Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDOCUMENT Crestview Ct Variance 2017-08-21 COMMENT LETTER P a g e | 1 ROSCOE ENGINEERING, LLC 720-934-7735 bruceroscoe@roscoeengineering.com August 1, 2017 Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Ave. Estes Park, CO 80517 Ph: 970-586-5331 RE: Crestview Court Lot 31 Variance Request, Estes Park, CO Comment Letter Van Horn Engineering and Surveying Inc. Dated July 2017 Dear Karen, We have the following comments regarding the Raven Rock Townhomes, Estes Park, CO. dated July 2017 We have reviewed the variance request and have the following comments and observations. The zoning for the site, E-1, requires a 25-foot setback. The landowner would like that setback to be reduced to 12-feet. Section 2.e of the application states that the homeowner has been aware of this 25 foot setback since 1988. To more fully understand the site parameters that are driving the variance request, the following information would be helpful in determining the need for this variance. 1. The applicant states that the landowner has a hardship due to access. Can the applicant explain more fully what the hardship will be? A graphic, cost estimate or other means of explanation would be helpful for the city to assess the hardship. 2. To understand the grading issues impacting this site, additional existing grading and proposed grading would be helpful. 3. A comparison exhibit showing the driveway outside of the 25’ setback with proposed grading, will be helpful to understand the need for a variance. 4. The applicant states that in both cases (inside the setback and outside the setback) that there is an 8.4’ difference in elevation. Showing proposed grading will help clarify this statement. 5. In item 1B, the applicant states that due to this variance there will be an ability to lower the finish floor. By providing those finished floor elevations for both scenarios, this statement can be assessed. 6. The applicant states that the utilities will not be adversely affected by the grading. However, the applicant does not state the depth of utilities for either setback condition. Showing the driveway profile with utilities will give an indication of utility depths. 7. The applicant discusses driveway lengths. Additional dimensions to the plan for the house & driveway would be beneficial. COMMENT LETTER P a g e | 2 ROSCOE ENGINEERING, LLC 720-934-7735 bruceroscoe@roscoeengineering.com 8. The applicant states that this building area is “the flattest building site.” Showing some grades around the site will demonstrate that this is the case. 9. The applicant states that there is an “indication of historic access.” Since the applicant is referencing the historic access and putting the driveway in this historical access location, it would be helpful to see the general location of that access on the graphic. 10. Contours are mislabeled (there is a 15’ difference between 8050 & 8040). Thank you for your time on these matters. Sincerely, Bruce Roscoe