequately
anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement, be constructed with
materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage, and be constructed by
methods that minimize flood damage.
Staff Response
Not enough information was provided so that the Floodplain Administrator can determine that the
bridge and culvert crossings of the east and west channels have been designed and are adequately
anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement, are constructed with materials and
utility equipment resistant to flood damage, and can be constructed by methods that minimize
flood damage. Again, it appears 1) the proposed bridge may be long enough to fully avoid or span
the floodway in the west channel and 2) that the method of aligning utilities crossing both east
and west channels are resistant to flood damage. This standard is not met.
V. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners.
7
2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were
heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Floodplain Special Use Permit is
not in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
4. That the application is not in conformance with Section 6.09.01(1)(A) of the Garfield
County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board deny the proposed Special Use Permit.
8
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: January 17, 2006
Comments Due: February 1, 2006
Name of application: Berger, Donald J. & Janis S.
Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept.
EXHIBIT
Alt' I
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staff contact: Fred Jarman
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge Department has no objection to his
Sup as a driveway permit was issued for this property on 06/14/2005 and approved by the
District One Foreman.
Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Dept
By: Jake B. Mall Date January 18, 2006
JAN 1 8 2006
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
Revised 3/30/00
RESOURCE
ENGINEERING INC
Fred Jarman
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8`h Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
RE: Berger Floodplain Special Use Permit
Dear Fred:
EXHIBIT
January 31, 2006
At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) has reviewed the
Floodplain Special Use Permit Application submitted by Donald and Janis Berger dated October
24, 2005 and the supplemental submittal dated January 30, 2006. The property is located at
4451 CR 117 along Four Mile Creek near the intersection of County Road 117 and County
Road 125. The proposed activity within the floodplain is construction of a driveway including a
bridge over the main channel of Four Mile Creek and a culvert crossing of the flood overflow
channel of the creek. RESOURCE attended a field meeting with the applicant on January 27,
2006.
ANALYSIS
Four Mile Creek has been analyzed by FEMA approved studies culminating in a Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and a FLOODWAY map, both dated January 3, 1986. The subject
property is located on Panel Number 1445 of each respective map set. The submittal shows
use of the FIRM map data but does not include the floodway mapping. The FEMA floodway
map shows an approximate 45 foot wide floodway for the main channel and an approximate 20
foot wide floodway for the flood overflow channel. The proposed bridge appears to span the
floodway, but the applicant must demonstrate this fact by including the floodway on the maps in
the submittal. The culvert and associated fill are within the floodway. The regulatory floodway
mapping was discussed with the applicant during the field meeting along with the criteria of
Section 6.09.01(A) of the County Floodplain Regulation. The additional submittal on January
30, 2006 does not demonstrate that placement of the culvert and fill will result in a 0.0 foot rise
in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. The additional submittal does
not acknowledge the existence of the Regulatory Floodway and indicates that the culvert fill is in
the flood fringe district. The submittal does not comply with the criteria of Section 6.09.01 of
the County Floodplain Regulation.
The remaining portions of the driveway fill within the floodplain are within the flood fringe
district. The proposed construction within the flood fringe appears to comply with the criteria in
Section 6.09.02 of the County Floodplain Regulation.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the applicant revise their submittal to confirm that the bridge spans the
floodway and to address the floodway issue for the culvert crossing. We otherwise recommend
denial of the permit for non-compliance with Section 6.09.01 of the County Floodplain
Regulation.
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
909 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 (970) 945-6777 Fax (9701 945-11 37
Fred Jarman
Page 2
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
Michael J. Erion, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
MJE/mmm
885-43.0
E:\Client\885\43.0\fj berger floodplain 885.doc
January 31, 2006
RESOURCE
BER GERr!
Engineering
Garfield County
Building & Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RECEIVED
JAN 3 0 2006
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
EXHIBIT
1 ‘0‘..
January 30, 2006
Phone (970) 945-8212, Fax (970) 384-3470
Attn: Mr. Fred Jarman
Re: Transmittal of Calculations associated with Culvert Size, Access Driveway Construction,
4451 County Road 117, 4 -Mile Creek Road, a Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Fred:
Thanks for meeting at the project site on the afternoon of Friday January 27, 2006. This letter
and package has been prepared in response to Mr. Michael Arian and your questions about the
culvert size calculations. This letter package should further clarify questions associated with the
December 2, 2005 Special Use Permit application as additional information.
As discussed, the culvert location is within floodway fringe on the project. The FIRM study was
used to provide parameters as input for the culvert size calculations. The culvert selection was
based upon maintaining flow through the flood fringe auxiliary channel. The calculations
indicate that a 2 -ft dia. culvert would work, however, a 4 -ft dia. culvert was selected to allow
physical inspection and clean-out.
The attached design and documents provide the data that clearly indicates no impact should
occur to the flood plain or waters of four mile creek. No where will water be restricted or flood
levels changed by construction of the driveway or any other structure proposed on the property.
We appreciate the time and efforts of the County review staff and look forward to meeting with
the Board of County Commissioners for the public hearing and approval of this Special Use
Permit on Feb 6, 2006. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please do not
hesitate to call Donald J. Berger, P.E. at (970) 948-6114.
Sincerely,
Donald J.
0451 Canyon
.E.
ek Dr.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 948-6114 Cell
(970) 945-5333 Off.
1/30/2006 8:58:27 AM C:\Documents and Settings\donber\My Documents\Berger House PIans14 Mile Ranch\Culvert Calcs 1-30-06.doc
Attachments
Culvert size calculations
Excerpts from the "Flood Insurance Study" Garfield County, Colorado Unincorporated Areas,
dated January 3, 1986 prepared for FEMA
Excerpts from the "Design of Small Dams" Bureau of Reclamation, US Department of the
Interior, Second Edition 1973
Excerpts from "Civil Engineering Reference Manual" Fifth Edition 1989, by Michael R.
Lindeburg, P.E.
1/30/2006 8:58:27 AM C:\Documents and Settings\donber\My Documents\Berger House Plans\4 Mile Ranch\Culvert Calcs 1-30-06.doc
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST
APPLICANT / OWNER
LOCATION
PROPERTY SIZE
WATER
SEWER
ACCESS
EXISTING ZONING
BO
FJ
EXHIBIT
f
fa
Floodplain Special Use Permit to construct a bridge
and culvert across Four Mile Creek
Don and Janice Berger
4451 County Road 117 (Four Mile Road) just below
deadman's curve on the east side of the CR 117
10 acres
Well
ISDS
CR 117
ARRD
I. BACKGROUND
As you recall, on Monday, February 6, 2006, the Board continued the public hearing on the request
for a Floodplain Special Use Permit to February 21, 2006 so that Resource Engineering (on behalf
of the County) could review the newly submitted materials regarding the proposed bridge span
crossing the east
channel instead of the
originally propose
culvert and fill. Staff
has attached the original
Staff report for your
information.
The illustration to the
right shows the
proposed crossings that
are now proposed to be
by bridges spanning the
floodway in each
channel.
500.Year Hood Boundary ..............
100•Year Flood Rounder, • ---•
1 LOUDWAY FRINGE --
IUO.Year 1-1004 Boundary _..__.
5U0•YFar Flour! BaurldarY
Annrnxlmare 100.Year
Frond Onuudary
rcaopwAY
1.-111111111111111111
II. STAFF COMMENTS
When Staff reviewed the original proposal, Staff found that the proposed culvert and fill in the east
channel of Fourmile Creek did not satisfy the following regulation:
6.09.01
(1) Prohibited Uses and Activities. The following uses and activities are prohibited in the
Floodway:
(A) Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other
development unless a technical evaluation demonstrates that encroachments shall not
result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. If
the technical evaluation satisfies the requirement, all new construction and substantial
improvements shall be required to meet the performance standards set forth in Section
6.09.02(3).
Resource Engineering reviewed the subsequent information where the Applicant proposes to cross
the east channel with a bridge span such that it is not located in the floodway (see Exhibit K). As a
result, Resource Engineering concluded that the revised proposal is consistent with the regulation
above and recommends the Board approve the request. Staff agrees with this recommendation and
also finds that the application meets the required standards in Section 6.00 for development in the
floodfringe.
III. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners.
2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete,
that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were
heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Floodplain Special Use Permit is in
the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of
the citizens of Garfield County.
4. That the application is in conformance with Section 6.00 of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, as amended.
IV. RECOMMENDED MOTION
"I would make a motion to approve a Floodplain Special Use Permit to cross Fourmile Creek for a
property located at 4451 County Road 117 with conditions proposed by Staff."
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application and as testimony in the public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered conditions of approval,
unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners.
2
2. All new construction or substantial improvements shall be designed and adequately anchored to
prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement, be constructed with materials and utility
equipment resistant to flood damage, and be constructed by methods that minimize flood
damage.
3. The Applicant shall provide the County with an approval from the US Army Corps of Engineers
stating that the bridge spans have been approved prior to the County's issuance of a Special Use
Permit.
3
BER GERr
Engineering
Garfield County
Building & Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
a
a
EXHIBIT
February 14, 2006
Phone (970) 945-8212, Fax (970) 384-3470
Attn: Mr. Fred Jarman
Re: Engineering Approach, 4451 County Road 117 Access Road Bridges, 4 -Mile Creek Road,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Fred:
As discussed, the design for the bridges associated with the above referenced project is on-going.
To satisfy the requirements of Section 6.09.02 E, "designed and adequately anchored to prevent
flotation, collapse or lateral movement, be constructed with materials and utility equipment
resistant to flood damage, ..." Attached are several sketches of the proposed bridge(s) showing
the abutment and girder design systems. To summarize the design to prevent flotation, collapse
or lateral movement, the bridges will be anchored to there foundations.
The west bridge will have a micropile foundation/abutment system, the micropiles will anchor
the abutments to the soil mass at each abutment and will protect the abutment from scour. The
bridge is approximately 35 tons in dead-weight, two tie -down anchors (#10 Bar) in each
abutment will secure the bridge beams to the micropile foundation system. The anchorage
system will resist flotation and lateral movement of the bridge. Collapse of the bridge will be
resisted by the design meeting the HS -20 highway loading criteria standard for the allowable
design loading of highway bridges.
The east bridge will have an MSE (mechanically stabilized earth) foundation/abutment system.
The bridge will be approximately 6 tons in dead-weight, two tie -down anchors (#10 Bar) in each
abutment will be embedded into the MSE abutment/foundation and secured to the bridge beam
system. The anchorage system will resist flotation and lateral movement of the bridge. Collapse
of the bridge will be resisted by the design meeting the HS -20 highway loading criteria standard
for the allowable design loading of highway bridges. See the sketches attached.
Utilities will be placed up under and between the bridge girder systems so that the bridge beams
will protect the utilities from the flow of water and debris. The utility company will provide the
conduit and review the placement, they will confirm the location and connections to the bridge
girder system until satisfied that it meets he standard of their industry.
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
Bridge Anchorage Systems
2/14/2006
Page 2 of 2
As discussed the bridge(s) design is on-going, so details of the connections may vary, however,
the design will be prepared by a n engineer registered in the state of Colorado and constructed
accordingly.
We appreciate the time and efforts of the County review staff and look forward to moving
forward with construction of this project. If you have any questions or desire additional
information, please do not hesitate to call Donald J. Berger, P.E. at (970) 948-6114.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Berger, P.E.
0451 Canyon Creek Dr.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 948-6114 Cell
(970) 945-5333 Off.
2/14/2006 12:18:11 PM C:\Documents and Settings\donber\My Documents\Berger House Plans\4 Mile Rancl\Bridge Anchorage Garfield
County Bldg.doc
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
PDF createc with pdtFactory Pro trial version www.pdttactorv.com
PPG JOg7uV
)uaw4n9V 3S01 o)
3—t papagw3
01
woo AJo}oe;jpd MMM uoisJon it ad tiojoedjpd ppm pajBGJO dad
(t—Zi x 7{—Z) sleuoc/
a
rn
woo•Mope}}pd•MMM uoisJan I. aid tiojoedJpd warm pa;eaio dad
8 — Deck Panels (7—ft x 12—ft)
5 — 24—ft Long W 18 x 50 I Beams
Anchor Bridge to MSE Abutment with 2 — #10 Bar Embeded 4—ft
1